Any thoughts on interviews with medical students?

[Adapt]

I'm curious about what people think about interviews with medical students. Do you think they would carry the same weight as a physician or PhD? I know some schools do say it is equal weight, but is this how the majority of medical schools would view it?

Throughout my interviews I found the ones with students to be my best particularly because they were more conversational.

I read in another thread that some medical students actually have a vote in making decisions on acceptance or rejection for students. If this is true, I would say they play a major part in the process.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[LP1CW]

I had a student interview. She was so dumb. It was such a waste of time. She had nothing to say or offer. She asked me, "What is your greatest strength and what is one weakness you have?"

I gave her an answer. She smiled and read the next question, "Who is your mentor, who has inspired you?" I smiled at her and said, "So, tell me why I should come to this school? Are you happy here. How are your class mates?

Essentially, I stopped answering her dumb questions, well they weren't her questions, they were the questions that all of us have practices.

I spent the time interviewing her. I asked her about local pizza places, the movie theater, and what she thought about her professors. I told her to fill me about things. I then even closed the interview with, "Do you have any other questions." She smiled and said no. I shook her hand it that was that. I got accepted there too.

Student interviews are stupid.

 

[MacGyver]

I agree.... med schools should have all interviews conducted by MD interviewers only.

PhD interviewers are stupid too.... they have no clue how to evaluate your potential as a doctor. They may be able to evaluate your potential as a researcher or as a med student, but those are both non-primary objectives of the interview. For MD/PhD they are necessary, but for regular MD admissions they detract from the mission of medical admissions.

 

[edfig99]

it depends on how the school selects the student interviewers. there are some schools where any student can be an interviewer, even first or second years.... those schools tend not to rely on student interviewers.

some schools select upper division students but their votes may not carry as much weight.

others select only a handful of 4th year students, and go through this formal appointment process including recognition by the dean. those carry equal weight to any other member of the committee.

irrespective of how they're selected, student members on an adcom are an important (and often required) representation of student involvement at all level of medical school operations. It's med student members that keep the old members of the committee aware of current trends in curricula, as well as 'real life' at the medical school the adcom is trying to sell. Also, irrespective of whether or not you think they're worth talking to, you'd best believe that if a student interviewer says they wouldn't like any applicant as a classmate, that student's not getting in, no matter how good they are on paper.

in terms of interviews, i never once thought about whether or not an applicant was going to be a good doctor....that's what medical school is for, to make you a good doctor. my mindset (as a student interviewer mind you) was whether or not i thought the applicant was going to be able to do the work, get along well with other students, and have something to contribute to a class. It doesn't take an MD to think of these issues. Besides, the first two years you spend much more time with the PhDs, so why shouldn't they play a role in the admissions process? that's just silly.

 

[Jalby]

My school the students tend to count more than facaulty (not all the time, but most)

 

[acab]

I generally enjoyed all my student interviews but feel that they were by far the hardest. No faculty asked me ethics questions, they were simply left for the student interviewers. However, only one student seemed to be following a more "previously studied" and rigid approach to the interview.

Note: my UPenn student interviewer was excellent (a lot better than the faculty).

 

[G_Eagle]

Student interviewers can vary in quality just as MD interviewers can. Students who care do well at bringing out your personality so they can present you to the committee. Yes, the ones with whom I have interviewed were on the acceptance committees so some do have influence.
My biggest beef is with PhD interviewers. The ones who interviewed me were fairly antisocial and poor interviewers. Also, they had less clinical experience than the MD's meaning they could not answer my questions as well. Sure, this is a stereotype, but I call it like I see it.

 

[Wardens]

I think Penn must do a great job coaching their student interviewers. Mine was certainly one of the best, most challenging interviews I've had, and I've heard the same from several other interviewees.

 

[jlee9531]

student interviewers are great.

at least at some of the schools that i went to, they have a significant say in the process.

the student interviewer at msu for instance had a standard set of questions they choose from to ask all applicants. its not what some people say "a waste of time" since it is factored into the decision. they are well trained and professional but at the same time know how it feels to interview because they were in that same situation themselves. im glad i had student interviewers at the places that offered them because i was able to relax more and get a feel for the school better than i would with a professor or an MD at the school. the students are actually a lot more helpful when it comes to questions with the school than the faculty.

the student interview at davis...after he asked his set of tough required questions...and saw that i was very interested took me on an extensive tour of the sac med center and wanted to make sure that i got a good feel for what the davis experience would be like. i really appreciated this.

i know at ucla, students are on the admissions committee and their vote has equal weight with the faculty members which is huge obviously.

 

[zinjanthropus]

Originally posted by MacGyver
PhD interviewers are stupid too.

this is a myopic statement. PhDs are trained to recognize the same qualities in academic success that an MD should observe - hard work, curiosity, dillegence, maturity, etc. In addition, a PhD in the health sciences or clinical areas can certainly make professional evaluations regarding the potential of a student to become a physician.

 

[MacGyver]

In addition, a PhD in the health sciences or clinical areas can certainly make professional evaluations regarding the potential of a student to become a physician.

How so, when A) they dont treat patients; and B) dont have any experience as a physician?

 

[bigbaubdi]

Originally posted by Wardens
I think Penn must do a great job coaching their student interviewers. Mine was certainly one of the best, most challenging interviews I've had, and I've heard the same from several other interviewees.

I agree 100% - my Penn student interviewer did an absolutely fantastic job. His questions about my research were thought provoking, even though he had absolutely no background in the field I am doing research in. At the same time, the environment was relaxed.

My student interviewer at HMS asked me really, really good questions about the study design and theory behind my research. Thankfully, I was familiar w/ the literature so I was able to do a good job answering his questions!

 

[Adapt]

I, too, like student interviewers because for me they are easier to impress than my MD or PhD interviewers. I'm glad that most schools place much weight on their opinion.

 

[CalBeE]

My student interviewer at Stanford is a second year, but he's a MD/PhD student, so he sorta probed into my research, something that's uncommon at other schools. I was told that the student interview carries as much weight as faculty interview.

At Jefferson, the student interviewer was also a second year, but the interview was basically not an interview at all. It was just to make sure that I'm not a psycho (I guess I did a good job disguising hehe). I don't think it carried much weight.

At other schools like Northwestern and Emory, the student interviewer and 2 faculty interviewers make up the panel. I found student interviewers to ask harder, more specific questions. Both of these two schools have 4th year as interviewers.

So we really see a spectrum of student interviewers here.

 

[Neuronix]

Originally posted by Wardens
I think Penn must do a great job coaching their student interviewers. Mine was certainly one of the best, most challenging interviews I've had, and I've heard the same from several other interviewees.

I will be perfectly honest with you. We are given little coaching by the admissions office. There's an optional one hour, lunch provided, meeting before the interview season where we're told some things NOT to do and people express bad and good experiences they had on the interview trail. Nevertheless, I'm glad we Penn student interviewers are doing a good job! Part of this may be that we're a completely volunteer bunch and we actually don't get anything from interview (except that lunch at the beginning that alot of non-interviewers mooched off anyways). We do get some feedback as to how we did at the end of the interview season.

BTW, I do probe into research experience whenever I can. Part of it is because I am a MD/PhD student after all. But, the other reason is because I've seen so many ugrads use their lab jobs to get LORs or even publications and have NO IDEA what is actually going on. Or how about people who weren't really involved with the research but make it look like they had a very independent lab research role. I'm screening for that. The level of info I expect the applicant to have depends on how much time they spent in the lab. A summer? Not so much. Several years? Alot.

I think the student interviews count equally with the faculty interviews. Some of you may feel that students can't possiblly evaluate as well as faculty. That's because you've never read some of the stupid evaluations some faculty interviewers write. Some faculty just give everyone a super high score so you have no clue what that really means. Some are just obstinate to everyone and seem to have their own agenda. Some just don't seem to want to write anything. As you can imagine, there's all kinds of interviewers, student and faculty, from really bad to really good.

This is why interviews are a small part of your application here. It's too variable. However, when an applicant really shines or really falls flat on their face, it shows. Hopefully that sort of info makes its way to the committee.

You may wonder what we're looking for in conversational interviews. We're basically wondering "is this person a tool?" E.g. Can you carry out a friendly, interesting conversation with us. Can you demonstrate that you're a cool person with hobbies and ideas in and outside of medicine? You'd probably be surprised at the number of people who fail this check. I think you can imagine why students would find this sort of thing important.