Perplexed

[Columbia22]

If most med schoold only accept around 30-50% of interviewed applicants (this seems to be the case at MOST, although some do definitely have lower and higher percentages, ie, columbia and drexel/suny's), why do they even bother interviewing as many students as they do? What makes them decide, after an interview, if they will accept a student or not, since the case seems to always go back to a re-evaluation of one's stats (GPA, MCAT), ending in a committee vote. Wouldnt it make sense if med schools just streamlined the whole process and interviewed only those candidates they are more than 75% sure to accept? I mean, it seems to me that most people do well during the interviews, and to mess it up really badly is a feat in and of itself. Or perhaps these are just "courtesy" interviews in exchange for the exorbitant apo fees? What do you guys think

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[acab]

2 words: I agree!

 

[Bones2008]

Med schools need waitlists. That's why they interview as many people as they do. They need to make absolutely certain they'll have enough people to fill their class come fall. Also, many schools weigh the interview heavily into deciding whether to offer an acceptance. Put it all together and you have a sizable interview pool at all the schools.

 

[Adapt]

I think that it has to do with the number of medical schools. Considering allopathic only, if there are about 16,000 spots out of 32,000 or so applicants, the ratio of accepted to applied is 2:1.

Most schools interview a lot because they know a lot of them will get accepted somewhere else and go there. For example, if a school has 200 spots and they only interview 300, there is no assurance that all those they interview and eventually accept will attend their school. Thus, schools interview lots of people and send out their first acceptances for those they like. Then around May when people have made their choice, they'll send out a few more to fill the spots that people withdrew from.

I think that's why schools like Drexel and Finch interview so many. They know that most people are not going to pick them as their first choice. This skews the numbers of those accepted to interviewed.

It's just a thought, but it makes sense.

 

[Columbia22]

so lets say a school interviews 500 from in-state people, and ends up accepting 200, and only 60 enroll, how many students from the remaining 300 who were not accepted right away would be wait-listed?? Would it waitlist more or reject more?

 

[LP1CW]

So, do you guys think that schools already have an idea of whom they'll accept? Do you think that they interview others just to start working on their waitlist? I mean, are some of us already in when we arrive at the medical school in their minds?

 

[finnpipette]

i tend to think that many med schools like to interview an many candidates as possible because it gives them a more complete picture of the applicant, rather than just some numbers and a 2x2 picture stapled to a personal statement. helps them make their decision, and prevents the few gems with lower stats from getting the axe.

 

[jlee9531]

listen to slickness.

and esp. for a person like me who has lower numbers than most, i relish the idea of going into an interview and proving to the school that i would be a great student there and how i would add to the richness of the student body. not everyone interviews well. some interview better than others and sometimes having an awesome interview can be the thing that helps the person presenting your case to convince the board that you are worth the acceptance.

i have 2 acceptances to a school that doesnt take many out of state students and another that likes to put lots of out of staters on the waitlist. i personally believe that my interviews helped me get in and mask my relatively lower gpa compared to the other applicants.

you shouldnt go into an interview thinking that you have no chance. i dont really think a lot of schools can waste interview invites by giving away "courtesy" invites. they can only give out so many.

 

[g3pro]

Originally posted by Slickness
I think that it has to do with the number of medical schools. Considering allopathic only, if there are about 16,000 spots out of 32,000 or so applicants, the ratio of accepted to applied is 2:1.

whoa! don't you mean that the number of accepted students to rejected students is 1:1?

 

[pekq]

In my opinion, interviews do not count for much unless you screw it up really well. Almost all applicants are smart enough not to say stuff that'd get them rejected. The main purpose of the interview, imo, is to check that you are not psycho and speak English fluently. Most people fit that criteria so in the end, it comes down to stats. I know for sure that's how NYU works cause my interviewer told me that.

 

[Hallm_7]

Originally posted by Columbia22
If most med schoold only accept around 30-50% of interviewed applicants (this seems to be the case at MOST, although some do definitely have lower and higher percentages, ie, columbia and drexel/suny's), why do they even bother interviewing as many students as they do? What makes them decide, after an interview, if they will accept a student or not, since the case seems to always go back to a re-evaluation of one's stats (GPA, MCAT), ending in a committee vote. Wouldnt it make sense if med schools just streamlined the whole process and interviewed only those candidates they are more than 75% sure to accept? I mean, it seems to me that most people do well during the interviews, and to mess it up really badly is a feat in and of itself. Or perhaps these are just "courtesy" interviews in exchange for the exorbitant apo fees? What do you guys think

This really has nothing to do with the interview question.......but anyway: I think you're getting overall acceptance (for the country as a whole) confused with individual school's. Most schools will have b/w 2,000 and 3,000 applicants for 200-300 acceptances which lead to 100-150 spots. The schools with the highest acceptance rates are in the 15% range while the lowest are <5% (Wash Univ., JHU, etc.). Something interesting....i looked up the top law schools' acceptance rates on USNews and they were around 15-20%. That's higher than the least competitive med schools.

 

[Columbia22]

Hallm, im talking about acceptance AFTER interviewing, you misunderstood me...i think i agree with pekq and his theory, i mean, after all, how many interviewees are gonna be psycho or be unable to speak english??

 

[TheFlash]

Originally posted by Hallm_7
The schools with the highest acceptance rates are in the 15% range while the lowest are <5% (Wash Univ.

Actually... WashU's acceptance rate is ~11% or thereabouts.

tf

 

[jlee9531]

Originally posted by Columbia22
Hallm, im talking about acceptance AFTER interviewing, you misunderstood me...i think i agree with pekq and his theory, i mean, after all, how many interviewees are gonna be psycho or be unable to speak english??

im gonna have to disagree...if its based on stats then how people with low gpas like me get in? its foolish to think that. sure your stats will be looked at again and put under scrutiny when the board reviews you...but you gotta remember an excellent interview will lead to a good case built up in your favor that can potentially eliminate doubts for a lower gpa or a lack of something etc...

now i will agree with the fact that some schools the interview is not weighed as importantly as the other factors but in other schools the interview has great weight on the admissions process and its random luck if you get someone that you click with during the interview or someone that doesnt seem to give you any sign at all..

 

[Columbia22]

how much can possibly be garnered for a closed file interview of 25-40 minutes in which your interviewer asks you questions about your extracurriculars and personal history? I mean, you sit there, and answer the questions...everything that they hold to be crucial in the admissions process can really be garnered through the AMCAS and secondaries...i mean, for example, interviewer asks you what motivated you to go into medicine...im sure 99% of all people answered this somewhere on paper, so basically, are you trying to say that the interview is a chance for them to gauge the tonality and fervent manner of your speech when describing a personal experience that motivated you to enter medicine? Yes, people with lower stats get accepted after interviewing, but it only seems sensible that the person with lower stats would try to convey the same sort of excitement for medicine on paper as in real life during an interview