ryantmc84
If the interview was the end all be all, I doubt they'd leave the task to a single interviewer who can provide only one perspective.
I think that's right, with maybe a couple of exceptions (such as HBS, where adcom does all interviews if I understand correctly - I didn't apply there). They say they're trying to determine "fit", but when you have 100 different people doing interviews (with adcoms, students, alumni) you'll have 100 different versions of what constitutes the correct fit, even if you give the interviewers detailed instructions on what to look for. The adcoms have to understand that - they aren't stupid - so I've come to believe that interviews exist for two reasons primarily.
1. To gauge the English skills of international applicants.
2. To make sure you're not a pompous a**
They also probably make some notes on how well you articulate and present yourself, but most people probably perform adequately enough in their interviews, and even if you have a bad day it's probably not a dealbreaker if you pass the two tests above and the rest of your application is strong.
Edit: After I wrote that, I saw this quote from Darden's dean in an article on P&Q
Quote:
For so many international applicants, there is a mastery of English which helps them complete applications and TOEFL (Test of English as a Foreign Language) exams and the like and then there is another level that actually helps them learn in our active learning classrooms. I believe that the profession we serve is looking for internationals with the latter kind of mastery of English.
So basically he admits that just passing the tests isn't enough, and English needs to be at a level only verifiable by actual human interaction