What goes on in an admissions committee after an interview?

[cspan4ever]

---

Members do not see this ad.

So, I've been wondering what goes on in an admissions committee after interviews are performed. Let's say a medical school has interviewed 3 x # of seats and is comfortable to start filling said seats. Does each member have an equal vote? Are some admissions committee veterans favored for who they want admitted versus the M3's opinion? How political can the process get? Does the person(s) who interviewed me become my pitchman when I can no longer represent myself?

An amusing thought has been that I worked hard to prove I'm ready to be a doctor, endured through the admissions process, got an interview - aced it, but the person representing me to the committee lacks the panache to sell me, or is in some feud with another faculty member on the committee, or maybe is grumpy that day and isn't in the mood to go to bat for me and the other candidates they interviewed. Essentially, what may be the most pivotal part of the process of being accepted, the vote of the admissions committee, is entirely out of my hands.

Thoughts??? ... Answers???

 

[LizzyM]

I suspect that there are at least a dozen different ways to approach this and each school has its own variation on the theme.

Given the time it takes to review each file, most schools would not wait until they had interviewed several hundred applications but handle them in small batches every few weeks throughout the season, even if all of the decisions are released at the end of the season. (Schools with rolling admission always do small batches so that they can release decisions periodically throughout the season.)

Some schools will have the interviewer write a narrative describing you and your interview and others will have the interviewer complete a form that quantifiies your attributes and assigns either a numerical score or a category.

The entire file including the interviewer's comments, LORs, AMCAS and secondary are then reviewed by adcom members working independently and scored or categorized and/or discussed by a group of adcom members who assign a score. The interviewer may or may not be present to comment; in some cases the interviewer's written assessment is used.

Adcom members get to know various reviewers by reputation; the one who likes everyone, the one who tends to be critical of students from certain schools or who has a soft spot for students with a certain major or EC. I have seen instances where an interviewer expresses negative comments about an applicant and that applicant still gets admitted. In other instances, a good review may not be enough to counteract something else in the file. While it is very uncommon overall, the "something else" can be bad behavior on interview day (e.g. being sassy/rude or condescending toward the office staff).

The scoring or categorizing by the adcom is reviewed either immediately or later by the group or by a subgroup that determines the final disposition (admit now, hold for a later decision, waitlist, decline). Again, when discussion is involved we get to know our fellow committee members, their opinions about various types of applicants, their preferences, and the things they are most likely to criticize about an applicant. So, we take those comments with a grain of salt. Often times the med student on the committee will have a serious objection to an applicant and those concerns are listened to and acted on with as much respect as is granted the most senior faculty member. I recall one objection to an applicant whose entire application and interview was focused on one surgical subspecialty and a medical student found that to be very worrisome and was very articulate in making a case against accepting that applicant at our school.

I don't have a role in choosing interviewers but I do believe that they are chosen not only for their ability to conduct the interview (being articulate, curious, and good listeners as well as having an ability to answer questions about the school) but for their ability to write well and to distinguish among applicants in assigning them scores or categorial rankings.

 

[AllDay24]

I suspect that there are at least a dozen different ways to approach this and each school has its own variation on the theme.

Given the time it takes to review each file, most schools would not wait until they had interviewed several hundred applications but handle them in small batches every few weeks throughout the season, even if all of the decisions are released at the end of the season. (Schools with rolling admission always do small batches so that they can release decisions periodically throughout the season.)

Some schools will have the interviewer write a narrative describing you and your interview and others will have the interviewer complete a form that quantifiies your attributes and assigns either a numerical score or a category.

The entire file including the interviewer's comments, LORs, AMCAS and secondary are then reviewed by adcom members working independently and scored or categorized and/or discussed by a group of adcom members who assign a score. The interviewer may or may not be present to comment; in some cases the interviewer's written assessment is used.

Adcom members get to know various reviewers by reputation; the one who likes everyone, the one who tends to be critical of students from certain schools or who has a soft spot for students with a certain major or EC. I have seen instances where an interviewer expresses negative comments about an applicant and that applicant still gets admitted. In other instances, a good review may not be enough to counteract something else in the file. While it is very uncommon overall, the "something else" can be bad behavior on interview day (e.g. being sassy/rude or condescending toward the office staff).

The scoring or categorizing by the adcom is reviewed either immediately or later by the group or by a subgroup that determines the final disposition (admit now, hold for a later decision, waitlist, decline). Again, when discussion is involved we get to know our fellow committee members, their opinions about various types of applicants, their preferences, and the things they are most likely to criticize about an applicant. So, we take those comments with a grain of salt. Often times the med student on the committee will have a serious objection to an applicant and those concerns are listened to and acted on with as much respect as is granted the most senior faculty member. I recall one objection to an applicant whose entire application and interview was focused on one surgical subspecialty and a medical student found that to be very worrisome and was very articulate in making a case against accepting that applicant at our school.

I don't have a role in choosing interviewers but I do believe that they are chosen not only for their ability to conduct the interview (being articulate, curious, and good listeners as well as having an ability to answer questions about the school) but for their ability to write well and to distinguish among applicants in assigning them scores or categorial rankings.

WOW, thanks LizzyM! Great stuff as usual...

 

[willen101383]

I hear you all wear red velvet robes during the process. Is this true? What about the large torches adorning the walls and large chalices? 😀

 

[Geekchick921]

*Snip* Lots of awesome insight.

Posts like this are why I love having LizzyM on this forum.

 

[drizzt3117]

Different interviewers (both attendings, phds, and med students) will take their interviewing responsibilities with varying amounts of enthusiasm. That's just luck, really, ppl are busy so in some ways it just depends.

 

[Numba1Plumma]

All the medical schools basically throw all the names in a sorting hat one by one. It's a pretty easy process. In addition to shouting a school, the sorting hat can simply not choose a school whereupon you will be rejected or stutter a school, hence becoming waitlisted.

 

[Geekchick921]

All the medical schools basically throw all the names in a sorting hat one by one. It's a pretty easy process. In addition to shouting a school, the sorting hat can simply not choose a school whereupon you will be rejected or stutter a school, hence becoming waitlisted.

Now, now, there's only one medical school that uses a sorting hat.

 

[anfleisch]

Get out the magic eight ball

 

[The Poet Sings]

they divide up the room into a pie chart, each segment representing the different categories (like accept, waitlist, reject, and whatever else they might have) and draw straws for who gets to be the "thrower". this lucky person then stands in the middle and chucks pieces of paper with interviewee names on them all over the place. they also do this to decide who to interview, and who to take off the waitlist.
i heard that in honor of the world cup, some are considering an octopus named paul who makes the decisions for them.

 

[Oncovin]

The first rule of admissions committee is you do not talk about admissions committee.

Also, what happens in an ADCOM meeting stays in an ADCOM meeting.

But if I had to guess, I'd say something like this: [YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l-6SgnStVmY[/YOUTUBE]

 

[akinetopsia]

I hear you all wear red velvet robes during the process. Is this true? What about the large torches adorning the walls and large chalices? 😀

I believe they each carry a single black ball and a white ball as well.

One black ball = peace. Right??

It's interesting to hear the real deal from LizzyM. I kind of chuckled at the descriptions of the typical reviewers, I had a similar experience and made similar observations when I ran summer camps and we had to give out awards.. some people on staff loved every camper, some staffers were reasonable, and some staffers thought no one was deserving or had some bias like being from the same town/area or played the same sport as the candidate, etc. I guess any time people are assessing other people, there are certain roles/types that the assessors play that are universal.

 

[MedAdComMD]

I suspect that there are at least a dozen different ways to approach this and each school has its own variation on the theme.

Given the time it takes to review each file, most schools would not wait until they had interviewed several hundred applications but handle them in small batches every few weeks throughout the season, even if all of the decisions are released at the end of the season. (Schools with rolling admission always do small batches so that they can release decisions periodically throughout the season.)

Some schools will have the interviewer write a narrative describing you and your interview and others will have the interviewer complete a form that quantifiies your attributes and assigns either a numerical score or a category.

The entire file including the interviewer's comments, LORs, AMCAS and secondary are then reviewed by adcom members working independently and scored or categorized and/or discussed by a group of adcom members who assign a score. The interviewer may or may not be present to comment; in some cases the interviewer's written assessment is used.

Adcom members get to know various reviewers by reputation; the one who likes everyone, the one who tends to be critical of students from certain schools or who has a soft spot for students with a certain major or EC. I have seen instances where an interviewer expresses negative comments about an applicant and that applicant still gets admitted. In other instances, a good review may not be enough to counteract something else in the file. While it is very uncommon overall, the "something else" can be bad behavior on interview day (e.g. being sassy/rude or condescending toward the office staff).

The scoring or categorizing by the adcom is reviewed either immediately or later by the group or by a subgroup that determines the final disposition (admit now, hold for a later decision, waitlist, decline). Again, when discussion is involved we get to know our fellow committee members, their opinions about various types of applicants, their preferences, and the things they are most likely to criticize about an applicant. So, we take those comments with a grain of salt. Often times the med student on the committee will have a serious objection to an applicant and those concerns are listened to and acted on with as much respect as is granted the most senior faculty member. I recall one objection to an applicant whose entire application and interview was focused on one surgical subspecialty and a medical student found that to be very worrisome and was very articulate in making a case against accepting that applicant at our school.

I don't have a role in choosing interviewers but I do believe that they are chosen not only for their ability to conduct the interview (being articulate, curious, and good listeners as well as having an ability to answer questions about the school) but for their ability to write well and to distinguish among applicants in assigning them scores or categorial rankings.

Thats pretty formal compared to my university, I remembered for alot of the interviews we just asked them why they would be a good fit for our school, describe some of their ECs, explain some inconsistencies in their transcipt....etc etc

The final decision are made largely based on the applicant's AMCAs file, LOR, and PS. Interviews were mainly used to screen out "crazy" applicants, or applicants who has very low communication skills.

 

[Ischiowhat]

Essentially, what may be the most pivotal part of the process of being accepted, the vote of the admissions committee, is entirely out of my hands.

earth-shattering stuff right here.

 

[Quaero]

Thats pretty formal compared to my university, I remembered for alot of the interviews we just asked them why they would be a good fit for our school, describe some of their ECs, explain some inconsistencies in their transcipt....etc etc

The final decision are made largely based on the applicant's AMCAs file, LOR, and PS. Interviews were mainly used to screen out "crazy" applicants, or applicants who has very low communication skills.

"Crazy" applicants

 

[ihave6packabs]

Lets have the school screen all applicants with stats they do not want. And also lets have the school some how remove all "crazy" applicants. Now if the school lets a computer randomly generate 500 acceptances, I do not think the quality of those students is going to be any different from those which have been through the intensive committee process (i apologize to the the adcoms above 😳).

 

[ihave6packabs]

.

 

[morning]

I hear you all wear red velvet robes during the process. Is this true? What about the large torches adorning the walls and large chalices? 😀

Don't forget the white and black smoke!