•••quote:•••Originally posted by Procrastinator:
•The whole money saving part of your argument is valid, but wouldn't you rather attend a school that places more value on face-to-face interpersonal communication skills and less on how you look on paper. Schools should definitely not interview someone that they wouldn't accept numerically, but school that emphasize the interview will likely produce better doctors than a school that accepts all interviewees. Come on, let's face it, there are a lot of smart pre-meds that are complete tools and don't have the communication skills it takes to be a good doc.•••••I agree that there are a lot or smart pre-meds that are 'tools', but communication skills are not required for every branch of medicine. think about it, not all people going into medical school want a practice centered around patient contact. Some who enter medicine go into more corporate oriented careers (md/mba). perhaps some of those 'tools' would be excellent surgeons but not good primary care physicians? Communication skills needed in medicine are also developed in medical school and in your career, thereafter. ( but i do think some people have a natural ability to communicate with other people more so than others).
as far as schools making cuts. i am for it. for example..UCSF interviews 500 applicants out of 4800 or so. they choose those 500 based on numbers, your essay**, and letters of rec***
letters of recommendations SHOULD say something more than just how good of a student you are. they should tell the admissions committee that you are worth meeting in person. so should your personal statement. if an applicant writes an excellent personal statement and has letters that comment on character, personality, sense of humor, intelligence, etc..that applicant will most likely get interviews from many schools if they have the numbers to back them up.
if schools screened secondaries based on numbers/personal statement and then determined interviews based on numbers/personal statement + the letters of rec..i don't think they would wind up interviewing too many 'tools'. interviewing lots of 'tools' usually occurs when little weight is put on anything aside from numbers.
So far in the process, I have appreciated the schools that have screened for secondaries and have been more critical in who they have chosen for an interview. The sense of accomplishment is there, along with the feeling that the interviews are held as more important. I don't think schools that interview 1500 people for 180 spots actually put a lot of value on the interview in the end, i.e. Columbia. They may interview 1500 or whatever the number is, but they only last for an avg of 15-20 minutes. Most of the schools that interview 500 or so provide the applicant with atleast two interviews and they usually last for an hour or more. That gets my respect.
