Auto Reject Interview Thread

[LoveBeingHuman:)]

---

Members don't see this ad.

I just wanted to start a thread where everyone can weigh in on examples of what they have heard that lead to auto rejection or, in the case of adcoms, examples of what they auto reject someone for (or, at the very least, severely penalize you).

I'll start:

-Being rude to a secretary

-Being asked about a low grade and blaming it on the professor

-Saying you are going into medicine for the salary and/or job security

 

[eteshoe]

Being rude to the interviewers

 

[The Knife & Gun Club]

I'm pretty sure Goro has written a really long thread about this ("goros guide to interviews" I think)

In any case, I'll bite:

- Dont wear a wooden bow tie. Seriously. I saw a dude roll up with a piece of wood strapped to his collar

 

[eteshoe]

I'm pretty sure Goro has written a really long thread about this ("goros guide to interviews" I think)

In any case, I'll bite:

- Dont wear a wooden bow tie. Seriously. I saw a dude roll up with a piece of wood strapped to his collar

wtf?

 

[The Knife & Gun Club]

I don't know what in the world could compel someone to wear something like that to a professional interview.

He was the first person I've ever met from Kentucky, and not gonna lie he wasn't doing much to help that states reputation

 

[Benjoe11]

I don't know what in the world could compel someone to wear something like that to a professional interview.

He was the first person I've ever met from Kentucky, and not gonna lie he wasn't doing much to help that states reputation

Goodness... haha
We're not all like that. Promise.

 

[Mwooster]

Forgetting to wear pants to your interview

 

[piii]

Not being attractive.
Being unattractive.

 

[eteshoe]

Forgetting to wear pants to your interview

As in showing up in shorts or saying no to the whole pants situation?

 

[Spinach Dip]

When your interviewer asks what specialty, answering with anything in which they do not practice can be pretty bad.

 

[Saifa]

Admitting to killing a human being on your way to the interview.

 

[Spinach Dip]

True story as relayed to me by an Admissions Dean: having a female applicant being escorted by an extremely pregnant secretary across the street to another interview, The pregnant woman falls down and the applicant is completely absorbed in possibly being late for he interview by staring at her watch and tapping her foot. Only after a minute or two does she even seem to realize that perhaps she should assist this pregnant to her feet. Word went quickly up the chain and before the applicant completed this session, her next one was abruptly cancelled and she was told she could go. This was in the days before email and dean ended her telling of this, it may have been the only time she hoped the rejection letter made it back to applicant's home before she did

I bet her interviews included the line "I want to be a pediatrician..."

 

[Mwooster]

As in showing up in shorts or saying no to the whole pants situation?

I had something like this in mind

 

[Goro]

Here are some things that will lead to an auto-reject at my school:


Having multiple misdemeanors or any sort of felony, especially involving theft, drugs, or violence.

Showing a lack of ownership for IAs or misdemeanors ("it was the cop's fault I got busted the second time")

History of cheating or being expelled for honor violations.

Having a red flag LOR (I see about one of these a semester)

Being clueless or a very poor listener at interviews. I have little patience for someone who starts to answer and then asks "could you repeat the question?"

Being a babbling idiot at interviews

We have a group interview, so looking bored or not paying attention to what's going on.

Being arrogant

Being scary (this HAS happened!)

Matriculating at any other medical school and flunking out, or leaving for a poor reason.

Lying during interviews (this has also happened)

Being a hyper-achiever who wants to answer other people’s questions, instead of waiting one's turn.

Being a robot or unable to display any sort of emotion, or having a flat affect.

Being immature.

Now, I'm sure someone is going to chime in that "yeah, but interviews are stressful". No doubt they are, but so is tying off a spurting artery on a MVA victim, or dealing with an acting-out psychotic patient. Thus, with all the people we interview for our limited number of seats, the seats go to those who display grace under pressure. Panic is not an option for a doctor; clear-headed thinking is.

I just wanted to start a thread where everyone can weigh in on examples of what they have heard that lead to auto rejection or, in the case of adcoms, examples of what they auto reject someone for (or, at the very least, severely penalize you).

I'll start:

-Being rude to a secretary

-Being asked about a low grade and blaming it on the professor

-Saying you are going into medicine for the salary and/or job security

 

[KO_TV]

Claiming that you're an URM but showing up to your interview whiter than Vanilla Ice

 

[bananafish94]

Being scary (this HAS happened!)

Elaborate please

 

[GrumpyMS]

Having a red flag LOR (I see about one of these a semester)

What do you usually look for? I had a former adcom member say that they look for specific wordings in the letter, such as "Please feel free to contact me for more information about this applicant."

 

[oOKawaiiOo]

Claiming that you're an URM but showing up to your interview whiter than Vanilla Ice

YO! this has happened to someone on the DO side. Claimed to be URM (Native American) and had a extensive convo on the phone with the dean of the school about URM status and received an interview. I forgot the details of this event but he/she got rejected.

If anything.....if I had to pass for a URM.....Hispanic would be my guess.

 

[medic86]

Here are some things that will lead to an auto-reject at my school:
Being clueless or a very poor listener at interviews. I have little patience for someone who starts to answer and then asks "could you repeat the question?"

I received a post-II rejection at a school where I'm fairly certain the interviewer lumped me into that category.

The problem was that the interviewer couldn't succinctly ask a question to save his life.

 

[Goro]

LizzyM has mentioned interviewees who lock on eye contact and stare unblinking at the interviewer.

Elaborate please

Red flag LORs are are, but usually mention something like "poor team player", blamed others in his/her group", "constantly was late for lab". One writer actually wrote "I can't recommend this person".

The "feel free to contact me..." stuff is standard LOR jargon.

What do you usually look for? I had a former adcom member say that they look for specific wordings in the letter, such as "Please feel free to contact me for more information about this applicant."

 

[md-2020]

Being scary (this HAS happened!)

Elaborate please

I'm sure (or, I hope) this happens with less frequency in med admissions, but for UG purposes there are several kids every year who'd mail in death threats to our dean of admissions after being rejected.

One applicant implicitly threatened the adcom in his school-specific supplementary essays (as in, "you better let me in...")

In all cases, university police and campus security were notified.

 

[Goro]

Wow! I don't think we've gotten anything like the level of making terroristic threats or federal crimes!

I'm sure (or, I hope) this happens with less frequency in med admissions, but for UG purposes there are several kids every year who'd mail in death threats to our dean of admissions after being rejected.

One applicant implicitly threatened the adcom in his school-specific supplementary essays (as in, "you better let me in...")

In all cases, university police and campus security were notified.

 

[musicalfeet]

I don't think this was an auto-reject, but I heard from another interviewee about this story somewhere and it definitely upset me. Apparently there was an interviewee that showed up all shabby and had cat-hairs everywhere (which okay, was inappropriate), and some other fellow interviewees would make snide comments to her the whole day and make fun of her attire. I think what pissed me off about this story is that no one bothered to stick up for her. For some reason this story just stuck with me.

 

[LoveBeingHuman:)]

What are your opinions on recommenders giving someone a bad recommendation? I think they should just tell the person that they will write them a bad letter. It's like a betrayal of trust.

 

[Affiche]

Here are some things that will lead to an auto-reject at my school:


Having multiple misdemeanors or any sort of felony, especially involving theft, drugs, or violence.

Showing a lack of ownership for IAs or misdemeanors ("it was the cop's fault I got busted the second time")

History of cheating or being expelled for honor violations.

Having a red flag LOR (I see about one of these a semester)

Being clueless or a very poor listener at interviews. I have little patience for someone who starts to answer and then asks "could you repeat the question?"

Being a babbling idiot at interviews

We have a group interview, so looking bored or not paying attention to what's going on.

Being arrogant

Being scary (this HAS happened!)

Matriculating at any other medical school and flunking out, or leaving for a poor reason.

Lying during interviews (this has also happened)

Being a hyper-achiever who wants to answer other people’s questions, instead of waiting one's turn.

Being a robot or unable to display any sort of emotion, or having a flat affect.

Being immature.

Now, I'm sure someone is going to chime in that "yeah, but interviews are stressful". No doubt they are, but so is tying off a spurting artery on a MVA victim, or dealing with an acting-out psychotic patient. Thus, with all the people we interview for our limited number of seats, the seats go to those who display grace under pressure. Panic is not an option for a doctor; clear-headed thinking is.

I'm so glad you didn't interview me. You would have killed me. I was a babbling idiot in just about every single interview and I remember multiple instances of starting to answer a question and then pausing to ask the interviewer for clarification

 

[starspells]

What are your opinions on recommenders giving someone a bad recommendation? I think they should just tell the person that they will write them a bad letter. It's like a betrayal of trust.

I completely agree. I think the best thing one can do is just ask someone for a strong letter of recommendation and hope for the best...

 

[Affiche]

I don't think this was an auto-reject, but I heard from another interviewee about this story somewhere and it definitely upset me. Apparently there was an interviewee that showed up all shabby and had cat-hairs everywhere (which okay, was inappropriate), and some other fellow interviewees would make snide comments to her the whole day and make fun of her attire. I think what pissed me off about this story is that no one bothered to stick up for her. For some reason this story just stuck with me.

My last interview was at the very end of the season so I really didn't have much choice in which date I interviewed. To make it work, I had to fly to my interview (near Boston) from a work conference in Vegas, which I flew to from Detroit. In one weekend I flew from Detroit to Vegas (where I got food poisoning) then took a red eye out of Vegas to Boston (which had a layover in Minneapolis), then got on a bus to ride 2 hours from Boston to the school's campus. Needless to say, I was living out of a suitcase and looked hella disheveled for my interview. I have the utmost sympathy for shabby interviewers lol.

 

[Almighty Saguaro]

What are your opinions on recommenders giving someone a bad recommendation? I think they should just tell the person that they will write them a bad letter. It's like a betrayal of trust.

I could certainly see the argument for this, but something about it just seems like a really mean thing to do.

Maybe it's because I know how hard I've worked to put together a competitive med school app (or maybe I'm just a softie), but the thought of totally ruining another person's future career with one backstabbing move just doesn't sit well with me at all. If I really felt that strongly against that person becoming a physician, the worst I would do is say, "Look, I really don't think you have what is takes to be a good physician because of x, y, z. As such, I cannot in good conscience write you a good letter of recommendation". If the person is crazy enough to still request a letter from me at that point, then I would have no reservations about writing something negative.

 

[Goro]

I have no problem with it. Letters are supposed to be honest evaluations. It's up to the requester to ask if the writer can write a good letter.

Keep in mind that these things are extremely rare. I see one maybe once an interview cycle

What are your opinions on recommenders giving someone a bad recommendation? I think they should just tell the person that they will write them a bad letter. It's like a betrayal of trust.

 

[Almighty Saguaro]

I have no problem with it. Letters are supposed to be honest evaluations. It's up to the requester to ask if the writer can write a good letter.

Keep in mind that these things are extremely rare. I see one maybe once an interview cycle

Are you speaking as an adcom or as a fellow human being? (we all know the two are mutually exclusive 😛 )

But seriously, if you weren't an adcom and someone were to ask you for a letter of recommendation, you would simply say yes, then write something negative instead of just telling them upfront that you would not be able to write something positive?

 

[gyngyn]

Are you speaking as an adcom or as a fellow human being? (we all know the two are mutually exclusive 😛 )

But seriously, if you weren't an adcom and someone were to ask you for a letter of recommendation, you would simply say yes, then write something negative instead of just telling them upfront that you would not be able to write something positive?

Ideally, these should be letters of evaluation. We need an honest assessment of strengths and weaknesses.
If I believe that I lack sufficient information to write such a letter, I will decline.
We have received glowing letters of "recommendation" for applicants with extremely impaired interpersonal skills. Would it not have been more honest and helpful to address these deficiencies with the candidate instead of letting them lose time, money and self esteem? I have been tempted to call these letter writers out. They shirked their responsibilities as a mentor by writing a strong letter instead of actually helping them.

 

[GrapesofRath]

This whole discussion brings me back to something a couple years ago where my PI lost a good bit of respect for one of his friends who was also a PI who he found out wrote a legitimately bad LOR for one of his students applying.

His logic was "A bad LOR is a reflection much more on the letter writer than the student who the letter is for. For somebody to agree to write a bad LOR knowing the consequences of one, that indicates a lack of respect or interest for their student. And if you show such a lack of respect/interest with your very own students to the point you would sabotage their app when there is a clear alternative of simply declining to write one, that indicates something about you I cant have any respect for".

I have to say I largely agree with him. Note this is far different than a generic LOR: that's clearly more a reflection on the applicant. But a negative LOR? It does reveal something about the writer that isnt positive when they agree to represent you as a reference and go on to do something like this.

Part of this is also perhaps a cultural thing. I remember visiting a country in Asia and talking to someone involved in admissions for PhD and MD programs and he basically told me "letters that while positive say negative things about you happen all the time here". He even said "some of the best LORs I read will gush about an applicant but also say something like there communication skills need to improve, or they really arent a very good writer as of now or he doesnt always listen to superiors well". Interesting to see how LORs can function in different countries.

 

[osckey]

Claiming that you're an URM but showing up to your interview whiter than Vanilla Ice

There are many Latin Americans with Spanish (as in Spain) descent that are white in skin color.

 

[musicalfeet]

There are many Latin Americans with Spanish (as in Spain) descent that are white in skin color.

My SO qualifies as a URM and he's paler than me! You wouldn't know what he was ethnically unless you asked. And his mom's side of the family are very white looking but they are definitely Hispanic.

 

[gyngyn]

There are many Latin Americans with Spanish (as in Spain) descent that are white in skin color.

Most Hispanic groups (without regard to skin color) are well represented in medicine.
A few are extremely under-represented.

 

[osckey]

Most Hispanic groups (without regard to skin color) are well represented in medicine.

Yes, but still skin color is still not the best indicator of minority status.

 

[gyngyn]

Yes, but still skin color is still not the best indicator of minority status.

I agree.

 

[Spinach Dip]

Ideally, these should be letters of evaluation. We need an honest assessment of strengths and weaknesses.
If I believe that I lack sufficient information to write such a letter, I will decline.
We have received glowing letters of "recommendation" for applicants with extremely impaired interpersonal skills. Would it not have been more honest and helpful to address these deficiencies with the candidate instead of letting them lose time, money and self esteem? I have been tempted to call these letter writers out. They shirked their responsibilities as a mentor by writing a strong letter instead of actually helping them.

So, if so many LoRs are biased towards the positive view of an applicant, why do they mean anything?

 

[gyngyn]

So, if so many LoRs are biased towards the positive view of an applicant, why do they mean anything?

I often ask myself the same question.
I guess they force the applicant to interact with others...

 

[Goro]

Believe it or not, they can actually be evaluative in many cases.


Whether the rest of you like it or not, we all have responsibilities to keep unfit people away from patients. Not everyone deserves to go to medical school.

So, if so many LoRs are biased towards the positive view of an applicant, why do they mean anything?

 

[GrapesofRath]

I often ask myself the same question.
I guess they force the applicant to interact with others...

I always find this question interesting and Ive asked it a number of times in the past so Im interested to hear your experience with it. It's a difficult one to really give an "approximation" to but I still think the answer, whatever it is, is revealing.

Out of your accepted pile of students, if you had to make a very rough approximation, about what % or so have LORs that played more than just a very minor role in them being accepted? I guess another way of looking at is how many accepted students had more than neutral LORs/those that were positive but largely made very little impact on the decision?

I think it's often hard from the applicant side of things to see the role LORs play in an evaluation. Of course there are those AAMC surveys that indicate them having high importance and being ranked as most important after MCAT/GPA and maybe one other factor in those surveys. To actually provide context/meaning to this can be difficult often though. After all it's the one part of the application the applicant doesnt directly control.

 

[Almighty Saguaro]

Ideally, these should be letters of evaluation. We need an honest assessment of strengths and weaknesses.
If I believe that I lack sufficient information to write such a letter, I will decline.
We have received glowing letters of "recrommendation" for applicants with extremely impaired interpersonal skills. Would it not have been more honest and helpful to address these deficiencies with the candidate instead of letting them lose time, money and self esteem? I have been tempted to call these letter writers out. They shirked their responsibilities as a mentor by writing a strong letter instead of actually helping them.

I agree with the bolded 100%. If asked to write a letter, I would never lie on the letter (i.e. glowingly recommend someone I know has "extremely impaired interpersonal skills").

What I'm decrying is someone who gives an applicant the idea that he/she will write a good letter in support of the applicant's candidacy only to go behind and write a completely negative letter. That seems just as dishonest as the case you've brought up.

Under my schema, an applicant is truly just a terrible person will not be able to get good letters because everyone whom he/she asks for a letter will turn him/her down and explain why. At the end of the day, that applicant will either have no letters or will have to settle for generic letters from people who don't know him/her very well. At that point the adcoms can penalize the applicant for having generic letters and having letters from tenuous acquaintances... that seems fair.

Yes, ideally they should be letters of "evaluation", but given that every other applicant is probably getting letters of recommendation, it seems that someone coming with a slightly negative letter of "evaluation" may be at disadvantage, even though he/she is no worse than everyone else. Or maybe you adcoms take this into consideration when assessing letters... I admittedly have no idea.

 

[gyngyn]

I always find this question interesting and Ive asked it a number of times in the past so Im interested to hear your experience with it. It's a difficult one to really give an "approximation" to but I still think the answer, whatever it is, is revealing.

Out of your accepted pile of students, if you had to make a very rough approximation, about what % or so have LORs that played more than just a very minor role in them being accepted? I guess another way of looking at is how many accepted students had more than neutral LORs/those that were positive but largely made very little impact on the decision?

I think it's often hard from the applicant side of things to see the role LORs play in an evaluation. Of course there are those AAMC surveys that indicate them having high importance and being ranked as most important after MCAT/GPA and maybe one other factor in those surveys. To actually provide context/meaning to this can be difficult often though. After all it's the one part of the application the applicant doesnt directly control.

Most letters are generically positive and clearly indicate little personal knowledge of the applicant.
Maybe 10% are genuinely positive and show an understanding of both the applicant and the personal qualities we are looking for. These tend to be committee letters.
Very, very few (<1%) are cautionary.

 

[GrapesofRath]

Most letters are generically positive and clearly indicate little personal knowledge of the applicant.
Maybe 10% are genuinely positive and show an understanding of both the applicant and the personal qualities we are looking for. These tend to be committee letters.
Very, very few (<1%) are cautionary.

So this holds true even amongst accepted applicants? Ie that the vast majority of accepted applicants had letters that were generically positive and didnt indicate personal knowledge of the applicant?

 

[gyngyn]

What I'm decrying is someone who gives an applicant the idea that he/she will write a good letter in support of the applicant's candidacy only to go behind and write a completely negative letter. That seems just as dishonest as the case you've brought up.

Under my schema, an applicant is truly just a terrible person will not be able to get good letters because everyone whom he/she asks for a letter will turn him/her down and explain why. At the end of the day, that applicant will either have no letters or will have to settle for generic letters from people who don't know him/her very well. At that point the adcoms can penalize the applicant for having generic letters and having letters from tenuous acquaintances... that seems fair.

Yes, ideally they should be letters of "evaluation", but given that every other applicant is probably getting letters of recommendation, it seems that someone coming with a slightly negative letter of "evaluation" may be at disadvantage, even though he/she is no worse than everyone else. Or maybe you adcoms take this into consideration when assessing letters... I admittedly have no idea.

I am beginning to see evidence that real LOE's are on the uptick. When I see an evaluator using AMCAS format, I know that weaknesses are included in the spirit of forthrightness, not intended to warn.
https://www.aamc.org/download/349990/data/lettersguidelinesbrochure.pdf

 

[gyngyn]

So this holds true even amongst accepted applicants? Ie that the vast majority of accepted applicants had letters that were generically positive and didnt indicate personal knowledge of the applicant?

Most accepted applicants have letters that look pretty similar to those we didn't interview.

 

[medic86]

I am beginning to see evidence that real LOE's are on the uptick. When I see an evaluator using AMCAS format, I know that weaknesses are included in the spirit of forthrightness, not intended to warn.
https://www.aamc.org/download/349990/data/lettersguidelinesbrochure.pdf

You do, but what about everyone else?

 

[gyngyn]

You do, but what about everyone else?

At my school,when they use this format, we expect to see both strengths and weaknesses without prejudice.

 

[starspells]

Why would listing a weakness ever be a positive anyway...

Especially when there are applicants with no weaknesses whatsoever in their letters

 

[gyngyn]

Why would listing a weakness ever be a positive anyway...

Especially when there are applicants with no weaknesses whatsoever in their letters

Because we know this is impossible!
When the letter writer shows an understanding of what we want to know instead of the generic bland blather, we know we are (at least potentially) getting an honest and forthcoming assessment. Thus strengths become stronger since the evaluator is apparently more reliable.