|
|
GMAT Club Daily Prep
Thank you for using the timer - this advanced tool can estimate your performance and suggest more practice questions. We have subscribed you to Daily Prep Questions via email.
Customized
for You
Track
Your Progress
Practice
Pays
Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.
28 Nov 2012, 18:23
Kudos
Bookmarks
I have been a silent observer (sans account) on this board for a few months now... decided to join today and post because like everyone else above me, I feel like this wait is bruttttallll!!!!
Figured I might as well join in the lamenting and maybe the next two weeks will go by faster! Glad I'm not the only one that has been replaying the interview over and over in my head... can't help but think that I should have replied differently at some points or maybe should have said this, or not said that. Basically just torturing myself!
Anyways - to further give us something to ponder the next 14 days, how do you guys/gals suspect the process goes after the interview? I know the interviewer(s) will do a write-up and then the committee reviews it again, but do you think the interviewer(s) basically put in a recommendation one way or the other (accept/ding), and then it's up to the committee to side with or oppose this recommendation?
Just curious as to how it plays out - whether the person(s) who interviewed us carry more weight in terms of making the decision or whether it really does go back to the committee again for a fresh look at the WHOLE application (vs. focusing just on the interview). Don't mean to rehash an old point as I know this has been discussed previously but it just seems odd that they wouldn't let the interviewer(s) make an initial recommendation and instead go back to square one in terms of re-evaluating all interviewed applicants.
For instance, I think at some other schools each applicant is rated on a point system in different areas, with the interview helping to round out these ratings (meaning that prior the interview there is already some sense of who is a stronger applicant vs. who isn't) - I could be completely wrong but I did recall reading this somewhere.
Figured I might as well join in the lamenting and maybe the next two weeks will go by faster! Glad I'm not the only one that has been replaying the interview over and over in my head... can't help but think that I should have replied differently at some points or maybe should have said this, or not said that. Basically just torturing myself!
Anyways - to further give us something to ponder the next 14 days, how do you guys/gals suspect the process goes after the interview? I know the interviewer(s) will do a write-up and then the committee reviews it again, but do you think the interviewer(s) basically put in a recommendation one way or the other (accept/ding), and then it's up to the committee to side with or oppose this recommendation?
Just curious as to how it plays out - whether the person(s) who interviewed us carry more weight in terms of making the decision or whether it really does go back to the committee again for a fresh look at the WHOLE application (vs. focusing just on the interview). Don't mean to rehash an old point as I know this has been discussed previously but it just seems odd that they wouldn't let the interviewer(s) make an initial recommendation and instead go back to square one in terms of re-evaluating all interviewed applicants.
For instance, I think at some other schools each applicant is rated on a point system in different areas, with the interview helping to round out these ratings (meaning that prior the interview there is already some sense of who is a stronger applicant vs. who isn't) - I could be completely wrong but I did recall reading this somewhere.
scleraxis
Current Student
Joined: 14 Jul 2010
Last visit: 26 May 2015
Posts: 129
Own Kudos:
Concentration: Healthcare
Schools: HBS '15 (M) Wharton '15 (A$)
28 Nov 2012, 18:38
Kudos
Bookmarks
My guess is the interviewer's notes and a write-up/score sheet on the candidate are added to the file and the whole thing is re-evaluated as they said. In my mind, the interview serves 2 main purposes:
1. Make sure the candidate has good command of the English language (for the case method) and can perform under a little pressure
2. Illuminate more of the candidate's background - especially important for people with similar backgrounds (i.e. the droves of consultants/bankers/etc. that apply)
I highly doubt a slightly better story/answer would make a difference (though I have replayed mine in my head as well). You just want to come off as well-spoken and not a jerk. I do think there is some luck required in the next step when they piece together the class.
1. Make sure the candidate has good command of the English language (for the case method) and can perform under a little pressure
2. Illuminate more of the candidate's background - especially important for people with similar backgrounds (i.e. the droves of consultants/bankers/etc. that apply)
I highly doubt a slightly better story/answer would make a difference (though I have replayed mine in my head as well). You just want to come off as well-spoken and not a jerk. I do think there is some luck required in the next step when they piece together the class.
28 Nov 2012, 19:12
Kudos
Bookmarks
sid05
That does make sense... you are probably right that luck is a huge factor in this home stretch. Here's to hoping we all get just enough luck to get us in!
gives you some peace... 
