karanw98
Does anyone know how important or critical the interview stage is? I don’t fully understand its role in the admissions process.
In one conversation (Ross group), I saw @BB mention that he has come across cases where an interviewer did not recommend a candidate, yet they still received an offer.
Until now, I assumed that schools create a merit list based on the application materials submitted, and the interviewer simply gives a "satisfactory" or "not satisfactory" rating. But this new information changes my understanding entirely.
If interviewers also provide ratings that are factored into the overall application score, I find that quite unfair—especially since interviewers, young second year students, carry inherent biases.
I don’t think this should be a secret. With so many former admissions committee members now working as consultants, why hasn’t anyone shed light on what truly happens behind the scenes? I wish the process were more transparent.
Hi
karanw98 ! Great feedback shared above !
Interviews serve multiple purposes beyond just verifying application materials:
1. The Role of the Interview:
Adcoms use interviews to assess qualities that can’t always be captured in an application, such as communication skills, executive presence, cultural fit, and leadership potential. The interview helps gauge whether a candidate can thrive in the program, contribute to class discussions, and succeed post-MBA.
2. Influence of the Interview in Final Decisions:
While the interview is important, it might not always be the deciding factor. In cases where the rest of the application is exceptionally strong, a mixed or lukewarm interview might not necessarily result in a rejection. Conversely, a poor interview can raise red flags that lead to a denial, even if the application is strong. Some schools, like HBS and Wharton, have structured interviews where interviewers provide qualitative feedback along with a rating, while others, like Kellogg and Tuck, place significant weight on interviewer recommendations. It's always different for each school.
3. Who Conducts the Interview Matters:
Different schools use different interviewers, adcom members, alumni, or students. Adcom-led interviews are more standardized and ensure consistency. However, student or alumni-led interviews can introduce variability. Bias is always a concern, but schools mitigate this by having multiple readers review interview reports before making a final decision.
4. Transparency in the Process:
The level of transparency varies. Schools do not openly publish how they weigh interviews, but admissions consultants and former adcoms have shared some insights over the years. The interview is not an isolated hurdle but it is one part of a holistic review process.
Ultimately, the interview is an opportunity to reinforce your strengths and provide additional dimensions to your profile. While a single interviewer’s opinion may not always be the final determinant, their feedback does contribute to the overall evaluation. Strong interviews rarely hurt an applicant, but weak interviews can be damaging, particularly if they create doubt about fit, motivation, or communication skills.
It's always a good idea to communicate with the applicants who have gone through the interviews recently to understand the mindset of the interviewers/ questions/ patterns of this stage and prepare accordingly. : )