How important are interviews? really....

[Jen21]

Hey,

 

At the risk of being accused for my love for neurotic math, how important are interviews? B/c it looks like people who have the 4.0's and high MCAT's can really get in with a half-decent interview(which is very bad for me, as I don't have a 4.0's for an OOP)....so, I am wondering that how important they are?

 

 

Also, does anyone know how they assign a number out of 15 to your c/pGPA? I came across some posts that showed a very linearly steep scale, whereas the difference b/w a 3.8 to a 3.9 can be as high as 3 marks. Perhaps people who did receive an evaluation of their file last year can shed some light on that by telling how their GPA's were ranked. Do they still truncate the GPA's too?

 

 

Thanks,

Jen

[Jochi1543]

They are worth 25%.

[astudentis]

The Admissions Committee currently receives approximately 1300 - 1500 applications and selects 142 students for admission in the regular quota; 5 Aboriginal and 8 Rural. 85% of seats are reserved to Albertans and 15% for non-Albertans. Selection factors used for calculation of the rank score are:

 

For Interview - Entering Class of September 2009

Cumulative average of university years

15

Prerequisite course average

15

MCAT

15

MCAT Writing Sample

05

Personal Activities

20

 

Overall Rank Score for Selection -the above and

Interview

25

Letters of Reference

05

 

*For Interview - Entering Class of September 2010

*Cumulative average of university years

30

*Prerequisite courses ( successfully completed and transferable)

00

MCAT

15

MCAT Writing Sample

05

Personal Activities

20

 

Overall Rank Score for Selection -the above and

Interview

25

Letters of Reference

05

 

When Confirmation of successful completion of any of the Degrees listed below is received in our office, additional points may be allocated to your application:

Masters 1 point

Ph.D. 3 points

 

No points will be awarded for honors.

[Jen21]

Hey,

 

read the concerns more carefully. Obviously, I know they are worth 25%. But, I am asking, despite being a 25% of the applications, how much of a determining force are they? Are they that influential in your applications? If you score perfect on all the other sections, even with a poor interview, you can get in.

 

My question regarding the scoring of GPA, I know how much it is worth. I can go to the website too. What I am wondering is how the assign the scores of 0-15 to your GPA. Is it a z-score? Or some other system?

 

Read carefully, before copy-pasting.

 

 

They are worth 25%.

 

The Admissions Committee currently receives approximately 1300 - 1500 applications and selects 142 students for admission in the regular quota; 5 Aboriginal and 8 Rural. 85% of seats are reserved to Albertans and 15% for non-Albertans. Selection factors used for calculation of the rank score are:

 

For Interview - Entering Class of September 2009

Cumulative average of university years

15

Prerequisite course average

15

MCAT

15

MCAT Writing Sample

05

Personal Activities

20

 

Overall Rank Score for Selection -the above and

Interview

25

Letters of Reference

05

 

*For Interview - Entering Class of September 2010

*Cumulative average of university years

30

*Prerequisite courses ( successfully completed and transferable)

00

MCAT

15

MCAT Writing Sample

05

Personal Activities

20

 

Overall Rank Score for Selection -the above and

Interview

25

Letters of Reference

05

 

When Confirmation of successful completion of any of the Degrees listed below is received in our office, additional points may be allocated to your application:

Masters 1 point

Ph.D. 3 points

 

No points will be awarded for honors.

[astudentis]

it is based on a z score, and maybe students who conducted interviews there know how important it is (i.e. IceBox was one of the students)

[Icebox]

I'm personally of the opinion that they can make or break you.

 

From Jen21's point of view it seems like she's wondering whether the scoring system really influences your standing between pre-interview and post-interview, and I think it does. It isn't a situation where everyone that interviews ends up scoring within a very small range - that would make it so there was really little to change things before/after the interview.

 

From what I gathered, there was a lot of variability between different applicants. It wasn't everyone scoring "average", with the overall picture looking like a bell curve. I think every number on the scoring scale was used, and people seemed liberal as to making sure low/high scores were given out to separate good interviewing candidates from the not-so-good. I also had a friend with a 4.0 and 41 MCAT that was flat-out rejected post-interview last year.

 

So yes, the interviews are important - there is a range of scores and they end up being a large influence on your overall score. Others may have differing opinions, but that's my viewpoint.

[Jen21]

correctly recognized.

 

I'm personally of the opinion that they can make or break you.

 

From Jen21's point of view it seems like she's wondering whether the scoring system really influences your standing between pre-interview and post-interview, and I think it does. It isn't a situation where everyone that interviews ends up scoring within a very small range - that would make it so there was really little to change things before/after the interview.

 

From what I gathered, there was a lot of variability between different applicants. It wasn't everyone scoring "average", with the overall picture looking like a bell curve. I think every number on the scoring scale was used, and people seemed liberal as to making sure low/high scores were given out to separate good interviewing candidates from the not-so-good. I also had a friend with a 4.0 and 41 MCAT that was flat-out rejected post-interview last year.

 

So yes, the interviews are important - there is a range of scores and they end up being a large influence on your overall score. Others may have differing opinions, but that's my viewpoint.

[mandolin]

Thanks, Icebox. That's good to know. Now I will simply have to change my neurotic musings from worrying that EVERYONE did well to whether my reasonably good feelings about the interview mean I did well, relatively. LOL.

 

Well, at least we're two weeks closer to D-day than on the interview...

[TomD]

it is based on a z score

 

I wouldn't be so sure. The formula for assessing the mark out of 15 for GPA, is held confidential from all applicants. This also goes for the assessment of MCAT numerical and letter scores. Although I wouldn't doubt that a strong bell curve would arise, it's incorrect to say that solely the z score makes up the mark out of 15.

 

I've read way too much on UofC's pre-interview assessment of "academic performance" mark out of 50, on these forums. Although helpful, unfortunately its just tons and tons of speculation. If someone wants the solid truth, go bug the adcoms and tell us how far you get.

 

All in all, the fastest way to pass the time to D-day is for me to avoid these forums...this is where I lack self-control.

[Garance]

I'm personally of the opinion that they can make or break you.

 

From Jen21's point of view it seems like she's wondering whether the scoring system really influences your standing between pre-interview and post-interview, and I think it does. It isn't a situation where everyone that interviews ends up scoring within a very small range - that would make it so there was really little to change things before/after the interview.

 

From what I gathered, there was a lot of variability between different applicants. It wasn't everyone scoring "average", with the overall picture looking like a bell curve. I think every number on the scoring scale was used, and people seemed liberal as to making sure low/high scores were given out to separate good interviewing candidates from the not-so-good. I also had a friend with a 4.0 and 41 MCAT that was flat-out rejected post-interview last year.

 

So yes, the interviews are important - there is a range of scores and they end up being a large influence on your overall score. Others may have differing opinions, but that's my viewpoint.

 

 

Excellent post. I would also add that at most schools, there is typically a wholistic question "Should this applicant be admitted? Y/N". If for some reason an applicant makes a grossly inappropriate comment, or gives the interviewer other good reasons to answer no... this assessment can sink your ship, regardless of your GPA/MCAT scores.

[Jochi1543]

Excellent post. I would also add that at most schools, there is typically a wholistic question "Should this applicant be admitted? Y/N". If for some reason an applicant makes a grossly inappropriate comment, or gives the interviewer other good reasons to answer no... this assessment can sink your ship, regardless of your GPA/MCAT scores.

 

Yeah, but how many people actually get red-flagged? I know U of A evaluation forms had that section, but they said 1 red flag will not be taken into consideration (of course, who knows if this were true). So you'd have to screw up royally on 2 or more stations...how likely is that to happen? I'd imagine it'd only be a concern for a handful of people.

[Version 2]

I would imagine a red flag would be looked at for the reason behind it. Depending on what the reason was they may let it slide or not. I find it hard to imagine that too many red flags go out though... I could see a moderate number of low scores, but red flagging a poor interview seems extreme. Now, if you were racist/sexist/ageist/etc, then I'd be worried....

 

I think most people end up somewhere in the middle anyway, sheerly because by the time all the stations are considered it'll average out (excluding the exceptional and exceptionally poor of course). With the interview only worth 25% at U of A, alot of the variation between candidates probably still ends up being GPA/MCAT/EC's.

 

Utter speculation of course:p

[Wut?]

I think most people end up somewhere in the middle anyway, sheerly because by the time all the stations are considered it'll average out (excluding the exceptional and exceptionally poor of course). With the interview only worth 25% at U of A, alot of the variation between candidates probably still ends up being GPA/MCAT/EC's.

 

Utter speculation of course:p

 

I imagine the opposite, actually. I am closer to Icebox's view that in reality, the interview scores end up bell-curving. I think that the GPA / MCAT / EC spread is narrower since those are criteria for the interview cutoff.

 

My speculation, of course. I should ask around to find out the answer to this.

[Version 2]

I think Icebox was arguing AGAINST a bell curve and more for a random distribution. Maybe some other data trend whose name I have long since forgotten.

 

When most people are distributed around the central value (whether you pick that to be the mean/median/etc) that is more or less what a bell curve IS. It's been a while since stats so I've long since forgotten the exact definition, but as far as the concept is concerned, that's pretty much what I was saying.

 

Yes, everyone who got an interview is above a certain cutoff which narrows the point spread, but I think you still have a reasonable amount of variation within that range. I mean, the cutoff is 3.6, which gives a good 0.4 range to be spread over. Not including EC's which are hard to quantify.

 

However, I agree that it would seem logical that the interviews would be used to further distinguish the candidates. So having a bell curve would almost defeat the point.....

[Wut?]

I think Icebox was arguing AGAINST a bell curve and more for a random distribution. Maybe some other data trend whose name I have long since forgotten.

 

When most people are distributed around the central value (whether you pick that to be the mean/median/etc) that is more or less what a bell curve IS. It's been a while since stats so I've long since forgotten the exact definition, but as far as the concept is concerned, that's pretty much what I was saying.

 

Yes, everyone who got an interview is above a certain cutoff which narrows the point spread, but I think you still have a reasonable amount of variation within that range. I mean, the cutoff is 3.6, which gives a good 0.4 range to be spread over. Not including EC's which are hard to quantify.

 

However, I agree that it would seem logical that the interviews would be used to further distinguish the candidates. So having a bell curve would almost defeat the point.....

 

Thinking about my previous response, I agree with you

 

All I remember is that speaking with one of the admissions officers they said that at the end of the scoring process, there are always a few candidates that are up and above the rest of the pack, and then a certain way down the admissions list, the points spread becomes much, much smaller.

[Version 2]

It's all guesswork, but pretending to understand at least a small part of the world helps me sleep at night

 

I like to think that the top 10-20% of each class is truly exceptional (4.0/45T/Perfect Interview/Spoon-fed African AIDS orphans for 9 months) but the rest of us are all relatively similar. No one has time for everything, unless they don't sleep (and I do know a few who I wonder.....). It seems close enough that I really just consider myself to have a 50/50 shot at whatever schools I interviewed at.

[mandolin]

Well for one thing, a 3.6 is not an interview cutoff. At least not in my case... So there could be a fair bit more spread in stats than you think.

[Version 2]

Silly me:p For some reason that number stuck with me, but you're absolutely right. 3.6 is the OOP cutoff and the IP cutoff is a mere 3.2. Makes a bit of a difference in the point spread eh?

 

That said, I'd still guess that not many below 3.5ish were offered an interview. Not a hard line of course, but below that isn't really competitive unless your other aspects are amazing. Hats off to those who made interviews below 3.5 *salutes*

[mandolin]

Sorry for being cheeky - I had forgotten about the 3.2 and 3.6 cutoffs as being explicitly definted. And yes, I have a 3.5ish although I am also amazing, thanks for noticing!

 

Interestingly, there's a non-trad in the stickied acceptance thread who has a 2.something GPA (from 2007). I wonder if the 3.2 cutoff is new?

 

http://www.premed101.com/forums/showpost.php?p=192906&postcount=76

[Version 2]

Good catch on that post.

 

While I agree that it's possible to get in with a low GPA/MCAT, if you look that guy had CRAZY EC's. I like that since it gives people with lower stats hope.

 

On the flip side, it sounds like he was a mature student (10 years since Ochem puts him around 30 I'd guess). By 30 many people will have found other avenues to explore I would think. The stereotypes exist for a reason, and this may just be giving some folks false hope....

 

That said, once you get an interview it's all a toss up. Who cares if you got 3.5ish? You got your interview, and a good interview makes up for alot

 

And of course, if you're truly determined nothing is impossible:D Just takes a while.

[vip_138]

I don't know if this information will help but I heard something fairly interesting. If you took the best 188 candidates without considering the Interview, and then looked at the best 188 candidates while considering the interview, 25% of those candidates have changed.