Short interview = bad interview?

[combatwombat]

Is it necessarily a bad sign if you & a bunch of other interviewees all begin at the same time, but you get out first?

Personal anecdotes & responses from school administrators would be much appreciated

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[Ilovewater]

I had two interviews that lasted 10-15 minutes, and I got accepted to both of those schools. I wouldn't worry too much about the length.

 

[hewmanoid]

I had two interviews that lasted 10-15 minutes, and I got accepted to both of those schools. I wouldn't worry too much about the length.

Yes, quantity≠quality. At least from my experiences, the shorter the interview, the higher the chance of getting in!😀

 

[Bernoull]

Is it necessarily a bad sign if you & a bunch of other interviewees all begin at the same time, but you get out first?

Personal anecdotes & responses from school administrators would be much appreciated

You generally get a good sense of how the interview went during the interview, regardless of its length. I've been accepted and waitlisted after both short and long interviews. Duration in of itself doesn't indicate much really.

 

[Knitress]

Nah. I got in after a 25-minute interview. I was done while some of the other interviewees were out of their rooms for the halfway mark.

 

[flip26]

Length of interview means nothing in this process.

In fact, the short ones may be the best ones. At many schools, the purpose of the interview is to see if the applicant is socially acceptable, the kind of person you would want to be around - that can pretty much be determined quickly.

 

[Marcus Brody]

Generally, yes, not a good sign. Though obviously it depends on this and that, and there are always exceptions so take it with a big grain of salt. There are some interviewers who are just d*cks and don't care to spend much time on you. There are also those who are very organized about it and will just spend 45 minutes going through a list of questions, without regard to their personal opinion of you. They might love you or hate you, but you will still be there 45 minutes. Most commonly though, I think, are the ones who just let a natural conversation develop, and if they really like you they will probably not cut the interview short at 20 mins. The interviews at my school both ran over 45 mins.

 

[chickensandwich]

i interview with a bunch of other people for applicants for a health program. i am the type of interviewer where if i have the time, i will have a longer interviewer whether or not i think i end up recommending you (long for the people i like because i like talking to them, long for the people i don't like as much because i'm trying to make sure my assessment of them is complete and they have a chance to say all they need to say). another interviewer i work is more time efficient (sometimes even when she doesn't need to be) and will have short interviews with people that she loves (as mentioned, the point is to determine whether to recommend you and that usually doesn't take very long to figure out) and people she strongly dislikes as an applicant (this also doesn't take very long), and longer interviews with those she is unsure about (so that she has more to work with to figure it out).

long answer short: depends on your interviewer's style.

 

[lovemesomeTJ]

The meat of my interviews could be considered short, but they dragged out a bit longer because I had so many questions.😳

 

[MckAttk]

I interviewed for med school last year. I had one hour long interview and the other was 15 minutes. Both for the same school. I was rejected.

This year I had two 45ish minute interviews for that same school. I got the on the "accepted when place available list" so there's a good chance I'll be accepted.

I totally think it depends on the interviewer's style and how busy they are. My 15 minute interview the first round was with a urologist that had a waiting room full of patients.

 

[naijaboi]

I had a 5-minute interview at a non-rolling school that accepts most of the class in March, but I still was one of few select students admitted in December. In some schools, the interview is just a formality, in others the interviews are weighted heavily, and hence short interview might be a bad indicator. But I have barely had an hour long interview at any of my schools. I kept my comments brief and to the point, and asked questions only when necessary. It makes no sense prolonging an interview if you are able to quickly get yourself across. P.S: Surgeons are notorious for having shorter interviews.

 

[bannie22]

bad interview doesnt mean no acceptance.

but short interview definitely means bad interview.

of course, i am demanding and i like talking to people so anyone who only wants to talk to me for 10mins, and loves me alot, still is bad compared to someone who gave up 1hour of his or her life to talk to me...

bad is relative.

 

[fzwarrior]

Just remember the importance of first impressions.

 

[STLINI]

I don't put too much stock into how I felt interviews went immediately afterward. I had one panel interview that lasted maybe 15 minutes. I left so fast afterwards, decided I was never getting in there, and yet got accepted like 10 days later. Then at the "admit when place available" list school mentioned above I showed up at my interviewers office about ten minutes early. At the time of my interview his nurse told me he was still in surgery and took me to meet him at the surgery waiting room. He came out still in scrubs and interviewed me right there in the waiting room. Apparently it was his 1st interview and he asked me weird ethical/situational questions for like 20 minutes until he actually looked at his interview materials and realized he had specific questions to ask. So I wasn't feeling to great about that one either, but accepted there too. Now the schools I actually felt I interviewed well at-waitlist.

 

[MiniMoo]

My last interview was one of the shortest I've had so far - about 25 minutes long. It would've been even shorter except the interviewer had me sit there while he read my file first. 🙄 Should hear back in a few more weeks. We'll see how it goes. But my shortest interview was about 15-20 minutes and resulted in an acceptance, so yeah, you never know.

 

[Morsetlis]

The interview isn't the only step in acceptance. While a bad interview might be "bad" as in not particularly impressive, you might still get in with stats/EC's. A good, long interview might be amazing for you but in the end other people's stats/EC's might just have beaten you out.

Obviously it also differs from school to school on how important the interview is.

And, remember, every single interviewer / adcom probably has the power to veto you, but they probably won't do that after a simple "bad" interview (you have to have done something really ridiculous).

 

[metallica81788]

bad interview doesnt mean no acceptance.

but short interview definitely means bad interview.

of course, i am demanding and i like talking to people so anyone who only wants to talk to me for 10mins, and loves me alot, still is bad compared to someone who gave up 1hour of his or her life to talk to me...

bad is relative.

No it doesn't. Sometimes they just run out of questions or realize that you're actually a human that can interact with other people.

 

[utah3219]

.

 

[Tolip]

There will be people coming around saying "I was the exception to that rule and made it in" to just about everything, so take my comments with a grain of salt.

My first interview was very short. It was with an anesthesiologist who rushed through the questions and had to leave early. He seemed to like me and made comments about being impressed, but certainly didn't spend much time with me. My second interview, with a PhD, was quiet, awkward and lasted the standard ~30 minutes.

I think if you stand out and/or click with the interviewer it certainly helps your chances, but it isn't an absolute requirement.

 

[metallica81788]

Everybody has different experiences, so you can't say "this length of interview is DEFINITELY/ALWAYS a bad/good one."

There will be stories of acceptances and rejections from all types of interviews, so in the end, it's all dependent on the individual.

 

[Morsetlis]

More helpful would be a graph! Or lots of data points!

I want more data 🙁

 

[harvman11]

I had a very short interview at one school, it was about 10 minutes (scheduled for 30), and I felt very flustered during the interview, mainly because I didn't quite understand one question the interviewer was asking, and she seemed to get upset about it. When the interview "ended", I walked out and looked at my watch, and at that point I assumed I was rejected. Turns out I got in, and when I was told that I was quite amazed to be honest.

In short, don't even think about your interview, you'll never be able to figure it out.

 

[bannie22]

No it doesn't. Sometimes they just run out of questions or realize that you're actually a human that can interact with other people.

No, I think you didnt read my entire post.

A 15min interview is definitely worse than a 20min interview.

Just for the simple fact that if they are both equally amazing per second. 15mins still in total is less amazing.


Just like someone can like you so much and want you in their school, but if someone wants to talk to you so bad for that extra min... that interview is better. hence the longer interview, is always better. bad is relative. to the person. =)

 

[bobsmith]

No, I think you didnt read my entire post.

A 15min interview is definitely worse than a 20min interview.

Just for the simple fact that if they are both equally amazing per second. 15mins still in total is less amazing.

....and I think metallica's point is that they're not necessarily always "equally amazing per second."

so to put it in your terms, a 15 minute interview with a higher "amazingness per second" could outshine a a 20 minute interview with a lower "amazingness per second." so it's sort of silly to say that 15 minutes is definitely worse than 20 minutes

 

[The Enchanter]

I had an interview where the interviewer asked me 3 questions, asked where else I had applied and ended with, "I'm sure you'll be accepted here". I asked two questions and shook his hand, all for a grand total of less than 10 minutes and sure enough, I got in. I don't know if there is any data on how interview time correlates with acceptance rate, but in my very limited experience, it seems to make no difference. Putting myself in an interviewer's shoes, if an applicant is interviewing well, I'd see no reason to prolong the session longer than necessary, but if somebody is giving a poor interview, I may try to ask them a few more questions to see if they can salvage it.