# of Interviews = Acceptance?

[superso]

---

Members do not see this ad.

I really didnt think that I would get any interviews or maybe 1 or 2 based on my stats and state and august mcat (I have the avg matriculant gpa and MCAT but things are getting more competitive I hear). Now I'm pleasantly surprised and I wondered, "How many licks at the Interview does it take to get at least one acceptance?" Thats all I'm looking for. Once acceptance. I know it can be only 1 interview or you can strike out with 10 but how many interview offers would you say one should have to get an acceptance based on hearsay and your own experience? The thing of it is that I have no interviewing skills or I would be confident with 1 interview offer. I am working on it but I also wonder what you think about the ratio. Thanks 👍

 

[erin682]

It doesn't work that way. There is no formula or magic number of applications or interviews. Its an uncertain process. Deal with it.

 

[Mateodaspy]

It doesn't work that way. There is no formula or magic number of applications or interviews. Its an uncertain process. Deal with it.

wow. don't be too helpful there.

five interviews and you can be pretty confident you'll get one acceptance (as long as they're not all top ten schools!) unless you're an exceptionally horrible interviewee.

best of luck!

 

[superso]

It doesn't work that way. There is no formula or magic number of applications or interviews. Its an uncertain process. Deal with it.

Hence the qualification of "based on hearsay and I know theres no formula" asswipe. BTW you come off as a real man and judging by your name 'erin' thats probably a bad thing for you.

Thanks for the feedback Run and Mateo.

 

[Creatine]

I am working on it

I can't emphasize this enough; if you want an acceptance, develop your interview skills as quickly and completely as possible. Do not approach this in a lackadaisical manner, and do not underestimate the interview. I didn't take this advice, and now I'm sitting on 8 waitlists post-interview.

 

[constructor]

i disagree... except at schools like ohsu, interviews only contribute nominally to your application (unless you're at either extreme - an exceptional interviewer or a social dork). it's all about the stats and ec's and also your secondary essays.

 

[superso]

I can't emphasize this enough; if you want an acceptance, develop your interview skills as quickly and completely as possible. Do not approach this in a lackadaisical manner, and do not underestimate the interview. I didn't take this advice, and now I'm sitting on 8 waitlists post-interview.

THANKS! I just bookmarked this. Ive done a mock here and there but haven't looked at the ethics type questions b/c of finals and all. I'm going to be interviewing like crazy in January and I completely take this advice to heart because I would absolutely regret not getting anything after all this. Good luck to you and I wish you the best, maybe all acceptances!

And Constructor, I think I know what you mean but the strange thing is that I didnt expect around 7 interviews because , get this - state school, 3.65 gpa, 29mcat. completely average. august mcat. So i think there is something about it all that they like and I figure I will need to show that something during the interview ya know? Anyhow, I figure the only thing i really can do is try to be an exceptional interviewee, all things considered. thanks for your advice.

 

[erin682]

Please forgive my short remarks earlier. Though some of the replies were unwarranted (I'm not sure how what I said is masculine) I apologize.

I stick by my point though. You can interview at 30 schools and not get accepted. The more you interview at statistically the greater your chances are but it still chances. I wish you the best of luck.

 

[constructor]

THANKS! I just bookmarked this. Ive done a mock here and there but haven't looked at the ethics type questions b/c of finals and all. I'm going to be interviewing like crazy in January and I completely take this advice to heart because I would absolutely regret not getting anything after all this. Good luck to you and I wish you the best, maybe all acceptances!

And Constructor, I think I know what you mean but the strange thing is that I didnt expect around 7 interviews because , get this - state school, 3.65 gpa, 29mcat. completely average. august mcat. So i think there is something about it all that they like and I figure I will need to show that something during the interview ya know? Anyhow, I figure the only thing i really can do is try to be an exceptional interviewee, all things considered. thanks for your advice.

good luck, i'm sure you'll do very well. i don't mean to discourage you by saying that the interview doesn't count for very much, but that's what i have found to be true from my experience. that's probably because i'm not an especially great interviewer or anything. the decision i have received after each of my interviews has had nothing to do with how the interview went, but rather has quite closely reflected how competitive i was at that particular school.

 

[Creatine]

i disagree... except at schools like ohsu, interviews only contribute nominally to your application (unless you're at either extreme - an exceptional interviewer or a social dork). it's all about the stats and ec's and also your secondary essays.

Although I'm certainly not an exceptional interviewee, I'm also not completely inept. Considering this, then according to your conclusion above, my interview contributed very little to my application. Why then did schools bother to interview me when I had little chance of getting in based on stats/ec's/secondary essay? Were they just waiting to see if I was an exceptional interviewee?

 

[derf]

the decision i have received after each of my interviews has had nothing to do with how the interview went, but rather has quite closely reflected how competitive i was at that particular school.

but why would they interview you if you were'nt competitive in the first place. I'd figure you'd have to be competive if you were offered an invite.

I just don't see a school saying a certain applicant was very personable, strong, and motivated during the interview, and then argue not to accept based on his/her credentials. If that were the case, the school should'nt have invited in the first place.

 

[dogbyte]

The interview counts for something. I received an automatic interview at UMich based on my numbers. I have decent ECs and LORs. However, I was waitlisted. I don't think my interview at UMich went that well, though I'm probably influence by the fact that I have been waitlisted.

Anyway, the top schools have so many great applicants, they have to find a way to distinguish you. The interview is one way to do it. Good stats, ECs, etc. probably can make up for a lackluster interview, but when so many of the applicants are just as good as you on paper, the interview becomes important. That's my opinion.

 

[fotolilith]

Hence the qualification of "based on hearsay and I know theres no formula" asswipe. BTW you come off as a real man and judging by your name 'erin' thats probably a bad thing for you.

Thanks for the feedback Run and Mateo.

Dude, that's one of the most common discrimination ploys: to insinuate that a woman is "too masculine" (or the counter, not "feminine" enough). Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was created just for that sort of compartmentalizing of women, and your comment makes me realize that we are still not far from those dark days.

Erin's reply was far more mature than your comment deserved.

 

[constructor]

but why would they interview you if you were'nt competitive in the first place. I'd figure you'd have to be competive if you were offered an invite.

I just don't see a school saying a certain applicant was very personable, strong, and motivated during the interview, and then argue not to accept based on his/her credentials. If that were the case, the school should'nt have invited in the first place.

well that's a great point and i don't have an answer to why they do what they do. but the fact of the matter is that there are varying levels of competitiveness even when you're talking about applicants invited to interview. the schools send out a large number of invitations and if you're on the low end statistically speaking for some school, it's tough to think your interview is going to lift you over the top because the others generally don't bomb their interviews. so, i believe that while there isn't enough variation in the interviewer comments for the candidates, there is a lot of variation in terms of numbers and ec's for the interviewee pool. so it's easier to discriminate after interviews when you have so many competitive applicants and you are forced to select only a few. again, i'm not claiming that this is right; rather, it's just what i now believe based on experience. i'm especially pissed off at one school (washu) where i had a great interview and not-so-great outcome.

 

[Acherona]

Constructor has a point. It's simply not true that everyone who gets an interview is on equal footing. If it were the case that the interview is the main criterion for acceptance post-interview, then it shouldn't be true that the average scores for interviewed/rejected are lower than for interviewed/accepted. Unless you want to argue that people with lower stats are also worse interviewers, but I highly doubt that.

I think schools invite people for interviews before they have a good idea of which top applicants are going to be accepting their acceptances, and so they interview a bunch of people with lower scores so they can decide later which low-scoring people to accept. Even if your interview goes great they may end up not needing to accept you if they have enough higher-scoring, great-interviewing people already. But that's just my theory.

but why would they interview you if you were'nt competitive in the first place. I'd figure you'd have to be competive if you were offered an invite.

I just don't see a school saying a certain applicant was very personable, strong, and motivated during the interview, and then argue not to accept based on his/her credentials. If that were the case, the school should'nt have invited in the first place.

 

[derf]

so if statistically I'm not competitive at a certain school, and I'm a normal interviewee (not great, not bad), I shouldn't waste my money and time interviewing there.

 

[superso]

I wish you the best of luck.

Sorry about my reply. Now I feel bad.


But in response to 'foto', the fact that you needed to mention Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 suggests to me that you're a real man if you happen to be female or a real girl if you happen to be a man. Read me my rights

 

[Acherona]

I'd probably agree with that, but it's so damn hard to let logic squash that little glimmer of hope. You wouldn't want to miss your chance of being the exception 🙂

so if statistically I'm not competitive at a certain school, and I'm a normal interviewee (not great, not bad), I shouldn't waste my money and time interviewing there.

 

[wxl31]

i think a bad interview can keep you out of a school but a spectacular interview won't necessary get you in.

as for what constructor said about your ecs, PS, and secondary counting more, i'm beginning to believe its true. the two schools where i have holds at were the first two secondarys that i sent in so they definitely were not at polished.

 

[Acherona]

yea the way I see it their main purpose is to give you enough opportunities to screw up some part of your application so they have an excuse to weed you out. So annoying.

i think a bad interview can keep you out of a school but a spectacular interview won't necessary get you in.

as for what constructor said about your ecs, PS, and secondary counting more, i'm beginning to believe its true. the two schools where i have holds at were the first two secondarys that i sent in so they definitely were not at polished.

 

[Paragozardelsol]

I think schools invite people for interviews before they have a good idea of which top applicants are going to be accepting their acceptances, and so they interview a bunch of people with lower scores so they can decide later which low-scoring people to accept. Even if your interview goes great they may end up not needing to accept you if they have enough higher-scoring, great-interviewing people already. But that's just my theory.

Great analysis!

I had not thought about that. Seems highly likely.

 

[scotchtape]

A colleague of mine did not have spectacular stats, yet he got interviews at some of the top schools in the nation and then got into many of them. He is a great interviewer and can BS his way through anything. I am currently in your boat though. I have an interview at a school I really want to go to yet my stats are lower than their averages... my gpa is .26 lower and my mcats are 3.1 points higher than their average. I feel like gpa has a greater weight. I hope to prepare a lot for their interview though.

Quick Side Question:
It is a state school with an emphasize on research. I am of that state. If I were to contact some professors now and ask to do research with them over the upcoming summer, should I bring it up in my interview or is that overkill?

 

[vhawk]

Another part that people seem to neglect when they talk about app strength is your LORs. Maybe this is me just projecting, but I think they are IMMENSELY important, moreso than probably any other single thing, at least at the level where you have been interviewed and are reviewed at committee. I am a very average applicant, nothing spectacular, and had in my mind a VERY sub-par interview, but I was accepted immediately. The only reason I can come up with is that 3 of 4, if not all 4, of my LORs said embarassing things about me, like they would name their kids after me and stuff(I cant help it if my profs like me!)

Also, just think about it...an interview is only 20-30 minutes, and everyone is on their best behavior, and at least a little bit false, no matter who you are. Stats are all well and good, and are important, but can be spund in a lot of different ways. ECs are probably second most important, but everyone kinda does the same things, at least in part. LORs are four professional, respected peoples opinions of you having known you for years! At least, if I were on an adcom, that would be a very important part of my decision....

 

[dandelion]

I can't emphasize this enough; if you want an acceptance, develop your interview skills as quickly and completely as possible. Do not approach this in a lackadaisical manner, and do not underestimate the interview. I didn't take this advice, and now I'm sitting on 8 waitlists post-interview.

Creatine, can I ask how your stats & EC's compare to the average of the schools you were waitlisted at? I have been to several interviews now; some of them have been quite short, and all the interviewers have asked the expected questions such as "why medicine?" "where do you see yourself in 10-15 years" I fail to see how they can possibly distinguish applicants through a 30-60 min interview with such questions, except, as other people have said, to eliminate those who lack social skills and can't bring themselves to fake it for an hour.

That said, anybody can have an off-day, when words won't come out right, and sometimes, an interviewer and applicant simply won't click for whatever reason. Perhaps in your case, it was just bad luck that you got so many waitlists. I am wondering, though, if you think there may be any reason other than the interview that made the difference between waitlist and acceptance for you? Please PM me if you prefer. And I see on anothe thread that you also have a firm acceptance from one school, so perhaps all this doesn't matter for you anymore. Congratz! 🙂

 

[Creatine]

Creatine, can I ask how your stats & EC's compare to the average of the schools you were waitlisted at? I have been to several interviews now; some of them have been quite short, and all the interviewers have asked the expected questions such as "why medicine?" "where do you see yourself in 10-15 years" I fail to see how they can possibly distinguish applicants through a 30-60 min interview with such questions, except, as other people have said, to eliminate those who lack social skills and can't bring themselves to fake it for an hour.

That said, anybody can have an off-day, when words won't come out right, and sometimes, an interviewer and applicant simply won't click for whatever reason. Perhaps in your case, it was just bad luck that you got so many waitlists. I am wondering, though, if you think there may be any reason other than the interview that made the difference between waitlist and acceptance for you? Please PM me if you prefer. And I see on anothe thread that you also have a firm acceptance from one school, so perhaps all this doesn't matter for you anymore. Congratz! 🙂

You will find a PM in your inbox in a few minutes.

 

[PublicEnemy]

its nice to look at stats. they can be comforting, say you get interviews from 5 schools, and based on the published data, they all offer acceptances to about 50% of the people they interview, then based on stats only, your chance of not getting a single acceptance is what like 3%?

but this isn't like dice, there isn't an equal chance of rolling a yes or no from each school like a 1 or a 6. if only med school interviews were as simple as trying to pull a red card out of a deck and you had 5 chances. if only it was that simple.

just getting an interview doesn't necessarily guarantee you that 50-50 point. your stats are loading the dice for you. and even doing well on an interview may not be enough, because other people the school were more acceptable may have had interviews that were just good enough, but a good interview can not hurt you.

statistics in these subjective can be very complicated. i wrote a paper about this.

bottom line, give yourself the best conceivable odds... try to prepare and do well on your interviews.

 

[pratik7]

To the OP's original question, I think that your chances depends on what schools you interview at. For example, at MCW they accept more than 70% of interviewers while there are some schools that only accept around 25%.

I am comfortable with 3 or more interviews and confident with 5 or more. Again, it depends on the schools

 

[opinionkitten]

i have heard the phrase "all you need is three" bandied about in regard to interviews. if you dont totally suck at interviewing and get at least three you will, it seems to me, likely be in medical school in the fall. i know, there are horror stories, but those people that get 10 interviews and 10 rejections clearly totally suck 😉 greater than or equal to 3 and youre in good shape

 

[constructor]

i have heard the phrase "all you need is three" bandied about in regard to interviews. if you dont totally suck at interviewing and get at least three you will, it seems to me, likely be in medical school in the fall. i know, there are horror stories, but those people that get 10 interviews and 10 rejections clearly totally suck 😉 greater than or equal to 3 and youre in good shape

again, i know people have already mentioned this, but it's contingent on where you apply and where you'd like to end up going. when you apply to a lot of top schools, even having numbers at about their averages does not guarantee anything. however, if you're borderline and apply to schools with lower numbers, your chances are higher because there are many more of those schools and lots of them end up sending out a huge number of acceptances.

 

[liverotcod]

I have a friend on a med school adcom (which happens to be at a rather competetive school), where there are two interviews, one faculty and one student. They are both graded out of 5. If you don't get a 4.5 or 5 on both of them, you won't get in. So I think interviews can do more to hurt you help you, unfortunately.

Pitt, eh?

I do think the statistical analysis is valuable, but only if taken as an average, all-other-things-being-equal data point in the larger context of the application cycle.

If we use PublicEnemy's formula, but use a more conservative 35% acceptance rate for interviewees, it takes (.65)^7, or seven interview, to get the chances of rejection below 5%. And I'll bet that the proportion of 7-interview candidates that get no acceptances is very, very low. Lower than 5%, if I had to guess.

 

[cammy1313]

Here is how I have always envisioned the app review going: GPA and MCAT are the meat of the hamburger. They clump you into groups according to these numbers, then they start to compare other variables such as ECs, LORs, PS, etc. within these groups. They interview the top X amount of students based on these subjective evaluations. If the interviews went fine (i.e. no psychos or pschizos), you are re-evaluated again based on the criteria above for one final OK. This is when they send out acceptances. Based on how many people accept, they then start tapping into the remainder of the GPA/MCAT clumps starting from the top and working their way down. This is the only systematic process I could come up with to help me sleep at night 🙂