weight of interview

[NUgirl]

---

Members do not see this ad.

How impt is the interview in the final decision? Is it the ultimate factor or do they weigh everything...again?

 

[lady in red]

Unless you are a freak and can't behave in a socially appropriate manner, I don't think interview carries much weight.(quoted from some 'admissions book') I mean--everyone or almost everyone has a great interview, right? Or so they think. Also, I don't think interviewers really care what you say, as long as you can say something. I've given some answers that my interviewers did not like, but nevertheless got in. Just be polite, appropriate, take your stance, be well-groomed, and you'll be fine. I think interview is more a 'weed-out' of people to eliminate those who look good on paper, but are not so-impressve in person. For the most part, it should help you.
Just my humble opinion.
PS Sometimes, (i think choker wrote about that), the interviewers have read your file and formed some preconceived notions about you, so they just want to confirm/counteract what they read. Its hard to change peoples' minds though, so do you best, but don't worry about it! AN inteview is a PIECE OF CAKE compared to the undergrad grill and the MCAT and getting letters of reference (and WAITING for them!)

 

[megkudos]

I think an interview can definately help you if you do really well. If your interviewer really likes you they can pull for you to be accepted, especially if you are "borderline" in maybe GPA or MCAT. This is in my experience anyway🙂

 

[vyc]

hmm.
i think the interview can be more important than lady in red leads on... at least in my opinion.
it can definitely make or break you.

 

[ValleyGal]

But don't worry about the interview too much -- just go in there and talk with the person you are assigned to! There is nothing that you can do besides be yourself. You never know what the school are looking for, so put on a smile and dazzle them with your fabulous self. Other than that, it is out of your hands....

 

[mpp]

At the UW interview I was just at they told us that the final acceptance is dependent on:

50% interview score (you are given a numeric score for your interview)
25% MCAT
25% GPA

They also told us that they don't necessarily accept the people in rank order but this is the general guideline used for acceptances.

 

[none]

UW is probably the exception. I totally agree with lady in red. The interview is to make sure that you can make yourself socially presentable (some definitely can't) and to show you around the school. Then when they head back into the adcom meeting room, they break out the MCAT and GPA. Ever see a score in U.S. News and World Reports regarding how well applicants interviewed? Didn't think so.

 

[Trek]

But there's only so much differentiation between students- pretty much *everyone* has great grades, MCATs, strong ECs and letters. How can you carve them up and say one is better than the other. Part of the biz is being able to relate to a huge variety of people and adapt to a new situation quickly, and i think the interview tests this. So if you get a "hard" interview where it seems the interviewer is trying to get to you or mess with you, keep your cool and it'll help you much more than the guy that likes absolutely everyone and because of this, his opinion carries less weight when it comes decision time. --Trek

 

[vyc]

you know why?
at least one good reason is bc schools use different systems! duh.
GPA and MCAT are numbers that everyone has on the same scale and therefore easy to report.

just bc the itnerview doesn't make it as a factor on those ranking lists, doesn't mean it should be relegated as less important.

bc it's not.
at least at most schools.

in fact, most schools don't even care about GPA and MCAT after the interview. you've already passed that test if you got an interview invite.

•••quote:•••Originally posted by none:
•UW is probably the exception. I totally agree with lady in red. The interview is to make sure that you can make yourself socially presentable (some definitely can't) and to show you around the school. Then when they head back into the adcom meeting room, they break out the MCAT and GPA. Ever see a score in U.S. News and World Reports regarding how well applicants interviewed? Didn't think so.•••••

 

[NUgirl]

Thanks so much for everyones' responses! the reason I was asking was cause I have an interview in april (which is late in the interview cycle) and I want to go to that school so I want the interview to matter a lot!!!

 

[P60001]

The interview is important. At OHSU the interview is 75% of the score. As was stated, GPA and MCAT are only numbers, but the interview is where you demonstrate yourself as something other than words on a paper. I would only say be yourself. Most interviewers are only trying to get a feel for you as a person. I feel the purpose is for the committee to pick a class that will get along, and trying to present a fraud can be detrimental to all. Just be comfortable with what you have done and who you are. If you are right for the school, it will come to be.
Good Luck- 🙂

 

[Michelys]

Well...I think that in terms of an interview invitation that if you are lucky, rather, qualified enough to receive one, that the school at hand has already decided that your academic credentials are at least worthy for their school. For instance, when I interviewed at UR, which was closed file, the interviewers stressed that my application and everyone else's must have been enough concerning my academic and professional motives for medicine...so the interview is a chance for you to put your face, per say, on what it is you exactly presented yourself to be on your application. So set yourself apart and good luck to you.

 

[tBw]

I think how important the interview is depends on what your other numbers are.

ie if you have great MCAT and GPA and letters and ECs, then in the interview you can be anything from excellent to mediocre and you still get in (just so long as you are not actually uninformed or unpleasant then in this scenario the interview counts very little).

If you are more borderline then the interview is what puts you above or below the line.

If you are way below in GPA, MCAT etc, then you must absolutely shine in the interview.

It's just like calculating your grade in a course where part comes from exams, part from lab, etc. What's important is the average, weighted to the schools/instructors preference.

 

[A. Caveman]

i agree with eurotrash. getting an interview doesn't mean they lose your numbers and just accept you based on your interview. they look at everything in their decision. so if you were on the lower spectrum of their interviewing candidates numbers-wise, then you'd better have a freakin spectacular interview. you better be able to levitate trinkets on the guy's table with the power of your mind because it's gonna take a miracle. if you're at the top of their candidates numbers-wise, you can have an average interview and still get in. if you have a bad interview, i don't think you'd get in, even if you had good numbers, but it's hard to have a bad interview unless you act like a jerk or something.

example: look at our Lady in Red. she got an interview at UCSF, an awesome school, one that she probably would not have expected to interview at. they interviewed her because she WAS qualified, but she was probably at the lower spectrum of their interviewed candidates numbers-wise. she made up for that with other stuff, and that's why she got the interview, but still, she was probably at the lower spectrum. if i recall correctly her interview lasted damn near 3 hours at UCSF.

u wonder why?? because the dude needed that amount of time to make sure she was right for the school. it took that long to talk everything through, and give the interviewer the feeling that YES, she really would do well there, despite coming up a bit short in some areas. so she must have relayed every right thing at that interview! my guess is she communicated all of her inner strength and will power, and everythign else that makes her special at that interview. so there it is. that's how it works. why? because it 'make sense like a mugg.' so yes, interviews matter a lot, but they're only part of a big picture.

this works out by just thinking logically, i didn't ask any adcoms or anything. but it's logical.

 

[vyc]

i disagree with a caveman and eurotrash.
i think it does depend on the school.
some schools really don't care about numbers after the interview stage.
i have even heard of some places COVERING up the numbers after the interview.

•••quote:•••Originally posted by A. Caveman:
•i agree with eurotrash. getting an interview doesn't mean they lose your numbers and just accept you based on your interview. they look at everything in their decision. •••••

 

[choker]

•••quote:•••Originally posted by A. Caveman:
•you better be able to levitate trinkets on the guy's table with the power of your mind because it's gonna take a miracle. •••••that's why i whipped out and solved a rubik's cube at my harvard interview! 😛

seriously!!!

 

[A. Caveman]

i disagree that vyc disagrees with me, because i agree with vyc. it depends on the school. d'frent strokes for d'frent folks, just like everything else. it just seems unfair to rest someone's entire decision upon his/her ability to perform on an interview. we're not interviewing for positions at the Great Interviewees Corporation. we're interviewing to be doctors, and no applicant should have their decision to be accepted be made solely on their interviewing ability. i know that to be interviewed other things were considered, but still, even after that, they should still be considered because it is not true that all interviewed applicants are equal. i feel bad for the awesome applicant who gets the interview but sucks at it, so he doesn't get into his favorite school.

my other post explains what i thought the most reasonable thing to do is. so while it doesn't cover all schools, i think it might be that way at most.

even if it's not, the overall message in vyc's post and mine is the same: do your best at the interviews because it counts A LOT.

Choker, surely that must have merited an acceptance. Will you be attending Harvard in the Fall?

 

[vyc]

🙂 good overall message a caveman. thanks for summing it all up.

 

[Fah-Q]

No school is going to waste one of their limited number of interview slots on someone they don't intend to admit. Scores really don't matter after the interview at some schools. Every pre-med way overemphasizes the importance of the MCAT and GPA. The majority of applicants to med school are capable of graduating and being great physicians. The adcoms just want to make sure they are admitting the best people. In the long run, the difference between an applicant with a 36 and an applicant with a 26 is zilch. However, the difference between an applicant with a borderline interview and an applicant with an outstanding interview is huge. Without a doubt, the interview is the single most important factor in med school admissions. People get in with bad GPA's and bad MCAT's, but nobody ever gets in with terrible interviews.

 

[none]

No...the difference between a 26 and 36 is pretty significant. The MCAT can and has been been correlated to the USMLE (among other important things) which is clearly correlated to the placement one receives in the residency match.

 

[A. Caveman]

you definitely are wrong about a few things there. but you're right about nobody getting in with a terrible interview. but how bad do you have to be to give a terrible interview? what do you think...about as bad as a 3.0 gpa, or about as bad as a 24 mcat? i think you'll see what i mean.

but if you don't. what i mean is that people who give terrible interviews can be equivalentated 😀 to people with horrible numbers. because you gotta be pretty bad to give an interview that will totally prevent you from being accepted no matter what your numbers are, just like you'd have to have horrible numbers to totally prevent you from getting accepted no matter what your interview is like.

NEWSFLASH, extra, extra!! the interview cannot possibly tell all there is to tell about a person. people are WAYYYY too nervous and definitely exaggerate and market themselves at interviews. so you can't use a simple 45 minutes interview to get to know someone. that's why some md/phd programs have like 6 interviews....and THAT should be about enough to be sure about risking to spend a TON of money on an md/phd candidate. I heard this directly from an interviewer. but even if i hadn't, it would still make sense. and if it makes sense, clearly it's wrong.

 

[Fah-Q]

•••quote:•••Originally posted by none:
•No...the difference between a 26 and 36 is pretty significant. The MCAT can and has been been correlated to the USMLE (among other important things) which is clearly correlated to the placement one receives in the residency match.•••••Everything I have ever heard and read on the subject says that the MCAT has only been correlated with PASSING the USMLE, not how well you will do. Everyone has cute little stories but I know a half dozen or so people just in my class alone that do extremely well in school, kicked ass on step 1 and have low MCATs (low 20's, even a sub 20) Its tough for most pre-meds to devalue the MCAT any and I totally understand that...we were all brainwashed at some point into believing that the MCAT meant everything. It just doesn't mean much after you get an interview, that's all I'm trying to say. Scoring well on a test will not make a good doctor, nor does it tell the adcoms that you will make a good doctor. Its just a right-of-passage...a hurdle, if you clear it great, welcome aboard...if not, sorry but you will be a terrible doctor? Doesn't make much sense does it. Its only a test. Think of it this way...if you were going to hire a nanny to care for your only child, would you simply take the one that scored highest on the Nanny Aptitude Test? Hell no, you would make sure they passed the test and then base your decision on your interview with the applicants.

 

[vyc]

i have heard that the MCAT verbal score correlates to how well you'll do in the clinical years and the science sections correlates to how well you'll do in the first 2 years of med school.

(did someone already say that? i didn't peruse this entire thread)