"Interview" is really a misnomer for the conversation that occurs between an applicant and Admissions Committee member. Interview seems to imply that one person is asking the questions, really grilling the other person, while the applicant spitfires rehearsed, trite, and long-winded answers. An interview does not at all describe what transpired between me and the first applicant with whom I spoke today. (Yes, I was scheduled for my first "interview" on Thursday, but a physician interviewer canceled, and I was recruited to take his place.)
Have a conversation with your interviewer. In fact, having a conversation is precisely what my Dean of Admissions instructed interviewers to do - to coax a conversation out of the applicant, to assess the genuineness and spontaneity of his or her answers, and to discern whether the applicant responds to the interviewer's facial expressions and body language, particularly when explaining potentially challenging topics such as research endeavors.
Today's applicant did a fantastic job embodying the conversationalist approach to interviews. I was impressed by his consistent eye contact, lack of fidgeting, and natural intuition regarding my level of interest in the things he described. In truth, the young man I interviewed today was far from the most outstanding applicant with whom I will speak this season, but his poise, sincerity, and articulateness were more than enough to impress me. "Two thumbs up."
