Against a published rubric, where one exists. General Surgery weights the interview at 50%, Orthopaedics 60%, Paediatric Surgery 75%, Queensland adult BPT 60% 1234. Dermatology and Clinical Radiology do not publish their weightings at all 56. Most are hurdles as well as ranks — you must clear a minimum, not win.
The published weightings. Where a college publishes them, the interview dominates. General Surgery: CV 20%, referee reports 20%, interview 50%, rurality 10% 1. Orthopaedics: interview 60% and verbal referee report 40%, with the structured CV scored only as a gate at a minimum of 6 of 16 2. Paediatric Surgery: interview 75%, referees 25%, CV a gate 3. Queensland adult BPT: MMI 60%, short-answer statements 20%, referees 0% and used for shortlisting only 4.
Hurdles, not just ranks. Several instruments set a minimum you must clear independent of your total. Queensland BPT hurdles the interview with different minimums for SHO and registrar entry 4, and Orthopaedics runs its CV, OMCQ and departmental referee report purely as gates worth no ranking points 2. So the practical target is usually the threshold, not the top of the field 4.
Where nothing is published. Dermatology states only that the rank is "the combined score of the assessment of the Applicant's CV and the score in the Structured Interview Assessment" — no percentages, no station count, nothing 5. RANZCR delegates selection to jurisdictions, asserts a "standardised weighting system", and never states the weights; no jurisdiction publishes its own either 6. Treat any number you are told about those two as rumour.
What the panel is actually doing. Assessors score each station or question against anchors, usually independently, then the scores are summed and candidates ranked. It is closer to marking an exam than forming an impression, which is why structure and answering the question asked score better than charisma 7.
The counter-argument. A published weighting is not the same as a transparent process. Most programs notify only successful candidates, feedback is thin or absent, and the referee component sitting beside the interview is where people are quietly sunk 8.
r/ausjdocs — community view, not policy; verbatim, cautionary beside positive where both exist, every quote linked to the comment.
Ranzco publish the selection criteria / points. They will change by the time you apply / even next year.
You don't need to be great, meeting threshold could mean just be good enough in the interview!
The interview is weighted at 60% so really it's the thing that matters most. It is also hurdled, with different minimums for SHO roles and Reg roles
Everyone will be ranked based on points (including MMI points etc) .
Asked 8 times on r/ausjdocs (title-regex count) · encoded by hand from the numbered sources, retrieved 12 Sept 2026; no AI wrote any of it. how the count was made
asked_count = posts in r_ausjdocs_posts.jsonl (19,145 posts, 2022-09-13 to 2026-09-12) whose title matches /interview.{0,50}(score|scoring|weight|marked|mark|rubric|panel|format|structure|process|work|station)|(score|scoring|weighting|format|structure|process).{0,40}interview/i. Quotes were chosen for describing scoring mechanics — weighting, hurdles, ranking — rather than question content, in line with r/ausjdocs rule 7.