But how is doing what Quink suggested any different than programs that give courtesy invites to all students who rotate with them?...
The other thing is that the program might feel differently about the student once they meet them in person, assuming they're relying heavily on perceived fit to make their decision...
...I also think it's kind of presumptuous to assume that the OP probably isn't competitive enough for that program...
Just a few points:
1. I'm not a big fan of "courteousy" interviews. If your application does not meet the criteria of a particular program, I don't see it a "courteousy" to extend an interview, raise false hopes, and cost a medical student effort, time, and money to interview. Once you interview, ERAS rules preclude much honest feedback leading up to the match. Everyone having gone through the process has experienced the drooling excessive positivity that convinces you that you will be "ranked very high (wink, wink)" or knows someone that was sure they would match and are very, very surpised and feels lied to on match day.
2. Yes, a program may feel different. It really depends on how your app is screened. Presumably, your apps has made it passed the first round usmle/GPA filters and such. But, that means the app likely went before several sets of eyes that put you in the no-go pile. You may win the lottery... but, chances are you will not. Again, false hopes are costly during ERAS.
3. It is not presumptuous. My comments are based on trying to read what occurred to the OP based on the OP's own representations of what the facts are. He/she applied to a top tier program. The top tier program apparently reviewed the application. The program, after review of application did not intend to interview. An error was made an an interview was extended. When the OP called to schedule interview, a long wait on hold occurred. Very likely, the long hold occurred while error was discovered because app was looked at again and thus interview invite withdrawn. The OP's apps appears to have received far more review then most rejections and still was deemed not to be the candidate this program feels is reasonable to offer the expenses of an interview.
JackADell has a valid point. However, there is the rare chance that there may be a personality/program click that might make them reconsider. The "diamond in the rough," as it were. I recognize how rare this happens, but if it is a dream spot for the student, best to take advantage of the mistake...
The issue at stake is that there is no taking advantage. Either:
A) Program makes a mistake, hides it, continues the charade, you spend your dough to interview under false pretense, most likely do not match, and are none the wiser.
B) Program recognizes its mistake, withdraws its invite
The system is already built often to the programs' advantage. They almost always encourage you and talk about how competitive you are. They inform you that
""we" wouldn't be interviewing you if you were not competitive", and encourage you to rank them highly. The students are on tight budgets with limited dates to schedule interviews.
It just injects dishonesty to invite candidates that a program felt would not be competitive simply because a clerical error has occurred. Is the program going to tell them, "you are here by accident and are not a candidate we would consider competitive"? Thus, the student can make an honest decision to spend money to interview. Or, is it more likely the student will get the same sales pitch of,
""we" wouldn't be interviewing you if you were not competitive"?
I find it more ethical for a program to identify its clerical error and not compound a clerical error (at the student's expense) by hiding it. I would pose that a program/PD that would use their advantage/position of power and the secrecy of the process to hide its errors at the expense of a student has very, very low integrity. Acknowledge your mistake, correct it, and move on.... don't compound it with expense and false hope on the individuals that can least afford it.
