Multiple IIs with no acceptances

[musicalfeet]

Advertisement - Members don't see this ad

Pre-emptive neuroticism paired with morbid curiosity here. If someone has say..5-6 II that ultimately yields no acceptances at the end of the cycle, would it be reasonable to assume the issue most likely lies in the person's interviewing ability? If not, at what number of invites would it be pretty easy to guess that the person has an interviewing issue?

I know it's WAY too early to be worrying about this now, but I'm just curious and keep playing out hypothetical scenarios like this in my head.

 

[WedgeDawg]

Generally, yes, but not necessarily. Try to stop worrying.

 

[mimelim]

There are plenty of people who get 5-6 secondaries and get zero acceptances. The bar for secondaries is quite low at many schools and are largely numbers based at virtually every school. Getting interviews would be a different story, but not completely different.

The interview is important, but sometimes people will be extended an interview because there is something on their application that stands out and people are curious about despite lower than average stats. Then it turns out at interviews that they were either upselling their ECs or they really just aren't that interesting and they become another below average stat applicant.

 

[lhooq]

It depends. A lot of schools, especially top ones, accept 1/3 or even less of interviewed applicants. So, it's possible to interview at 5 or 6 schools and ultimately not be accepted even if you have good interview skills, simply because the competition is fierce.
Most schools waitlist (instead of reject) post-interview, so if you get flat-out rejected (instead of waitlisted) from schools, then it's more likely that there was a problem with your interview.

 

[piii]

There are plenty of people who get 5-6 secondaries and get zero acceptances. The bar for secondaries is quite low at many schools and are largely numbers based at virtually every school. Getting interviews would be a different story, but not completely different.

The interview is important, but sometimes people will be extended an interview because there is something on their application that stands out and people are curious about despite lower than average stats. Then it turns out at interviews that they were either upselling their ECs or they really just aren't that interesting and they become another below average stat applicant.

When OP said II he meant interview invite, I don't know where secondaries came from. Practically everyone gets secondaries except from the handful of screening schools.

 

[musicalfeet]

It depends. A lot of schools, especially top ones, accept 1/3 or even less of interviewed applicants. So, it's possible to interview at 5 or 6 schools and ultimately not be accepted even if you have good interview skills, simply because the competition is fierce.
Most schools waitlist (instead of reject) post-interview, so if you get flat-out rejected (instead of waitlisted) from schools, then it's more likely that there was a problem with your interview.

Wait which schools are these? I thought once you get an interview, it's usually about 1/3-1/2 of a chance of getting accepted? Or maybe I'm confusing that with the fact that most schools will accept 1.5-2x their enrollment space. Supposedly the top schools will go up to 3x because of the fact many of their interviewees will be holding multiple acceptances.

 

[Spector1]

its possible. Perhaps getting some objective feedback on how you interview.

 

[studentdocftw]

Presumably, you get an II if they like you on paper. So if you get 5-6 schools that like you on paper, and you still don't receive an acceptance, the interview is probably the culprit. Either that, or your face is repulsive.

 

[moisne]

Pre-emptive neuroticism

Anyways, even with 2-3 II and zero acceptances, I'd question their interview abilities.

 

[WedgeDawg]

Anyways, even with 2-3 II and zero acceptances, I'd question their interview abilities.

Depends on where their interviews were and also on the rest of their application. You don't just ignore everything else after the interview phase.

 

[lhooq]

Wait which schools are these? I thought once you get an interview, it's usually about 1/3-1/2 of a chance of getting accepted? Or maybe I'm confusing that with the fact that most schools will accept 1.5-2x their enrollment space. Supposedly the top schools will go up to 3x because of the fact many of their interviewees will be holding multiple acceptances.

You're absolutely correct, a lot of schools have acceptance rates of up to 50% after the interview; I was just pointing out that there are numerous schools that have lower rates. I'm pretty sure that the MSAR, which I don't have access to right now, has the post-interview acceptance rates, but from what I remember from applying/interviewing last year, Columbia, Penn, Harvard, and CCLCM's were in the range of 20 to 30%, and Yale and Cornell's were ~ 35%, to name a few.

So, the overall point I was making is that at many schools most interviewed applicants, who are all very competitive, don't ultimately get accepted, which could explain why one isn't accepted to a single school despite 5 or 6 interviews.

 

[WedgeDawg]

You're absolutely correct, a lot of schools have acceptance rates of up to 50% after the interview; I was just pointing out that there are numerous schools that have lower rates. I'm pretty sure that the MSAR, which I don't have access to right now, has the post-interview acceptance rates, but from what I remember from applying/interviewing last year, Columbia, Penn, Harvard, and CCLCM's were in the range of 20 to 30%, and Yale and Cornell's were ~ 35%, to name a few.

So, the overall point I was making is that at many schools most interviewed applicants, who are all very competitive, don't ultimately get accepted, which could explain why one isn't accepted to a single school despite 5 or 6 interviews.

MSAR has matriculation rates, but not acceptance rates.

 

[moisne]

I assume they don't invite ppl for II unless their baseline were already "acceptable". They don't want to waste money (interviewers and interviewees) if they had a great interview and subpar stats. - it's basically like "Come for an interview... oh jkjk your stats were too low - haha sorry wasted your time".

I agree if you had average stats and average interview... you may risk being rejected - but interview is something you can still have a "current" influence and kick ass. (ie. by this point, there is nothing within your control other than the interview).

 

[WedgeDawg]

I assume they don't invite ppl for II unless their baseline were already "acceptable". They don't want to waste money (interviewers and interviewees) if they had a great interview and subpar stats. - it's basically like "Come for an interview... oh jkjk your stats were too low - haha sorry wasted your time".

I agree if you had average stats and average interview... you may risk being rejected - but interview is something you can still have a "current" influence and kick ass. (ie. by this point, there is nothing within your control other than the interview).

If you're invited for an interview, you're under consideration, but that doesn't necessarily mean you and other applicants are on even footing.

 

[Goro]

Either interview skills, or a red flag LOR that got past the screeners.

Pre-emptive neuroticism paired with morbid curiosity here. If someone has say..5-6 II that ultimately yields no acceptances at the end of the cycle, would it be reasonable to assume the issue most likely lies in the person's interviewing ability? If not, at what number of invites would it be pretty easy to guess that the person has an interviewing issue?

I know it's WAY too early to be worrying about this now, but I'm just curious and keep playing out hypothetical scenarios like this in my head.

 

[heebeejeebies]

Is it safe to assume that a school will accept ~1.5x their class size (depending on the school)?

So for a class of 200 if they interview 600, the MSAR matriculation rate would be 33.3% but a more realistic post-II acceptance rate would be 50%?

 

[WedgeDawg]

Is it safe to assume that a school will accept ~1.5x their class size (depending on the school)?

So for a class of 200 if they interview 600, the MSAR matriculation rate would be 33.3% but a more realistic post-II acceptance rate would be 50%?

It's generally closer to 2x, (1.5x would be more likely at top schools) but yeah, more or less.

 

[heebeejeebies]

It's generally closer to 2x, (1.5x would be more likely at top schools) but yeah, more or less.

Wouldn't top schools need to accept a bit more? Top candidates would be more likely to hold multiple acceptances no?

 

[WedgeDawg]

Wouldn't top schools need to accept a bit more? Top candidates would be more likely to hold multiple acceptances no?

They generally have massive waitlists full of people who would be happy to attend, so if they need more seats filled, they have an easy way to do so. Plus, for every student with 5 top acceptances, there are more who only have 1 or 2.

 

[piii]

They generally have massive waitlists full of people who would be happy to attend, so if they need more seats filled, they have an easy way to do so. Plus, for every student with 5 top acceptances, there are more who only have 1 or 2.

What about for lower tiered schools that usually get passed on by students accepted to other choices? Would it be reasonable to think they accept greater than twice their class size?

 

[WedgeDawg]

What about for lower tiered schools that usually get passed on by students accepted to other choices? Would it be reasonable to think they accept greater than twice their class size?

Depends on the school, but sometimes yes. Some schools may go as high as 3x class size if you count people coming off the waitlist.