Post-II Feedback from schools about interview

[runningpenguin]

For those schools that give feedback post interview if rejected/waitlisted, would they tell you if you hadn't done well on the interview? Asking because wouldn't schools perceive it as a bit harsh/personal to say that you hadn't done well on the interview as opposed to another factor (such as MCAT or GPA)?

Has anyone ever been told by admissions they needed to improve the interview component? Been reading posts on SDN where the poster says he/she was certain the interview hadn't gone well, but admissions said the interview had gone well but waitlist/rejection was due to another factor in admissions.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[HomeSkool]

For those schools that give feedback post interview if rejected/waitlisted, would they tell you if you hadn't done well on the interview?

Probably.

Asking because wouldn't schools perceive it as a bit harsh/personal to say that you hadn't done well on the interview as opposed to another factor (such as MCAT or GPA)?

No. If you didn't do well, they'd actually be doing you a favor to say so. Also, they're not really concerned about whether or not you like them.

If you (and I mean the generic impersonal "you", not you specifically) get your feelings hurt over hearing you bombed an interview, you need to develop a much thicker skin. You're going to be judged on your interpersonal interactions for the rest of your career; that'll be really miserable if you can't take criticism.

 

[runningpenguin]

Probably.


No. If you didn't do well, they'd actually be doing you a favor to say so. Also, they're not really concerned about whether or not you like them.

If you (and I mean the generic impersonal "you", not you specifically) get your feelings hurt over hearing you bombed an interview, you need to develop a much thicker skin. You're going to be judged on your interpersonal interactions for the rest of your career; that'll be really miserable if you can't take criticism.

Thanks for your input. I don't necessarily mean that schools would hide the results of the interview with the intent of sparing an individual's feelings. More like the school is trying to represent themselves well. If a group of rejected applicants had been told they didn't interview well and were discussing this on a forum like SDN...it just seems to enhance negative feelings towards that particular school since the reason given for the rejection was more personal. Perhaps I'm wrong though and overanalyzing it.

Haven't gone through your previous posts to determine your background, but was wondering if you have first-hand experience with this? Your SDN profile link says Faculty.

 

[HomeSkool]

More like the school is trying to represent themselves well. If a group of rejected applicants had been told they didn't interview well and were discussing this on a forum like SDN...it just seems to enhance negative feelings towards that particular school since the reason given for the rejection was more personal.

Perhaps, but the number of individuals who'd feel that way would be minuscule compared to the number of applicants in the overall pool. In addition, it's no more personal than any other data point in the admissions decision. The application process makes you put your whole self up for evaluation, and any component could be found wanting (so to speak).

Haven't gone through your previous posts to determine your background, but was wondering if you have first-hand experience with this? Your SDN profile link says Faculty.

I'm a faculty member, attending anesthesiologist, interviewer for my school's admissions department, and candidate for the admissions committee. I interact with residents daily and with medical students quite often. I also participate in my school's program that arranges for interested premeds to shadow various attendings.


Sent from my Pixel 2 using SDN mobile

 

[Goro]

Thanks for your input. I don't necessarily mean that schools would hide the results of the interview with the intent of sparing an individual's feelings. More like the school is trying to represent themselves well. If a group of rejected applicants had been told they didn't interview well and were discussing this on a forum like SDN...it just seems to enhance negative feelings towards that particular school since the reason given for the rejection was more personal. Perhaps I'm wrong though and overanalyzing it.

Haven't gone through your previous posts to determine your background, but was wondering if you have first-hand experience with this? Your SDN profile link says Faculty.

It's a seller's market. Schools don't care if people are offended by rejections. Some schools (not all) will give feedback on rejections, after the app cycle is over. But they're not going to say "your interview sucked"...they're more likely to say "we had concerns about your MCAT" or "you could use more shadowing and clinical exposure"

 

[runningpenguin]

It's a seller's market. Schools don't care if people are offended by rejections. Some schools (not all) will give feedback on rejections, after the app cycle is over. But they're not going to say "your interview sucked"...they're more likely to say "we had concerns about your MCAT" or "you could use more shadowing and clinical exposure"

So how do you know what the issue really is in that case? Interview skills or shadowing/clinical exposure?

Anyone ever been told by admissions that their interview was actually what led to waitlist/rejection? I haven't been able to find posts that say this on SDN (though I haven't checked throroughly). I find a lot of posts about individuals who say they thought interview went terrible, but admissions says it went well and there was some other reason.