I've never sat a med school entry interview in my life haha.
Mdku22
About all I can add is that, as far as I know, most schools interview at about 3:1. So you'd need to be at 66th %ile of interview score or better to get in.
They've said you were 'right on the mean', which theoretically means exactly 50th %ile, but they probably said that to everyone from 45-55th haha.
So assuming that school does interview at 3:1, and your interview scores were bang-on 50th %ile, you only missed out by ~16 %iles. And I would assume that in med interviews everyone other than the top and bottom 10-15% are fairly closely matched in terms of interview-measured aptitude*. So you're probably not actually that far away from the entry mark in real terms.
Not sure if that helps at all, but my input was asked for
*I may be wrong on that - schools using interview scores as the ultimate selection criterion may have some way of better differentiating candidates at and around the selection cut-off. I'd be skeptical if so - to claim that would be to claim that doing so would improve the cohort.
My understanding of the present evidence behind the predictive value of interviews is that it's far from sufficient for claims of that kind of detail. If they could come up with a selection interview which reliably predicted better doctors (or even med school grades) at the 66th %ile of candidates than at the 55th... That'd be hella impressive.
Tbh think of it like getting 75-80th %ile in UMAT. Highly unlikely that those with 90th %ile would really make better doctors than you, it's just where the line happens to fall for a competitive course.