I don't think mcat_taker meant otherwise, but to clarify -- while Australian schools do love their numerical assessments, most (I believe all but UQ Brisbane) require an interview. Ochsner, as a sub-partnership of UQ so to speak, only does so because it was required to do so to appease US authorities.
A bit divergent here, but only because it's an interest of mine...IMO a problem with much of Australian assessment -- or I should say common myth among Australian bureaucrats and academics alike -- is the quirk that many of those schools/health jobs requiring an interview believe that they can numerically assess candidates, that they can create a standardized environment that objectively, indeed quantitatively, measures some desireable set of traits through an interview process.*
Interviews are inherently subjective, and when attempts are made to 'fully' standardize them (not just in terms of questions, but in terms of allowable prompts and 'acceptable' answers), they become self-defeating. I can't count the number of panel interviews that I've had in this country where feedback/prompting is excrutiatingly limited and somewhat arbitrary, and the questions themselves are not really asking what their mysterious authors apparently believed that they were asking. Like asking, "[in 5 minutes...] What's your understanding of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities and culture?" (an actual question I had in one job interview) and expecting a sweeping tickbox approach rather than an informative and/or deep discussion on the topic, with points off for, say, not discussing how health resources are different in the bush than in metro regions (they want to make sure you know what you're getting into when working rural), with no points for explaining the genetic and cultural similarities and differences between Aborigines and TSIs and how those may inform healthcare approaches and outcomes. The problem lies in the notion that there is something factual in particular pertaining to their question that the interviewee needs to convey in her answer (something that is both anticipated and quantifiable, since 'objective' measure has been deemed paramount) rather than a depth of knowledge and demonstration of desireable reasoning skills (which isn't quantifiable but is closer to the real goal).
I say, if objective assessment is expected or desired, then the queries should be objectively specific in order to seek an objective, specific answer (aka..Ask what the f*ck you actually want me to answer). But then you might as well be asking such a question in a written exam rather than an interview that pretends to function like one (the tendency to be indirect is in part a self-defeating attempt to prevent candidates from 'saying what they think the interviewer wants to hear'). Meanwhile any notion that real people in real-time can best assess personable qualities such as the sincerity of the answers throws any pretense of objectivity out the window (and evidence suggests doesn't work well anyway -- intelligent people, nutters or not, tend to be able to fake sincerity during a brief interview).
In the US, virtually no one attempts a 'standardized interview' -- they get the best interviewers they can (say, from among decent faculty/staff) who can then engage in a fairly open discussion with candidates to assess them by their own professionally informed criteria (maybe guiding them to look for particular traits by assessing qualitatively how one thinks and interacts). Having said that, the balance of evidence apparently suggests interviews (at least for med school admissions) do not independently improve the 'quality' of outcome, at least in terms of how researchers have objectively measured some proxy of it (e.g., the chances of finishing medical school, high exam scores, or not having any disciplinary action taken by professional medical registration authorities).
* In my experience here with nearly a dozen quasi-'standardized' interviews from schools to medical jobs, I have found the Flinders med school interview to be the main exception (effectively using standardized questions to subjectively assess objectively desireable thinking skills).
I believe the *reason* for the obsession with 'standardized interviews' here in Australia, particularly for educational opportunities, is rooted in a belief that they can minimize nepotism and racial/sexual discrimination, while in the US the former is traditionally embraced ('family legacy' and the such) and concerns over the latter tend to be addressed by a more widely accepted myriad of quotas.