Post Interview Acceptance %'s

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.
Members don't see this ad :)
RogueBanana said:
Interesting,

If we take the average of all Post-II acceptance rates (from the google doc you linked me) we get 50.27 %

This may explain the "interview's three, a doctor you'll be" rule. 2 IIs gives a tentative 100% chance, the additional II controls for variability between schools. That of course assumes you are a decent interviewer.
Click to expand...
2 IIs gives a 75% chance of acceptance with 50% post-interview acceptance rates
 
RogueBanana said:
Interesting,

If we take the average of all Post-II acceptance rates (from the google doc you linked me) we get 50.27 %

This may explain the "interview's three, a doctor you'll be" rule. 2 IIs gives a tentative 100% chance, the additional II controls for variability between schools. That of course assumes you are a decent interviewer.
Click to expand...
Not quite. The probability of being accepted after N interviews with an average acceptance rate of ~50% would be 1-((1/2)^N), not simply the additive sum of 50%+50%. For three interviews then, you'd have an acceptance probability of 87.5%.
 
aprilfools said:
Not quite. The probability of being accepted after N interviews with an average acceptance rate of ~50% would be 1-((1/2)^N), not simply the additive sum of 50%+50%. For three interviews then, you'd have an acceptance probability of 87.5%.
Click to expand...
Thanks, my stats are a little rusty lol
 
Much appreciated! I don't see Tulane though. Do they not publish the number they accept?
 
Members don't see this ad :)
aprilfools said:
Not quite. The probability of being accepted after N interviews with an average acceptance rate of ~50% would be 1-((1/2)^N), not simply the additive sum of 50%+50%. For three interviews then, you'd have an acceptance probability of 87.5%.
Click to expand...

These aren't independent probabilities, though; probably the same groups of people are getting accepted at a lot of these schools.
 
Koprulu said:
These aren't independent probabilities, though; probably the same groups of people are getting accepted at a lot of these schools.
Click to expand...
I interpreted it as the probability of one person being accepted over the course of 3 IIs

So if we interpret it as a coin flip (p= 0.5) and the events are mutually exclusive, you sum the probabilities.

1/2 + 1/2 + 1/2 = 3/2 =150%

Am I misdefining the events in terms of independence?
 
Koprulu said:
These aren't independent probabilities, though; probably the same groups of people are getting accepted at a lot of these schools.
Click to expand...
True, but there's not really any way to factor that in that I can think of
RogueBanana said:
I interpreted it as the probability of one person being accepted over the course of 3 IIs

So if we interpret it as a coin flip (p= 0.5) and the events are mutually exclusive, you sum the probabilities.

1/2 + 1/2 + 1/2 = 3/2 =150%

Am I misdefining the events in terms of independence?
Click to expand...
You can't have >100% chance of something happening. I think your confusion comes from independent vs. mutually exclusive. They are independent events, but not mutually exclusive. They're independent because one event (acceptance/waitlist/rejection) doesn't affect the other admissions decisions, but they're not mutually exclusive because one acceptance doesn't mean you can't have another acceptance, and one rejection doesn't mean you can't have another rejection.
 
walloobi said:
True, but there's not really any way to factor that in that I can think of

You can't have >100% chance of something happening. I think your confusion comes from independent vs. mutually exclusive. They are independent events, but not mutually exclusive
Click to expand...

There isn't a way to factor that in--but I do feel that if you are not a very good interviewer, you should not look at 87.5% chance of acceptance and take comfort in that. You need to go and work on your interview skills. Thinking about chances is useless
 
walloobi said:
True, but there's not really any way to factor that in that I can think of

You can't have >100% chance of something happening. I think your confusion comes from independent vs. mutually exclusive. They are independent events, but not mutually exclusive. They're independent because one event (acceptance/waitlist/rejection) doesn't affect another admissions decision, but they're not mutually exclusive because one acceptance doesn't mean you can't have another acceptance, and one rejection doesn't mean you can't have another rejection.
Click to expand...
ohhhhhhh I get it, thanks!

Koprulu said:
There isn't a way to factor that in--but I do feel that if you are not a very good interviewer, you should not look at 87.5% chance of acceptance and take comfort in that. You need to go and work on your interview skills. Thinking about chances is useless
Click to expand...
I'm not saying we should be complacent based on probabilities, just remarking that an old adage may have some statistical basis behind it. Though it doesn't take a statistician to understand that more interviews = greater chance of acceptance
 
RogueBanana said:
ohhhhhhh I get it, thanks!


I'm not saying we should be complacent based on probabilities, just remarking that an old adage may have some statistical basis behind it. Though it doesn't take a statistician to understand that more interviews = greater chance of acceptance
Click to expand...

This poll might be unreliable because of sampling bias, but related to what you are saying: https://forums.studentdoctor.net/threads/interviews-three-a-doctor-youll-be.1215042/

I just think people should be cautioned against interpreting 3 interviews as having "good odds" given that many of these acceptances will be held by the same group of applicants. A better, albeit still flawed, way to think about it would be calculating the odds of matriculating at one of the schools that you are interviewing at.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Koprulu said:
These aren't independent probabilities, though; probably the same groups of people are getting accepted at a lot of these schools.
Click to expand...

Correct, but we're just talking about theoretical odds for arguments sake here

Koprulu said:
This poll might be unreliable because of sampling bias, but related to what you are saying: https://forums.studentdoctor.net/threads/interviews-three-a-doctor-youll-be.1215042/

I just think people should be cautioned against interpreting 3 interviews as having "good odds" given that many of these acceptances will be held by the same group of applicants. A better, albeit still flawed, way to think about it would be calculating the odds of matriculating at one of the schools that you are interviewing at.
Click to expand...

Yeah I definitely don't buy this except for the case of true superstars. Schools evaluate students differently and are looking for different things. This, combined with the fact that most matriculants are only offered one acceptance do not offer much support to your argument. Like I said, for true superstars what you are saying is true, but these superstars are few and far between.
 
RogueBanana said:
I interpreted it as the probability of one person being accepted over the course of 3 IIs

So if we interpret it as a coin flip (p= 0.5) and the events are mutually exclusive, you sum the probabilities.

1/2 + 1/2 + 1/2 = 3/2 =150%

Am I misdefining the events in terms of independence?
Click to expand...

3 coinflips would be, 50% chance of not getting in each time: 0.5 * 0.5 * 0.5 = 0.125 = 12.5% chance of not getting in = 87.5% chance of getting in. It's probably unlikely that you actually have 50% chance at each individual school - some will be higher and some will be lower depending on strength of your app compared to average matriculant at the school, and how well you interview.

nejikon said:
Do the accepted numbers include the waitlist?
Click to expand...

Yes, afaik, which means that the number of outright acceptances is quite a bit lower than whatever the listed % is 🙁
 
efle said:
TIL that as long as you post it to Reddit before SDN you can put up stuff that is normally behind paywalls...
Click to expand...
All I saw was a post with numbers, I have no idea where they came from :cigar:
 
RogueBanana said:
All I saw was a post with numbers, I have no idea where they came from :cigar:
Click to expand...
Oh I'm not accusing you of anything, I saw this post over there too.

I'm just wondering what the mod rationale is. You would never be allowed to post a spreadsheet of MSAR or US News stats here because that's not publicly available info. If you anonymously posted it in a reddit comment and then linked from SDN to that reddit comment though...
 
aprilfools said:
Correct, but we're just talking about theoretical odds for arguments sake here
Click to expand...
Yeah, I understand. I just feel that simplistic math like this is a bit disingenuous and misleading. Say, for instance, you just receive 1 interview at Case Western. It has a 49.4% post-II acceptance rate; however, the average person with 1 interview probably has a significantly lower chance of acceptance than a coin flip; interviews don't take place on a level playing field, and it is more than likely that the person with 3 additional interviews elsewhere (average # of interviews received by a matriculant is 4) has attributes that look more attractive to an admissions committee.

We really do not know how accurately the number 87.5% reflects the actual percentage of those with three interviews getting at least one acceptance. Although 3 is the median number of interviews that matriculants attend according to the MSQ, this number suffers from survivorship bias. How many people with three interviews got rejected? Is it truly 12.5%? I would not be surprised if it is significantly higher.

Schools evaluate students differently and are looking for different things.
Click to expand...

This, I think, is another BIG reason that you can't resort to simplistic calculations like this, even if that 87.5% is accurate. The calculation assumes that you have an average shot at every school you interview at.

This, combined with the fact that most matriculants are only offered one acceptance do not offer much support to your argument. Like I said, for true superstars what you are saying is true, but these superstars are few and far between.
Click to expand...

The median number of acceptances is 1, but the mean is 2 (divide total acceptances by enrollees). You should do the math with the assumption that every person holds two acceptances.
 
efle said:
Oh I'm not accusing you of anything, I saw this post over there too.

I'm just wondering what the mod rationale is. You would never be allowed to post a spreadsheet of MSAR or US News stats here because that's not publicly available info. If you anonymously posted it in a reddit comment and then linked from SDN to that reddit comment though...
Click to expand...
K0KPgis.jpg

The funny thing is the post I found it on was like a year old, It wasn't my post. But good to know there's a workaround lol
 
Last edited:
Gurby said:
3 coinflips would be, 50% chance of not getting in each time: 0.5 * 0.5 * 0.5 = 0.125 = 12.5% chance of not getting in = 87.5% chance of getting in. It's probably unlikely that you actually have 50% chance at each individual school - some will be higher and some will be lower depending on strength of your app compared to average matriculant at the school, and how well you interview.



Yes, afaik, which means that the number of outright acceptances is quite a bit lower than whatever the listed % is 🙁
Click to expand...
Phew..
 
The statistical modeling assumes interview results are random. They are not. This is the reason you could have 10 interviews and not end up with an acceptance. Vs having one interview and end up with an acceptance. Yes having more interviews is better, and yes going to interviews at schools that accept a large portion of students post II is better. But after that your own interview performance and internal grading rubrics that we may not be privy to play a large role. To an outside observer it may seem random, but it is not.
 
libertyyne said:
The statistical modeling assumes interview results are random. They are not. This is the reason you could have 10 interviews and not end up with an acceptance. Vs having one interview and end up with an acceptance. Yes having more interviews is better, and yes going to interviews at schools that accept a large portion of students post II is better. But after that your own interview performance and internal grading rubrics that we may not be privy to play a large role. To an outside observer it may seem random, but it is not.
Click to expand...

This is why I advise against thinking about "odds" of success. Yes, there is some value in knowing the success rate of people who had similar circumstances as you did (e.g. the success rate of first-time applicants with your GPA/MCAT should inform your application strategy). But we do not know the rate of acceptance for people with 3 interviews, and we shouldn't pretend that 87.5% is that number based on rudimentary statistical models.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

G
NEOMED post interview acceptance rate
Replies
0
Views
902
granted90
G
M
Dropping Final Pre-Requisite Post-Acceptance?
Replies
2
Views
402
Mr.Smile12
Mr.Smile12
D
senior year grades post acceptance
Replies
4
Views
783
purpledoc1
purpledoc1
I
Cancelling an interview without an acceptance?
Replies
4
Views
834
LindaAccepted
LindaAccepted
HappyRabbit
Updated Post II Acceptance Rates 2023
2 3 4
Replies
195
Views
59K
Mr.Smile12
Mr.Smile12
Top