Puyallup
Does anyone have a sense, for MIT specifically, if the interview is sort of a "last check" and you enter with a relatively even playing field, or if it's another data point? I.e. an applicant that was rates higher when their application was read can get in with a weaker interview and those with weaker applications will need a stellar interview to overcome this deficiency?
I have read that the post-interview acceptance rate for MIT is rather high which may point to the former?
Thanks for the insight.
Posted from my mobile device
They review your application in a holistic approach. The interview is just a piece of it.
Lets say they took 50% of interviewees. If you were there #1 candidate going into the interview, then performed just below average compared to all the candidates in the interview, you would still have a good chance of getting in based on your other credentials. If you were the lowest candidate they interviewed and you knocked the interview out of the park, you still may not get in based on your other credentials.
Im not sure the exact weighting they place on the interview. Maybe 25%, maybe 50, but the rest of your app still matters.
Not quite sure if this is accurate for Sloan. Rod Garcia said in multiple interviews that once they complete the initial quantitative scoring of applicants, roughly the top 18% get interviews. Then they give a score for the interview, and the top 50% are then offered admission. So based upon that, it seems like Sloan, unlike other top schools, start "fresh" with their assessment of applicants once they make it to the interview.