<p>The interview is and isn't as important as GPA, etc. Assuming that all the academics are adequate (and heck there really isnt a significant difference between a 730 and a 760 in terms of one's ability to do well at MIT) then what gets you in is the MATCH - the relationship between MIT's culture and values and that of the student.</p>
<p>Sometimes this can be clearly judged in an interview (either positively or negatively), in which case the interview report can be very important. Sometimes it cannot either because the interviewer is poor, or the interview just didn't develop in a way that could lead to a clear judgement (many interviews are like that). So the value of the interview to the admissions decision can fluctuate widely. As a rule of thumb a really really poor interview can hurt you more than a really really good interview can help you. Mostly match comes out in the essays, supplemental materials and letters of recommendations.</p>
<p>Any interviewer will tell you. Every year we see scintillating students who we are sure are going to get in, who fail to do so. And occasionally we have students who interview poorly who nevertheless get in. This year I interviewed one MIT applicant where the interview went OK, nothing great, nothing awful, perfectly fine. Usually you need more than that to get in to the Institute. Nevertheless, that student got in EA.</p>
<p>There isn't a secret equation that says get a score of x on the interview, and y on your GPA, and tick the following Extracurricular boxes and you'll get in. It just doesn't work that way.</p>
<p>-Mikalye</p>