What is the real point of interviews

[mcloaf]

---

Members don't see this ad.

to the pockets of school administrators. we are all slaves while these people laugh their way to the bank. it's how life works son. sometimes i wonder if altruism is just a facade in medicine. i mean who doesnt like money?

Lol, yeah. Med school administrators, the richest of the bunch.

 

[luckylee3]

Lol, yeah. Med school administrators, the richest of the bunch.

or whoever, the president of the school, whoever is at the top

 

[Kinch]

This thread is getting kind of ridiculous

 

[mcloaf]

or whoever, the president of the school, whoever is at the top

It was already pointed out in this thread that your tuition doesn't cover the full cost of your education. Tuition is also a small percentage of overall medical school revenue.

Sorry, no conspiracy here.

 

[luckylee3]

It was already pointed out in this thread that your tuition doesn't cover the full cost of your education. Tuition is also a small percentage of overall medical school revenue.

Sorry, no conspiracy here.

how does that relate to what im saying? im just saying the people at the top get a lot of money

 

[mcloaf]

how does that relate to what im saying? im just saying the people at the top get a lot of money

You responded to a question about where tuition money goes by saying that it makes med school administrators or others within the school rich, which you just made up.

 

[luckylee3]

You responded to a question about where tuition money goes by saying that it makes med school administrators or others within the school rich, which you just made up.

no i didn't. i just said the people at the top make a lot of money. regardless of where it comes from

 

[mcloaf]

I mean, where does that tuition money go? Especially during 3rd and 4th year when you're basically paying the med school to do free work...

to the pockets of school administrators. we are all slaves while these people laugh their way to the bank. it's how life works son. sometimes i wonder if altruism is just a facade in medicine. i mean who doesnt like money?

no i didn't. i just said the people at the top make a lot of money. regardless of where it comes from

Whatever you say.

😉

 

[Cambover]

This thread is getting kind of ridiculous

Agreed. Schools want people on campus so they can sell you their school too. The application process goes both ways.

 

[Dbate]

Agreed. Schools want people on campus so they can sell you their school too. The application process goes both ways.

The real value of the interview (from my perspective) is that it allows you to visit schools and actually learn more about them.

After visiting, my initial preferences changed considerably.

The real downside, again from my perspective, is if you interview and then get rejected. Because then there was no benefit in you visiting the school as it is not even an option to for you to attend.

 

[Ismet]

The real value of the interview (from my perspective) is that it allows you to visit schools and actually learn more about them.

After visiting, my initial preferences changed considerably.

The real downside, again from my perspective, is if you interview and then get rejected. Because then there was no benefit in you visiting the school as it is not even an option to for you to attend.

If you get rejected post-interview, more than likely there was something in your interview that got you rejected. Of course it varies by school and on an individual basis, but in the general scheme of things, if you were invited for an interview, your application is good enough to potentially be accepted. Contrary to what people in this thread apparently think, they don't invite people who have no shot. In that sense, I do see benefits. Benefit to the school for not accepting someone who wouldn't fit there. Also, depending on what the rejection was due to, I can even see there being a benefit to the student. Yes, I know, it's still better to be accepted than not accepted, but if you're going to be miserable at a school because you don't fit, maybe it's better to be rejected than to hate your life for 4 years like I know some do.

But you're right, the interview is as much you "interviewing" the school as the school interviewing you. I got pretty bad vibes from 2 or 3 of the schools I interviewed at, and I wouldn't have known that if there was just a phone interview or if there was no interview at all.

Y'all need to quit your bellyaching 🙄

 

[Status Sciaticus]

Your posts = 👍.

It was already pointed out in this thread that your tuition doesn't cover the full cost of your education. Tuition is also a small percentage of overall medical school revenue.

Sorry, no conspiracy here.

👍

no i didn't. i just said the people at the top make a lot of money. regardless of where it comes from

'People at the top' of any profession or any field of work make the most money because they worked for it. This isnt restricted to medicine.

You've already lost the argument. Let it go.

 

[BlueLabel]

If you get rejected post-interview, more than likely there was something in your interview that got you rejected. Of course it varies by school and on an individual basis, but in the general scheme of things, if you were invited for an interview, your application is good enough to potentially be accepted. Contrary to what people in this thread apparently think, they don't invite people who have no shot. In that sense, I do see benefits. Benefit to the school for not accepting someone who wouldn't fit there. Also, depending on what the rejection was due to, I can even see there being a benefit to the student. Yes, I know, it's still better to be accepted than not accepted, but if you're going to be miserable at a school because you don't fit, maybe it's better to be rejected than to hate your life for 4 years like I know some do.

But you're right, the interview is as much you "interviewing" the school as the school interviewing you. I got pretty bad vibes from 2 or 3 of the schools I interviewed at, and I wouldn't have known that if there was just a phone interview or if there was no interview at all.

Y'all need to quit your bellyaching 🙄

Note: I'm not disputing anything you said and am glad to have the perspective of people on the "inside". I just have a couple of questions

Is every interviewee then, essentially a really strong interview away from acceptance? In other words, a marginal applicant who is interviewed can be lifted to acceptance on the back of an excellent interview, regardless of any deficiencies in his application?

Related question: how are applicants selected to interview? I realize this might vary from school to school. I'm not sure where I got this impression, either here or from a premed advisor at my university, but I thought interviewees were often chosen not by the committee as a whole but rather by a couple of members or even several members individually, in accordance with certain criteria. So theoretically, if this is true, it seems to me that others on the committee might find objectionable certain parts of an application that didn't strike the person who invited that applicant so negatively, ultimately leading to a rejection regardless of how the interview went. I ask because I think this exact situation might be relevant to my application, though I don't really want to get into all the details.

 

[Kinch]

Y'all need to quit your bellyaching 🙄

👍

 

[tn4596]

Note: I'm not disputing anything you said and am glad to have the perspective of people on the "inside". I just have a couple of questions

Is every interviewee then, essentially a really strong interview away from acceptance? In other words, a marginal applicant who is interviewed can be lifted to acceptance on the back of an excellent interview, regardless of any deficiencies in his application?

Related question: how are applicants selected to interview? I realize this might vary from school to school. I'm not sure where I got this impression, either here or from a premed advisor at my university, but I thought interviewees were often chosen not by the committee as a whole but rather by a couple of members or even several members individually, in accordance with certain criteria. So theoretically, if this is true, it seems to me that others on the committee might find objectionable certain parts of an application that didn't strike the person who invited that applicant so negatively, ultimately leading to a rejection regardless of how the interview went. I ask because I think this exact situation might be relevant to my application, though I don't really want to get into all the details.

At most schools, I think the interview is just one part of the application process. You can have a good interview and still be rejected, or a bad interview and accepted. Most school are trying to put together a diverse class; so they don't ended up with a class with too many 22-years-old all with a biology degree, among other things. so you might be rejected even if you have a good application and a terrific interview. In summary, it's pretty much a crap shot. Unless you got 4+ interviews and no acceptance, then I wouldn't think the interviews kill your applications.

 

[Ismet]

Note: I'm not disputing anything you said and am glad to have the perspective of people on the "inside". I just have a couple of questions

Is every interviewee then, essentially a really strong interview away from acceptance? In other words, a marginal applicant who is interviewed can be lifted to acceptance on the back of an excellent interview, regardless of any deficiencies in his application?

Related question: how are applicants selected to interview? I realize this might vary from school to school. I'm not sure where I got this impression, either here or from a premed advisor at my university, but I thought interviewees were often chosen not by the committee as a whole but rather by a couple of members or even several members individually, in accordance with certain criteria. So theoretically, if this is true, it seems to me that others on the committee might find objectionable certain parts of an application that didn't strike the person who invited that applicant so negatively, ultimately leading to a rejection regardless of how the interview went. I ask because I think this exact situation might be relevant to my application, though I don't really want to get into all the details.

I wouldn't necessarily call it "insider" knowledge, more like rational thoughts from someone who has been through the process and references from adcoms on SDN.

As for your other questions, yes it varies greatly by school. I can't really go into specifics. I just wanted to address what someone said earlier about attending an interview at a school where they're just going to be rejected anyway. If you are invited for an interview, there's a reason. They don't do it to make you spend more money or waste your time.

 

[astronautmd]

You are going to pay $100,000-250,000 to attend med school. A 2 day, $200-$500 trip to check out the school won't kill you.

Plain stupid. $200-$500 was a great amount of money during my undergrad career. Imagine how much I hated secondaries fees....

 

[slz1900]

I wouldn't necessarily call it "insider" knowledge, more like rational thoughts from someone who has been through the process and references from adcoms on SDN.

As for your other questions, yes it varies greatly by school. I can't really go into specifics. I just wanted to address what someone said earlier about attending an interview at a school where they're just going to be rejected anyway. If you are invited for an interview, there's a reason. They don't do it to make you spend more money or waste your time.

Not intentionally, but LizzyM and others have said that LORs are sometimes not even looked at until after you interview, and I'm sure there are other aspects of your application that aren't looked at too closely until the admissions committee meets to make decisions, so it seems highly likely that sometimes applicants who are a poor fit might be invited to interview based on a quick glance at their primary even though they don't really have a shot. Obviously interviews are necessary, and nobody is really saying otherwise, but schools should give out waaaay fewer invitations and do a thorough review of an applicant before the interview to make sure they want them to attend before inviting them out.

 

[Kinch]

I will very cautiously state that I believe LizzyM has stated elsewhere that LOR's typically don't make or break an applicant either way, though. Please correct me if I am wrong about that.

 

[Starry]

I will very cautiously state that I believe LizzyM has stated elsewhere that LOR's typically don't make or break an applicant either way, though. Please correct me if I am wrong about that.

I feel like they can't make, but can definitely break, an app.

 

[Ismet]

Not intentionally, but LizzyM and others have said that LORs are sometimes not even looked at until after you interview, and I'm sure there are other aspects of your application that aren't looked at too closely until the admissions committee meets to make decisions, so it seems highly likely that sometimes applicants who are a poor fit might be invited to interview based on a quick glance at their primary even though they don't really have a shot. Obviously interviews are necessary, and nobody is really saying otherwise, but schools should give out waaaay fewer invitations and do a thorough review of an applicant before the interview to make sure they want them to attend before inviting them out.

The general sense I get from SDN and this thread is that people underestimate the number of very qualified people who apply and overestimate the number of people who get rejected post-interview. It's easy to postulate and suggest to do a thorough review of an applicant before offering an invite, but then there's reality. Schools get thousands and thousands of applications. Sure, they screen some of them out by MCAT/GPA, but they're still left with 1000++ qualified apps. It would be very time consuming to thoroughly read several thousand apps worth of experiences, PS's, secondaries, and LORs just so you can catch the relatively very small percentage of people who would have been invited despite lack of "fit." And all of that is assuming the LORs would say something questionable. They usually don't. Sometimes the interview can bring out something that isn't seen anywhere else in the app.

 

[Ismet]

I feel like they can't make, but can definitely break, an app.

I believe they can do either, it's just not typical.

 

[solitarius]

I think they interview because they need to verify. Verify that your story is legit, that the LOR's aren't biased, that you pass muster. Can you b.s. them? Sure, but they've become pretty skilled at reading people after having done this for years or decades. Besides, what is the alternative? In one interview I had with a full professor, it was a classic pressure interview to figure out who I was. He was very skilled at it and he kept it very cordial and professional. It felt weird at the time, but in retrospect, I understood why he did what he did. He was someone who has done this for decades.

As for skyping or going there, I think they do this for a lot of reasons including 1) to see if you're really interested enough in going there that you'd spend a lot of money to do so, 2) to market the school to you, and 3) they know you won't decide to come there until you've visited it and seen it for yourself.

Is the interview a make or break? Who knows, but I'd have to think that they weigh the opinion of their peers on the admissions committee far greater than anything else in our application file. Beyond the MCAT score, a publication, and maybe race, what objective pieces of our application file can anyone really trust? My sister might have wrote my essay. I could have a personal relationship with my chemistry professor. I could have fluffed all my ECs. I could have gone to an easy state U or taken the easy classes/major at a tough university.

In the end, they have the gold and make the rules. They can ask for high GPAs/high MCATs, great ECs, a passable personal statement, and decide to base the application on just the interview. And if the dean decides to take the high stats candidate, they can do that. Or if they decided to give a marginal candidate a shot and weren't impressed, that too.

 

[Kinch]

I'm pretty sure that even if a top 10 school told me I had a 1% chance to matriculate, I would accept the interview and be really excited about the opportunity.

 

[Tatastrophy]

but if you're going to be miserable at a school because you don't fit, maybe it's better to be rejected than to hate your life for 4 years like I know some do.

Amen. I thank my lucky stars every day that I was rejected from my top 2 choices. Because I would've gone and would've pulled my nails, toenails, eyebrows and eyelashes in agony by now. Check my post history, I was borderline obsessed with the #1 school on my list. I was a dumb kid who didn't know or ever really trully stopped to consider what is good for me, I am glad someone at that school did. Best decision I never made.

The general sense I get from SDN and this thread is that people underestimate the number of very qualified people who apply
It would be very time consuming to thoroughly read several thousand apps worth of experiences, PS's, secondaries, and LORs just so you can catch the relatively very small percentage of people who would have been invited despite lack of "fit." And all of that is assuming the LORs would say something questionable. They usually don't. Sometimes the interview can bring out something that isn't seen anywhere else in the app.

Agreed. My school gets 10,000+ applications every year. If you guys have an issue with how long it takes to get interview invites now...imagine if we scoured your apps like you suggest we do.
The admissions file system timed me out 3 times while I was reviewing an applicant today. I am not particularly slow. She was easily a good candidate. I was just doing my due diligence. It took a long time. No school could afford to do that for every applicant.

Besides, as I've already stated before: the letter of recommendation is going to be good because 99.9% of you guys are smart enough to ask letters from people who will write you a enthusiastically good one. Sorry but if I feel meh about an applicant's file, I am highly unlikely to be impressed by a positive letter of recommendation these days unless I personally know the person writing it. And if we are real honest....I can tell when that person is raising a lot of noise for some insignificant accomplishment too, but that typically has identifiable markers in the rest of the application as well.

Just hunker down and push through this, own your choices. And of course I sincerely wish you all good luck!