post interview acceptance rates

[Shredder]

i thought of this poll bc of the columbia thread where they supposedly interview 1200 and send 250 acceptances. dunno if thats true but it made me wonder where you draw the line

i guess an assumption is that all applicants come into interview on even footing, which isnt entirely true...but its true to some extent, no? well hopefully my point in this poll is clear, just wondering where ppl stand in opinions

ive taken some extreme stances on the interview issue but ill go with light. maybe 10-20%, meaning a very high proportion of interviewees should be accepted. that seems more in line with the claim that "interviews are to weed out lunatics and psychos" followed by rejecting over 2/3 interviewees. really, are that many interviewees nuts or a "bad fit"? post interview acceptance rates are too low to support that claim. ppl say the interview cant help you enormously but it can really hurt you, but i dont buy it (or maybe thats the personal statement...or both?). the numbers just dont tell the same story, so there are other things going on.

question: which option would you say depicts reality? judging by acceptance rates it seems reasonable to assert over 50%, if you accept the equal footing premise and the fact that few if any schools accept over 50% of interviewees

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[drmota]

i dont think interviewees come in on equal footing AT ALL. if anything i think they have a pretty good idea of what they're gonna do with you before they even invite you. i predicted exactly what was gonna happen at each of the schools i interviewed at. i think the interview is just to see if any screws are loose. i think in maybe ~2% of cases the interview can really hurt you and maybe ~10% of the time it can help you. i'm going with 0-25% weight.
-mota

 

[dilated]

i dont think interviewees come in on equal footing AT ALL. if anything i think they have a pretty good idea of what they're gonna do with you before they even invite you. i predicted exactly what was gonna happen at each of the schools i interviewed at. i think the interview is just to see if any screws are loose. i think in maybe ~2% of cases the interview can really hurt you and maybe ~10% of the time it can help you. i'm going with 0-25% weight.
-mota

I agree with Mota, though I think the interview is a little more important than he says. I think they just have a much lower cutoff for interview than acceptance: if you sound cool, hey, give the guy an interview. When it comes to actually making acceptance offers they are much pickier. I bet if you made them pick who they'd accept before interviewing and then after interviewing the two lists would be very similar.

 

[Shredder]

i dont think interviewees come in on equal footing AT ALL. if anything i think they have a pretty good idea of what they're gonna do with you before they even invite you. i predicted exactly what was gonna happen at each of the schools i interviewed at. i think the interview is just to see if any screws are loose. i think in maybe ~2% of cases the interview can really hurt you and maybe ~10% of the time it can help you. i'm going with 0-25% weight.
-mota

interesting--so schools have their minds 80-90% made up already even before sending out invites. although its possible your predictions became self fulfilling prophecies. its possible, just bc the possibility cant be ruled out

if 0-25 is reality then the interview day is really mainly a selling session and a chance to weed out (or in) extremes. dunno, im still skeptical. figuring out the equal footing is key. ive been under the assumption that schools interview those students who they have already deemed "fit enough" to study there. a minimum cutoff type of thing vs a gradient. i hope that was expressed coherently enough to understand. dilated if the two lists are very similar then the interview should be something like 10%, no? so that only extremes would make any difference

hmm maybe i shouldve polled on what ppl think reality is instead of what it should be ideally. but thats redundant bc one of the adcom ppl around here could easily answer that...albeit how candidly? ive found that schools are quite shifty when this question is raised. there could be political factors behind it..maybe im opening a pandoras box, sigh

 

[drmota]

another thing to keep in mind is that sometimes the committee that chooses invite-ees differ from the committee that hands out acceptances (i've heard it through the grapevine). or it is just a subsection of the larger committee which makes the ultimate decision. i'm sure this varies from school to school, but its something to think about, if you have time to waste thinking about stupid **** like this, as i clearly do.
-mota

 

[MN81]

The way that I would do an interview if I was an interviewer at a school is this...

For 90% of the people I interview, the interview day won't mean much more than me clarifying fuzzy spots on their application. "Get to know them" sort of deal. Most people won't help or hurt their chances of getting accepted by interviewing with me.

But for those people who really blow my socks off and impress me, I would do my best to get them in. And for those who really don't sound like they know anything combined with their having the personality of a rock, I would make sure they don't get it.

Maybe this is assuming that I, as an interviewer, have too much power in the decision. Oh well... Just wasting time at work...

 

[ND2005]

The way that I would do an interview if I was an interviewer at a school is this...

For 90% of the people I interview, the interview day won't mean much more than me clarifying fuzzy spots on their application. "Get to know them" sort of deal. Most people won't help or hurt their chances of getting accepted by interviewing with me.

But for those people who really blow my socks off and impress me, I would do my best to get them in. And for those who really don't sound like they know anything combined with their having the personality of a rock, I would make sure they don't get it.

Maybe this is assuming that I, as an interviewer, have too much power in the decision. Oh well... Just wasting time at work...

This sounds like about what I would do. Most of the interviews are just a matter of clarifying/checking to make sure they aren't "Crazy". If somebody really wows you or really turns you off, they can drastically change their chances of admission, but that's about all.

 

[DCDAWG]

This sounds like about what I would do. Most of the interviews are just a matter of clarifying/checking to make sure they aren't "Crazy". If somebody really wows you or really turns you off, they can drastically change their chances of admission, but that's about all.

How would you guys explain a closed file interview? Do you think these types of interviews carry more or less weight?

 

[riceman04]

i dont think interviewees come in on equal footing AT ALL. if anything i think they have a pretty good idea of what they're gonna do with you before they even invite you. i predicted exactly what was gonna happen at each of the schools i interviewed at. i think the interview is just to see if any screws are loose. i think in maybe ~2% of cases the interview can really hurt you and maybe ~10% of the time it can help you. i'm going with 0-25% weight.
-mota

I think LizzyM (you know...the poster who says she is a member of an adcom at a medical school) made it clear when she stated in a previous thread that applicants to not enter the interview phase on equal footing. She did, however, state that a bad interview, regardless of current standing, could derail any applicants chances of gaining an acceptance.

 

[riceman04]

But then again I spoke to a high ranking Pitt adcom member and she explicitly stated that the interview is ranked extremely heavy!

So maybe to answer your question directly, Shredder, I would say that once again this is one of those factors that depends on the school.

 

[Shredder]

This sounds like about what I would do. Most of the interviews are just a matter of clarifying/checking to make sure they aren't "Crazy". If somebody really wows you or really turns you off, they can drastically change their chances of admission, but that's about all.

this seems reasonable, but post interview acceptance rates of 33% just dont attest to it. i think schools should do it like this but they dont and they never tell exactly what goes on behind their closed doors. sketchy

it does depend on the school, but there is a certain range that most schools fall within for interview weight. and for the outliers...why are they so far out there? what is it that schools manage to see that is so insightful in 30 minutes of talking to someone? i wish schools wouldve done me the courtesy of rejecting me right off the bat instead of giving me interviews and having me fly all across the country, then rejecting me. its a waste of time and money and for nothing

 

[nikibean]

How would you guys explain a closed file interview? Do you think these types of interviews carry more or less weight?

I could see how they would- it's a chance to discuss things on your AMCAS in more detail without a pre-conceived notion of who you are. The interviewers also get some insight into your personality, and see if you can think on your feet. Anybody can take the time to look good on paper, but if you sit there in an interview across from a perceptive individual, you have to have that innate ability to connect with someone. Granted, many closed interviews are part of a larger look at your application, so who knows? I think that the interview process gives us a chance to demonstrate our passions and our commitment to whatever we've been doing- and it also gives the interviewers a chance to see us as who we are. Regardless of how nervous you are in the beginning, by the end of the interview, you've got to be somewhat more comfortable (unless your interviewer has made you feel otherwise).
Honestly though, I bet they're a piece of the pie- probably about 30%.
This thread is mostly speculation. I'd love to hear from an adcom on this one.

 

[kirexhana]

How would you guys explain a closed file interview? Do you think these types of interviews carry more or less weight?

i don't like closed file interviews, cuz i always forget things that i want to add in. plus it always feels like, am i saying enough? do i stop here? what more do you want to know about it?

 

[Shredder]

i don't like closed file interviews, cuz i always forget things that i want to add in. plus it always feels like, am i saying enough? do i stop here? what more do you want to know about it?

i agree, many times i was like "thats on my application" so why should one bother elaborating on it? do they just want to hear your voice?

that avatar sickens me, are you for or against it? i may have to ignore

 

[DarkFark]

The weight of an interview definitely varies from school to school. At one end, you have schools that give a half hour open file interview. These schools usually just seem to be looking for the following basics

- Make sure you're not so crazy or impersonal that it comes out in a half hour interview.
- Give you a chance to explain application flaws
- *maybe* take the opportunity to sniff out any BS in your app - i.e. they know an activity was embellished when you didn't have anything to say about it.
- Assess applicant interest in school

These short open-file interviews seemed to me like they were just basic checklists to confirm admissability- like there wasn't a chance to really shine, but it wasn't too hard to keep from screwing up. They just wanted to make sure I was somewhat normal so they could go back to debating the numbers and ECs on my application. At least in my experience, AECOM and NYU seemed to fit this profile.


Then on the other end, you had the schools that would feature up to three seperate interviews totalling over 2 hours in interview time, in some cases. It seemed like in these cases, the interviews were more often open file (or gave the interviewer only abbreviated personal information). They seemed to ask more open ended and difficult questions, and besides looking into the same stuff as the shorter interviews, they wanted to know in more detail how you would fit with their school in specific. This particularly seemed the case when the school has a 'philosophy' with their teaching- Like Rochester's "Biopsychosocial" medicine, or Georgetown's 'patient-advocate' emphasis.


Of course, most schools seemed to be between the two extremes of interview intensiveness, and I'm sure they even vary individually interviewer to interviewer. I personally prefer the ones that are in the middle- say, one hour of interview time, open file, with one or two 'interesting' questions thrown in, and the whole thing given moderate weight.

Also, I think that while everyone who is interviewed has a chance to get in, true equal footing is a rarity.

Anyways, that's just my experience.

 

[Will Ferrell]

I voted for no interviews. They serve little purpose and are a waste of money. Law and other graduate schools are doing good without them.

If they wanted to prevent those rare psychos from being accepted, they should require us to take a real psychiatric evaluation and submit our medical records. This would be much cheaper, more effective, and simpler.

If they wanted to prevent introverted people from being accepted, they should require us to take a professionally administed Myers-Briggs Type Indicator and submit it. That'll keep us pesky INTJ-ers out!

 

[KAI1927]

Some people have supported the " All on equal ground once at the interview level" theory which I myself think is a reasonable theory, and also may be prudent adcom protocol. While this may true some schools, it seems that this is not the case in others. I have heard from many of my friends that have had interview that "seemed to go well" been rejected from these schools. Granted there is the possibility of these people being mistaken in regards to their interview success, but one would imagine that they all wouldn't be out of touch. An alternative explanation is that these adcoms use the interview as another gage with which they can compare students. So the interview is conducted, then the adcoms then go back and deliberate the applicant's status now using GPA, MCAT, LOR's etc. AND now the interview. Applicants that have great interviews but don't ultimately stack up in other areas when compared to others applicants are rejected or waitlisted even though the interview went well. But the amount of weight the interview carries is still up for debate, but seems like it would be less than 50% for schools that take the aforementioned approach, if any actually do The bottom line is no adcom's process is perfect, so everybody's has to apply to alot of schools no matter how good their stats are to hedge their bets. Some schools will reject those they should have admitted and accept those they should have rejected; is any person or persons capable of judging who should or should not study medicine with total accuracy? But what the hell do I know? What am I , a doctor!

 

[DrBowtie]

Results seem pretty surprising to me.

 

[2010MD]

that avatar sickens me, are you for or against it? i may have to ignore

What's "it," Shredder?

Heath and Jake? Because I think most people are "for" them, they're pretty hot.

Cowboys? Because I don't really see how you could have anything wrong with cowboys.

Adapting New Yorker short stories for the big screen? I can kind of see why you might be against this; I don't think most of them would make very good movies. But in this case I think the result was excellent. A fine film.

 

[Will Ferrell]

What's "it," Shredder?

Heath and Jake? Because I think most people are "for" them, they're pretty hot.

Cowboys? Because I don't really see how you could have anything wrong with cowboys.

Adapting New Yorker short stories for the big screen? I can kind of see why you might be against this; I don't think most of them would make very good movies. But in this case I think the result was excellent. A fine film.

heath and jake are pretty hot.

 

[RxnMan]

From a post I wrote awhile back describing CU admissions:

Anyways, I talked to a MS3 from CU who looked at her file after she was admitted, and here's how she said her's was scored:

The dean assigns you a score (0-100) based first on your paper application, and if it is above the cut-off (+80), then you are given an interview. From there, the two interviewers each give you a score (0-100) based on how you did in your interview. These are averaged, giving you your final score, which is used to rank you against all the other applicants. Scores greater than 95 get automatic acceptance. She didn't mention it, but somewhere in there must be how your interviewers rate your application after your interview, when they see your transcript.

This is in line with what the dean has said before - if you get an interview, he's basically telling you that you can (intellectually, educationally,) complete the med school curriculum. It also puts the applicants on fairly even ground because the interview is 2/3 your score. If you have a relatively weak application, but interview very well, you can still almost make the auto acceptance cut-off ((80 + 100 + 100)/3 = 93.3). Conversely, you still need to have a good interview to back up a stellar application.

At CU, I believe this answers Shredder's question. By the way, last year CU interviewed ~250 of it's 650 in-state applicants and it's ~4500 OOS. This year it will give out at least 156 acceptances.

 

[wizeguy]

From a post I wrote awhile back describing CU admissions:

Anyways, I talked to a MS3 from CU who looked at her file after she was admitted, and here's how she said her's was scored:

The dean assigns you a score (0-100) based first on your paper application, and if it is above the cut-off (+80), then you are given an interview. From there, the two interviewers each give you a score (0-100) based on how you did in your interview. These are averaged, giving you your final score, which is used to rank you against all the other applicants. Scores greater than 95 get automatic acceptance. She didn't mention it, but somewhere in there must be how your interviewers rate your application after your interview, when they see your transcript.

This is in line with what the dean has said before - if you get an interview, he's basically telling you that you can (intellectually, educationally,) complete the med school curriculum. It also puts the applicants on fairly even ground because the interview is 2/3 your score. If you have a relatively weak application, but interview very well, you can still almost make the auto acceptance cut-off ((80 + 100 + 100)/3 = 93.3). Conversely, you still need to have a good interview to back up a stellar application.

At CU, I believe this answers Shredder's question. By the way, last year CU interviewed ~250 of it's 650 in-state applicants and it's ~4500 OOS. This year it will give out at least 156 acceptances.

I think it all depends on the school...for instance, at a place like drexel, where they interview almost 2,000 people, i think they know before...

but at a place like TEmple, where they interview 900, and do not have a high matriculation rate (based on cost, location), I think it is much more important...reason being....let's say they interview 300 "stretch" candidates, people who are really good, but it may be a stretch that they'll choose temple, 200 "stretches" the other way (meaning they have one relatively large piece of their app. that looks bad, but they were still worthy of an interview...might be a strech for them to get in)...and then 400 run of teh mill, good premed applicants - among those 400 is wehre alot of the class will come from...and thus, the interview must mean alot htere....

just my thoughts/theory...

 

[diosa428]

I just don't understand why some schools interview many times what they will accept. I also agree that most schools know whether or not they'll accept you before they interview you, so why do they need to interview all these people that they won't accept? So that the ONE really great guy who has a kind of low GPA gets in after all? I think it just gets my hopes up

 

[Rafa]

that avatar sickens me, are you for or against it? i may have to ignore

I voted for no interviews. Waste of money, too little relevance to justify presence. Unless you have a really *good* interview or a really *bad* one, you're already either in the "admit" pile or the "waitlist until hell freezes over" stack. They just add to the (expense and stress and bureacracy of the) application process.

 

[kirexhana]

i agree, many times i was like "thats on my application" so why should one bother elaborating on it? do they just want to hear your voice?

that avatar sickens me, are you for or against it? i may have to ignore

why would i have an avatar of something i'm against? it's obvious i like the movie + heath + jake + cowboys + wilderness. but like the other posters, i'm wondering what "it" is that sickens you. it's ok if you don't like it tho. i'm not expecting everyone to, nor am i seeking the approval of others through my avatar. if it makes you feel any better, i don't like yours very much either .