i just wanted to clue u in on temple.
my interview went fairly well, ur supposed 2 be interviewed by david martin, the dead of academic affairs but dr. newman conducted my interview. altogether there were about five of us interviewing that day.
the day was fairly relaxed, with a good portion of it (beginning till lunch) dedicated to touring the entire temple pod + clinic facility, and surrounding philadelphia.
then came lunch and we talked to 2 students. 1 was a third year in rotations, and the other was a second year. both were very real and laid out the pros/cons of the program, more pros than cons obviously, but they made a good impression as to what kind of doctors this program is producing. during lunch, they called us in one by one for the interview.
the interview with dr. newman was relaxed, and not like what i had heard about temple interviews (some ppl + reports on sdn interview feedback said they grilled ppl). i got asked the basic questions: how did u arrive at podiatry/ where do u see urself in 20 yrs/ how was ur experience at ur undergrad.
all in all, they were friendly, receptive, ready to answer questions, organized, and had the day planned out in a constructive way.
other students i was there with shared my sentiments.
on the negative-- philadelphia as a whole didnt do much to impress me, but i come from a big city, so in that aspect its like home. also one of the interviewees i was with did not impress me in that temple had invited this person. but then again, this probably occurs at every school (undergrad and grad).
i would be wary of anyone who judges the entire DPM program based on the antics of an admissions committee, since i do realise this was many people's issue with temple (that and old facilities---- which really isnt as bad as ppl on sdn claim, and they are working on improving). i believe all the schools have good programs, and each brings its positives and negatives-- but in the end the best advice given on sdn was: choose the right fit for you! 😉
