R3 applicants , any updates. Any more interview calls?

Does anyone happen to know what the decisions are for R3?  I know for Round 2 you can either be admitted, denied or waitlisted.  Is it possible to be waitlisted after Round 3?  The waiting game is killing me.  Not a day goes by that I don't think about this!

UCLA Blog says this

All waitlist candidates who do not ask to be removed from the list will be reconsidered for admission in Round 3 and notified of the Admissions Committee decision by 6pm Pacific Time of the Round 3 decision release date of June 4, 2009.  Decisions include:  admit, waitlist continue and deny.

I received an invitation to interview on the week of May 4th. Online interview sign-up did not have many date and time options, which leads me to believe not too many interviews were handed out for R3 applicants. As their website says, R3 is more competitive round.

Congrats on the invite. UCLA  offers only a window of 2 weeks from the invitation date to schedule the interview. Few slots does sound alarming. Did you finish your interview? If yes, were there other applicants inteviewing that day. Also can you share your profile.

I interviewed this week for UCLA Anderson R3.  I saw a list from the coordinator in the admissions office that has about 6-8 names on it checked off (?).  I presume this was for the day's interview schedule.  I was given the option of choosing interview dates from about a week and a half period.  From this, I'm presuming that the interview pools is still pretty robust. 

Alas, my student interviewer was truly inexperienced and not very professional either.  Kinda turned me off on the whole Anderson MBA thing (yes, I shouldn't judge a school by just one person...)

What day did you interview? Not professional in what sense?

You can't expect every single student to be top notch in all top business schools. 

Unprofessional in the sense that 1) the interviewer really didn't come prepared and 2) the interviewer was confrontational and generally unpleasant.

You're right that I can't expect every single student to be "top notch", but I what I can't understand is why the school doesn't stress a greater emphasis on providing a more consistent admissions experience to prospective students - i.e. better info sessions and better interviewer's training.

I really feel that it's a two-way street - interviewers and student admissions reps are ambassadors for the school and they are "courting" top candidates as much as candidates are courting the schools.  Leaving a less than stellar impression on prospective candidates doesn't do anything for the school.

I don't know if everyone got this impression at UCLA or it was just me, but from my visits to Booth, Kellogg, USC, Tepper, etc., those schools really welcomed you.  I have to especially give a lot of credit to the Tepper School - I mean they really rolled out the red carpet for prospective students - small group tours, free lunch, 1:1 Q&A.   At UCLA, I had mediocre experiences at 2 info sessions + my interview.  Anyways, just my 2 cents.

I felt the same at UCLA. Forget any tour or free lunch they were not even paying attention to the visitors.  I reached office at 10.00 and my interview was at 10.30. The lady at the reception told me that since u've come early hang around, kill some time and come back at 10.30. All questions were answered in yes/no.

Overall it was a very unfriendly and cold experience. Nothin compared to the other schools.

It's a shame because I once thought the school was a great fit for me.  The whole admission experience kinda soured me on the school.

You'd think that the admission experience is the one thing that a school *would* spend a lot of time doing well because it ties in directly with the caliber of candidates and future alumni.  I wonder if this has anything to do with the fact that UCLA is a state school (?).  Or perhaps this is just the culture of the school?