Resolved

[User71]

Resolved

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[eigen]

Positive vibes. Most of the time, the interviewer isn't the one making a decision on your application, they're adding a perspective to the whole rest of your package.

 

[FlowRate]

There are no reliable tells or guarantees from interviewers.

I had interviews where it seemed like they all but said I'd be accepted... and I wasn't... and others that I thought went poorly where I was.

 

[Goro]

People tend to be poor judges of the their interview performance.

 

[oatmilkplease]

So as an update, while the sample size is admittedly small, these interview "tells" seemed to actually work for me. I was accepted at both of these schools and was rejected from the school I thought was my worst interview (though, to be fair, that school has probably the lowest post II acceptance rate in the country).

Anyway, for what it's worth, it seems here that unusually positive things said by the interviewer were in the very small sample of little old me highly correlated with a positive admissions decision.

Good luck to all!

Didn't feel great about my top choice interview at all, so here's hoping I'll be able to provide a contradicting data point

 

[oatmilkplease]

And, for what it's worth, the interview I felt did not go well was NYU which has a post II A rate so low that people can only guess at it.

It could be that exceptionally positive things said during an interview by the interviewer correlate much higher with acceptance than general feelings of things not having gone all that great correlate with rejection.

And, of course, this can all be BS! I'm certainly not claiming this is science!

Haha even if it is BS (which I don't think it is), I appreciate you sharing your experiences! And yeah I agree- NYU truly is a special case. Congrats on your acceptances

 

[pablo213]

I think there's some decent correlation at some schools, but its hard to say. I felt really good about my interview at Creighton and got accepted very early there, but i think my app just resonated a lot with their mission too. On the other hand, i felt decent about some stations at UA phoenix and not so good about others and was still accepted pretty early. I think this correlation breaks down at schools with low post II A rates because chances are most people interview averagely, so the final decisions depend more on the person's stats and ECs.

 

[Vicariousstress]

Time for an anecdote. During my undergrad interviews, I thought my interview for Princeton went swimmingly. The interviewer said "there's no way you don't get in," so we just chatted for 20-30 minutes. I'm confident in my interview skills, and am confident I didn't say anything that got me pinged. I walked out feeling great. Rejected outright. Not even a waitlist. The red flag should have been when he told me the applicants he disliked kept getting accepted.

I'm willing to bet there's a correlation with a sufficient sample size, but for any particular individual, I don't think it's a good indicator unless the interview was especially bad.

 

[differentiating]

As someone who used to do student interviews for my med school - I basically just did the interview and then filled out a mini-essay on my thoughts about the candidate, whether or not I felt they were a good fit for us and why, and if I had any concerns about their ability to handle the academic rigor and whether these could be mitigated (such as by early offering of on-campus resources). This was then submitted to the committee who actually made the decisions.

Most students I said would probably be good fits. I few I said might be good fits but I had a few reservations for various reasons, and one I said wasn't a good fit period. A handful I said we really should accept. However, the committee made the final determination on all applicants, and some I thought came across poorly in interviews were accepted and some I strongly recommended admit to were waitlisted. So even if the interviewer is being honest about highly recommending you for admission, they're often not the final say, as @eigen pointed out.

 

[fightingillini122]

Wanted to add to this because I’ve been eyeing this thread. Just got accepted to the school where I felt I had my worst interview. I got pimped heavy on my research and stuttered a bunch. Guess it adds to the thought that you truly have no idea how you performed in an interview.

 

[Holland]

Time for an anecdote. During my undergrad interviews, I thought my interview for Princeton went swimmingly. The interviewer said "there's no way you don't get in," so we just chatted for 20-30 minutes. I'm confident in my interview skills, and am confident I didn't say anything that got me pinged. I walked out feeling great. Rejected outright. Not even a waitlist. The red flag should have been when he told me the applicants he disliked kept getting accepted.

I'm willing to bet there's a correlation with a sufficient sample size, but for any particular individual, I don't think it's a good indicator unless the interview was especially bad.

I give alum interviews and I can say we account for like 1.5% of the total algorithm, lmao

 

[Reanox24]

Depends on who is interviewing you. Some schools have armies of interviewers whose job is to write an evaluation, and then the adcom reads the evaluation. If you get positive applications, it can help you, but you might just be a weaker applicant compared to the rest of them. However, some schools have adcom members that are the ones that interview you, and they go on to present your application to the rest of the adcom. If you knock it out of the park with them, they are much more likely to go to bat for you to the actual adcom face to face (or over zoom) as opposed to just having a written evaluation.

TLDR: Good interview is much more potent if your interviewer is an adcom member responsible for presenting you