Interviews: the View From Behind the Curtain

[Dr. Stalker]

@Goro @gyngyn Is it true that at the interview stage, you as the candidate for medical school, have an equal chance at getting an acceptance? And that your Acceptance/WL/Rejection is solely based (at that interview point and onward) purely on your interview? I.e. if invited for an interview, GPA/MCAT don't mean anything anymore?

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[hoihaie]

@Goro @gyngyn Is it true that at the interview stage, you as the candidate for medical school, have an equal chance at getting an acceptance? And that your Acceptance/WL/Rejection is solely based (at that interview point and onward) purely on your interview? I.e. if invited for an interview, GPA/MCAT don't mean anything anymore?

at most schools, interviews are just another part of your whole application. THey still consider everything after the interview

 

[Ace Khalifa]

@Goro @gyngyn Is it true that at the interview stage, you as the candidate for medical school, have an equal chance at getting an acceptance? And that your Acceptance/WL/Rejection is solely based (at that interview point and onward) purely on your interview? I.e. if invited for an interview, GPA/MCAT don't mean anything anymore?

Not true. The interview plays a significant role, but everything in your application will be discussed by the committee. You could have a great interview and still not be accepted because of grades or MCAT. You could have awesome scores and stuff but be not accepted due to a piss-poor interview.

 

[mehc012]

@Goro @gyngyn Is it true that at the interview stage, you as the candidate for medical school, have an equal chance at getting an acceptance? And that your Acceptance/WL/Rejection is solely based (at that interview point and onward) purely on your interview? I.e. if invited for an interview, GPA/MCAT don't mean anything anymore?

From what they've both said in this thread, that does not seem to be the case.

 

[Dr. Stalker]

at most schools, interviews are just another part of your whole application. THey still consider everything after the interview

I've heard different things from people, but I was hoping this one was true. I've been told MCAT/GPA/Personal Statement get SOMEONE to theINTERVIEW Stage, and at that point the MCAT/GPA mean zilcho- you just gotta interview well to earn your spot because your academic numbers have been "Seen good enough to be an accepted medical student."

BTW I'm talking about interviews that you earned; not the courtesyy interview alumni can get family etc.* Just thought I should clarify.

 

[mehc012]

I've heard different things from people, but I was hoping this one was true. I've been told MCAT/GPA/Personal Statement get SOMEONE to theINTERVIEW Stage, and at that point the MCAT/GPA mean zilcho- you just gotta interview well to earn your spot because your academic numbers have been "Seen good enough to be an accepted medical student."

BTW I'm talking about interviews that you earned; not the courtesyy interview alumni can get family etc.* Just thought I should clarify.

LizzyM has a good 'stairs' analogy that is worth an SDN search.

 

[mehc012]

Found a few of the references for you.

You are new here so you may not have seen my analogy of the staircase. Your grades and scores (combined, if you will, with the formula GPA(10)+MCAT) along with your ECs, essays and LORs place you in one of many broad ranked categories. You can think of them as stairs on a wide staircase. (In other words, many of you can be on the same stair.) If a school selects you for interview, in all likelihood you are high enough on the stairs to be admitted or there is the potential that a good interview could boost you up enough to garner admission. That said, someone with a 4.0/40 and an amazing dossier of activities will start out on a higher stair and be more likely to be admitted if your interviews are about the same. Or, the other applicant could bomb the interview and move far down the staircase while you, with a great interview, move up. If a school looks at an applicant and says, "Even with a great interview, we couldn't possibly admit someone with an undergrad gpa of x.xx", then the school is doing you a disservice by inviting you to interview. If you get an interview, it should be a signal that you are "good enough" on paper and the next step is to determine if you are as good (or even better) in person.
____________________
1. It isn't a ladder rung which suggests that only one person can occupy each rung. It is a wide staircase with many people on each stair.
_________________________________

I've answered this before but here goes: It does vary by school. Imagine that people are standing on a huge staircase with those who have the highest stats and the most remarkable experiences at the top stair and downward to the least among those who are interviewed. After the interview, the applicants can keep their place on their original stair, go up a step or two or go down a step or many steps. In most cases, the people with the higest stats are still at the top but some are sent to the bottom step and some people move up or down according to their performance.
____________________________

My school doesn't really use numbers in this way but let me give you an example that roughly approximates what happens at one school.

Imagine a huge staircase with numbered stairs. On interview day, the applicants are on the stair that corresponds to their LizzyM score. An applicant that is very impressive on interview might be moved up one stair or more. Most applicants are going to remain where they are.. not going up or down. Some student who do or say something absolutely terrible might be sent down 10 steps, or more. In some cases, an applicant that didn't impress the interviewers but wasn't horrible might go down a step or three.

Now where is everyone? Starting at the top of the staircase, we admit students until we max out the number we can safely admit (without becoming oversubscribed). Obviously, scores and grades still matter but those who are great on interview can jump ahead and those who bomb will be demoted to the bottom of the waitlist or outright rejected.

 

[Dr. Stalker]

Found a few of the references for you.

Wow thanks that was an incredible analogy and helped clear up a bunch of things I was thinking about. Wow, getting into med school is quite the hurdle I knew...but never been a fan of stairs (running exercise joke)

 

[PreMed015]

I see that the majority of the ADCOMS on here have an accept/waitlist/reject methodology, but what about the schools in the TMDSAS system? Applicants are 'ranked' post-interview for the match process, so is there a substantial difference in how this is done?

 

[Goro]

They still mean something and if interviewers, or other Adcom members have concerns about, say, a low sGPA, it will result in discussion. The whole package is still in play and lacking something can still lead to a wait-list or rejection even following the interview. Usually those deficits get brought up by an interviewer.

But if you get an interview, it means that the Admissions dean thinks you have what it takes. It takes talent to bomb an interview and at my school, about 75% of interviewees receive acceptances.

@Goro @gyngyn Is it true that at the interview stage, you as the candidate for medical school, have an equal chance at getting an acceptance? And that your Acceptance/WL/Rejection is solely based (at that interview point and onward) purely on your interview? I.e. if invited for an interview, GPA/MCAT don't mean anything anymore?

 

[Dr. Stalker]

They still mean something and if interviewers, or other Adcom members have concerns about, say, a low sGPA, it will result in discussion. The whole package is still in play and lacking something can still lead to a wait-list or rejection even following the interview. Usually those deficits get brought up by an interviewer.

But if you get an interview, it means that the Admissions dean thinks you have what it takes. It takes talent to bomb an interview and at my school, about 75% of interviewees receive acceptances.

Thanks so much Goro!

 

[GypsyHummus]

.

But if you get an interview, it means that the Admissions dean thinks you have what it takes. It takes talent to bomb an interview and at my school, about 75% of interviewees receive acceptances.

What about chances of getting pulled off of the wait list if that is where the low GPA applicant ends up? Is there a titration system in place for a wait list, or is it first come first serve?

 

[Goro]

I know of no such rubric that would predict this. Offhand, I would say that if a low GPA put you on the waitlist, then you're not coming off.

What about chances of getting pulled off of the wait list if that is where the low GPA applicant ends up? Is there a titration shyster in place for a wait list, or is it first come first serve?

 

[gyngyn]

What about chances of getting pulled off of the wait list if that is where the low GPA applicant ends up? Is there a titration system in place for a wait list, or is it first come first serve?

Definitely not first come first served.

 

[ShabbaRanks]

How detrimental can a sub 30 MCAT be, even if the interviews go fine?

 

[Shams al Deen]

How much of a disadvantage is it interviewing at a school in February as opposed to September? Let's say a school accepts 50% of students post-interview. Is it safe to say that they accept significantly less than 50% of February interviewees and significantly more than 50% of September interviewees. Or is is about 50% throughout the cycle?

 

[Lysinee]

I know of know rubric that would predict this. Offhand, I would say that if a low GPA put you on the waitlist, then you're not coming off.

Definitely not first come first served.

How big of a negative is it if an applicant doesn't maintain constant eye contact? Let's say applicant's eyes are fixated on interviewer's nose or forehead the whole time.

 

[studentp0x]

Just to go back a bit, I second @Goro'a response to your question. Significant conversation is typically reserved for applicants that have a wide variation in their pre-interview scores (we actually report means with standard deviations - go figure) and applicants that are "on the bubble" in terms of reaching our threshold score. Applicants that are either clearly going to be accepted or waitlisted or those that have little variation in their scores usually don't get much discussion. We have two hours to talk about 15-18 applicants. For the "quick" applicants, usually the committee member will just present them (i.e., essentially summarizing their application and hitting the key points for the other people on the committee), and if anyone has any final comments they'll provide them after the presentation. That kind of applicant will typically take no more than 3-4 minutes. For the more "difficult" applicants with some room for discussion, we might spend 8-10 minutes discussing them.

At my institution, we highly value interviewer comments. In fact, when I'm looking over an applicant, I'll typically read their personal statement, secondaries, look at their numbers, and then go straight to the interview comments. It usually takes 15-20 minutes to read through a file, so if someone has a really poor interview then they're likely sunk and I'll just skim the rest of the application. Not every school places that much emphasis on the interview, but our thinking is that applicants have already been screened for interview invites before we see them. Thus, it's extremely unlikely that we'll get someone who is a straight-up "poor" applicant. Don't get me wrong, our process is still holistic and we still take the whole application into account, but generally bad comments from interviewers can sink an applicant that is otherwise outstanding on paper. In fact, at our meeting yesterday we had two applicants that fit that bill exactly - applicants that had a 3.7+/35+ for numbers, great ECs and generally strong letters, but weird interactions with interviewers that gave off a bad impression.

Can you elaborate on what you mean by applicants who will be clearly waitlisted?

 

[studentp0x]

Our interviewees aheva 1-3 week window before the AdCom meets to determine their fate. Updates don't make it to us, only to the Admissions Dean.

BUT, if someone were to be interviewed right now, and then notified our wily old Admissions dean of the poor Dec transcript, he would tell us this at our meeting, and this person would right get rejected. Downward trends are viewed poorly by us, and the unwise decision by such a person to tell us this bring judgement seriously into question.

I've never heard of someone at my school having a decision overturned by a late arriving transcript...although there are med schools that have minimums for post-acceptance performance.



At times we'll read them in the Adcom meeting when a specific person's rationale for Osteopathy is in question. A good secondary can save them; a generic or poor secondary will leave them on the wait list.
Are secondary essays considered post-interview?

Exactly what I thought... like why on earth would an applicant update a school on poor grades when it isnt even required?

 

[mehc012]

How big of a negative is it if an applicant doesn't maintain constant eye contact? Let's say applicant's eyes are fixated on interviewer's nose or forehead the whole time.

If you know exactly what your interview weakness is, down to that level of detail, just fix it? If it's a past interview you're concerned about, no need to beat yourself up. . . past is past. Specifics like this are nearly impossible to evaluate during text description... thus why they interview to begin with.

 

[Goro]

You don't have to stare into their eyes during the entire interview, like Svengali. Just make eyue contact.

This is only an issue for people who make absolutely NO eye contact!

How big of a negative is it if an applicant doesn't maintain constant eye contact? Let's say applicant's eyes are fixated on interviewer's nose or forehead the whole time.

Even Harvard accepts people with MCAT scores < their 10th %ile. A single low MCAT is not likely to be lethal, but multiple attempts with poor scores, or declining scores are. Also, evidence of poor choice making, like taking the MCAT on a day you're really sick, "for the hell of it" or without adequate study time.

How detrimental can a sub 30 MCAT be, even if the interviews go fine?

 

[Doug Underhill]

Think about it in terms of numbers: look at the class size and divide it by 10. That's how many people are below the 10th percentile. For my school's medical school, there are about 70 people in the class. If you're below the 10th percentile, you're competing for seven spots. If you're at the median, you're competing for about 50, assuming that a few are reserved for Super Mega Ultra Epic 4.0/40 applicants with multiple Nature/Science/Cell first-author papers who started their own successful inner-city clinic.

 

[jsquared91]

I've heard different things from people, but I was hoping this one was true. I've been told MCAT/GPA/Personal Statement get SOMEONE to theINTERVIEW Stage, and at that point the MCAT/GPA mean zilcho- you just gotta interview well to earn your spot because your academic numbers have been "Seen good enough to be an accepted medical student."

BTW I'm talking about interviews that you earned; not the courtesyy interview alumni can get family etc.* Just thought I should clarify.

https://www.aamc.org/download/261106/data/aibvol11_no6.pdf
According to this, the numbers matter less after the interview, but still matter.

 

[studentp0x]

https://www.aamc.org/download/261106/data/aibvol11_no6.pdf
According to this, the numbers matter less after the interview, but still matter.

Well it's common sense, the interview adds another major factor in which shrinks all others.

 

[emflem]

Found a few of the references for you.

This is really interesting, but it's hard to square it with only 30-40% of interviewees getting offers.

If most people don't move up or down the stairs after the interview, then schools appear to be wasting most students' time and money inviting them when their step on the stairs is too low. Some candidates who are a single step away might be good "you never know" candidates, but rejecting 60-70% of your interviewees seems to mean that either a) interviews matter a lot and most people fail them or b) the school is not being considerate by inviting people two or three or four steps down, where only a successful emergency tracheotomy on the dean's kid in the parking lot on the day of the interview could get a candidate admitted.

I understand the school is looking out for itself and that candidates are mere abstract things until they're actual students, but it still seems an order of magnitude too high.

At the least, it'd be nice if interview invites told you if you were a high, medium or low probability interviewee so students could decide if it was worth it. It'd also probably help reveal a few students' cocky overconfidence and weed out a few of the smart jerks.

 

[mehc012]

This is really interesting, but it's hard to square it with only 30-40% of interviewees getting offers.

If most people don't move up or down the stairs after the interview, then schools appear to be wasting most students' time and money inviting them when their step on the stairs is too low. Some candidates who are a single step away might be good "you never know" candidates, but rejecting 60-70% of your interviewees seems to mean that either a) interviews matter a lot and most people fail them or b) the school is not being considerate by inviting people two or three or four steps down, where only a successful emergency tracheotomy on the dean's kid in the parking lot on the day of the interview could get a candidate admitted.

I understand the school is looking out for itself and that candidates are mere abstract things until they're actual students, but it still seems an order of magnitude too high.

At the least, it'd be nice if interview invites told you if you were a high, medium or low probability interviewee so students could decide if it was worth it. It'd also probably help reveal a few students' cocky overconfidence and weed out a few of the smart jerks.

I'm not sure where you got that number from... @Goro has put his school's number closer to 75% getting offers, though I'm sure every school is different.
It's not that I don't believe you, I just want to see the numbers!

Also, keep in mind that I didn't write those things...I was just saving people the trouble of a search, or an adcom the trouble of reiterating something for the 80th time. For a more specific discussion of the stairs analogy, you'd have to ask @LizzyM

 

[hoihaie]

I'm not sure where you got that number from... @Goro has put his school's number closer to 75% getting offers, though I'm sure every school is different.
It's not that I don't believe you, I just want to see the numbers!

Also, keep in mind that I didn't write those things...I was just saving people the trouble of a search, or an adcom the trouble of reiterating something for the 80th time. For a more specific discussion of the stairs analogy, you'd have to ask @LizzyM

at least 2 of the schools i interviewed at said they only accept around 1/3 of people interviewed outright. One of them say 1/6 is rejected and the rest is waitlisted

 

[senzen]

What is the stairs analogy? @mehc012

 

[mehc012]

What is the stairs analogy? @mehc012

I just...I can't even...
Hit Ctrl+F and search this very page for the word 'stairs'. Should be like the 2nd hit.

 

[emflem]

I'm not sure where you got that number from... @Goro has put his school's number closer to 75% getting offers, though I'm sure every school is different.
It's not that I don't believe you, I just want to see the numbers!

Also, keep in mind that I didn't write those things...I was just saving people the trouble of a search, or an adcom the trouble of reiterating something for the 80th time. For a more specific discussion of the stairs analogy, you'd have to ask @LizzyM

Yes, sorry, I was responding to the pieces you quoted.

The 30-40% part comes from the various ranking services, like US News, which list number interviewed and number accepted. I understand some schools are much higher, and obviously those schools' figures are a great relief to invited candidates.

 

[senzen]

Ah sorry, I had not read through all the previous posts. Thanks.

 

[emflem]

What's the femoral artery? I didn't read Gray's Anatomy, I just started cutting.

 

[NickNaylor]

Can you elaborate on what you mean by applicants who will be clearly waitlisted?

My institution uses a scoring system of 1-10 to rate its applicants in the committee process. Members of the committee score applicants prior to the meeting after looking over their file (we have their entire file accessible via our admissions portal). We have a threshold score that applicants must surpass in order to be booted onto the next level; this score is calculated by simply taking the mean of everyone's score on the committee. Not meeting that threshold score means that you will be waitlisted. If, for example, our threshold score is 5 (and it's not), and an applicant has a score of 4 or below, it's unlikely that much will be done to sway the entire committee to raise their score by a point - though it does happen. In this case, they likely wouldn't receive much discussion. However, applicants in the 4.5-5.5 range in this example would likely receive a good amount of discussion, particularly if the committee member presenting them advocates for them. However, score changes do occur, though more often scores are revised downward rather than upward. Everyone has their own computer with access to applicant files and the ability to change scores, and everyone's scores with their means is displayed in real time on a big monitor for everyone to see as we go through the meeting.

In our system, even getting beyond this threshold score doesn't guarantee an acceptance. We have four committees doing this identical process. Everyone who meets the threshold score is moved on to the "executive committee," whose job it is to ensure that acceptances are given out at an appropriate pace and to award scholarships (usually with the recommendation of the "lower" committees). Applicants in line for the executive committee are awarded acceptances in order of their scores coming out of the "lower" committee. Thus, it's possible to move out of the committee but never actually get accepted. Using this example, an applicant coming out of the committee with a score of 5.1 would move on but is unikely to be accepted since they will be near the bottom of the priority list and some applicants coming through the committees later on will likely be scored above them. In contrast, an applicant moving out of the committee with a 9 would very likely be accepted, and in this case we would likely recommend that they receive some kind of scholarship.

Hope that helps.

 

[johnnytest]

We need some more transparency in this process..

 

[mehc012]

We need some more transparency in this process..

...that's what this is!

 

[LChristmas]

We need some more transparency in this process..

I am almost inclined to take the opposite side and say that transparency would make this process less genuine. If every pre-med knew exactly what each adcom was looking for then this would become even more of a "box-checking" endeavor. I like that there is no exact formula for getting accepted.

 

[johnnytest]

I meant for there to be more transparency in the numbers aspect. Such as how many IIs have been given out and how many are left. Same for acceptances, rejects, wait lists. And maybe even the average stats for each of those categories. Basically it would be cool if schools could provide monthly updates on their website of the information that ends up in MSAR/USNEWS a year later.

 

[Ace Khalifa]

I meant for there to be more transparency in the numbers aspect. Such as how many IIs have been given out and how many are left. Same for acceptances, rejects, wait lists. And maybe even the average stats for each of those categories. Basically it would be cool if schools could provide monthly updates on their website of the information that ends up in MSAR/USNEWS a year later.

I don't think schools will do this because there's no incentive for them to do so.

 

[TREDWISE]

I don't think schools will do this because there's no incentive for them to do so.

It could make people like the school more because they feel like they're being treated a little more fairly. I've been to schools where the dean has given very misleading impressions (which I know because I work with a member of the steering committee) and it leaves a bad taste in your mouth.

I don't think they should give out a lot of information but it would be nice to some specifics.

 

[PlasticBag]

I meant for there to be more transparency in the numbers aspect. Such as how many IIs have been given out and how many are left. Same for acceptances, rejects, wait lists. And maybe even the average stats for each of those categories. Basically it would be cool if schools could provide monthly updates on their website of the information that ends up in MSAR/USNEWS a year later.

If that happened, then schools might want us to be transparent too - where we applied, how many rejections we got, how many ii's, etc.

 

[llamasarefuzzy]

I meant for there to be more transparency in the numbers aspect. Such as how many IIs have been given out and how many are left. Same for acceptances, rejects, wait lists. And maybe even the average stats for each of those categories. Basically it would be cool if schools could provide monthly updates on their website of the information that ends up in MSAR/USNEWS a year later.

Msucom has been awesome about this!

 

[tinman21]

Hey @Goro @LizzyM I am sorry for reviving a two year old thread, but is the interview practice still roughly the same today? Also, do earlier interviews (Sept-Oct) usually suggest that the applicant is higher up on the stairs, or does that not matter and there is still an even distribution?

 

[Goro]

Hey @Goro @LizzyM I am sorry for reviving a two year old thread, but is the interview practice still roughly the same today? Also, do earlier interviews (Sept-Oct) usually suggest that the applicant is higher up on the stairs, or does that not matter and there is still an even distribution?

Yes and yes.

 

[DoctorSwagger]

Have you had an interviewee that captivated you or do all excellent interviewees just kinda blend together?

Oh carp just noticed this is 2 years old sorry
Sent from my iPhone using SDN mobile

 

[E.Hemingway]

Is this thread still alive? If so, I have a question:

If an interviewee stumbles on one or two questions but otherwise has a good interview, how does that affect the candidate? I'm nervous about not being prepared for a certain question and getting caught off guard. Is it a deal breaker or no big deal or somewhere in between?

 

[CloverBale]

This thread is really anxiety inducing.

 

[Goro]

Have you had an interviewee that captivated you or do all excellent interviewees just kinda blend together?
Oh carp just noticed this is 2 years old sorry
Sent from my iPhone using SDN mobile

Thread is still fine, as questions are always helpful to other SDNers.
We definitely have interviewees that make us say "we want this kid to be a student of ours!"

Is this thread still alive? If so, I have a question:
If an interviewee stumbles on one or two questions but otherwise has a good interview, how does that affect the candidate? I'm nervous about not being prepared for a certain question and getting caught off guard. Is it a deal breaker or no big deal or somewhere in between?

Impossible to answer without actually being in the interview. It will depend upon how badly you stumble. But I have had people start an answer off poorly, and then recover. So, not 100% lethal.

This thread is really anxiety inducing.

Take two of these, please:

 

[hebrewBAMmer]

So what I'm gathering is to show up to an interview, do the best you can by coming across intelligent and likable, and let fate control the rest.

 

[Goro]

So what I'm gathering is to show up to an interview, do the best you can by coming across intelligent and likable, and let fate control the rest.

Yup! Also add: display grace upon pressure.

 

[21Rush12]

Yup! Also add: display grace upon pressure.

Did you mean:

Also, I am pretty sure this thread helped me a lot at my own interviews, glad to see it's alive!


Sent from my iPad using SDN mobile