Goro’s guide to interviews

[Nietzschelover]

I disagree lol answering that you would do something illegal is not okay.

So, if the question is euthanasia with terminal illness, you're going to answer by simply asking "What state are we in?"

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[mehc012]

So, if the question is euthanasia with terminal illness, you're going to answer by simply asking "What state are we in?"

Well, not in those words, because I don't have state policies memorized...but you can be sure I would mention that the local/state laws where I practiced would influence my decision. I can't help anyone if I'm locked up.

Now, I would also probably allude to my thoughts on what the law should be, and/or what I would do in the case where both options were legal, but at the end of the day I am bound by legislation.

 

[Affiche]

Exactly! I can recognize that if we lived in a lawless state then these situations would be messy, but that isn't the case. When a competent adult clearly has withheld consent there isn't anything to debate. You can complicate the hypothetical situation by adding variables, but at the end of the day you're bound by the law.

 

[Stagg737]

I disagree lol answering that you would do something illegal is not okay.

That's not the point of the question. Additionally, there are many states where a verbal statement of "I don't want X treatment because of my religion" does not supersede a physician's obligation to administer life-saving treatments. Another thing to think about is what if it's a situation, like in the ER, where you need to make a decision this instant but are unsure of the law? What do you do? For some it would be to respect the patient's decision, others make very compelling arguments that one should treat the patient anyway. Either way, you may inadvertently break the law, this is why good samaritan laws were initially implemented, to protect individuals who were legitimately trying to do what was best.

Well, not in those words, because I don't have state policies memorized...but you can be sure I would mention that the local/state laws where I practiced would influence my decision. I can't help anyone if I'm locked up.

Now, I would also probably allude to my thoughts on what the law should be, and/or what I would do in the case where both options were legal, but at the end of the day I am bound by legislation.

This would be a pretty appropriate response. Typically they're not looking for whether or not you know the law, they want to know how you would approach the issue and what your thought process would be. You could mention that you'd obviously take the law into account, but I'd spend the bulk of the response answering the second part of your comment.

 

[Goro]

This is an excellent question! I may have to use this in interviews.

My advice is:
1) do NOT get offended
2) keep your composure
3) paste a smile on your face and answer the question as best you can, for example

Q: what does your significant other think about your deciding to pursue a career in Medicine?
A: S/he's very supportive of it.

or

Q: why go to med school when you have young children and should be home taking care of them?
A: My in-laws are helping and we will look for good child care arrangements. My spouse is more than willing to take up the slack so I can excel in my studies. In addition, we'll see what your current students who have children do.

4) Inform the Dean of Admissions. the only way we can get rid of bad interviewers is to do this.

Now, keep in mind that after we just had a 10+ page thread on "illegal questions", not every question actually is an illegal question!

If I am asked a question that I have fair reason to believe that is borderline offensive or "illegal" in an interview setting (e.g. religious beliefs, what other schools I'm interviewing at, etc.), what is the best way to respond? I've never been in that situation before, so I don't know how to best react if placed in that situation. Is it even OK to ask if the question is "illegal"?

 

[Affiche]

That's not the point of the question. Additionally, there are many states where a verbal statement of "I don't want X treatment because of my religion" does not supersede a physician's obligation to administer life-saving treatments. Another thing to think about is what if it's a situation, like in the ER, where you need to make a decision this instant but are unsure of the law? What do you do? For some it would be to respect the patient's decision, others make very compelling arguments that one should treat the patient anyway. Either way, you may inadvertently break the law, this is why good samaritan laws were initially implemented, to protect individuals who were legitimately trying to do what was best.

The original question posted wasn't a difficult question to answer. I'm not an idiot; obviously in an interview my response wouldn't be limited to "I would follow the law". Come on, now. But realistically, this original question didn't present an ethical dilemma. If the interviewer's goal is to get us to weigh various sides of an ethical dilemma, then they need to come up with a hypothetical situation where there are various routes that one can legally choose to take. If I knew something was illegal, I would never sit there and seriously weigh the illegal choice as a viable option and I wouldn't recommend that other interviewees do so either lol.

Twisting the situation to blur the legal lines is better because it actually sets me up to explain what I would do and why.

 

[Stagg737]

The original question posted wasn't a difficult question to answer. I'm not an idiot; obviously in an interview my response wouldn't be limited to "I would follow the law". Come on, now. But realistically, this original question didn't present an ethical dilemma. If the interviewer's goal is to get us to weigh various sides of an ethical dilemma, then they need to come up with a hypothetical situation where there are various routes that one can legally choose to take. If I knew something was illegal, I would never sit there and seriously weigh the illegal choice as a viable option and I wouldn't recommend that other interviewees do so either lol.

Twisting the situation to blur the legal lines is better because it actually sets me up to explain what I would do and why.

Fair enough, we don't really know the details of the question though, which is why i made a more specific one. If it's a basic procedure (ex. dequervain's release), where one would never be expected to need a transfusion, idk if those forms would have been signed in the first place unless the patient explicitly asked to sign them. I agree with you though that the legality aspects could be taken out to help the interviewer understand how they're supposed to answer.

 

[Goro]

Stagg....shhhhh!

Don't give it away! Let' 'em think for themselves!

Fair enough, we don't really know the details of the question though, which is why i made a more specific one. If it's a basic procedure (ex. dequervain's release), where one would never be expected to need a transfusion, idk if those forms would have been signed in the first place unless the patient explicitly asked to sign them. I agree with you though that the legality aspects could be taken out to help the interviewer understand how they're supposed to answer.

 

[Affiche]

Stagg....shhhhh!

Don't give it away! Let' 'em think for themselves!

Lol what is he giving away? He's supporting the point that a question about an ethical dilemma needs to actually present an ethical dilemma!

 

[Mr.Hyde]

The doc was 100% correct and mehc012 summed it up nicely.

Just one more thing I'd like to reiterate, because it seems to be a pre-med urban legend. Once you interview, it's not a zero-sum game. You're not competing for a single seat against the other applicants, only against yourself.

Thank you

 

[Stagg737]

Stagg....shhhhh!

Don't give it away! Let' 'em think for themselves!

Oh don't worry, I won't lol. I just know the 'right' answer because a very, very similar case was presented to us in our bioethics class and our dean (a DO/JD) as well as both bioethics professors went pretty in depth on it. I won't give it away here without adcom permission though

 

[Goro]

Yup...we have insider knowledge.

Oh don't worry, I won't lol. I just know the 'right' answer because a very, very similar case was presented to us in our bioethics class and our dean (a DO/JD) as well as both bioethics professors went pretty in depth on it. I won't give it away here without adcom permission though

 

[ImmunoLove]

The original question posted wasn't a difficult question to answer. I'm not an idiot; obviously in an interview my response wouldn't be limited to "I would follow the law". Come on, now. But realistically, this original question didn't present an ethical dilemma. If the interviewer's goal is to get us to weigh various sides of an ethical dilemma, then they need to come up with a hypothetical situation where there are various routes that one can legally choose to take. If I knew something was illegal, I would never sit there and seriously weigh the illegal choice as a viable option and I wouldn't recommend that other interviewees do so either lol.

Twisting the situation to blur the legal lines is better because it actually sets me up to explain what I would do and why.

Agreed that perhaps it would behoove the interviewers to pose questions to which violation of law is not an issue (or at least not an obvious one), in order to best execute the purpose of these questions, which has to do with assessing who you are and how you think. One might even argue that the automatic "nixing" of all potentially illegal actions is quite revealing in and of itself (and are often coupled with certain other characteristics and approaches to authorities, not to mention idology, etc etc).

Just to throw a wrench in it, I would say my personal view is that while I would look for alternatives in which I would not knowingly commit a crime, I personally consider the legal system (and protocols etc) as prima facie, and something to which I would usually defer (after all, there must be a reason such precedents were set in the first place, at least one would like to think), but that they are not inherently ethical or the right thing to do. I would, under these rare instances, knowingly commit a crime if I could not convince myself deference is best (and, I will really REALLY give the law and other such systems the benefit of the doubt). The law is a means (to execute fairness, protection etc), but mor(al)es are an end. There is a critical difference.

(and now back to my boring life of paperwork)

 

[Goro]

We really don't ask ethics questions for which violation of the law is one of the options....give us some more credit than that. Even on physician-assisted suicide, we're trying to find out where you stand, not have you enter Law school.

Rather, if you're interviewing at, say U MI, and are asked "would you give a lethal dose of medication to a terminal cancer patient?'; the correct answer is NOT "I can't do that because it's against the law in MI".... the correct answer is either "yes, because..." or "no, because..."

Agreed that perhaps it would behoove the interviewers to pose questions to which violation of law is not an issue (or at least not an obvious one), in order to best execute the purpose of these questions, which has to do with assessing who you are and how you think. One might even argue that the automatic "nixing" of all potentially illegal actions is quite revealing in and of itself (and are often coupled with certain other characteristics and approaches to authorities, not to mention idology, etc etc).

Just to throw a wrench in it, I would say my personal view is that while I would look for alternatives in which I would not knowingly commit a crime, I personally consider the legal system (and protocols etc) as prima facie, and something to which I would usually defer (after all, there must be a reason such precedents were set in the first place, at least one would like to think), but that they are not inherently ethical or the right thing to do. I would, under these rare instances, knowingly commit a crime if I could not convince myself deference is best (and, I will really REALLY give the law and other such systems the benefit of the doubt). The law is a means (to execute fairness, protection etc), but mor(al)es are an end. There is a critical difference.

(and now back to my boring life of paperwork)

 

[Nietzschelover]

@rachiie01, I'm actually trying to help....are you going to argue with the interviewer about what is and is not an ethical dilemma? And do you believe there are any scenarios where something is not legal but honoring what is legal may not be ethical?

 

[Affiche]

@rachiie01, I'm actually trying to help....are you going to argue with the interviewer about what is and is not an ethical dilemma? And do you believe there are any scenarios where something is not legal but honoring what is legal may not be ethical?

I wouldn't argue with an interviewer, no lol. But I can have my own personal opinion about whether or not I was asked strong questions.

There are plenty of laws that I disagree with! The drinking age is a good example. That doesn't mean that I would break those laws or advocate for breaking them (not in an interview, at least ).

 

[ImmunoLove]

We really don't ask ethics questions for which violation of the law is one of the options....give us some more credit than that. Even on physician-assisted suicide, we're trying to find out where you stand, not have you enter Law school.

Rather, if you're interviewing at, say U MI, and are asked "would you give a lethal dose of medication to a terminal cancer patient?'; the correct answer is NOT "I can't do that because it's against the law in MI".... the correct answer is either "yes, because..." or "no, because..."

Perhaps I wasn't clear. I only meant to suggest that the purpose of these questions is to get an idea of how one approaches dilemmas and one's reasoning (and values), so as to determine whether one would be a reasonable candidate/future physician. It's good to know that these questions typically circumvent legality (removing legality, I think, is a more ideal way to best serve the function of such questions).

 

[Nietzschelover]

I wouldn't argue with an interviewer, no lol. But I can have my own personal opinion about whether or not I was asked strong questions.

There are plenty of laws that I disagree with! The drinking age is a good example. That doesn't mean that I would break those laws or advocate for breaking them (not in an interview, at least ).

Right, but the interviewer very well might want to hear your thoughts on why the age should be changed. I agree. I think it should be 19.

 

[Affiche]

Right, but the interviewer very well might want to hear your thoughts on why the age should be changed. I agree. I think it should be 19.

And if I'm asked what I think the law should be, I will respond accordingly! But I won't ever say in an interview that I would break a well-known law (especially one that I agree with, such as honoring withheld consent lol).

 

[Nietzschelover]

And if I'm asked what I think the law should be, I will respond accordingly! But I won't ever say in an interview that I would break a well-known law (especially one that I agree with, such as honoring withheld consent lol).

Haha....well maybe instead you can tell him or her what some of the rest of us might say (lol).

 

[Nietzschelover]

I'm not sure physicians and physicians-to-be like swimming in the waters of ambiguity and ambivalence.

 

[Affiche]

I'm not sure physicians and physicians-to-be like swimming in the waters of ambiguity and ambivalence.

Exactly, which is why these hypothetical situations need to be better thought-out lol.

 

[Nietzschelover]

Exactly, which is why these hypothetical situations need to be better thought-out lol.

Exactly lol. But the questions and hypotheticals aren't always going to be asked or thought out to fit your mode of operating.

 

[TrueWolverine]

@dcc123

 

[musicalfeet]

Apologies for the change of subject everyone...

but I was wondering if it's better to tie all your activities back to "why I would be a good doctor" when discussing during interviews? I'm obsessively combing through an interview I just did today, and one of the things that occurred to me was that I rarely tied my activities back to "why I would be a good doc/traits that would help". I mostly talked about each activity and what I did (with enthusiasm).

Also, I think I have a tendency to mirror my interviewer's demeanor. During mocks, my interviewer was always really stoic and stiff while firing off questions, so I was used to that style of interviewing (so even though I was pleasant/smiled, there was minimal laughing and my answers were generally pretty formal). The interviewer for the one I did today was realllyyy casual. She asked mostly about hobbies and stuff after asking the main "Why X school?" and other generic questions. There was a lot of laughter and going off topic, which caught me off guard and upon retrospect, I wonder if I should have tried to steer the interview back into more formal territory rather than bonding over our alma mater..

 

[Lawpy]

Stagg....shhhhh!

Don't give it away! Let' 'em think for themselves!

Oh don't worry, I won't lol. I just know the 'right' answer because a very, very similar case was presented to us in our bioethics class and our dean (a DO/JD) as well as both bioethics professors went pretty in depth on it. I won't give it away here without adcom permission though

Yup...we have insider knowledge.

After being thrown into the dark for a while, I think I know what you guys are referring to (although I could be completely wrong lol). But it seems to be pretty consistent given what I have seen.

And no, I won't reveal it in an open forum where lurkers can see and steal ideas/answers

 

[feather421]

Such a great post!

Quick question: how should I think about interviews at my reach schools (GPA below 10th percentile by a hair, MCAT above or at the median)? I'm obviously thrilled to have gotten them, but I don't want to get my hopes up too high. I know that schools don't invite people that they will 100% reject, but I guess I'm suffering from impostor syndrome. Do you think the things that got me an interview in the first place could be enough to garner an acceptance, or is my less-than-ideal GPA going to keep me out no matter what? What are the types of things you're looking for in these situations?

(For additional information, I'm a non-trad who took post-bac classes to fulfill pre-med requirements. My GPA has a super strong upward trajectory, which may balance out how my freshman year of college dragged it down a bit, but I'm still worried that schools will see a high 3.5 and think it's a deal-breaker. I did nail the MCAT, so that helps.)

 

[deleted567285]

Should I take a portfolio with me to an interview. With resumes and copies of application? And paper to take notes. Is that too much?! @Goro

 

[deleted662474]

Just for your information, Gordo, I have seen ALL 11 seasons of Grey's Anatomy, so I know medicine is right for me - what I WAS BORN TO DO (@BornToBeASurgeon right?!).

I'm in my firts semster and I have a 4.0 already (Mom always did say I was smart LOL). I'm all jacked up on mountain dew and F'n #winning. And volunteering is for LOSERS; I will be out w/ hot chix and playing COD while burning throagh the hard sciences like it's my jobe, son.


EDIT: ORTHO HERE I CUM!

EDIT: GET IT? HAHAHAHAHHAHAH

You mad, bro?

 

[Mr Magpie]

Should I take a portfolio with me to an interview

I don't think it's really necessary (most schools provide a folder or something similar). Some students bring one, some don't, no one will judge you either way.

With resumes and copies of application?

The interviewers will have already read/have your app information if it's an open file format.

I would not worry about it... unless you wanted to review your own app during a break period (though at this point, once you're at the interview, it's probably better to relax and collect yourself).

And paper to take notes. Is that too much?!

I've seen people doing this--if it's your thing go for it. Most schools provide writing implements if there's any to be done.

 

[Neutropix]

I don't think it's really necessary (most schools provide a folder or something similar). Some students bring one, some don't, no one will judge you either way.



The interviewers will have already read/have your app information if it's an open file format.

I would not worry about it... unless you wanted to review your own app during a break period (though at this point, once you're at the interview, it's probably better to relax and collect yourself).



I've seen people doing this--if it's your thing go for it. Most schools provide writing implements if there's any to be done.

What about a mohawk. Like a really sweet one?

 

[mehc012]

What about a mohawk. Like a really sweet one?

Only if it's dyed school colors!

 

[Dohnut]

Gauss, this is completely irrelevant. Maybe you got post confused with the "schools looking for LGBT students thread"??

Your interviewers are going to be, for the most part, PhDs and/or MDs/DOs. Their gender is completely irrelevant. This is a professional setting and you act accordingly. You're not interviewing for a job...it's a career that starts at a professional school. The person you're talking to is not yet your peer.

And our Admissions Deans and staff aren't *****s, they have, at least at my school, placards or name tags for the interviewees. So if Jane comes in, and her tag says Jane, even though she started life as a John, I call her Jane.

I'm worried about you, Gauss. Have you taken the MCAT yet? Watch out for the VR section, especially reading comprehension and critical thinking.

Well I kind of understand where Gauss was coming from. The UCSF secondary has nothing but sexual orientation multiple choice questions, so before I went to NoCal for an interview I was scared to hell of addressing people as something they would not identify themselves with. Being from south Texas, saying sir or ma'am comes as conditional reflex, so NoCal initially felt like a foreign country to me. But in the end it was all..... normal.

 

[restlessdriven]

Is it a bad thing if you get done with your interview and find out everyone else answered an ethics and/or state of healthcare question when you weren't even posed the question? Someone tell me I'm being neurotic.

 

[Mr Magpie]

Is it a bad thing if you get done with your interview and find out everyone else answered an ethics and/or state of healthcare question when you weren't even posed the question? Someone tell me I'm being neurotic.

Consider yourself lucky I guess. Those questions are sometimes hard to approach. I wouldn't worry too much!

 

[idontknowwhatnametopick]

So I was just doing a mock interview with a friend and she asked "What's the last book you've read that wasn't medical?"
I've been really into medical books lately (Atul Gawande etc), and the last stuff I've read that wasn't medical was Harry Potter (I read them all at least once a year, I know I'm weird). The books before that were the Divergent series, and before that the Hunger Games...
Should I interrupt my current books (Remedy and Reaction, Being Mortal) and read something non-medical? Or would answering Harry Potter be fine?

 

[mehc012]

So I was just doing a mock interview with a friend and she asked "What's the last book you've read that wasn't medical?"
I've been really into medical books lately (Atul Gawande etc), and the last stuff I've read that wasn't medical was Harry Potter (I read them all at least once a year, I know I'm weird). The books before that were the Divergent series, and before that the Hunger Games...
Should I interrupt my current books (Remedy and Reaction, Being Mortal) and read something non-medical? Or would answering Harry Potter be fine?

Reading a book to have the 'right' answer for this question kinda seems to defeat the purpose of the question, no?

 

[Goro]

Hyperneurotic.

TX: Xanax.

Is it a bad thing if you get done with your interview and find out everyone else answered an ethics and/or state of healthcare question when you weren't even posed the question? Someone tell me I'm being neurotic.

 

[Goro]

Even more hyperneurotic.

TX Xanax and therapy.

So I was just doing a mock interview with a friend and she asked "What's the last book you've read that wasn't medical?"
I've been really into medical books lately (Atul Gawande etc), and the last stuff I've read that wasn't medical was Harry Potter (I read them all at least once a year, I know I'm weird). The books before that were the Divergent series, and before that the Hunger Games...
Should I interrupt my current books (Remedy and Reaction, Being Mortal) and read something non-medical? Or would answering Harry Potter be fine?

 

[idontknowwhatnametopick]

Reading a book to have the 'right' answer for this question kinda seems to defeat the purpose of the question, no?

Even more hyperneurotic.

TX Xanax and therapy.

OK so if they do ask the question I'll just be honest.

 

[The-Dreamer]

Is it just me or is everyone more concerned about the "right answer" than being themselves and just telling the truth? I must be very naive...very curious to see how things will turn out

 

[idontknowwhatnametopick]

Is it just me or is everyone more concerned about the "right answer" than being themselves and just telling the truth? I must be very naive...very curious to see how things will turn out

I was very focused on being myself until I discovered SDN

 

[avgn]

So I was just doing a mock interview with a friend and she asked "What's the last book you've read that wasn't medical?"
I've been really into medical books lately (Atul Gawande etc), and the last stuff I've read that wasn't medical was Harry Potter (I read them all at least once a year, I know I'm weird). The books before that were the Divergent series, and before that the Hunger Games...
Should I interrupt my current books (Remedy and Reaction, Being Mortal) and read something non-medical? Or would answering Harry Potter be fine?

Remedy and Reaction is hardly a "medical book." It is a history book.
Most people would be impressed you found time and cared enough to trudge through such an academic book yourself

If I were asked the question, I would tell the truth and say that my Kindle is currently obsessed with a fiction series meant for middle schoolers. Artemis Fowl. Go read it everyone, you're welcome

 

[mehc012]

Remedy and Reaction is hardly a "medical book." It is a history book.
Most people would be impressed you found time and cared enough to trudge through such an academic book yourself

If I were asked the question, I would tell the truth and say that my Kindle is currently obsessed with a fiction series meant for middle schoolers. Artemis Fowl. Go read it everyone, you're welcome

I LIVE on fiction meant for middle schoolers! And just fantasy in general

If you read HP, say HP. If you read Fowl, say Fowl...it's not meant to be a judgement, it's just "what do you read for pleasure?"

 

[ImmunoLove]

So I was just doing a mock interview with a friend and she asked "What's the last book you've read that wasn't medical?"
I've been really into medical books lately (Atul Gawande etc), and the last stuff I've read that wasn't medical was Harry Potter (I read them all at least once a year, I know I'm weird). The books before that were the Divergent series, and before that the Hunger Games...
Should I interrupt my current books (Remedy and Reaction, Being Mortal) and read something non-medical? Or would answering Harry Potter be fine?

Just say the truth. It's quirky, and cute. It makes you human. It's who you really are, and I bet you'd be surprised to find that many docs like Harry Potter and other series too....

 

[idontknowwhatnametopick]

Remedy and Reaction is hardly a "medical book." It is a history book.
Most people would be impressed you found time and cared enough to trudge through such an academic book yourself

If I were asked the question, I would tell the truth and say that my Kindle is currently obsessed with a fiction series meant for middle schoolers. Artemis Fowl. Go read it everyone, you're welcome

Oh I love Artemis Fowl!
Also, ender's game <3

 

[avgn]

Oh I love Artemis Fowl!
Also, ender's game <3

Aurum est potestas

 

[RuggerMD]

Hi @Goro I really appreciate this thread and your insight. Is a first question of "Tell us about yourself?" the opportunity to explain why medicine, or should we speak more generally about ourselves and wait for the "Why medicine?" prompt?

 

[snowpea28]

I got asked what book I identify the most with when I was on residency interviews. I think being yourself= best.

I talked about Gone with the Wind and how I wanted to be Scarlett O Hara since I was 8 and I first read the book. Then I went on to talk about fantasy novels and dystopian YA fic. The entire 45 minute conversation was on great books and it was amazing. I left with some great book recommendations too. Honestly, the interview process is all about them thinking that you're a real person and that you'll fit in well with the culture of the school.

Hi @Goro I really appreciate this thread and your insight. Is a first question of "Tell us about yourself?" the opportunity to explain why medicine, or should we speak more generally about ourselves and wait for the "Why medicine?" prompt?

I used it to explain why medicine but I've also had friends NOT do it that way. Everyone got into med school.

 

[Goro]

Suppose you just met a distant cousin for the first time and she asked "tell me about yourself ".

What would say???

Not everything is related to Medicine.

Hi @Goro I really appreciate this thread and your insight. Is a first question of "Tell us about yourself?" the opportunity to explain why medicine, or should we speak more generally about ourselves and wait for the "Why medicine?" prompt?