Like many who frequent this board, I have a lot of time on my hands and not much else I can think about these days. So here's a mental exercise I did last night, am curious what the other lurkers on here think and whether it puts your mind at ease at all:
1st, consider if 3 people interviewed, one will definitely have performed well, one will have performed well or average, and there will likely be a clear distinction with the third person having performed the worst of the 3. Keep this thought in mind as I go through this exercise, but know that there will be 8 total categories:
If they interview 800 people, we can categorize them like this, in my opinion:
Rank #1: ivy league/great school, high gpa, solid gmat, all-around good career with good recs, interview well, shoo-in
Rank #2: almost everything #1 has but a significant Achilles (lesser ranked school, no quant background, slightly lower gpa, low verbal pulling down gmat, not much experience, etc), interview well, shoo-in
Rank #3: demographics that help round-out the class, ie highly qualified minorities, females, poets, athletes, stellar adversity/personal stories, military, etc, interview well, shoo-in
For the sake of making this a clear mental exercise, I'll now skip to the bottom of the pack:
Rank #8: people who either cannot articulate thoughts well enough in English to make it, or people who come across as smug, pompous, otherwise deceitful
Rank #7: people who had a terrible interview, regardless of which of the 1st 3 ranks they came from above
Rank #6: people who had a so-so interview compared to the 1st 3 ranks above, didn't make a connection with the interviewer, didn't display traits of relationship-building, self awareness, etc. I think this is the waitlisted category. But think about it, 75% of 800 is 600, and they accept around 600. The odds are in this group's favor too.
That now leaves Rank 4 & 5. This is just my opinion, but if they accept 550-600 out of 800, it really doesn't matter to dissect these 2 categories because they will likely all get accepted. These categories would be the same as the top 3, except they just didn't perform as well as the folks from the 1st group, ie 1,2&3 did better than 4,5&6. My guess is group 4 has more of the under-represented demographic types, and 5 has more of the high-stats-to-boost-rankings types. Either way they all likely will get acceptances.
The point is this all comes down to did you flub your interview and come across as pompous and aloof? The stats tell me only about 1/8th did so, while 1/16th didn't speak English enough to warrant consideration, and 1/16th came across as lamers who aren't cut from the same cloth as what they're trying to put together to form a class.
I don't think I aced the interview, but I wasn't a disaster either and I think I made a couple of good points while being genuine. This exercise made me not sleep so great last night haha, but at least it gave me reason to think I've got a solid chance. Let me know what you all think about this nonsense, at least it helps pass the time!