Would a school accept a weak interviewer?

[VIZ1]

Currently, I'm trying to understand why a school may or may not accept a student after an interview. I understand that it is very important for a doctor to be able to be personable as they have to work with patients. I know that I'm an excellent on paper (which my interviewers also state) but I'm wondering how bad of an interviewer I can be. My best hunches are that I'm socially awkward and may give off a nerdy vibe. At each interview, I know I give some weak answers but probably no red flags. I don't think I'm very unpersonable but I can see many people who can have stronger personalities than me.
Basically, I'm wondering if it is possible for basically every school to reject someone or give them a low position on the waitlist for these reasons alone? If that is the case, do schools only accept students who tell beautiful stories and have super strong personalities?

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[pioneer22]

Medical schools do not want academic robots. That's what computers are for. If you have no personality or social skills, medicine is very likely not a good career for you. You grades only get you to the interview mainly, personality and humanity get you accepted.

 

[Goro]

Nope. With a surplus of qualified candidates, weak ones can be ignored. A poor interview can indeed be a kiss of death.

So work on your interview skills

Currently, I'm trying to understand why a school may or may not accept a student after an interview. I understand that it is very important for a doctor to be able to be personable as they have to work with patients. I know that I'm an excellent on paper (which my interviewers also state) but I'm wondering how bad of an interviewer I can be. My best hunches are that I'm socially awkward and may give off a nerdy vibe. At each interview, I know I give some weak answers but probably no red flags. I don't think I'm very unpersonable but I can see many people who can have stronger personalities than me.
Basically, I'm wondering if it is possible for basically every school to reject someone or give them a low position on the waitlist for these reasons alone? If that is the case, do schools only accept students who tell beautiful stories and have super strong personalities?

 

[ciestar]

I got rejected post-interview four times. I did get an acceptance, so apparently I can do something right. But you definitely need to work on it if you want a shot. Stories like mine aren't the norm.

 

[efle]

do schools only accept students who tell beautiful stories and have super strong personalities?

you can be like, normal and nervous, you don't have to be the most charismatic person. Just don't be super weird, ya know?

 

[Pr1d3D0c]

you can be like, normal and nervous, you don't have to be the most charismatic person. Just don't be super weird, ya know?

Don't know if I agree with this. I was very "normal" and in fact not nervous whatsoever in interviews. I have been told by faculty in mock interviews at my school that I have good instincts in the interview setting. This cycle, I was placed on the WL post interview at 3 (top 25) schools, accepted at one, rejected at another, and still waiting on the final decision from my state school. My results have been mixed, but my best two interviews ended with a WL.

 

[VIZ1]

Thanks everyone
I feel like I'd be an average interviewer at the very least but I'm losing in confidence in that just because I'm constantly waitlisted

 

[efle]

Don't know if I agree with this. I was very "normal" and in fact not nervous whatsoever in interviews. I have been told by faculty in mock interviews at my school that I have good instincts in the interview setting. This cycle, I was placed on the WL post interview at 3 (top 25) schools, accepted at one, rejected at another, and still waiting on the final decision from my state school. My results have been mixed, but my best two interviews ended with a WL.

You can just be normal and still get in != if you are normal you will get in

 

[Pr1d3D0c]

You can just be normal and still get in != if you are normal you will get in

Just more saying that from my experience I do not even think an above average interview will always help...especially at the more competitive programs where your file may not be as strong as so many others, regardless of the interview strength.

 

[efle]

Just more saying that from my experience I do not even think an above average interview will always help...especially at the more competitive programs where your file may not be as strong as so many others, regardless of the interview strength.

I don't think you'd be getting interviewed if, even with a good interview, the rest of your file is too weak to admit you ?

 

[Pr1d3D0c]

I don't think you'd be getting interviewed if, even with a good interview, the rest of your file is too weak to admit you ?

I think if other students who fit your demographic are ranked higher than you, one may find himself/herself waitlisted even with "good" results in the interview.This does not necessarily mean the applicant was deficient so much as the other guy was really really good (or, at least, what that program was looking for)

 

[SouthernGent]

If your school's career center offers mock interviews. These are very good for letting you know if you are a weak interviewer and where you can improve.

 

[ace_inhibitor111]

I don't think you'd be getting interviewed if, even with a good interview, the rest of your file is too weak to admit you ?

But interviews are handed out by only a subset of the admissions committee (ex. UCF uses 3 people), who may not look at every application very thoroughly. Meanwhile, during the final review the entire committee meets, and often the interviewer has spent more time looking at the app and can find weaknesses or inconsistencies that may be intrinsic to the application itself and not the fault per se of the interviewee.

 

[efle]

But interviews are handed out by only a subset of the admissions committee (ex. UCF uses 3 people), who may not look at every application very thoroughly. Meanwhile, during the final review the entire committee meets, and often the interviewer has spent more time looking at the app and can find weaknesses or inconsistencies that may be intrinsic to the application itself and not the fault per se of the interviewee.

Lol I hope this would be a very, very rare situation. If you're only going to interview like ~8% of people you can't be giving spots to apps that fall apart under a little closer inspection

 

[FindersFee5]

Going off the LizzyM staircase model: some people DO need a better interview than others to get in at the same school. And it's possible to tailor your interview strategy around it. For instance, at a few of the schools I interviewed at where my stats/ECs were pretty much a match, I played it safe. I gave kind of standard answers, didn't really take any risks, and probably left them with the opinion that I was a relatively pleasant, stable, qualified candidate. I was accepted to all the schools I did this at.

I also got interviews at a few of my reach schools, including multiple top 10s. I knew at these that I needed to impress in the interview to have a good chance of acceptance. I needed them to remember me when they were comparing my weaker on-paper accolades to the superstars. So I took a few more risks: I got more personal, used more emotional experiences, and in general, tried harder to show them who I really was. You might say, "Shouldn't you do that at all interviews?" I don't think so. It’s a risk, letting somebody see who you really are. It makes you more memorable but also opens you up for more criticism. Maybe they don’t LIKE who you are. If you’re well-qualified on paper, I think it’s a better strategy to be pleasant, safe and potentially unmemorable. Showing somebody you are is always a risk. Add to that the stress of the situation and the unpredictability of talking about emotional topics, and it's very possible they remember you - but negatively.

Results: I felt like two of my interviews went incredibly well. I connected with 2/3 interviewers at one school to the point that they replied to my "thank you" email back and told me they would be fighting for me in the admissions committee. At the other school, one of the interviewers and I actually cried together, and the other two interviews went well as well. I also felt totally disconnected during three of the interviews. That's the other risk: when you offer that much of yourself up and you don't make any connection, it feels really awkward, significantly more so than it otherwise might have. People always say that you can't tell how you do after interview but I was pretty accurate. I was accepted to the two I thought I did well in, waitlisted at two of the poorer ones, and rejected at the one I thought was the absolute worst.

 

[efle]

At the other school, one of the interviewers and I actually cried together, and the other two interviews went well as well.

I cannot even imagine this happening at any of my interviews, whoa

 

[FindersFee5]

I cannot even imagine this happening at any of my interviews, whoa

Yeah... like I said, high risk/high reward.

Edit: also it was a student interviewer, which I think makes a little more sense.

 

[aldol16]

Different schools weight the interview differently. I know some schools that say specifically that the interview is just one part they look at when they make decisions, implying that other factors are taken into account. On the other hand, some schools weight the interview very heavily.

 

[efle]

^ Some good evidence of the above is the variety in post-interview admit rates. There are some schools, even up at the top, who screen very very heavily pre-interview and then admit the majority of people they invite. Others interview something like 3-4 people per 1 offer.

 

[enchantediris]

I cannot even imagine this happening at any of my interviews, whoa

Haha I can definitely see it if you get the right people together. I'm such a sympathetic crier that I often start tearing up when someone shares a sad story, much less if they start crying in front of me...

 

[libertyyne]

If we go by an assumption that interview skills are not correlated with academic performance and that they are distributed evenly across the MCAT GPA grid, this would indicate , yes people with sub-par and poor interview skills do get accepted.

 

[deleted781806]

The interview can make or break you, quite honestly. I wasn't the greatest interviewee and it showed on my admissions decisions, especially at the first school I interviewed at. They have a ~80% post-interview acceptance rate and I blew it so bad due to stress leading up to the interview that I received a rejection letter shortly thereafter. I called them up afterwards to see what went wrong in my application, and the response was that they "didn't believe I would be able to talk to patients". Pretty rough to hear, but also easily chalked up to nerves. I was lucky enough to get multiple interviews and I think I got better slowly but surely, and thankfully ended up with an acceptance. But yeah, I think a lot of the time your application gets your foot in the door for an II, but it's the interview itself that really has an impact on your final admissions decision.