Advising a friend of mine on interviews.

[Flaxmoore]

---

Members do not see this ad.

I just found out a friend of mine got his first interview, and since I'm in med school, he asked what sort of mistakes to avoid. As he phrased it, what did your advisor tell you that turned out to be wrong? What did they say to do that was a mistake?

Mine was twofold. My premed advisor basically tried to make me paranoid, saying to assume that everyone you saw on interview day was on the adcom, or had some say. It drove me nuts initially- what if that guy walking past in the parking lot saw me change out of my boots into dress shoes? What if that guy in the hallway saw me trip?

After rethinking, I chose to disregard when I reapplied. All it did was make me twitchy, and I figure simply being courteous was enough.

The other was taking control of the LORs. My advisor said she would write one and send the whole set of 5, and she delayed enough that my package wasn't complete until October. What I did when I reapplied was go to each prof and give them a stamped, addressed envelope. They could mail it or I could, but either way they went out quicker.

What about those others of you who have recieved acceptances? I can pull from my experience, but I'd like some more to give.

 

[dazed1980]

I just found out a friend of mine got his first interview, and since I'm in med school, he asked what sort of mistakes to avoid. As he phrased it, what did your advisor tell you that turned out to be wrong? What did they say to do that was a mistake?

Mine was twofold. My premed advisor basically tried to make me paranoid, saying to assume that everyone you saw on interview day was on the adcom, or had some say. It drove me nuts initially- what if that guy walking past in the parking lot saw me change out of my boots into dress shoes? What if that guy in the hallway saw me trip?

After rethinking, I chose to disregard when I reapplied. All it did was make me twitchy, and I figure simply being courteous was enough.

The other was taking control of the LORs. My advisor said she would write one and send the whole set of 5, and she delayed enough that my package wasn't complete until October. What I did when I reapplied was go to each prof and give them a stamped, addressed envelope. They could mail it or I could, but either way they went out quicker.

What about those others of you who have recieved acceptances? I can pull from my experience, but I'd like some more to give.

flaxmoore, this is really nice of you. we'll appreciate ur advice.

 

[Bacchus]

You are essentially interviewing as soon as you get on campus. However, you should not be borderline obsessive about everything. You should though be nice to everyone you meet. You're not wearing your name on your lapel so half the people cannot report you by name but it just feels good and appropriate to be nice to everyone you see. Converse with your fellow applicants. It shows your character. I have an interview at PCOM next week and we have to wait in the "Fishbowl." Its a four sided room with glass panels and we're on display. If you just sit there people will think you're "no fun," dull, lacking interpersonal skills, along with other assumptions. Remember that no matter how good your stats, the school has the final word on your admission and it would not pay to be arrogant. Humbleness is a great quality. Finally, when in the interview stick to your convictions. You'll rarely get nailed for having opposing views, but interviewers will want to see that you can hold an intelligent conversation and follow thought processes independent of your views. Oh, also have answers to "Why this school?," "What do you bring to the class?," "Tell me about yourself," "Why medicine," and "Do you have any questions?"

 

[p30doc]

You're not wearing your name on your lapel so half the people cannot report you by name but it just feels good and appropriate to be nice to everyone you see.

I don't know how common it is, but at my 1st interview we were given name badges to wear throughout the interview day...

 

[Law2Doc]

You are essentially interviewing as soon as you get on campus.

Agreed. You'd be surprised how many people don't get into med school because of being rude to the admissions secretary or receptionist or being annoying while on the tour.

 

[thoffen]

Your first one is essentially true, but mainly a caution to be professional at all times. How you interact with the office staff, med students on campus, etc. certainly can affect admissions.

 

[Narmerguy]

I don't know how common it is, but at my 1st interview we were given name badges to wear throughout the interview day...

I actually interpreted that comment as a "You're not wearing your nametag for nothing" kinda comment but in context it doesn't fit the rest of what he said. I'll just stick to my interpretation anyway. 😀

 

[TexasPhysician]

Your first one is essentially true, but mainly a caution to be professional at all times. How you interact with the office staff, med students on campus, etc. certainly can affect admissions.

IMO if you need to be told to be professional on an interview at a med school, you have much greater problems in life.

 

[TexasPhysician]

You are essentially interviewing as soon as you get on campus. However, you should not be borderline obsessive about everything. You should though be nice to everyone you meet. You're not wearing your name on your lapel so half the people cannot report you by name but it just feels good and appropriate to be nice to everyone you see. Converse with your fellow applicants. It shows your character. I have an interview at PCOM next week and we have to wait in the "Fishbowl." Its a four sided room with glass panels and we're on display. If you just sit there people will think you're "no fun," dull, lacking interpersonal skills, along with other assumptions. Remember that no matter how good your stats, the school has the final word on your admission and it would not pay to be arrogant. Humbleness is a great quality. Finally, when in the interview stick to your convictions. You'll rarely get nailed for having opposing views, but interviewers will want to see that you can hold an intelligent conversation and follow thought processes independent of your views. Oh, also have answers to "Why this school?," "What do you bring to the class?," "Tell me about yourself," "Why medicine," and "Do you have any questions?"

Whenever you get an ethical situation, I would do anything BUT stick to my convictions. If I were interviewing someone (and I may be doing this soon), I would want to see students ride the fence. In real life, you will get asked ethical situations by patients all the time. Most of these patients you do not know well at all, and you shouldn't try to interject your opinions.

For example:
"Patient: My daughter just got pregnant, and I wanted to know how you feel about the option of abortion. She is very bright and I don't want to see her life ruined.

Sure you could stick to your opinions/beliefs and say that abortion is morally wrong, is murder, a sin, or whatever. Or if you are on the other side, say that abortion is fine because the world is overpopulated, you don't want to pay taxes for this kids future healthcare, etc. and you can schedule it in a week. (all of the above - horrible answers by the way)

A good answer for even those that disagree with abortion: Why don't we sit down and go over the different options that your daughter may have. If you and your daughter decide on something that I am not qualified to handle, I will refer you to the most qualified person I know in that area of expertise. "

I would take this approach during interviews. No interviewer with a heart is going to force you into a definitive answer, and there is such a strong push towards optimizing patient satisfaction/care anway. The ability to make every patient feel correct/special/helped while maintaining the patient's autonomy is an ability that many schools cherish.

 

[MrBurns10]

The "always be professional" advice goes further. Until you sit your butt in your seat on the first day of orientation, you're not officially a student and they can rescind your acceptance. This happened at my school a year ago when someone made racist/homophobic comments at 2nd look. Be yourself, but don't be a d-bag (or at least don't act like one).

And general interview advice: when you are meet anyone that day (interviewer, admissions director, etc) always make eye contact, smile, and give a firm handshake. It goes a long way toward making a good first impression.

 

[MrBurns10]

Whenever you get an ethical situation, I would do anything BUT stick to my convictions. If I were interviewing someone (and I may be doing this soon), I would want to see students ride the fence. In real life, you will get asked ethical situations by patients all the time. Most of these patients you do not know well at all, and you shouldn't try to interject your opinions.

The thing is, there is a big difference between being gung ho about a particular option with patients and taking a firm but open-minded stance in your interview. It's totally acceptable in an interview to say that you wouldn't feel comfortable suggesting or performing an abortion, but that you would refer them to a physician that could help them with that. In that case, you had a firm belief, but you recognized that others may not hold the same values as you and still got them the help they wanted.

 

[TexasPhysician]

The thing is, there is a big difference between being gung ho about a particular option with patients and taking a firm but open-minded stance in your interview. It's totally acceptable in an interview to say that you wouldn't feel comfortable suggesting or performing an abortion, but that you would refer them to a physician that could help them with that. In that case, you had a firm belief, but you recognized that others may not hold the same values as you and still got them the help they wanted.

You are right in that this is a more PC way than just expressing your beliefs. However, think about why the physician asked you the question. If they actually had a "right" answer, you have a 50/50 shot of at least subconciously moving down a rung on the hypothetical acceptance ladder in the physician's head. If the physician was expecting no answer to be correct but instead was judging your ability to respond to a tough situation, any PC answer would work.

In my scenario of riding the fence, I keep both theoretical physicians happy. You have a 50/50 shot of hurting yourself with physician #1, and believe me - some physicians really have an opinion. It should not be the case, but it is.

 

[Bacchus]

So me taking the middle of the road is more important to you than how I develop my "argument" for my beliefs? Physicians act on beliefs all the time and no patient care advice is 100% disconnected from both sides.

 

[TexasPhysician]

So me taking the middle of the road is more important to you than how I develop my "argument" for my beliefs? Physicians act on beliefs all the time and no patient care advice is 100% disconnected from both sides.

It may be just my opinion, but I don't think anyone cares how you "develop" an argument. It's more important that you are PC with your answer. You can use the "developing" towards a differential diagnosis, but "developing" a series of sentences to make an argument? I can't see the purpose of this in medicine.......maybe law.

You are right that physicians act on beliefs all the time. My point is that medical schools are pushing against expressing this personal belief. Maybe this is just a TX thing, but we have class hours dedicated to maximizing patient care. We are helped to give all possible options, side-effects, etc. without interjecting our beliefs.

Granted in non-ethical situations, our "beliefs" are facts we've been taught to "push" patients towards the most effective treatment. In ethical situations, doctors have trouble backing-off this system and helping patients make their own decisions.

 

[MrBurns10]

So me taking the middle of the road is more important to you than how I develop my "argument" for my beliefs? Physicians act on beliefs all the time and no patient care advice is 100% disconnected from both sides.

TP and I disagree on this, I guess. I would rather an interviewee have an argument and back it up, but be able to see both sides of the issue and acknowledge that others may answer differently. And while I obviously can't speak for everyone, I've heard that this tends to be the preference for most interviewers.

 

[lol.psych]

The OMG ABORTION IS WRONG FOREVER ALWAYS NO MATTER WHAT argument might go over well in some super-christian schools.

In any case, I think the reasonable answer of "go over all of the options thoroughly and truthfully and let the patient make her own decision, and refer elsewhere if the decision is not something that you can perform" is an awesome answer, and not just for interviews. Why is it a good answer? It shows honesty, comprehensiveness in your interaction with a potential patient, and a desire to give the patient agency and autonomy (while not compromising your personal ethics).

Basically, it shows that you have the intention of treating your patients with respect and empowering them to make educated and informed decisions about their health - this doesn't just apply to reproduction and issues of abortion. It applies everywhere - choosing a form of birth control, choosing between different routes of medication, choosing between an elective surgical procedure and long-term lifestyle change, etc. It's too often that you hear "if only I knew that what I did had ____ side effect" or "damn, if only they'd mentioned this surgery I could have had, it would have saved me months of discomfort" or "why the hell did they put me on cholesterol medication and stimulants when I could have just been referred to a dietitian!?"

Even if these patients regrets the decisions that they make, at least they won't have the bitterness and anger from feeling deceived or uninformed.

 

[TexasPhysician]

TP and I disagree on this, I guess. I would rather an interviewee have an argument and back it up, but be able to see both sides of the issue and acknowledge that others may answer differently. And while I obviously can't speak for everyone, I've heard that this tends to be the preference for most interviewers.

I understand your argument, but I just don't understand why you think argueing (sp??) an issue would be preferential. I agree with showing how you know both sides of an issue, acknowledging both sides, and expressing how you will present them (if needed) to your patients. However, expressing your side will gain you extra credibility? If you get an opinionated physician, you might dig yourself a hole.

You've heard this is a preference from where? Any links to studies or are you using a personal study of an n=3 to base your "preference of most interviewers"? I'm not trying to be rude. I just don't understand your generalization.

I'm not claiming I know what most interviewers around the U.S. consider a "right" answer to this question. I'm merely saying that if you reach a point in your interview where you could disagree with the beliefs of a faculty member, no matter how PC you do it, why take the chance?

If you side-step your own opinions in an interview and always take the side of your patient, I can not see how any physician would fault you.

 

[TexasPhysician]

Another piece of advise on the interview trail: You are interviewing them as much as they are interviewing you.

Bring a ton of questions. Ask the STUDENTS as much as possible because they actually know what is going on. See how happy the students are, do the students get along, are they too stressed, do they like the faculty, what do students do for fun, is there a good support system, what is the test schedule (multiple tests in 1 week vs 1/block etc.), test review policy, step 1 preparation, etc.

This could be your future school. Find out as much as you can so that you can accurately compare acceptances later. There are too many people on this forum asking for help to choose a school. This is YOUR decision. Get as much information as you can to make it.

 

[MrBurns10]

If you side-step your own opinions in an interview and always take the side of your patient, I can not see how any physician would fault you.

I think you may be misunderstanding me (or maybe I'm misunderstanding you). Or both. As a doctor, you ALWAYS have to do what the patient wants (so long as the patient is competent to make his/her own decisions), so I'm definitely not saying it's okay to ever tell your patient what to do. What I am saying is that if your interviewer asks for your opinion, and what you give him/her is a wishy-washy answer that makes it seem like you either a) haven't thought about it, or b) have no opinion on the matter, it doesn't look particularly good.

For example, let's take euthanasia.
Interviewer: "What do you think about it?"
You: Well some people say it's immoral becaues it's killing someone. While others say people should get to decide what to do with their lives.
Interviewer: Yes. Go on.
You: I understand both sides of the argument. I always side with the patient.
Interviewer: So you're for it?
You: Well no, I don't really have an opinion either way. But I do understand the argument!

See what I mean? It doesn't sound particularly good. I completely understand where you're coming from, and again, I agree that you should always go with what the patient wants...unless it's illegal I guess 🙂. But when asked for an opinion, I believe you should give one.

Oh, and that's just what my advisor had told me (about what interviewers want). It's all hearsay coming from me, though.

 

[TexasPhysician]

I think you may be misunderstanding me (or maybe I'm misunderstanding you). Or both. As a doctor, you ALWAYS have to do what the patient wants (so long as the patient is competent to make his/her own decisions), so I'm definitely not saying it's okay to ever tell your patient what to do. What I am saying is that if your interviewer asks for your opinion, and what you give him/her is a wishy-washy answer that makes it seem like you either a) haven't thought about it, or b) have no opinion on the matter, it doesn't look particularly good.

For example, let's take euthanasia.
Interviewer: "What do you think about it?"
You: Well some people say it's immoral becaues it's killing someone. While others say people should get to decide what to do with their lives.
Interviewer: Yes. Go on.
You: I understand both sides of the argument. I always side with the patient.
Interviewer: So you're for it?
You: Well no, I don't really have an opinion either way. But I do understand the argument!

See what I mean? It doesn't sound particularly good. I completely understand where you're coming from, and again, I agree that you should always go with what the patient wants...unless it's illegal I guess 🙂

Oh, and that's just what my advisor had told me (about what interviewers want). It's all hearsay coming from me, though.

Your example makes sense. However, assume your "opinionated" interviewer goes a step further.

Interviewer: So your for euthanasia?
You: Well, if I were to take a side, then no I am against euthanasia (mercy-killing), because it goes against the physician's code of beneficence.
Interviewer: Well what if the person had a terminal illness, his wife had already died, he no longer wished to live, he could no longer enjoy his time on earth, and he were in incomprehensible pain every minute of the day. Is euthanasia not the beneficence you speak of?
You: If you say no, you sound cold-hearted. If you say - well yes I guess so, you are "wishy washy" again as you call it.

In ethical situations, there are always two prominent sides to the argument. Hence an "ethical" situation. If you choose a side, be prepared to sweat. The argument could go on forever.

If asked to take a side by a physician, I would say that my side does not matter. As a physician, I will not be asked to take sides, but instead fight for my patient - no matter what side he/she is on and I will continue to do so as long as I can practice medicine.

That would be one cold physician to count you off for that answer.

If you don't mind risking a 30 minute argument on euthanasia, you can give your opinion though.

 

[xrevision]

the med students are duking it out! Exciting!

 

[MrBurns10]

If asked to take a side by a physician, I would say that my side does not matter. As a physician, I will not be asked to take sides, but instead fight for my patient - no matter what side he/she is on and I will continue to do so as long as I can practice medicine.

I see your point. I would just be careful that this doesn't come across that you're a nonthinking automaton, and I know that I personally wouldn't like it if my interviewee didn't give any sort of opinion on the subject if I pressed. But to each his/her own, for sure.

 

[MrBurns10]

the med students are duking it out! Exciting!

haha, I think what TP and I just proved is that all interviewers will be different (seeing as I believe both of us will be interviewers soon), so just be yourself and go with your gut. And don't be a douche.

 

[Bacchus]

I say stick to your opinion but acknowledge in your closing sentence it is ultimately the decision of the patient and you will honor and understand where the patient is coming from. Leaves it warm and fuzzy but you get your point across.

 

[Law2Doc]

I say stick to your opinion but acknowledge in your closing sentence it is ultimately the decision of the patient and you will honor and understand where the patient is coming from. Leaves it warm and fuzzy but you get your point across.

Bear in mind that in a lot of supposedly ethical situations, the law has already determined what you as a physician can/should do (particularly so in the case of euthanasia). You will not get any points if you suggest that you would ever even consider going down a route that is legally prohibited. It doesn't matter what your religious beliefs are, nobody wants a renegade zealot that is going to get their hospital in trouble. So be cognizant of what the law is, and basically acknowledge that you have your beliefs, the patient has his/her right to believe differently, but that in this situation the law has taken the question out of your hands. In terms of things like abortion, you also need to acknowledge that the law has given the patient certain rights, and while you may or may not agree with them, you will not impose your own views over that of the state legislature. You may not like this law driven outcome, but it is the one you are going to have to practice under, and nobody wants to admit a cowboy who won't follow the rules.

 

[Bacchus]

L2D, that would be my answer. Short: Yes, I'm for it, however I would never act on it b/c of the law.

 

[RoyBasch]

Bear in mind that in a lot of supposedly ethical situations, the law has already determined what you as a physician can/should do (particularly so in the case of euthanasia). You will not get any points if you suggest that you would ever even consider going down a route that is legally prohibited. It doesn't matter what your religious beliefs are, nobody wants a renegade zealot that is going to get their hospital in trouble. So be cognizant of what the law is, and basically acknowledge that you have your beliefs, the patient has his/her right to believe differently, but that in this situation the law has taken the question out of your hands. In terms of things like abortion, you also need to acknowledge that the law has given the patient certain rights, and while you may or may not agree with them, you will not impose your own views over that of the state legislature. You may not like this law driven outcome, but it is the one you are going to have to practice under, and nobody wants to admit a cowboy who won't follow the rules.

I agree with law2doc, I think you MUST make the disclaimer that you will do what is legal. However, a friend of mine who was on the interview trail said when he mentioned that at an interview they wouldn't let him--to use the interviewer's words--"cop out that easily," and they asked what was his stance on the issue, legality aside. Multiple people in the know on interviews have explained to me that the "thought process" is more important than the answer for this ethical conundrum questions, i.e. they are trying to devise how you attack a complex problem, what arguments you make, how throughly do you understand the counter-arguments, etc.
Although i think law2doc makes an excellent point, some interviewers may just be seeing if you are some kind of "cowboy," so i think it is essential to probe the interviewer by showing that you know what the laws are and you fully intend to follow them. If the interviewer is satisfied with that answer, then you are set, but be prepared because they may still say "but what if they were legal" and then you need a response.
-Roy