Weight of Interview?

[RussianRiver]

Once you get to the interview, how significant of a deciding factor is the interview itself?

I myself could see it going two ways:

1. The interview is just to weed out applicants who are socially inept, unpleasant, creepy etc. and the decision is still mostly based on other elements of the applicants portfolio

or

2. The applicant has made it to the interview and therefore is considered well qualified based on their paper application and the admissions decision is heavily based on the interview?


any ideas?
does anyone know anything about specific schools (particularly Mt. Sinai, NYMC, and EVMS?

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[Law2Doc]

Once you get to the interview, how significant of a deciding factor is the interview itself?

I myself could see it going two ways:

1. The interview is just to weed out applicants who are socially inept, unpleasant, creepy etc. and the decision is still mostly based on other elements of the applicants portfolio

or

2. The applicant has made it to the interview and therefore is considered well qualified based on their paper application and the admissions decision is heavily based on the interview?


any ideas?
does anyone know anything about specific schools (particularly Mt. Sinai, NYMC, and EVMS?

How it is weighed varies by schools, but the majority put very significant weight on the interview. No schools use it "just to weed out applicants who are socially inept, unpleasant, creepy etc." -- this is SDN lore. It gets asserted each year by folks who don't like to think that all their hard work in undergrad can go for nought if they can't interview well. But in fact schools want folks who are as dynamic in person as on paper. Lots of high scorers find themselves on the waitlist after lukewarm interviews where they said nothing wrong, came off "fine" but simply not as good as many others in the interview pool. There was nothing socially inept, unpleasant, creepy or crazy about most of them, just that they didn't shine and sell themselves.

More often, the interview becomes the single most important factor if you get to that stage -- it is huge. Do not consider the interview as a formality. Most places only accept a fraction of the folks they interview, and you thus have to outshine the other folks. And in med school you are equally likely to meet folks who have good stats, but are great in person as folks who are good in person but who have great stats. Prepare for it, and practice.

 

[Hyperstudyosis]

I would say pretty significant. They've seen by your MCAT and GPA that you aren't going to be a "problem" academically and now you have to show them that you are the type of person who will make a good doctor. There are a lot of people who can do well on the MCAT and have a great GPA who would make terrible doctors. The interview is your chance to "sell yourself" to them and show them how much they "need you" in their medical school.

 

[LizzyM]

My own experience with one school is something like this. Applications are scored on a scale of 1 to 5 (based on grades, LORs, essays, scores, experiences) with those who score 4 or 5 being invited for interview (sometimes a 3 might sneak in). The applications are reviewed again after the interviews and the commentary by the interviews can move applicants up or down from their previous score. Someone who is creepy or clueless may be downgraded to a 1 or 2 to assure no chance that they'll be admitted. This accounts for a small proportion of those who interview. An applicant might go from a 3 to a 4 based on an excellent interview, a 5 mighat be downgraded to a 4 based on an unimpressive interview, and a 4 may be upgraded to a 5. So in the end someone who is not as good on paper but who has better interviewing skills might get an offer and the poorer applicant with good interview skills and the excellent applicant with poor interview skills will get waitlisted.

So, you can hurt yourself or help yourself based on your interview skills. One of the biggest hurts can come from walking in too confident that the offer of admission is a done deal based on your paper application. This is particularly true if you've already received an offer from a school that you consider more selective. There are no guarantees, nothing is a done deal, and being too confident or arrogant is the kiss of death.

 

[Kikaku21]

How it is weighed varies by schools, but the majority put very significant weight on the interview. No schools use it "just to weed out applicants who are socially inept, unpleasant, creepy etc." -- this is SDN lore. It gets asserted each year by folks who don't like to think that all their hard work in undergrad can go for nought if they can't interview well. But in fact schools want folks who are as dynamic in person as on paper. Lots of high scorers find themselves on the waitlist after lukewarm interviews where they said nothing wrong, came off "fine" but simply not as good as many others in the interview pool. There was nothing socially inept, unpleasant, creepy or crazy about most of them, just that they didn't shine and sell themselves.

More often, the interview becomes the single most important factor if you get to that stage -- it is huge. Do not consider the interview as a formality. Most places only accept a fraction of the folks they interview, and you thus have to outshine the other folks. And in med school you are equally likely to meet folks who have good stats, but are great in person as folks who are good in person but who have great stats. Prepare for it, and practice.

The "fraction" that they accept is usually 40%-60%. For example, right now I have 6 interviews. The more selective schools are 40%-ish and the rest are 50 to 60%. Those are honestly pretty good chances. You just have to beat the guy sitting next to you.

Now, as for people thinking interviews are solely to weed out weirdos, I couldn't agree with you more. The numbers don't lie. Schools reject about 1/2 of the interviewers, as noted above. DO PEOPLE HONESTLY BELIEVE THAT 50% OF THE PEOPLE INTERVIEWING ARE WEIRDOS? I don't understand why this "SDN lore" isn't evaluated for what it looks like on its face: garbage.

Lastly, while the interveiw is huge, its not everything. LizzyM's post below makes this clear. And honestly, you have to wonder how often schools choose between 2 candidates by were terrific interviewers by re-reviewing the primary apps and secondary essays.

 

[postbacker]

What LizzyM has posted makes total sense to me.

I would think that adcoms are ultimately looking for the "person behind the paper" - does the applicant bring the file - the essays, LORs, etc. - to life? I am sure that some people do come across as creeps or social outcasts, but my guess is that through the interview the hope is that the applicant will bring that file to life, confirming what the adcom hoped to hear based on the offer of the interview...

LizzyM - if you are still reading, can you comment on your "first impressions" of a candidate - literally the handshake and the first minute or so of the interview - and how important those initial impressions are in making a lasting impression on you when it comes time to record your thoughts...

 

[armybound]

The pressure's on!

 

[sanchopanza]

Another thing to keep in mind, however, is that there is a lot of chance involved in who will interview you. For instance, I had an interview this week with someone who was supposed to have read my application but hadn't, and who really did not understand why I would have wanted to major in the humanities before going to med school. Throughout our talk it was clear that he was a busy clinician and didn't care to put much thought or energy into this part of his day.

You gotta do your best with whomever you find yourself with, of course, but I think it's a lot more complicated than what some people have been posting here, saying, e.g., that you might have lower stats but interview well and so get into the school whereas that person who's great on paper but not as charismatic in person won't get in. That's quite simplistic, and doesn't take into account that there are many people doing interviews at any given institution, and what their definition of "interviewing well" will undoubtedbly not be standardized (though they would like to think it is).

So, go in there expecting ANYTHING, even a very unseasoned, unpersonable interviewer. Or, as another of my interviewers this week has been, someone very interested in getting to know you and having an honest conversation.

 

[Kikaku21]

Another thing to keep in mind, however, is that there is a lot of chance involved in who will interview you. For instance, I had an interview this week with someone who was supposed to have read my application but hadn't, and who really did not understand why I would have wanted to major in the humanities before going to med school. Throughout our talk it was clear that he was a busy clinician and didn't care to put much thought or energy into this part of his day.

You gotta do your best with whomever you find yourself with, of course, but I think it's a lot more complicated than what some people have been posting here, saying, e.g., that you might have lower stats but interview well and so get into the school whereas that person who's great on paper but not as charismatic in person won't get in. That's quite simplistic, and doesn't take into account that there are many people doing interviews at any given institution, and what their definition of "interviewing well" will undoubtedbly not be standardized (though they would like to think it is).

So, go in there expecting ANYTHING, even a very unseasoned, unpersonable interviewer. Or, as another of my interviewers this week has been, someone very interested in getting to know you and having an honest conversation.

For sure. Not to mention the fact that the admissions committee then interprets the interviewers scores/comments. When I interviewed last week, all 12 people there interviewed with different people. I think about interviews here at my job, where we all fill out score sheets on the applicant. When I circle "3" on the 1-5 scale for "leadership" that might mean something different from the guy in the office next door. Then a committee may or may not know that, and they make the decision. There is a pretty big random component to all of this.

 

[xrevision]

I thought only about 15-25% of the interviewees get into the competitive schools. It looks that way from the MSAR.

 

[armybound]

I thought only about 15-25% of the interviewees get into the competitive schools. It looks that way from the MSAR.

yeah, I don't think it's as high as 50%

 

[drizzt3117]

Certainly some schools regard the interview with more importance than others. I heard OHSU gives the interview 75% or so weight, which means everyone is almost on an equal footing, while UW-Madison gives the interview the same amount of importance as a letter of recommendation IIRC.

 

[drizzt3117]

The MSAR is telling you matriculating percentage from interviewees, which isn't the same thing as acceptance. I believe Phoenix posted acceptance stats from USNW premium and they were 50-60% for some schools.

 

[postbacker]

yeah, I don't think it's as high as 50%

I agree, but you have to factor in matriculation yield - not all people offered a spot matriculate - schools like Harvard probably have an 80 to 90 percent yield - I don't know if there is a source for these numbers, but I would not be surprised if most Top 20 schools have yields in the 60 to 70 percent range (meaning that they have to offer more acceptances than ultimate spots, and also the reason there is so much waitlist voodoo come May)...

 

[45408]

Some schools weigh the interview only as much as an LOR, and other schools use it as the final determining factor (i.e., if you get to the interview and then get rejected, it was because of your interview).

 

[st0w]

As for yield, as purely anecdotal evidence from school data that I've seen (NB, US News for admitted/matriculated/interviewed, amongst other "non-official/MSAR" data), a rough rule of thumb is that schools offer between 2-3x as many acceptances as they matriculate. Many state schools I've observed are close to three, and I've seen private schools closer to 2.5. I figure 2 might be a lower boundary for the more selective private schools, but again, I haven't actually looked at data for them.

With that, these schools tend to interview roughly 2-3x as many people as they ultimately admit. So I would tend to say the data agree with Phoenix's assertion, for less-than-extremely selective privates. Admit 2-3x as many as matriculate, and interview 2x as many as they admit.

Data from USN
Cornell: Int: 759 Acc: 225 (30%) Matric: 101
Jefferson: Int: 771 Acc: 517 (67%) Matric: 254
JHU: I: 643 A: 255 (40%) M: 121
MSSM: I: 737 A: 329 (45%) M: 120
UMDNJ: I: 751 A: 415 (55%) M: 170
Pritzker: I: 599 A: 277 (46%) M: 104

 

[postbacker]

As for yield, as purely anecdotal evidence from school data that I've seen (NB, US News for admitted/matriculated/interviewed, amongst other "non-official/MSAR" data), a rough rule of thumb is that schools offer between 2-3x as many acceptances as they matriculate. Many state schools I've observed are close to three, and I've seen private schools closer to 2.5. I figure 2 might be a lower boundary for the more selective private schools, but again, I haven't actually looked at data for them.

With that, these schools tend to interview roughly 2-3x as many people as they ultimately admit. So I would tend to say the data agree with Phoenix's assertion, for less-than-extremely selective privates. Admit 2-3x as many as matriculate, and interview 2x as many as they admit.

Data from USN
Cornell: Int: 759 Acc: 225 (30%) Matric: 101
Jefferson: Int: 771 Acc: 517 (67%) Matric: 254
JHU: I: 643 A: 255 (40%) M: 121
MSSM: I: 737 A: 329 (45%) M: 120
UMDNJ: I: 751 A: 415 (55%) M: 170
Pritzker: I: 599 A: 277 (46%) M: 104

Thanks for posting that...those yield numbers are even lower than I expected - around 40 to 50 percent yield of matriculants divided by acceptances for Top 20 programs like Cornell and JHU kind of surprises me. I would love to know the validity of these numbers...actually kind of reassuring...

 

[st0w]

I would love to know the validity of these numbers...actually kind of reassuring...

According to the book,

The data were collected by U.S. News from the schools during late 2005 and early 2006. If a medical school did not supply the data requested, or if the data point does not apply to the school, you'll see an N/A, for "not available." Schools that did not return the U.S. News questionnaire are listed at the end of the directory.

So supposedly, the data are the result of a questionnaire schools returned directly to US News.

 

[illixir]

Keep in mind that those numbers posted include those that come off the waitlist. At my first interview they told us that a little over 50% of applicants are accepted after interviewing, and that almost half of their class last year came from the waitlist.

 

[mc4435]

From my advisor: "at the CU medical school the interview scores determine whether you are even considered by the admissions committee."

 

[FrickenhugeMD]

If its any consolation as to how many a school accepts to generate its desired class, I was told the formula that SUNY Upstate uses.

They have approx 5,000 applicants, from which they choose to interview about 850. From those 850, they send out acceptances to 350. These 350 accepted students will yeild them their desired class size of between 155-160 students, and if need be, they take some off the waitlist.

 

[Law2Doc]

The "fraction" that they accept is usually 40%-60%. For example, right now I have 6 interviews. The more selective schools are 40%-ish and the rest are 50 to 60%. Those are honestly pretty good chances. You just have to beat the guy sitting next to you.

Now, as for people thinking interviews are solely to weed out weirdos, I couldn't agree with you more. The numbers don't lie. Schools reject about 1/2 of the interviewers, as noted above. DO PEOPLE HONESTLY BELIEVE THAT 50% OF THE PEOPLE INTERVIEWING ARE WEIRDOS? I don't understand why this "SDN lore" isn't evaluated for what it looks like on its face: garbage.

Lastly, while the interveiw is huge, its not everything. LizzyM's post below makes this clear. And honestly, you have to wonder how often schools choose between 2 candidates by were terrific interviewers by re-reviewing the primary apps and secondary essays.

As the folks below have indicated, for the competitive schools, it is a third to a half, which are both "fractions". My point was that most people who interview aren't going to get in at a given school.

I think if you reread my post I was saying that the interview is NOT meant to simply weed out weirdos. Which is why I said it's SDN lore (ie folklore, ie bogus).

 

[45408]

I thought only about 15-25% of the interviewees get into the competitive schools. It looks that way from the MSAR.

You have to remember that schools over-accept. If 300 applicants are all applying to the same three schools, each of which has room for 100 students, each school could potentially offer 300 acceptances (for 100 seats), knowing that 200 of them will go elsewhere. It's not usually that extreme, but you get the drift. I had more than one acceptance.

 

[LizzyM]

Looking back on the past few years, I can't say that the first few minutes are the most important. At that point we're both nervous and it takes a few minutes to get into a groove of conversation. It is often several hours later before I put my comments on paper and in that time, the first impression may have faded and I reflect more on the meat of the conversation.

Besides the first few minutes, think about the final minute. Be sure to pick up/carry your portfolio or purse (or whatever) in your left hand so that you can easily shake hands if your interviewer initiates a handshake at the end of the meeting. A friendly smile and a sincere thank you for the interviewer's time also creates a nice impression.

 

[LizzyM]

For sure. Not to mention the fact that the admissions committee then interprets the interviewers scores/comments. When I interviewed last week, all 12 people there interviewed with different people. I think about interviews here at my job, where we all fill out score sheets on the applicant. When I circle "3" on the 1-5 scale for "leadership" that might mean something different from the guy in the office next door. Then a committee may or may not know that, and they make the decision. There is a pretty big random component to all of this.

Interviewers are usually trained so that interrater reliability is optimized, particularly if the school uses a quantitative evaluation. Even if there are 12 different interviewers on a given day, if the school is interviewing 480 applicants, every interviewer will see 40 applicants over the course of the year and the "consumers" of the interview notes get to know the "shorthand" used by different interviewers and can interprete the comments in light of previous experiences with that interviewers.

 

[mvenus929]

From my advisor: "at the CU medical school the interview scores determine whether you are even considered by the admissions committee."

If you're talking Colorado, the Dean of Admissions (Sondheimer) says that once you get to the interview, you're basically on a level playing field. The interviewers are not told specific stats about you (GPA and MCAT, mostly), just told that you are academically capable of handling medical school.