<p>i think i need to be slightly more concise with my answers, and perhaps more lighthearted(i tend to speak with one tone and am pretty tense).</p>
<p>but thanks for the kind replies (seriously, i do appreciate them!). being rejected after the interview definitely feels much much worse than post-secondary. but it's all part of the game, there are winners and losers at every stage.</p>
<p>I was eventually accepted to 4 med schools and WAKE rejected me pre-secondary! I figured that they knew most Texas residents choose to return to Texas for school because of the cost differential(at least that's how I justified the rejection to make myself feel better)-although I had gone to college in North Carolina and my college sends a lot of students to Wake med school(most NC residents though). Once you get your first acceptance, this temporary setback will be forgotten.</p>
<p>With interviews, you can only prepare your best but there is definitely a high degree of randomness still involved. At my GWU interview, despite it being closed file, my interviewer was more interested in finding out my GPA, MCAT, # of interviews, # of acceptances I think I'd have, and whether I was using GWU as a safety school (yes, he asked me all of this during the interview) than in my interest in the school (he cut me off during my "why George Washington" answer). So it goes.</p>
<p>norcalguy,</p>
<p>that was EXACTLY what my third interviewer did at wake. he just kept asking over and over again why i would consider coming to wake over unc (he knew i was an nc resident even thought it was a semi-blind interview). he even once said "can you even afford wake?". i did not really have great answers because i had not considered question prior to his asking.</p>
<p>Sounds like you two were overqualified for those schools and that they were pretty self-conscious about it. Interview might well have been one last chance for them to convince themselves that you had some kind of attachment to the program.</p>
<p>UVA, I suspect the only way you could have gotten into Wake -- that is, the only way you could have convinced them you really wanted to go there --would have been by proposing to one of their current medical students and having her say yes.</p>
<p>GW is very conscious of their yield since they receive more applications than any other school. However, I figure the yield-protection would come pre-interview when they're identifying candidates to interview. Generally, they are not very stat-focused and instead want people interested in health policy/global health or have ties to DC. Thus, a lot of students with high numbers did not get an interview (they interview approx. 1000 out of 14,000 applicants). I work at the NIH and have worked abroad before which is why I probably got the interview. It was, therefore, disappointing to get grilled at my interview about my stats.</p>
<p>I got a similar treatment at my Drexel interview - the guy took the attitude the entire time I was there that I would get in somewhere else and that their school really didn't have the infrastructure for what I really want to do (academic medicine). They accepted me yesterday though (woot, first acceptance!), probably because I'm in-state and have ties to the school.</p>
<p>BU is another school that's notorious for rejecting people it perceives to be overqualified - I've heard that one oftentimes needs to send them something akin to a letter of intent in order for them to consider you if you have stats well above their averages.</p>
<p>Yea, I've been rejected by BU already w/o an interview lol</p>
<p>I always cringe whenever I mention research during an interview with a lower tier school since I don't know how they might perceive it. At my SLU interview, the guy started talking about how WashU (just across the city) had 4 times as much NIH funding as they did. Luckily, I was accepted anyway.</p>
<p>Actually, I applied to my five state schools and was treated in the exact reverse order of their selectivity.</p>
<p>The least selective school rejected me outright. The second least selective put me on hold before finally granting me an interview (which I didn't attend). School #3 put me on hold briefly and then granted me an interview (which I didn't attend); #4 interviewed and waitlisted me; #5 admitted me.</p>
<p>Exact reverse of their selectivity.</p>
<p>Very sorry to hear about the BU outcome, NCG. </p>
<p>I was under the impression that BU had a pretty good handle on research especially given the number of researchers that present in Neuroscience at the NYAS and being right across from big names they are constantly trying to measure up to. Also, they collaborate with Tufts which has a good research network........but of course, it's not the same as top tier, I agree</p>
<p>On second thought, may be BU thinks they better reject you since you are likely to get in across the Charles.</p>
<p>Some schools think you're too qualified. Others think you're underqualified. They're usually pretty good about this. The key is to apply to enough places (diversification) that you don't fall through the cracks.</p>
<p>There are certain schools (Georgetown, Tufts, GW, BU, etc.) which due to their desirable locations get so many applications that they are forced to reject A LOT of applicants. Thus, their decisions appear seemingly more random. Heck, they may even choose to interview one applicant while rejecting a similar one. </p>
<p>In terms of "tier," I consider them to be mid-tier. They're certainly not top tier but they are very desirable schools. I ended up with interviews at Tufts and GW but pre-interview rejections to Georgetown and BU. Hence, the randomness.</p>
<p>The only ones who receive consistent decisions are highly qualified URM's (MCAT above 30 and GPA above 3.6). They pretty much receive interviews across the board at whichever schools they apply to.</p>
<p>i had my duke interview today!</p>
<p>great experience :)</p>
<p>Good! Duke is, as you know, non-rolling -- so best of luck when you hear in March.</p>
<p>"I've heard back from exactly 50% of my schools so your situation here is very typical as well. There's no harm in calling (unless you call excessively) but if you're complete at every school, just sit tight and wait."</p>
<p>Do you think we stand a chance at eventually being interviewed at some of the silent schools? Are we on something called "hold"?</p>
<p>Some schools have official holds (where they'll let you know that you're on hold) while others have unofficial holds. In my opinion, it's not a big deal to not be interviewed early on, particularly at top schools. I knew that I wouldn't be among the first to interview at top tier schools. They'll interview the more "desirable" applicants first (the Rhodes Scholars, the 4.0/43 freaks, the URM's, the guy who got published in Science) and that my file would get placed in a hold list. However, eventually, I may get a few interviews to top tier schools. After all, how many peepz actually have 4.0/43 or have been published in Science?</p>
<p>This is especially true this year. Due to the computerized testing and the larger number of testing dates, there are WAY more early apps this year and there will be less late apps this year. What this means is that it'll be difficult to get an early interview but easier to get later interviews and there will potentially be much more hold and waitlist movement than in the past. I got an interview last week at a school I was complete at for 2 months. The point of the story is to just wait it out.</p>
<p>It's also worth noting I think that the VitualEvals recommendation system went through a disastrous 'upgrade' over the summer, pushing back processing at some schools by as much as a month according to a few admissions people I've spoken to.</p>