www.nrmp.org/data/programresultsbyspecialty.pdf I see this is being discussed in some other forums. I thought it would be good to have a discussion from an internal medicine perspective. How does this survey confirm or rebut your preconceived notions of how this whole process is conducted? As an aside, I must say I hope this survey helps to invalidate some of the conjecture churned up by the rumor mill about what programs are looking for and help to focus medical students as to what is truly important to obtain solid training in whatever field they choose.
I just don't understand how the interviewing skills of the applicant can be such a large contributing factor to one's ranking... most of my interviews have just been regular conversations, mixed in with a few standard questions that I'm sure everybody answers in similar ways. The majority of time is spent with the interviewer trying to sell the program to me, or answering my questions. I don't see how there can be that much variation between applicants during the interview, unless somebody blew 'em away with a hilarious stand-up routine or was just a rude, arrogant prick. Could there have beens some bias in this study, as perhaps PDs filled out the surveys according to the way applicants ought to be ranked? I also just don't buy the data that only 19% of programs do NOT require Step 2 results... don't a lot of people wait till february/march to take it?
Agreed, I've walked out of several interviews thinking "man that guy talked the whole time about why I should come there and didn't grill me at all". I even ask all my interviewers if there are any questions they have about my app or anything about me to clarify for them and they all say no.
Yeah, I looked at that pretty nervously because I'm not taking it until Feb. I'm pretty sure the programs I'm interested in don't require it though.
This comes straight from a friend who is a residency program director as a large U.S. medical center: "The interview is a big deal. Academic achievement matters very little after the interview. We are stuck with you for years, so we need to know that you can work in a team, and the interview is the best gauge of that". This is only n=1, however.
I wholeheartedly agree with this in principle...but the point is, programs thus far have done a horrible job at gauging my team work skills. It should be a goal of the interviews, but they don't seem to be getting that information. Maybe they are and I'm too dumb to know it.
When I was on a recruitment committee, I was amazed at the number of applicants who did not seem to take the interview seriously. They made horrible impressions, were rude, disinterested, abrasive, etc. One applicant complained the parking structure hadn't been snow plowed enough and "we should really take care of that." (it was the WAY s/he said it that made it the worst). I absolutely agree with the previous comment - we are definitely trying (crudely) to discern if we want to work with you for 3 years. There are so many applicants that you have to use personality "red flags" to help narrow the field. Remember the cliches: always be nice to the administrative staff (on the phone, in person, etc), always be friendly, always be professional.
My personal feeling after interviewing is that programs have ALREADY have decided where to rank you prior to the interview. Your applicant file is your first impression and you start off pegged somewhere on their list (whether this is already made or not). As long as you are not weird, socially awkward, or don't insult your interviewer it is difficult to move up or down the list. You can certainly easily make people want to not rank you.
I'd agree if there are only 60 people interviewing for 50 positions; it's easy. However, I understood that my MGH interview group of 50 people was a small fraction of the 450 they are interviewing. Too many people think programs have you ranked pre-interview, and they let their guard down at the interview. The interview is serious business and my feeling is that the interview performance gets you the rank position once you've made it that far - not the medical school of origin, or board scores; those don't predict if you'll play well with others for three years when the pressure is on. I interviewed many people in my past career, and it always amazed me when I had a candidate that was too relaxed, under-prepared, too confident, cocky or rude during the interview or toward administrative staff on interview day. Bye bye. A skilled interviewer (and some are not so skilled from my limited experience on the other side of the table) can dig that out....sometimes without the candidate even knowing.
I totally agree with this. The interview is about getting along, playing well with others, and most of all communication. I really believe that whatever got you in the door means nothing once you're in there and I try to behave accordingly.
