MD & DO Bring back in-person interviews

[Billiam95]

No amount of $ savings can be worth making such an important decision based on a couple of virtual interviews & a virtual social hour

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[WhereMyLiberalsAt]

Yeah I’m basically with you on this… I ended up doing more aways than one usually would so I could be confident in my decision. I was pleasantly surprised with one sub-I and will rank them #1 even though I have 3-5 “more prestigious” programs ranked under them. I know what I’m getting with that program and can’t be happier. (This program probably wouldn’t have been in my top three just based off the interview day.)

 

[DarkBluMage]

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.

 

[SurfingDoctor]

Virtual interviews are cancer...

 

[Kierkegaard's Bud]

Virtual interviews are cancer...

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.

 

[SurfingDoctor]

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.

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.

 

[NotAProgDirector]

Both of these viewpoints are valid. Some people have difficulty with the costs of travel for interviews, and sometimes it can be very inconvenient when an interview ends at 3PM today and you have your next interview a flight away starting at 7AM tomorrow. But it's also true that virtual interviews allow for larger numbers of interviews, and some people decide to go on very large numbers "just in case" and "because I earned them".

Interview caps may be a solution, although the legality of such is unclear.

Virtual interviews with optional in person visits is another solution -- if the concern is that applicants can't adequately assess programs.

 

[Drrrrrr. Celty]

Tell me what is going to change your mind that isn't detailed on the front page of through talking with residents/fellows?
Want a tour of the hospital? Go on google and you'll have tons of images of the ER, rooms, etc.

Go do a second view if you're really that keen on a program.

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.

It cannot occur as it creates tiers of applicants. An in person interview will always have advantage simply based on perceived 'seriousness'.

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.

There needs to be an overhaul completely of the match & soap system.

 

[WhereMyLiberalsAt]

It cannot occur as it creates tiers of applicants. An in person interview will always have advantage simply based on perceived 'seriousness'.

It already occurs… There are multiple programs in my specialty that offer two different interview formats.

I love the idea of second looks but this needs to be in an environment where programs submit their list several weeks before applicants so they can attend/not attend and it not hurt their ranking.
Example:
February 1st: programs submits rank list
February 2nd-28th: open house
February 29th: applicants submit rank list

 

[Drrrrrr. Celty]

Honestly the match is going to always fundamentally be garbage.

There is no solving this.

 

[AnonymousDoctorGuyPerson]

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.

 

[Drrrrrr. Celty]

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.

I think this is a genuinely reasonable perspective.

 

[voxveritatisetlucis]

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. Stick with virtual

 

[Mr.Smile12]

Slight interruption: we officially opened our new pilot survey on virtual interviews, with a focus on recorded video interviews (but we want a baseline with the virtual experience). It may be a little slanted towards pre-professionals but I think current residency applicants can fill it out too.

Thanks!

HPSA SJT Experience Survey 2023

www.studentdoctor.net

 

[anxious_premed44]

Def enjoyed my in person interview experience a lot more than my zoom interviews

 

[Dantes]

I did in-person interviews for med school and virtual for residency. Virtual wins hands down. I'm glad you can afford going to multiple residency interviews but I would have had to take out a private loan to do so, since my school didn't allow adding loans for residency expenses (or maybe those are federal loan guidelines, not sure). I didn't feel that in-person interviews for med school were that valuable. Optional in-person second looks can help if you want to see the area. I agree in the future they should be after the program's ranking deadline.

 

[Med Ed]

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.

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.

 

[operaman]

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.

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.

I wasn’t this organized, but I had classmates who played the reward credit card game all through med school and used points to buy most of their plane tickets and hotels In expensive cities. For me, I just made sure to set aside some loan money every semester starting in M1 so I’d have money for interviews and relocation without having to take additional private loans.

For smaller programs, I think in person is valuable for both applicants and programs. Fit is very important in smaller programs especially and it’s just too hard to get anything valuable on either side from virtual interviews. Maybe it’s less of an issue for a big IM or peds program where one bad fit isn’t as noticeable, but for a program taking 1-2 residents per year a bad apple hurts a lot more.

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.

 

[Esmolol]

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.

Sounds like life gets better once you trade the MS for MD/DO…

 

[PandaBaer]

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).

 

[operaman]

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).

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!

 

[Dantes]

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.

So sounds like poor people shouldn't be surgeons? Really hope you're not on any admissions committee...

 

[pawprint]

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 fly every week across the country, what flights are you booking under $200 roundtrip? Frontier/spirit/random new airline? Those types of tickets are like spinning a roulette wheel…there’s no backup for those flights if the plane needs maintenance or if there’s a weather issue. I’d never advise anyone trying to make it to their destination on a timeline to take that. A safe roundtrip flight with a guaranteed seat (not the economy tickets that are at risk for getting bumped) is going to cost at minimum $400 nowadays, but probably more depending on the destination. With another $100-200 on a hotel, and another $100 on a rental car, plus taxes/gas/food, you are easily at $1000 per trip.

 

[Kierkegaard's Bud]

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.

 

[lolthroaway]

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.

And I'm not talking about people with poor financial management skills because there wouldn't be a screen for that considering wealthy students can get "loans" from family to cover aways/interviews no matter their record with finances.

 

[rulerkk]

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 man

 

[Latteandaprayer]

My plan is to do my virtual interviews and then visit the 3-5 places I liked the most. I understand the sentiment, and I understand that maybe what would be #14 on my list could have been #1 after an in-person feel, but I just really don’t want to put a couple thousand on travel if I’m lucky enough to get 10+ interviews. If programs would subsidize the trips, then that would be okay, but very expensive for them.

 

[chssoccer7]

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.

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 suppose you could draw some arbitrary link between limited financial management skills and ability to learn/do a job. But having learned with, worked, and taught people of both advantaged and disadvantaged backgrounds, I have never even once remotely experienced a correlation between someone being rich or poor and ability to make it through a rigorous training program.

 

[operaman]

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.

 

[rulerkk]

There's a simple solution to absolving applicants of the financial burden of interviewing.. have medicine reach the standards of every other similarly competitive profession wherein we would be paid for interning (away rotations), have free applications to residencies, and have our travel & accommodations paid for when interviewing. Ask friends in law, tech, or any form of finance what their process looks like when looking for intensive first-time jobs after graduation, and they'll tell you about these standards.

It's incredible that medical professionals in training have not gone on larger smear campaigns about how backward-thinking this profession is. Esp when people can hold the above logic. Til then, Zoom interviews + resident info-dump Zoom socials with Q&A + invitations to open houses after programs submit rank lists at least put the ball in the students' court, as it should be.

 

[LunaOri]

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.

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.

 

[lolthroaway]

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.

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?

 

[ZEH]

Having done a mix of in-person and virtual interviews I actually prefer virtual interviews followed by in- person second looks. I love doing in-person interviews at places I am excited about. I have had a few in-person interviews that I went to because prior to the interview I really thought they would be top choices for me but halfway through the interview portion I realized these programs were absolute no's for me then I am stuck having to stay acting super interested, touring a hospital for a program I don't want to be at, and going to social events after the interview and making small talk with people from a program that I am not interested in. It feels like such a waste of time and money when this happens.

I would rather sus out the details of a program on a virtual interviews then go to second looks preferably after they have ranked then this is a low stress situation where you can truly get a vibe on the people and place and you are only fronting money for places that you are genuinely interested in at this point.

 

[Hippocratesintraining]

I 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.

 

[Mr.Smile12]

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.).

 

[Billiam95]

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.

Honestly, that sounds awful. (Pre-interview social + interview day) x 15 interviews is already pushing it.

 

[Mr.Smile12]

Honestly, that sounds awful. (Pre-interview social + interview day) x 15 interviews is already pushing it.

Understood. Send your love to the admins who have to set all of that up.

 

[operaman]

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.

Interesting - I would think the opposite would be true. The smaller competitive fields tend to be ones where top applicants apply quite broadly. I was definitely a top applicant when I applied and I applied to 50 of the ~100 ish programs at the time, and got 40 interview invites, attended 15 I believe. Most of my primary care friends attended 10 or fewer, and that's from a middle tier MD school.

 

[operaman]

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?

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.

 

[operaman]

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.).

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.

 

[ZEH]

I 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.

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 haha

 

[lolthroaway]

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.

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.

For example, I worked in a customer service and research jobs for some time before medical school with people I'd consider at the poverty level. During those years I was able to build up savings of thousands of dollars to the point that I had more in savings than a middle-class family I knew, while my co-workers...did not do that. I also built up a good credit score along the way. I'd give 30% credit to my fiscally conservative nature and 70% to the sheer dumb luck of inheriting a car that refused to die or give me major problems along with no other emergencies (not having any medical emergencies is particularly salient in my mind) during that time. Had I faced these issues like my co-workers, well never-mind saving money, I'd have struggled to not be in the red financially. A common denominator among us was that we did not have safety nets and could not count on family or friends to help with finances no matter how emergent. I'm under no delusion that my nest eggs are even largely due to my spending habits; I've had so much luck going my way that allowed me to build my finances. I feel like that's true for most people.

Also this is why we're asking for good data to back up what frankly seems to be BS you're spitting out. Of those in poverty that make it to medical school, how many of them have poor finances due to lack of foresight or management skills? With the way the game works I have a hard time imagining someone with BOTH factors making to medical school in the first place.

Also, 4chan, stop trying to paint this as some social justice crusade. I understand that straw men may make life easier for you, but this isn't it. Life is unfair, and as I mentioned previously, I'm not particularly heartbroken by this issue since most of the people impacted are still hitting the jackpot by just being doctors. However, I can recognize unfairness and hope for more equity when possible. But I don't know, I guess I was raised to care about people. And my mentors continually remind me to hold on to that virtue since it might be important for the profession.

Which brings me to your last paragraph: I don't have an argument because I don't know how to argue you should be a decent human being to a stranger online. "This inequity doesn't impact me and may make things better for me" is just shallow and depraved. Especially when such a barrier doesn't filter out poor financial management much if at all. So, I'll leave you with a meme that sums up some of your points from someone you'd probably relate to

 

[Kierkegaard's Bud]

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.

Also, lay eyes on this ENT paper: Cost of the Otolaryngology Residency Application Process: Comparison With Other Specialties and Equity Implications.

 

[Hippocratesintraining]

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 haha

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. hahaha

 

[Anakinmemer]

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.

 

[SurfingDoctor]

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.

This doesn’t work for fellowship though…

 

[Ho0v-man]

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.

It’s actually beneficial for programs because they can see which applicants are rude to their staff and it’s not like programs aren’t aware applicants are just reading off of notes they’ve hidden out of view. But this doesn’t work the other way. In fact, when I applied I would’ve loved to have had an interviewer read off of a note pad instead of going “What questions do you have for me?”

 

[aldol16]

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.

 

[Ho0v-man]

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.

And this happened when we were interviewing in person too. Do you know of any data that shows this is happening more frequently today than when we did in person interviews?

 

[Kierkegaard's Bud]

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.