Significance of an interview invite

I think this is an interesting question.

Would they 'invite to interview' even if they could exclude you just on your numbers? That would seem like a waste of resources. So, if you perform a perfect 10/10 on the interview, can you still be rejected? If so, they could have rejected you without the interview since the only thing added to your file was a perfect positive. Therefore I would have to conclude that receiving an interview is a significant event at any school it is 'invite only.'


How significant depends on the program. Some put you now at 50/50 admit, while many are still 1/3. The bottom line.... rock the interview and sit back and wait

I think the interview plays a different roles at different schools.

Below is my opinion based on what i have read about the Wharton interview process:

Wharton invites about 35-55% of applicants for interviews. One thing to note is that at Wharton, 2nd year students are members of the admission committee and Wharton would probably not want to put students in a situation to make close calls after reading many applications quickly. A good strategy would be to invite all applicants with "reasonably good" application for interview. This will minimize the need for having to be very precise in the first pass assessment even though it will result in some "dead meat" too. This will also help pipeline the process and they can provide a definite NO to those who are dinged without interview - thus earning brownie points from applicants for their timely and transparent process. They can probably then re-assess the applications with new information from interviews and compose the class for final decision.

So, i would think - an invitation to interview is a positive sign but still just means that one is not denied without an interview. There might still be weakness in one's app which might lead to eventual ding, but they want to defer that decision to a later date after some more information. In most cases, information gleaned from interview is consistent with prior assessment (as per one adcom - dont know if he was Wharton adcom - only 5% are NOT in line with prior assessment) - thats why the notion of "dead meat" - applicants who have weaknessess but are invited to interview because adcoms are not trying to be too precise and want to give benefit of doubt at that time.

My 2 cents.

Having said that, i think an invitation to interview is a necessary and a first step towards eventual admit - so congratulations and Good Luck !

Well first off, congrats!

Now as to the point of the interview. Sadly, no, it does not mean you are "past the 3.0 GPA" and it definetly doesn't mean that your essays wont be read again. This isn't like a job application where the position - admittance - is contingent upon a sucessful background check - or in this case, an interview. The interview is meerly one more data point, another element to your application for them to consider. Your application will be read again, by two or maybe even three people all told, and then your decision will be made by committee.

That said, an interview is a big hurdle - so congrats!

I partially agree with rhyme, but my question is:

What about schools that either ding you or interview you? (and only aftewards accept you)

Doesn't this mean that they at least think the weaknesses in one's profile aren't enough to keep you out of the school?

At LBS I think they have the app all checked by 2 adcoms before calling you to the interview, so one could think that they wouldn't read it again.

Now for exemplo in schools like darden, ucla and others I guess you may yourself scheduelle interviews, that won't mean the same...

At least I guess it may be this way.

I hope so, friday I'll if invited or not to LBS interview (so I wish I'm right concerning the school).

You mean what about schools that interview by invitation only? There's really no difference - you've made an initial cut, but that doesn't mean your GMAT and GPA and Work experience and essays are all fine and wont be considered again. For instance, at the GSB, I believe 2 people read prior to interview, and one reads post interview - then you go to committee where a group decision is made. They will still debate your GPA or GMAT or experience or whatever they might want to debate - it's not like it comes down to: "How did the interview go?" and thats it. If it was meerly a question of having a good interview, you'd have an answer within 48 hours of your interview - you don't because it's not that simple - it's still a discussion and debate of your strengths relative to the pool. In other words - forget for a moment if they actually READ it again - it doesn't matter - they still continue to CONSIDER what you said.

Obviously, for a schools that just interview everyone - eg Kellogg or straight out let you schedule your own before you've even submitted anything (Georgetown for instance) - the interview is truly nothing more than a data point.

An interview at Wharton or other invite only schools means that the people who read your app were sufficiently impressed to want to know more, but it doesn't mean you are in the clear.

Yes I do understand that.
But maybe in those invited only schools if some of the adcoms believe that you are worthy of an interview, probably your odds of the other people analysing your application find it the same way increase.
Just an idea, but of course it's not a "it's up to the your interviewer to make the call" case.
Fully understood. ty rhyme.

Well yes I suppose thats true - if two adcoms liked you enough to interview, the odds are good a third will as well. By the same token though, one could argue that getting an interview is based on a relatively quick analysis of your application, and an admit is based on a much deeper analysis... in the end, who knows!

True.

Let's just hope I even get the interview...