What could be possible reasons why the admission committee might vote against while the interviewer might love the candidate or vice versa?

[Timeless:)]

Maybe stats?

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[Moko]

Maybe stats?

Could be any part of the application. As interviewers, we all develop a reputation among our peers. Some reviewers at my school are known to be softies for athletes, immigrants, accomplished researchers, and/or those from similar backgrounds, etc. A reviewer may rave about these applicants ("this is the most impressive applicant I've interviewed in the past X years!!!") despite their having fairly uncompetitive applications (lack of ECs, accomplishments, etc.). In these scenarios, an admissions committee may choose to waitlist or reject an applicant despite great interview performances.

The opposite may also be true. For example, an otherwise excellent applicant without major research achievements may receive an average interview score from a reviewer who is known to value research above all else. In this situation, an admissions committee may choose to still accept them provided the rest of their interview(s) went well.

Ultimately, we look at all of the data points available to us when making a decision and the interview is just one of these data points (albeit a very important one as a negative review will not lead to an acceptance at my school). Just my thoughts.

 

[Round786]

For example, an otherwise excellent applicant without major research achievements may receive an average interview score from a reviewer who is known to value research above all else. In this situation, an admissions committee may choose to still accept them provided the rest of their interview(s) went well.

Did you mean receive a bad interview score? Not average???

If not, why would an average interview score be as detrimental as you’re describing? I always assumed average performance meant it would neither boost or sink someone’s app.

 

[LizzyM]

Did you mean receive a bad interview score? Not average???

If not, why would an average interview score be as detrimental as you’re describing? I always assumed average performance meant it would neither boost or sink someone’s app.

If less than half of those interviewed will be admitted, an average interview score is not good enough.

 

[Mr.Smile12]

It's complicated and it varies by program. So let's play the hypotheticals.

Assuming this is a traditional format involving one faculty member only (which is not always the case but it does happen):

1) If the interviewer is a consistent high-baller when it comes to submitting scores. Every applicant is a joy to have in the class. If the applicant has red flags, the interviewer may not have addressed them to satisfy the adcom.

2) If the interviewer is a consistent low-baller. The interview is all about pressure and seeing if the applicant cracks (because we don't want snowflakes and people on high-horses in medical school).

3) If the interviewer failed to stay on course with required questions that should be asked to all applicants (and emphasized in interviewer training) such that the review is useless for adcom deliberation.

4) Interviewing score only counts so much in the final whole-file deliberation (whether there exists an actual formula or not). It could count 50% of an interview score, or it could count only 20-25%. Rules are governed by the adcom prior to the cycle.

 

[Goro]

In addition to the above, our wise SDN Adcoms have reported pathological behavior by interviewees that occurred after or before the interiew. One example, IFRC, was a person yelling at an admin about some parking issue. Another person tested Admins like servants, asking them to fetch coffee or hang up coats.

We've rejected people based upon red flags in LORs that the interviewing panel missed, or didn't think that were all that bad. Other people have based upon complaints from student tour guides that the interviewees were trashing our school. Yes, this really happened.

 

[Timeless:)]

Thanks for all the wise words. I guess the interview is still part of the holistic admission process while it might have a bigger weight.

If less than half of those interviewed will be admitted, an average interview score is not good enough.

If possible, could you share your definition of a "better than average" interview? I am assuming answering all the questions is the starting point.
Thank you again!

 

[LizzyM]

Thanks for all the wise words. I guess the interview is still part of the holistic admission process while it might have a bigger weight.

If possible, could you share your definition of a "better than average" interview? I am assuming answering all the questions is the starting point.
Thank you again!

Answering all the questions in a way that shows that you have an excellent command of the language, can break down complex information into something easy for a lay person or a child to understand, that you can read non-verbal cues and respond accordingly (particularly when the the listener is losing interest or wants to move on). You should be able to think on your feet, sound genuine, and come across as friendly and down to earth (not stuck up), confident but not assuming yourself to be such a hot prospect that you treat the interview is a mere formality. You should be mature, sincere, humble.

 

[Timeless:)]

Answering all the questions in a way that shows that you have an excellent command of the language, can break down complex information into something easy for a lay person or a child to understand, that you can read non-verbal cues and respond accordingly (particularly when the the listener is losing interest or wants to move on). You should be able to think on your feet, sound genuine, and come across as friendly and down to earth (not stuck up), confident but not assuming yourself to be such a hot prospect that you treat the interview is a mere formality. You should be mature, sincere, humble.

Whoa, that is a long list.
"that you can read non-verbal cues and respond accordingly (particularly when the listener is losing interest or wants to move on). This was something I did not expect. Thank you for sharing. Hope my interviewers were not bored listening to me.

 

[IlDestriero]

The latest red flag is the over privileged applicant. Sad but true.

 

[Goro]

The latest red flag is the over privileged applicant. Sad but true.

Can you elaborate?

 

[Mr.Smile12]

The latest red flag is the over privileged applicant. Sad but true.

Yeah, I'd like to get details or examples of what you mean by that. If you mean someone who is naive about how hard getting to medical school is, perhaps.

 

[IlDestriero]

No, I mean a non or overrepresented minority, child of 2 physicians, goes to elite university, does significant medical research as an undergrad at elite hospital over several years, publishes several articles as a coauthor in the field they are already expressing an interest in, has extraordinary grades and an extraordinary MCAT, 10/10 interviews, and the admissions committee discusses this amazing applicant and says, Nah. They’re “over privileged”. And it’s off to the waitlist pile.

 

[Goro]

No, I mean a non or overrepresented minority, child of 2 physicians, goes to elite university, does significant medical research as an undergrad at elite hospital over several years, publishes several articles as a coauthor in the field they are already expressing an interest in, has extraordinary grades and an extraordinary MCAT, 10/10 interviews, and the admissions committee discusses this amazing applicant and says, Nah. They’re “over privileged”. And it’s off to the waitlist pile.

"Amazing" as in it's amazing what wealth can get you?

If somebody had 10 interviews and still got rejected, the problem is not privilege, (because medical schools are still filled with the children of doctors), but with the candidate him/herself.

But we digress.

 

[voxveritatisetlucis]

Convictions that were blinded pre interview

 

[Mr.Smile12]

No, I mean a non or overrepresented minority, child of 2 physicians, goes to elite university, does significant medical research as an undergrad at elite hospital over several years, publishes several articles as a coauthor in the field they are already expressing an interest in, has extraordinary grades and an extraordinary MCAT, 10/10 interviews, and the admissions committee discusses this amazing applicant and says, Nah. They’re “over privileged”. And it’s off to the waitlist pile.

Yikes, not sure about that scenario from my experience. I'll agree with @Goro that it is more likely something else than privilege, but that scenario doesn't seem realistic. Those doctor parents have colleagues after all. If you are arguing that legacy admissions is a privilege, it can be depending on the committee's policies.

 

[IlDestriero]

I’m talking about what the admissions committee said in its deliberations about this applicant. That was their designation not my interpretation of it. “Over privileged”
They can fill the class any way they want and accept whoever, but this was pretty surprising, to me anyway. Maybe I should tell my kids just to say I’m a simple professor. And this wasn’t at their legacy institution.
I assume people generally succeed based on their hard work and intelligence not “what wealth can get you.” My wealthiest friends with significant inherited wealth, are lazy bastards and have always gone out of their way to avoid significant effort.
Maybe that explains how I ended up in anesthesia?

 

[Mr.Smile12]

I’m talking about what the admissions committee said in its deliberations about this applicant. That was their designation not my interpretation of it. “Over privileged”
They can fill the class any way they want and accept whoever, but this was pretty surprising, to me anyway. Maybe I should tell my kids just to say I’m a simple professor. And this wasn’t at their legacy institution.
I assume people generally succeed based on their hard work and intelligence not “what wealth can get you.” My wealthiest friends with significant inherited wealth, are lazy bastards and have always gone out of their way to avoid significant effort.
Maybe that explains how I ended up in anesthesia?

Wow. It begs to ask why the candidate was interviewed. If they're a mission mismatch, I would have waitlisted the applicant unless it was very clear the candidate would be a risk to patients they would meet. There is usually a story behind these types of decisions, but that is their prerogative.

 

[Angus Avagadro]

In addition to the above, our wise SDN Adcoms have reported pathological behavior by interviewees that occurred after or before the interiew. One example, IFRC, was a person yelling at an admin about some parking issue. Another person tested Admins like servants, asking them to fetch coffee or hang up coats.

We've rejected people based upon red flags in LORs that the interviewing panel missed, or didn't think that were all that bad. Other people have based upon complaints from student tour guides that the interviewees were trashing our school. Yes, this really happened.

^^^^^^This. We experienced all of the above. One applicant was rude to our admin assistant. Found out later after an ok interview. Couldn't get the app into the circular filing cabinet fast enough.