But... Interviews are subjective?

[Chansey]

How do medical schools deal with the subjective nature of the interview?

I've had a couple of interviews so far. Some interviewers loved me, and some interviewers were clearly annoyed they had to interview me and wanted to get back to their research ASAP. I had pleasant conversations with most of the faculty, but I didn't say anything especially touching or profound. I don't think I stood out.

Like most applicants, I worked hard for four years to get into medical school. I understand that medical schools need to screen for personality flaws, but it unnerves me that four years of work could be erased by one thirty minute interview. Does anyone feel the same way? How do medical schools approach the interview? I'd love to hear from applicants and adcoms!

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[Goro]

At my school, we take interviews VERY seriously. After all, we have teach these people (and be our future colleagues).

You can indeed find out a lot about a person in a short time, and with a few questions.

It gets even more difficult at residency interviews, so chin up!

People are very poor judges about how their own interviews went., and we're instructed to be polite, so just trust your app and have faith in yourself.

How do medical schools deal with the subjective nature of the interview?

I've had a couple of interviews so far. Some interviewers loved me, and some interviewers were clearly annoyed they had to interview me and wanted to get back to their research ASAP. I had pleasant conversations with most of the faculty, but I didn't say anything especially touching or profound. I don't think I stood out.

Like most applicants, I worked hard for four years to get into medical school. I understand that medical schools need to screen for personality flaws, but it unnerves me that four years of work could be erased by one thirty minute interview. Does anyone feel the same way? How do medical schools approach the interview? I'd love to hear from applicants and adcoms!

 

[TxC]

I'm sure there are others who feel the same way but honestly if you've worked hard and are genuine, you should be content.

The interview, while probably important, is only one of the many aspects of your application.

 

[mimelim]

How do medical schools deal with the subjective nature of the interview?

I've had a couple of interviews so far. Some interviewers loved me, and some interviewers were clearly annoyed they had to interview me and wanted to get back to their research ASAP. I had pleasant conversations with most of the faculty, but I didn't say anything especially touching or profound. I don't think I stood out.

Like most applicants, I worked hard for four years to get into medical school. I understand that medical schools need to screen for personality flaws, but it unnerves me that four years of work could be erased by one thirty minute interview. Does anyone feel the same way? How do medical schools approach the interview? I'd love to hear from applicants and adcoms!

The world is subjective. Every school gets thousands of on paper qualified applicants. Who we want in a medical school class is more than good grades. There is a reason you are interviewed by more than one person.

 

[Chansey]

I appreciate all of the replies! I feel much better about my situation.

But to keep the discussion going...

Let's say I happen to be from the same alma mater as my interviewer, and we hit it off. My friend, interviewing at the same school, gets paired with an assistant professor who's stressed because he's behind in writing grants. Are medical schools concerned about this interviewer bias? Or are these interviewers trained to be as unbiased as possible?

Yes, the world is subjective. Letter of recommendations are subjective, also. But the difference between LORs and the interview is that LORs are based on years of rapport, while an interview is 30 minutes.

I'm not bashing the interview - I think it's necessary for both applicants and medical schools. I'm just curious how the process works.

 

[mimelim]

Is hitting it off good? Yes. Does it make/break an interview? No. As @Goro said, people are notoriously poor at examining how their interviews went. Having a good conversation is important. Being friendly is important. But, there are dozens of other things that we pick up on in interviews. I don't particularly want to post the details of this, but in vague terms, how someone communicates, the effectiveness of that communication, ability to think on ones feet, etc. Are all things that you can get from a short interview. There is a reason you have multiple interviews and dozens of other variables in your medical school application. Unless you are pathologic, you are not done after a single bad interview. It is all about trends and data collation. For instance, if a committee letter or LOR alludes to a particular issue, or something comes through in a PS (ex. entitlement), the interview can be used as a tool to investigate.

 

[VanEman]

Studies show that physicians begin interrupting patients literally within seconds of asking them a question. I would love to see a study that demonstrates whether physicians doing medical school interviews with applicants interrupt them any less.

 

[Chansey]

It is all about trends and data collation. For instance, if a committee letter or LOR alludes to a particular issue, or something comes through in a PS (ex. entitlement), the interview can be used as a tool to investigate

Ah yes, an interview in this context makes sense.

Studies show that physicians begin interrupting patients literally within seconds of asking them a question. I would love to see a study that demonstrates whether physicians doing medical school interviews with applicants interrupt them any less.

That is hilarious! A few of my interviewers definitely preferred talking over listening

 

[cs24]

How do medical schools deal with the subjective nature of the interview?

MMIs help.

 

[Goro]

Bingo, as usual!

And we are told to be objective, and we usually are. But we're human too. I had one colleague, a fellow of about 60, who seemed to always give high scores to pretty women.

Is hitting it off good? Yes. Does it make/break an interview? No. As @Goro said, people are notoriously poor at examining how their interviews went. Having a good conversation is important. Being friendly is important. But, there are dozens of other things that we pick up on in interviews. I don't particularly want to post the details of this, but in vague terms, how someone communicates, the effectiveness of that communication, ability to think on ones feet, etc. Are all things that you can get from a short interview. There is a reason you have multiple interviews and dozens of other variables in your medical school application. Unless you are pathologic, you are not done after a single bad interview. It is all about trends and data collation. For instance, if a committee letter or LOR alludes to a particular issue, or something comes through in a PS (ex. entitlement), the interview can be used as a tool to investigate.

 

[breakintheroof]

I think this is an interesting topic too, @Chansey.

Thank you @Goro and @mimelim for sharing your expertise as interviewers. Since interviewees tend to have a misplaced confidence in their ability to know how their interviews went, I sometimes wonder if it works the other way around too. That is, do interviewers think they can evaluate candidates more reliably than they really can?

I looked around a little for some data and found an interesting review from the AAMC on the use of subjective measures to evaluate applicants.

https://www.aamc.org/download/347712/data/albanese.pdf

Here's their bottom line on interviews:

Even though the evidence for the validity of the interview has been equivocal, there is evidence that interview ratings are predictive of subjective clinical assessments, and low interview assessments are predictive of failure or withdrawal from medical school.

So, some evidence indicates that interviews predict not only subjective assessments, but also an important objective outcome, namely failing out of school!

 

[Goro]

Since we're human and fallible, we have seen people get in under our radar who were underperformers. Well, some had significant problems. Most of these stem from underlying mental issues like depression, or outside events which clobber them (like dad having a stroke, the kids acting out in school; SO stepping out on them) because they have poor coping skills. I have yet to figure out some good interview questions to assess someone for poor coping skills.

We have some interviewers who are soft touches, and others (like me) who are hard-asses. We have yet to do any analysis to see if Dr X is better at selecting good students than Dr Y, although we tons of data to analyze on this.

One confounder in this process is how dedicated an interviewer is to being a stakeholder. For example, lets suppose that Dr X loved one candidate, and Dr Y hated him. Dr Y never goes to the AdCom meetings, and so Dr Y's point of view never gets heard, so the candidate will most likely be accepted.

Since interviewees tend to have a misplaced confidence in their ability to know how their interviews went, I sometimes wonder if it works the other way around too. That is, do interviewers think they can evaluate candidates more reliably than they really can?

Fascinating reading and it confirms something that we've long suspected, but again never bothered to look at!
I looked around a little for some data and found an interesting review from the AAMC on the use of subjective measures to evaluate applicants.
https://www.aamc.org/download/347712/data/albanese.pdf
Here's their bottom line on interviews:
So, some evidence indicates that interviews predict not only subjective assessments, but also an important objective outcome, namely failing out of school

 

[VanEman]

I think this is an interesting topic too, @Chansey.

Thank you @Goro and @mimelim for sharing your expertise as interviewers. Since interviewees tend to have a misplaced confidence in their ability to know how their interviews went, I sometimes wonder if it works the other way around too. That is, do interviewers think they can evaluate candidates more reliably than they really can?

I looked around a little for some data and found an interesting review from the AAMC on the use of subjective measures to evaluate applicants.

https://www.aamc.org/download/347712/data/albanese.pdf

Here's their bottom line on interviews:



So, some evidence indicates that interviews predict not only subjective assessments, but also an important objective outcome, namely failing out of school!

So what I read here is that a subjective section of the admissions process correlates slightly with another subjective evaluation. Hmmmm. Perhaps that means that pretty med school applicants who got higher ratings by old, male physicians on the admissions committee also get better grades from the same old guys who subjectively evaluate them later on. It's a very high cost for what looks like pretty low payback. I think there have to be better ways to get at what's needed.

 

[mimelim]

So what I read here is that a subjective section of the admissions process correlates slightly with another subjective evaluation. Hmmmm. Perhaps that means that pretty med school applicants who got higher ratings by old, male physicians on the admissions committee also get better grades from the same old guys who subjectively evaluate them later on. It's a very high cost for what looks like pretty low payback. I think there have to be better ways to get at what's needed.

Stop giving away our secrets. We really just want the pretty people.

 

[breakintheroof]

It's a very high cost for what looks like pretty low payback. I think there have to be better ways to get at what's needed.

This is not too different from what the authors of the report conclude.

In a way, the interview seems like a good introduction to a major issue in medicine. The most resource-intensive technique is used even though it rests on scant evidence. And few question it.

 

[Goro]

It's the worst method actually, except for all the others.

This is not too different from what the authors of the report conclude.

In a way, the interview seems like a good introduction to a major issue in medicine. The most resource-intensive technique is used even though it rests on scant evidence. And few question it.

 

[godawg300]

Having done several interviews of all types, I really have enjoyed MMI the most and felt it to be the most fair. Why do a lot of medical schools still use the traditional interview? Seems like it can be luck of the draw depending on who you get and what they decide to ask.

 

[skittles1]

Having done several interviews of all types, I really have enjoyed MMI the most and felt it to be the most fair. Why do a lot of medical schools still use the traditional interview? Seems like it can be luck of the draw depending on who you get and what they decide to ask.

As a student interviewer and very outgoing person, it takes me a while to figure out if a quiet person is awkward or cool/nice/chill/whatever your preferred positive word is. I've had to figure out the right questions to ask to tease out reserved vs. not good at communicating. I think that's a weakness of the MMI, that it doesn't allow introverts that time to bloom. Also, at my school, student interviews basically serve the purpose of answering: "is this someone I'd want to have in my class?", which is something that I think takes a good 30-45 minute chat to assess (at least!).

 

[mehc012]

It always reminds me of the 'shopping' period when choosing classes...you know within 30s whether you will like the professor and their teaching style.
In fact, I'm pretty sure that they did studies where they showed that ratings of 30s or shorter clips of a prof correlated well with ratings at the end of a semester...and then they played the same clips only the words were gibberish-ized, and the ratings STILL corresponded, just from body language and tone. It's amazing how quickly we are able to assess how we will interact with others.
Now, I suppose that is a bit different because the interaction of prof→student is fairly standard and not very complex, but still...30-45min seems like enough to figure out whether the idea of interacting with that person again makes you smile a bit or want to pull your hair out.