what % accept you after interview?

[ssk123]

---

Members do not see this ad.

alright, so this is another question that probably everyone will respond with "it depends" or "who knows"...

...but i'll ask it anyway. On average, what percentage of an applicant's interviews leads to an acceptance? Discuss amongst yourselves.

 

[b-real]

Do you mean what are the chances of someone having X number of interviews with at least 1 acceptance? Or do you mean what percent of interviewed applicants get into a particular school? I think I saw a stat floating around here that one needs about 5 interviews to be reasonably assured an acceptance to 1 school. Of interviewed applicants, a school may accept anywhere from 30 to 70%. As you said, it varies.

 

[dankev]

Most schools accept somewhere in the neighborhood of 1/4-1/3 of their interviewees. But the good answer really is "it depends." Think about it this way: most schools have acceptance rates around 5-7%. You can't just apply to 17 schools and know that you are golden. It really will depend on you. You shouldn't look at the interview any differently.

As the app cycle progresses, there are going to be a lot of folks posting here with multiple acceptances, and a lot with none. There will also be someone who got 8 interviews with 8 acceptances, as well as someone with 8 interviews and no acceptances. If these 2 people each go to one more interview, the one with 8 acceptances will probably get in, and the other one probably won't. You know they both had killer stats to get 9 interviews.

I firmly believe that once you get to the interview, the interview becomes the most important part of the committee's decision. They only interview people who, on paper, they would accept to the school. The interview is your chance to screw it up. So if you are not comfortable in an interview situation, practice like hell, just like you did for the MCAT.

 

[neuropower]

I firmly believe that once you get to the interview, the interview becomes the most important part of the committee's decision. They only interview people who, on paper, they would accept to the school. The interview is your chance to screw it up. So if you are not comfortable in an interview situation, practice like hell, just like you did for the MCAT.

I just can't believe that it becomes THE most important deciding factor. I mean, they only spend like half an hour talking to you and most of my interviewers haven't looked at my file before they see me. so it would be ridiculous if the decision was based on this one person's impression who doesn't know anything about my history except for a 30 minute briefing... the adcoms aren't going to forget everything else about me...the interviews i've had have been so relaxed and more about me finding out more about the school...i mean i think its an important factor when the commitee goes to review, but they definitely have your WHOLE file when they're all sitting there talking about you.

 

[Swack]

I just can't believe that it becomes THE most important deciding factor. I mean, they only spend like half an hour talking to you and most of my interviewers haven't looked at my file before they see me. so it would be ridiculous if the decision was based on this one person's impression who doesn't know anything about my history except for a 30 minute briefing... the adcoms aren't going to forget everything else about me...the interviews i've had have been so relaxed and more about me finding out more about the school...i mean i think its an important factor when the commitee goes to review, but they definitely have your WHOLE file when they're all sitting there talking about you.

I completely agree with this. Your interview might be "a deciding factor" but not necessarily "the most important deciding factor."

For example:

Applicant A: Good MCAT/GPA, Good ECs, Good LORs, Ok interview

Applicant B: Ok MCAT/GPA, Poor ECs, Ok LORs, Good interview


I think Applicant A will win hands down with any adcom.

 

[calstudent]

I completely agree with this. Your interview might be "a deciding factor" but not necessarily "the most important deciding factor."

For example:

Applicant A: Good MCAT/GPA, Good ECs, Good LORs, Ok interview

Applicant B: Ok MCAT/GPA, Poor ECs, Ok LORs, Good interview


I think Applicant A will win hands down with any adcom.

I think different adcom's probably attach different weights to interviews. And, in counterargument to your statement, perhaps applicant B wouldn't even get an interview if (assuming he had a good one), he couldn't get admitted?

 

[Swack]

I think different adcom's probably attach different weights to interviews. And, in counterargument to your statement, perhaps applicant B wouldn't even get an interview if (assuming he had a good one), he couldn't get admitted?

Well this is assuming they were both interviewed. I know it's true that some applicants come to the interview with more to prove than others.

 

[secretasianman]

Well this is assuming they were both interviewed. I know it's true that some applicants come to the interview with more to prove than others.

there is a percentage weight the interview carries that's probably different for every school. look at the msar, see how many ppl the school interviews per year versus how many they accept, then scale accordingly with how many ppl you think got accepted but will not go there.

 

[bakedlay]

not to mention the earlier you interview, the higher the chance of acceptance for most schools, so it's hard to predict...

 

[aparecida]

also keep in mind that "school x interviewed 800 applicants for 100 spots" doesn't mean 1/8 of the interviewees got in. They probably admitted 200 total, of which 100 chose to go there. So the actual acceptance rate is 1/4. These statistics, for each school, are in the US News and World Report book (the book, not the magazine issue) and are probably found elsewhere also.

 

[leechy]

I just can't believe that it becomes THE most important deciding factor. I mean, they only spend like half an hour talking to you and most of my interviewers haven't looked at my file before they see me. so it would be ridiculous if the decision was based on this one person's impression who doesn't know anything about my history except for a 30 minute briefing... the adcoms aren't going to forget everything else about me...the interviews i've had have been so relaxed and more about me finding out more about the school...i mean i think its an important factor when the commitee goes to review, but they definitely have your WHOLE file when they're all sitting there talking about you.

I agree with this a lot too. As far as I know, most schools have your whole file in front of them when they make a committee decision. The interview write-ups certainly are a factor, but they get considered alongside your numbers, essays, and the rest of the application.

 

[SailCrazy]

I completely agree with this. Your interview might be "a deciding factor" but not necessarily "the most important deciding factor."

For example:

Applicant A: Good MCAT/GPA, Good ECs, Good LORs, Ok interview

Applicant B: Ok MCAT/GPA, Poor ECs, Ok LORs, Good interview


I think Applicant A will win hands down with any adcom.

One flaw with this hypothetical situation... Why would the school bother to waste their (and the applicant's) time with the interview if a good interview wasn't going to get them admitted?

My take on your hypothetical situation: If they were really deciding between just two people (as in, the decision hadn't been made already pre-interview) and one had a good interview and the other just "OK" I'd say that the one with the good interview would be choosen.

 

[leechy]

I've wondered if the interview matters more for some applicants than for others. There may be some applicants who are really solid on paper, and the interview is just a chance for adcoms to make sure they can communicate normally. There may be other applicants who are more borderline, and the adcom decides to invite them to interview to see if something striking about their personality can make up for any deficiencies on paper. These people could still get in, but a strong interview performance would be much more of a deciding factor for them.

To the OP - you can see stats for "percentage of interviewees accepted" for each school. Do a search for posts by brettp11. Very handy stats; I popped them into an excel spreadsheet for the schools I'm applying to.

 

[dmk724]

I just can't believe that it becomes THE most important deciding factor. I mean, they only spend like half an hour talking to you and most of my interviewers haven't looked at my file before they see me. so it would be ridiculous if the decision was based on this one person's impression who doesn't know anything about my history except for a 30 minute briefing... the adcoms aren't going to forget everything else about me...the interviews i've had have been so relaxed and more about me finding out more about the school...i mean i think its an important factor when the commitee goes to review, but they definitely have your WHOLE file when they're all sitting there talking about you.

No, I think that by the time you've gotten to the interview stage, the interview becomes the most important thing. (Sorry to disagree with everyone else.) Once you've gotten the interview invite, the admissions committee has already pretty much decided that you have the academic ability to survive their curriculum. Basically, they've established that you've got the "tangibles" that they want. The interview, then is to establish that you've got the intangibles as well - can you have a conversation, are there any red flags in your behavior, etc. I'm sure it varies by school, but the impression that I've always had is that all interviewees are, more or less, on even ground when it comes to academics, ECs, LORs, and MCAT. The only differentiating factor then becomes the interview. Of course, I could be wrong - is there anyone who has worked closely with a med school admissions committee who can put in their input?

To the original poster, I'm sorry to say this, but it really does depend - how well your interview goes, when you interview, etc. I met an interviewee who was so negative about everything - she hated her major, she didn't seem too crazy about her undergrad institution, she hated her current job, and she just seemed angry at the world. I think that no matter how many interviews she got, she wouldn't have gotten in anywhere, no matter how solid she was on paper.

 

[Swack]

One flaw with this hypothetical situation... Why would the school bother to waste their (and the applicant's) time with the interview if a good interview wasn't going to get them admitted?

My take on your hypothetical situation: If they were really deciding between just two people (as in, the decision hadn't been made already pre-interview) and one had a good interview and the other just "OK" I'd say that the one with the good interview would be choosen.

Because it might turn out that the applicant who looks good on paper has a horrible interview. If the other applicant in turn has an excellent interview, then they will probably get the spot. The point is that the applicant who looks better on paper has the advantage going into the interview.

 

[Treg]

No, I think that by the time you've gotten to the interview stage, the interview becomes the most important thing. (Sorry to disagree with everyone else.) Once you've gotten the interview invite, the admissions committee has already pretty much decided that you have the academic ability to survive their curriculum. Basically, they've established that you've got the "tangibles" that they want. The interview, then is to establish that you've got the intangibles as well - can you have a conversation, are there any red flags in your behavior, etc. I'm sure it varies by school, but the impression that I've always had is that all interviewees are, more or less, on even ground when it comes to academics, ECs, LORs, and MCAT. The only differentiating factor then becomes the interview. Of course, I could be wrong - is there anyone who has worked closely with a med school admissions committee who can put in their input?

Actually, I know that for some schools, a single person picks who gets interviewed, like a pile of apps gets distributed to certain people who decide interviews. So for that person they may overlook a lower stat. Then, you get interviewed. When it goes back to the committee, they as a group look at the whole picture. For some, the lower GPA or MCAT may not be a big deal, for others it might be. I know that I asked the interviewer at one of my schools last cycle how it works, and he said that there are 9 people on the committee. If <5 want you, you are rejected. If 5-7 want you, waitlist. If 7-9 want you, you are in outright. So I don't think that people are level at the interview stage. Just my 0.02. 🙂 Treg

 

[dmk724]

Actually, I know that for some schools, a single person picks who gets interviewed, like a pile of apps gets distributed to certain people who decide interviews. So for that person they may overlook a lower stat. Then, you get interviewed. When it goes back to the committee, they as a group look at the whole picture. For some, the lower GPA or MCAT may not be a big deal, for others it might be. I know that I asked the interviewer at one of my schools last cycle how it works, and he said that there are 9 people on the committee. If <5 want you, you are rejected. If 5-7 want you, waitlist. If 7-9 want you, you are in outright. So I don't think that people are level at the interview stage. Just my 0.02. 🙂 Treg

Thanks for the input - that's useful to know 🙂 .

It does seem unfair to me, though - you've had to go through the stress of the interview, and had to pay for transportation to get there, and you've gone through the hassle of rearranging your class schedule/work schedule to go to the interview, only to be rejected because your MCAT or GPA wasn't high enough? That would make wonder, "Why did you decide to interview me then, if you didn't think that, academically speaking, I had a good shot at acceptance?" Perhaps I'm the only one who thinks so, though. That's the thing that I really like about Jefferson's admissions committee - at the interview, we were told that it was highly unlikely that we'd be rejected outright after the interview stage. Worst case scenario was that we could be waitlisted. That made me feel better - like the trouble of traveling to the interview was worth it, since there was a good chance of something positive coming out of it.

Anyway, good luck to all people gearing up for interviews!

 

[Jeffy]

I've wondered if the interview matters more for some applicants than for others. There may be some applicants who are really solid on paper, and the interview is just a chance for adcoms to make sure they can communicate normally. There may be other applicants who are more borderline, and the adcom decides to invite them to interview to see if something striking about their personality can make up for any deficiencies on paper. These people could still get in, but a strong interview performance would be much more of a deciding factor for them.

This is how I kind of assume the process works. Otherwise, why would people with a crappy app even get interviewed?

 

[dandelion]

I think that you are all over-looking one very important thing -- applicants with similar GPAs & MCATs still look very different on paper. This process is only numbers-driven to an extent. Once you have the grades & scores to prove that you can succeed in medical school, the adcoms start to look at background, experiences, evidence of commitment to medicine, and interest in their school, among other things. Every applicant is different. That is why we have to write so many @#$$% essays on the secondary apps.

I don't think they can know when they interview you whether or not you will be accepted. I imagine that the adcom sits down with a big pile of apps at some point afterwards & goes through them. If they have a large number of applicants who are microbiology majors from CA with study abroad experience, well then, if you are a micro major from CA with study abroad on your record, you will fare less well at that school. Adcoms, especially at the top schools, really do want to put together a class that will be interesting and diverse. This is why the admissions process can sometimes appear random to us applicants. Just my 0.02.