No amount of $ savings can be worth making such an important decision based on a couple of virtual interviews & a virtual social hour
Ok, Luddite.Virtual interviews are cancer...
Maybe, but I'm also convinced that people apply who have zero interest in actually going (the tourist applicants) because it is zero cost to them as well, though there is an opportunity cost to others.Ok, Luddite.
Virtual interviews provide the best option for students who don't have resources, there is data on this for surgical specialties.
The most plausible reason for in-person is so people start applying prudently as the number of applications has jumped for some specialties.
I agree! I think there should be virtual and in person options to be cognizant of those with financial constraints but still give applicants the ability to put their best foot forward for interviews they may value more if money is limited.
Maybe, but I'm also convinced that people apply who have zero interest in actually going (the tourist applicants) because it is zero cost to them as well, though there is an opportunity cost to others.
It already occurs… There are multiple programs in my specialty that offer two different interview formats.It cannot occur as it creates tiers of applicants. An in person interview will always have advantage simply based on perceived 'seriousness'.
I'll take the money and time saved, no thanks.
What should change is program rank lists should be due a month or so before student lists, and the time in the interim could be used for second-looks without any fear of it affecting where you rank and anyone who wants to go see a program in person can have at it.
The travel costs could rack up, but it would take a lot of effort to approach 15K. Most people could only interview about 12 places, maximum. Some would be local or reachable by car. For the rest you flew coach and stayed in the nearest La Quinta.No, even as somebody who has a few hundred thousand saved from a previous job, this is too expensive. Even traveling home sometimes costs like 750 just for airfare. That’s not even including hotel (250-300 per night). Would cost like 15000 at least.
Agreed. I did something like 15 interviews in person and costs were nowhere near 15k. For me, I would only fly to top programs and any others had to be driving distance. Couch surfed where I could and most hotels were under $100 a night.The travel costs could rack up, but it would take a lot of effort to approach 15K. Most people could only interview about 12 places, maximum. Some would be local or reachable by car. For the rest you flew coach and stayed in the nearest La Quinta.
The need to do away rotations has accelerated in the past few years, and those are quite costly.
Sounds like life gets better once you trade the MS for MD/DO…Fellowship interviews were by far my favorites. Only did a few, but they were all 1-2 day long affairs where I was usually the only applicant and I would spend hours in clinic and OR with prospective mentors, go out to meals with them, and explore the city. I definitely felt much better informed making my fellowship rank list than any other. Obviously not feasible for residency but anything that gets closer to that seems like it’s better.
Travel costs have inflated significantly post-pandemic. Depending on where you're based, it may get close to $1k per trip, which adds another dimension to the inequity (geography).Agreed. I did something like 15 interviews in person and costs were nowhere near 15k. For me, I would only fly to top programs and any others had to be driving distance. Couch surfed where I could and most hotels were under $100 a night.
Travel costs have inflated significantly post-pandemic. Depending on where you're based, it may get close to $1k per trip, which adds another dimension to the inequity (geography).
So sounds like poor people shouldn't be surgeons? Really hope you're not on any admissions committee...I don’t really mind inequity very much. I feel like im training surgeons, not social engineering. If anything, trainees with limited means or limited financial management skills are going to be more likely to struggle in training anyhow. In person interviews may be a nice soft screen for that.
Yeah if you’re screwed and have a super expensive airport, it may be rough. I just checked google flights prices from my med school airport to all the cities where I interviewed. Prices are all under $200 round trip except for one smaller airport that’s $325. Hotels in all but two cities are under $100 a night. I’ve definitely noticed travel costs being higher, and these numbers are higher than what I paid back in 2015 when I interviewed, but nowhere near $1k per trip. And string together some multi-leg trips and it gets the costs down even more.
I don’t really mind inequity very much. I feel like im training surgeons, not social engineering. If anything, trainees with limited means or limited financial management skills are going to be more likely to struggle in training anyhow. In person interviews may be a nice soft screen for that.
For programs near particularly expensive airports, the programs could potentially help subsidize the cost of flights for desired applicants. I know a number of programs that used to pay travel costs - many of my friends had nearly all their travel paid for by programs. Sadly not in my field!
I kinda hear what you are saying for ENT, 5 yrs and at most 5-6 interns, knowing the person is essential. However, to embrace inequity is shortsighted. People of limited means know how to work like they have no backup plan.Yeah if you’re screwed and have a super expensive airport, it may be rough. I just checked google flights prices from my med school airport to all the cities where I interviewed. Prices are all under $200 round trip except for one smaller airport that’s $325. Hotels in all but two cities are under $100 a night. I’ve definitely noticed travel costs being higher, and these numbers are higher than what I paid back in 2015 when I interviewed, but nowhere near $1k per trip. And string together some multi-leg trips and it gets the costs down even more.
I don’t really mind inequity very much. I feel like im training surgeons, not social engineering. If anything, trainees with limited means or limited financial management skills are going to be more likely to struggle in training anyhow. In person interviews may be a nice soft screen for that.
For programs near particularly expensive airports, the programs could potentially help subsidize the cost of flights for desired applicants. I know a number of programs that used to pay travel costs - many of my friends had nearly all their travel paid for by programs. Sadly not in my field!
Was going to mock this, but honestly I don't think it even deserves that. Instead I have to ask, exactly why would poor people struggle in surgery residency? Either I learn something, or by spelling it out, you can see how inane and classist you sound.Yeah if you’re screwed and have a super expensive airport, it may be rough. I just checked google flights prices from my med school airport to all the cities where I interviewed. Prices are all under $200 round trip except for one smaller airport that’s $325. Hotels in all but two cities are under $100 a night. I’ve definitely noticed travel costs being higher, and these numbers are higher than what I paid back in 2015 when I interviewed, but nowhere near $1k per trip. And string together some multi-leg trips and it gets the costs down even more.
I don’t really mind inequity very much. I feel like im training surgeons, not social engineering. If anything, trainees with limited means or limited financial management skills are going to be more likely to struggle in training anyhow. In person interviews may be a nice soft screen for that.
For programs near particularly expensive airports, the programs could potentially help subsidize the cost of flights for desired applicants. I know a number of programs that used to pay travel costs - many of my friends had nearly all their travel paid for by programs. Sadly not in my field!
This is a surprisingly insensitive take from someone who otherwise regularly posts great insights for medical students interested in surgery / ENT specifically.. do better manYeah if you’re screwed and have a super expensive airport, it may be rough. I just checked google flights prices from my med school airport to all the cities where I interviewed. Prices are all under $200 round trip except for one smaller airport that’s $325. Hotels in all but two cities are under $100 a night. I’ve definitely noticed travel costs being higher, and these numbers are higher than what I paid back in 2015 when I interviewed, but nowhere near $1k per trip. And string together some multi-leg trips and it gets the costs down even more.
I don’t really mind inequity very much. I feel like im training surgeons, not social engineering. If anything, trainees with limited means or limited financial management skills are going to be more likely to struggle in training anyhow. In person interviews may be a nice soft screen for that.
For programs near particularly expensive airports, the programs could potentially help subsidize the cost of flights for desired applicants. I know a number of programs that used to pay travel costs - many of my friends had nearly all their travel paid for by programs. Sadly not in my field!
I had about 5 other responses to this that I contemplated but out of internet benefit of the doubt, why exactly are people from poor families more likely to struggle in training? What data backs this claim up other than anecdotal experience?I don’t really mind inequity very much. I feel like im training surgeons, not social engineering. If anything, trainees with limited means or limited financial management skills are going to be more likely to struggle in training anyhow. In person interviews may be a nice soft screen for that.
This may work for ENT, where a very few excellent applicants apply to a few programs, but it just doesn’t fit for the middle-of-the pack applicant to primary care, who may need to go on a dozen or more interviews.Too many folks to reply to all individually, but since the sentiments were similar will sort of lump it all into one.
I suppose I simply prioritize fairness and equity differently. I’d rather lose out on some applicants of limited means rather than forfeit the ability to meet prospective applicants in person and gauge their fit. Getting good people who fit in well is far more important to me than being accessible to everyone.
Plenty of applicants with limited means have managed to interview in person and become good surgeons for decades. I fail to see why they are suddenly going to fall by the wayside now unless we let them interview over zoom.
I do stand by the concept that weeding out some people whose means and management skills are so poor that they can’t manage to attend interviews is likely a net benefit to programs. When I’ve seen trainees struggle, it’s often factors outside the hospital driving it. Certainly financial struggles can be one of those factors, and I would wager that someone so on the margin that they can’t manage a few economy flights after saving a bit from 4 years of federal loans or taking out some private loan or leveraging CC miles or whatever would be more likely to struggle in training.
Obviously nobody has rigorously studied this, but I don’t think we need yet another paper confirming the obvious. It’s not just a matter of rich or poor, it’s a matter of ability to plan and manage what resources you have. If one were to do a paper on this, you wouldn’t necessarily look at income or parental income, but rather things like credit score or history of bankruptcy or default or eviction or something. In fact I do recall a small paper about this a few years ago getting a lot of flack, but finding that credit score actually did seem to have some association with performance.
Sure, this all flies in the face of the equity uber alles mantra, but I find there are more important things to consider.
Yeah, most of this reply ignores the point of contention. You can see the necessity of having in-person interviews while at the same time recognizing that it favors those with means. Personally I'm not shedding many tears for people who can't afford to be an ENT, dermatologist, ortho bro, etc and instead must "settle" for another speciality which will still give them job and financial stability at the worst while being a positive influence on humanity. Yet, I still recognize the unfairness, bemoan it, and hope there can be a good solution in the future. Embracing inequity is...well you're just really letting your colors show. I feel like people like you in medicine is why we're forced to sit through these aggravating social injustice classes.Too many folks to reply to all individually, but since the sentiments were similar will sort of lump it all into one.
I suppose I simply prioritize fairness and equity differently. I’d rather lose out on some applicants of limited means rather than forfeit the ability to meet prospective applicants in person and gauge their fit. Getting good people who fit in well is far more important to me than being accessible to everyone.
Plenty of applicants with limited means have managed to interview in person and become good surgeons for decades. I fail to see why they are suddenly going to fall by the wayside now unless we let them interview over zoom.
I do stand by the concept that weeding out some people whose means and management skills are so poor that they can’t manage to attend interviews is likely a net benefit to programs. When I’ve seen trainees struggle, it’s often factors outside the hospital driving it. Certainly financial struggles can be one of those factors, and I would wager that someone so on the margin that they can’t manage a few economy flights after saving a bit from 4 years of federal loans or taking out some private loan or leveraging CC miles or whatever would be more likely to struggle in training.
Obviously nobody has rigorously studied this, but I don’t think we need yet another paper confirming the obvious. It’s not just a matter of rich or poor, it’s a matter of ability to plan and manage what resources you have. If one were to do a paper on this, you wouldn’t necessarily look at income or parental income, but rather things like credit score or history of bankruptcy or default or eviction or something. In fact I do recall a small paper about this a few years ago getting a lot of flack, but finding that credit score actually did seem to have some association with performance.
Sure, this all flies in the face of the equity uber alles mantra, but I find there are more important things to consider.
Honestly, that sounds awful. (Pre-interview social + interview day) x 15 interviews is already pushing it.I would hope that a three-tiered interviewing process (which most businesses lean towards) would become more standard. Level 1 is a screening, recorded video interview post-application (or part of the application). Level 2 is a live virtual interview. Level 3 is an in-person interview day for finalists.
Understood. Send your love to the admins who have to set all of that up. 🙂Honestly, that sounds awful. (Pre-interview social + interview day) x 15 interviews is already pushing it.
This may work for ENT, where a very few excellent applicants apply to a few programs, but it just doesn’t fit for the middle-of-the pack applicant to primary care, who may need to go on a dozen or more interviews.
Perhaps the place we differ is that I distinguish between poverty and poor financial management skills. There's a strong body of evidence that those poor financial management skills bleed into all other aspects of life. There's a reason that credit scores have found their way not only into things like apartment rentals, but even things like employment background checks or rates for car insurance. The correlations are simply too strong to ignore. The one paper looking at credit and surgical training was small and flawed as most papers are, but not suprisingly it too showed that better credit seemed to coincide with better performance.Yeah, most of this reply ignores the point of contention. You can see the necessity of having in-person interviews while at the same time recognizing that it favors those with means. Personally I'm not shedding many tears for people who can't afford to be an ENT, dermatologist, ortho bro, etc and instead must "settle" for another speciality which will still give them job and financial stability at the worst while being a positive influence on humanity. Yet, I still recognize the unfairness, bemoan it, and hope there can be a good solution in the future. Embracing inequity is...well you're just really letting your colors show. I feel like people like you in medicine is why we're forced to sit through these aggravating social injustice classes.
Your reply about credit score reeks of "let them eat cake." Yes, many people who are poor have poor financial management or foresight, but that's not a given. It's quite reasonable to have good credit, while not being able to afford thousands of dollars for interviews. Do you have an understanding of what it means to be poor? Or know a good amount of people who are poor? Or do you just not associate with peasants?
Now this is a nice idea and similar to what we're planning here in the near future. For ENT, out of the 400 ish apps, there tend to be 100 or so that are on the short list, and from those you pick the 30-40 in person folks. Doing virtual interviews for more of the short list could make the in person far more productive. You'd eliminate some of the weirdos ahead of time, and you'd also potentially get some self selection from applicants who didn't like the people and declined the in person invite.I can't speak as someone who has run in-person residency interviews (just admissions ones), but virtual interviews shifts a lot of hours from logistical setup for in-person meetings, lunches, and transportation to the logistical online setup of getting people together for the various events. There is also the issue of scheduling around patients (or for dental, shutting down a specialty clinic) to host a visit/interview day.
I would hope that a three-tiered interviewing process (which most businesses lean towards) would become more standard. Level 1 is a screening, recorded video interview post-application (or part of the application). Level 2 is a live virtual interview. Level 3 is an in-person interview day for finalists. The coordination with other residency programs may be necessary, but at least that procedure for interviewing and progressing is most sensible.
Pitching: I'm finalizing our Casper/PREview SJT Experience Survey report for release next year. We also have a recorded video interview survey running now (Kira Talent, Snapshot, SparkHire, etc.) vs. live interviewing (Zoom, Teams, GoToMeeting, etc.).
I definitely will repeat the question out loud but not for AI just a nervous habit when I am trying to think of an answer 🤣 I did not realize that makes people think I am using AI for answers hahaI think its only a matter of time before interviews go back to in person. Especially with AI starting to insert itself into the fold. Too many issues where I've talked to interviewers and stories of how applicants are saying the question out loud, pausing, and then answering with something that sounds scripted. With AI only getting smarter (generate an answer thats human, give me an answer thats fitting for an interview response) its going to be harder to combat this work around to virtual interviewing.
Except that you didn't differ between poverty and poor financial management in your post, you grouped them together. It speaks to your lack of understanding of how the real world works outside of ivory towers. I mean credit scores are important, and can be a good bellwether for financial savvy, but I wish you understood how much luck and familial background often plays into it. But people like you like to believe it's simply your hard work and skill with money that got you this far when it's only part of the equation.Perhaps the place we differ is that I distinguish between poverty and poor financial management skills. There's a strong body of evidence that those poor financial management skills bleed into all other aspects of life. There's a reason that credit scores have found their way not only into things like apartment rentals, but even things like employment background checks or rates for car insurance. The correlations are simply too strong to ignore. The one paper looking at credit and surgical training was small and flawed as most papers are, but not suprisingly it too showed that better credit seemed to coincide with better performance.
I would bet there are very few people with excellent credit who simply can't afford to interview in person. It's been done by too many for too long to suddenly be a problem. Sure, nobody wants to spend money they don't have to, but there are many ways to come up with the funds for most people. The one exception might be someone with poor credit and no cosigner who didn't bother to set aside money during medical school, but here we again find poor planning to be the core issue rather than just poverty. The unicorn of abject poverty with excellent credit and money management skills is just that.
The system definitely favors people with means, but I don't see why this is necessarily a bad thing. Sure, it bumps up again something in our innate sense of fairness, but beyond that I fail to see any major issue. Picking residents from an applicant pool that's slightly better off financially and potentially missing out on some poorer applicants doesn't really have a negative impact on me or the profession (save for maybe more of those aggravating social justice classes). I'm not trying to change the socioeconomic paradigm; I just want to train great surgeons and want to spend 5 years with people I get along with.
By basic economic principle, if you want to pick the best applicants, the pool has to be wider, not the opposite.Perhaps the place we differ is that I distinguish between poverty and poor financial management skills. There's a strong body of evidence that those poor financial management skills bleed into all other aspects of life. There's a reason that credit scores have found their way not only into things like apartment rentals, but even things like employment background checks or rates for car insurance. The correlations are simply too strong to ignore. The one paper looking at credit and surgical training was small and flawed as most papers are, but not suprisingly it too showed that better credit seemed to coincide with better performance.
I would bet there are very few people with excellent credit who simply can't afford to interview in person. It's been done by too many for too long to suddenly be a problem. Sure, nobody wants to spend money they don't have to, but there are many ways to come up with the funds for most people. The one exception might be someone with poor credit and no cosigner who didn't bother to set aside money during medical school, but here we again find poor planning to be the core issue rather than just poverty. The unicorn of abject poverty with excellent credit and money management skills is just that.
The system definitely favors people with means, but I don't see why this is necessarily a bad thing. Sure, it bumps up again something in our innate sense of fairness, but beyond that I fail to see any major issue. Picking residents from an applicant pool that's slightly better off financially and potentially missing out on some poorer applicants doesn't really have a negative impact on me or the profession (save for maybe more of those aggravating social justice classes). I'm not trying to change the socioeconomic paradigm; I just want to train great surgeons and want to spend 5 years with people I get along with.
From what I've been told, its pretty apparent when someone is doing it out of making sure they heard the question right vs someone doing it for suspected AI usage. hahahaI definitely will repeat the question out loud but not for AI just a nervous habit when I am trying to think of an answer 🤣 I did not realize that makes people think I am using AI for answers haha
This doesn’t work for fellowship though…Anyone that thinks they will magically learn in depth secret information about a program by doing an in person vs virtual interview is mistaken. It's not an away rotation, it's the exact same day in a different setting. It's the exact same advertising act where the program hides any negatives. If you want to truly know a program, an away rotation is the only way.
And in person interviews are particularly egregious for those needing a separate intern year, which easily totals to 20+ interviews. Any PD that pushes for in person interviews needs to find the funds to pay for travel and housing like every other industry. It's just arrogant to push for in person and want applicants to pay for it.
If someone wants to learn about a city before moving there, they can take a trip on their own time.
No applicants should push for in person interview. It’s the same game as the virtual interview except it costs $1000 to travel there and wait around.
How much would it cost to pick a program and then be so miserable there that you quit or switch specialties/programs? This does happen. And when you're looking at a period of time of your life of 3-5 years, that's a long place to be in one time without ever having been there.
You make it seem like you will know a place by spending 2-3 days max there. Your adaptability matters a lot more.How much would it cost to pick a program and then be so miserable there that you quit or switch specialties/programs? This does happen. And when you're looking at a period of time of your life of 3-5 years, that's a long place to be in one time without ever having been there.