Resolved.

[YodaPineapple]

Resolved.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[Mr.Smile12]

I hope this post doesn't come off as entitled, I am just very disappointed, confused, and genuinely curious how I could end up with the following result.

What could be some of the reasons an admissions committee would extend a very early interview invitation(mid-august) to an applicant who has stats at their 75th %ile and who clearly put high effort into that particular secondary application, only to reject them post-interview, taking into account they've voiced that they only outright reject less than 10% of interviewees?

I don't think I had a great MMI. I would describe it as average, but no where near bad enough in my opinion to get the R.

For reference, this is a public, OOS school, and I live in a state with 6-7 IS public med schools. Could it be as simple as they didn't think I would matriculate? But then why extend an interview?

Thanks in advance for any ideas.
If it's relevant, I have 5+ II's, so I'd venture to say that implies no significant red flags?

Unfortunately your performance was enough that the committee chose to reject post-II. They at least told you the truth: they do reject a small number of applicants after interview, and you happen to be one of them.

That said, every interview day and environment is different. Unless you have been practicing throughout the application cycle, you could get an offer in your next interview. Or an alternate list. Or rejected. Who knows.

 

[wysdoc]

I hope this post doesn't come off as entitled, I am just very disappointed, confused, and genuinely curious how I could end up with the following result.

What could be some of the reasons an admissions committee would extend a very early interview invitation(mid-august) to an applicant who has stats at their 75th %ile and who clearly put high effort into that particular secondary application, only to reject them post-interview, taking into account they've voiced that they only outright reject less than 10% of interviewees?

I don't think I had a great MMI. I would describe it as average, but no where near bad enough in my opinion to get the R.

For reference, this is a public, OOS school, and I live in a state with 6-7 IS public med schools. Could it be as simple as they didn't think I would matriculate? But then why extend an interview?

Thanks in advance for any ideas.
If it's relevant, I have 5+ II's, so I'd venture to say that implies no significant red flags?

Most of anyone's applications end in rejection, so you are in good company.
A school will seldom tell you what the reason for rejection was.

Once you get over this first R, spend time reading up on the next interview you have coming up and reviewing what you wrote on their secondary essays.
With a better fit or better outcome at another interview you could be one of the ~ 40% accepted to med school, and this R will be a thing in your past.

 

[gyngyn]

Could it be as simple as they didn't think I would matriculate? But then why extend an interview?

If we thought you wouldn't matriculate, we wouldn't waste your time with an interview.

 

[Goro]

I don't think I had a great MMI. I would describe it as average, but no where near bad enough in my opinion to get the R.

While most people are poor judges of thier own interview performance, I suspect that in this case, your perceptions were actually close to the mark.

I surmise that you had a bad interview, hence the rejection.

So, work on interview skills.

 

[YodaPineapple]

@Goro @Mr.Smile12 @wysdoc @gyngyn

Thank you for all your replies. It seems the overwhelming consensus was a bad interview. Thankfully, I think I have improved substantially on my performances since this early interview.

However, in the many years of your own experiences, is that really the sole reason for this outcome?

I'm not trying to doubt your expertise, I was just under the impression that to end up in the bottom 7-10% after an interview, you really must have been an alien in the interview. Who knows... maybe I was from Mars that day.

 

[wysdoc]

@Goro @Mr.Smile12 @wysdoc @gyngyn

Thank you for all your replies. It seems the overwhelming consensus was a bad interview. Thankfully, I think I have improved substantially on my performances since this early interview.

However, in the many years of your own experiences, is that really the sole reason for this outcome?

I'm not trying to doubt your expertise, I was just under the impression that to end up in the bottom 7-10% after an interview, you really must have been an alien in the interview. Who knows... maybe I was from Mars that day.

I gave you a kind answer, and your reply would have been kind as well if you had stopped after the first sentence.
To me, the rest of your post turned to a challenging tone.
Do you think you might have come across as argumentative in answering your MMI questions?

 

[YodaPineapple]

I didn't mean it to come off that way. I'm just always trying to think critically about everything and to be sure we're covering all the bases.

 

[eigen]

I've had at least one student who received feedback that they came across as arrogant or overconfident in their interview.

The way some of your posts in this thread read, I'm wondering if you came across as thinking you're (a) a definite accept, or (b) too good for the school in your interview.

 

[YodaPineapple]

I've had at least one student who received feedback that they came across as arrogant or overconfident in their interview.

The way some of your posts in this thread read, I'm wondering if you came across as thinking you're (a) a definite accept, or (b) too good for the school in your interview.

I think it's actually just the opposite. I think I came off as a bit too nervous early on. In a traditional interview for a different school that went well overall, I was actually told that I should believe in/be more confident in myself by the interviewer. And I certainly don't think I came off as too good for the school when I traveled across the country to interview in-person when given the option to do so virtually.

 

[eigen]

IME, "nervous" is not usually what leads to a bad interview. Most people are nervous, and most interviewers expect it.

 

[Mr.Smile12]

@Goro @Mr.Smile12 @wysdoc @gyngyn

Thank you for all your replies. It seems the overwhelming consensus was a bad interview. Thankfully, I think I have improved substantially on my performances since this early interview.

However, in the many years of your own experiences, is that really the sole reason for this outcome?

I'm not trying to doubt your expertise, I was just under the impression that to end up in the bottom 7-10% after an interview, you really must have been an alien in the interview. Who knows... maybe I was from Mars that day.

Without any other information about your application, the most straightforward explanation for a post-II R is the interview. You may still have carried in some concerns going into the interview round, and anything other than a home run interview score could have resulted in a post-II R or a WL. (If you watch GBBO/GBBS, you need a great "showstopper" to redeem yourself from a below-average "signature" or "technical.").

The ladder analogy still holds... you could be at a particular step before interview but find yourself falling off after interview. You could have been at the highest step or next to lowest step, but upon further review, the committee put you in the R bin.

In short, it's a likely outcome, but not necessarily the sole reason. Another reason would be a lack of confidence that the applicant is really a strong fit with the program. Like a bad date... sometimes things just don't click.

With MMI, you may have rubbed enough evaluators the wrong way with your answers or presentation to trigger (in my system) a discussion about the judges' feedback during file deliberations.

 

[Goro]

However, in the many years of your own experiences, is that really the sole reason for this outcome?

For you, yes.
But one can be rejected post-interview for the following:

Showing a lack of ownership for IAs or misdemeanors ("it was the cop's fault I got busted the second time")
History of cheating
Having a red flag LOR (I see about one of these a semester)
Being clueless or a very poor listener at interviews. I have little patience for someone who starts to answer and then asks "could you repeat the question?"
Being a babbling idiot at interviews
Looking bored or not paying attention to what's going on.
Being arrogant
Being scary (this HAS happened!)
Matriculating at any other medical school and flunking out, or leaving for a poor reason.
Lying during interviews (this has also happened)
Being a hyper-achiever who wants to answer other people’s questions, instead of waiting one's turn.
Being a robot or unable to display any sort of emotion, or having a flat affect.
Being immature.
Behaving in an inappropriate manner (ie, rude or unprofessional) to staff or during the interview, either or the visit on campus, or on Zoom. As an example, we've rejected people who called us by our first names during the interview.

Now, I'm sure someone is going to chime in that "yeah, but interviews are stressful". No doubt they are, but so is tying off a spurting artery on a MVA victim, or dealing with an acting-out psychotic patient. Thus, with all the people we interview for our limited number of seats, the seats go to those who display grace under pressure. Panic is not an option for a doctor; clear-headed thinking is.


And also read this:

Interviews: the View From Behind the Curtain

I just answered a PM and my correspondent, who just had an interview asked " ...I saw what looked like a grading rubric... is it possible that you are literally evaluated on paper? But have you heard of such a thing? Also what's with the note taking? Like what gets written down exactly?" With...

forums.studentdoctor.net

 

[DrMashUp]

For you, yes.
But one can be rejected post-interview for the following:

Showing a lack of ownership for IAs or misdemeanors ("it was the cop's fault I got busted the second time")
History of cheating
Having a red flag LOR (I see about one of these a semester)
Being clueless or a very poor listener at interviews. I have little patience for someone who starts to answer and then asks "could you repeat the question?"
Being a babbling idiot at interviews
Looking bored or not paying attention to what's going on.
Being arrogant
Being scary (this HAS happened!)
Matriculating at any other medical school and flunking out, or leaving for a poor reason.
Lying during interviews (this has also happened)
Being a hyper-achiever who wants to answer other people’s questions, instead of waiting one's turn.
Being a robot or unable to display any sort of emotion, or having a flat affect.
Being immature.
Behaving in an inappropriate manner (ie, rude or unprofessional) to staff or during the interview, either or the visit on campus, or on Zoom. As an example, we've rejected people who called us by our first names during the interview.

Now, I'm sure someone is going to chime in that "yeah, but interviews are stressful". No doubt they are, but so is tying off a spurting artery on a MVA victim, or dealing with an acting-out psychotic patient. Thus, with all the people we interview for our limited number of seats, the seats go to those who display grace under pressure. Panic is not an option for a doctor; clear-headed thinking is.


And also read this:

Interviews: the View From Behind the Curtain

I just answered a PM and my correspondent, who just had an interview asked " ...I saw what looked like a grading rubric... is it possible that you are literally evaluated on paper? But have you heard of such a thing? Also what's with the note taking? Like what gets written down exactly?" With...

forums.studentdoctor.net

Please tell us about the one who was scary! I need to hear this.

 

[Goro]

Please tell us about the one who was scary! I need to hear this.

It was just told to us at an Adcom meeting by an interviewer.