mpg2011
I was reading about interviews and something got me thinking...
They say a bad interview can get you out, but a good interview can't get you in if everything else on your application is just average.
That really makes no sense to me. If everything is considered average on someone's application that a good interview won't help them in, why invite them to interview? What's the point?
Just thinking out loud. A lot of free time before tuesday. Lol.
Posted from my mobile device If you'll allow me to be slightly negative for a minute (just letting off some nervous energy before Tuesday, I guess), I just don't understand the thinking behind weighting the interview in this manner (limited upside, but large downside).
To me, the interview is the least informative and useful part of the whole application process. It's an outlier in terms of what happens: in 30 minutes, one reviewer (your interviewer) makes a subjective call. Compare this to your gmat and gpa: that's quantitative and comparative. Or compare to your own application preparation: tens of hours puting your best foot forward. Or compare to the review process once your app is submitted: it usually goes through multiple rounds of reading from multiple people/viewpoints. Clearly, the randomness involved in an interview (bored interviewer, mangled wording, etc) should eliminate most of its predictive power. Does a company make a hiring decision after 1 thirty minute interview?
Furthermore, Wharton's own brand of interviews diminishes its effectiveness, in my opinion. I've never been a fan of behavioral interview questions (I'm finding that out with some hiring mistakes on my own team right now). Also, knowing what will be asked beforehand just serves to decrease the signal to noise ratio (kinda like grade inflation), and the interview loses predictive power even further.
Ok, sorry guys, I just had to get that off my chest before Tuesday - no more negativity. Good luck everyone.