Hitting interview home runs

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.

Shredder

User
10+ Year Member
5+ Year Member
15+ Year Member
Joined
Dec 14, 2004
Messages
3,904
Reaction score
4
Arguably the best way to succeed in interviews or any kind of negotiations is to appeal to the other party's self interests. What are med schools' interests? They have to have some vested interests in selecting students, even if they are subconscious. So I'm not looking for answers like "picking ppl who will be good docs and serve the community". I mean things like "ppl who will stay on as residents/faculty, ppl who will donate as alums, ppl who will bring fame and fortune to the school".

any ideas on what to say in interviews that will make interviewers light up in enthusiasm? of course you cant go wrong with raving about schools' specific programs and silly curricula twists, as well as the location even if its in timbuktu

Members don't see this ad.
 
Shredder said:
Arguably the best way to succeed in interviews or any kind of negotiations is to appeal to the other party's self interests. What are med schools' interests? They have to have some vested interests in selecting students, even if they are subconscious. So I'm not looking for answers like "picking ppl who will be good docs and serve the community". I mean things like "ppl who will stay on as residents/faculty, ppl who will donate as alums, ppl who will bring fame and fortune to the school".

any ideas on what to say in interviews that will make interviewers light up in enthusiasm? of course you cant go wrong with raving about schools' specific programs and silly curricula twists, as well as the location even if its in timbuktu

How can anyone convince them that one day they will be a famous doctor someday, or will donate lots of money to them? If you're not already the lead author of a Nature article, or the child of a billionaire, it seems unlikely you would be able to convince them of this.
 
This above all else: to thy own self be true.
 
Members don't see this ad :)
Probably something along the lines of "passion for research" or something like that. With so much money at stake, all the schools want the biggest piece they can get. Between grants, funding, donations, patents, etc. I don't know if med schools have reached University Co. yet like most major undergraduate schools, but I'm guessing they're heading there.

Actually there was a good article in Fortune about schools' drives for research and the whole patent fiasco coming out of it.
 
tacrum43 said:
How can anyone convince them that one day they will be a famous doctor someday, or will donate lots of money to them? If you're not already the lead author of a Nature article, or the child of a billionaire, it seems unlikely you would be able to convince them of this.

sure, but I think shredder is speaking more in the realm of showing clues and intentions, not "convincing them" so to speak.
 
OwnageMobile said:
sure, but I think shredder is speaking more in the realm of showing clues and intentions, not "convincing them" so to speak.

Okay. And how would one hint that they will someday bring money, glory and prestige to the medical school they attend? It seems pretty pretentious to even imply that.
 
tacrum43 said:
How can anyone convince them that one day they will be a famous doctor someday, or will donate lots of money to them? If you're not already the lead author of a Nature article, or the child of a billionaire, it seems unlikely you would be able to convince them of this.
yes, thats partially true. but isnt that where selling oneself comes into play? what are the selling points? the truth is, if youre already a hotshot why would you be sitting in front of them groveling to them to get into their school?

passion for research is a good one, however you always have to fear the dreaded phd territory if you talk too much about it. dreaded as in bad for the interview
 
tacrum43 said:
Okay. And how would one hint that they will someday bring money, glory and prestige to the medical school they attend? It seems pretty pretentious to even imply that.
thats what the thread is about, and i think subtly thats what interviews are about, at prestigious places anyway. in fact, at all levels of places. the schools also want to be the best they can be, just like the students. you cant say outright that you will bring those things to the school, but i think that is really what you are trying to convey to them

pretentious is one thing, but failing to toot ones own horn is another. which is worse?
 
Shredder said:
yes, thats partially true. but isnt that where selling oneself comes into play? what are the selling points? the truth is, if youre already a hotshot why would you be sitting in front of them groveling to them to get into their school?

passion for research is a good one, however you always have to fear the dreaded phd territory if you talk too much about it. dreaded as in bad for the interview

Well, I guess I've never been much of a salesman.

I guess ideally you would just want to come off as bright, enthusiastic and charitable? Those traits seem to imply what you're talking about. I suppose experience in teaching or tutoring could also help convince them that you might want to one day be a faculty member there.

On a side note, is it a bad thing if you don't want to be associated with the med school you attend one day? I mean, is just going out and being a practicing clinician to be looked down upon? I mean, isn't that the role that most people think of when they think of a doctor? It is for me.
 
Shredder said:
pretentious is one thing, but failing to toot ones own horn is another. which is worse?

Well, keep in mind this is coming from someone who actually once marched right up to his teacher and informed them that they had added up the points on my test wrong, and in fact given me too high of a score, but I prefer understatement with the ability to firmly back up anything that I say.
 
especially if you're at your state school, you can talk about your love for the state, your love for the local communities, hospitals and a ++

your love for your alma mater that you're applying to. but that's just cake.

otherwise, i think the interviewer can definitely smell bs.
 
Shredder said:
yes, thats partially true. but isnt that where selling oneself comes into play? what are the selling points? the truth is, if youre already a hotshot why would you be sitting in front of them groveling to them to get into their school?

passion for research is a good one, however you always have to fear the dreaded phd territory if you talk too much about it. dreaded as in bad for the interview

Even if you're a "hotshot," they have something that you don't have, and that something is a medical degree. So I think it pays to remember who is the cardholder here. ;)

Regarding showing a passion for research while avoiding being asked about getting a PhD: that's a tough one to answer. But one possibility is that there are certain kinds of research (clinical trials come to my mind) that are very difficult to do with a PhD, because you can't see patients with a PhD. The MD degree, in contrast, is much more flexible. It will still allow you to be a basic scientist if you want to do that, but it will also give you the ability to go into clinical research, which is harder to do with a PhD. Ok, but that still doesn't help you answer this question then: Why don't you earn *both* an MD and a PhD? That one's easy for *me* to answer, but I'm not sure how I'd answer it if I were a trad student. :confused:

Maybe the answer is that if you really want to do medical research so badly, you should either go into an MD/PhD program or else a highly research-oriented MD program like Cleveland Clinic or Harvard HST. If you don't really want to do research, and you are just trying to impress the interviewer, maybe you need to come up with some easier way of doing that. :p
 
tacrum43 said:
On a side note, is it a bad thing if you don't want to be associated with the med school you attend one day? I mean, is just going out and being a practicing clinician to be looked down upon? I mean, isn't that the role that most people think of when they think of a doctor? It is for me.

Certainly not- I dont think anyone is trying to imply that. We need to be more constructive.
 
Members don't see this ad :)
Tell you what - you should never make claims about your strengths or desires if you can't back it up with previous action; e.g. don't talk about your love of research if you don't have a few years of experience with it. Personally, I can talk about my interest in public health policy because I've got something to show for it. But I certainly can't talk about my love for basic science research - I've got zilch of that. I think showing up to interviews with a positive attitude and answering honestly while talking passionately about your accomplishments is the best way to get in at most places. Your faculty interviewers have likely done this for years - you can't pull the wool over their eyes with carefully crafted tales intended to mislead. They'll call you on it in no time.
 
SanDiegoSOD said:
I think showing up to interviews with a positive attitude and answering honestly while talking passionately about your accomplishments is the best way to get in at most places.

:thumbup: Here's hoping that's true.
 
agreed on talking about what you've done and backing up your statements.

to add onto what others have said, i think playing into a school's mission is good if you can. but it is even more important to show that you have thought this through and that you understand how your research/public health/etc experience has an impact on not only your own future but the medical field.
 
I think that if asked the question, "where do you see yourself in 10 years?" you could respond with somethign along the lines of becoming a chief resident or an attending physician so as to teach the new, incoming class of students and pass of all the things you've learned over the past x number of years.
 
One effective way to do this would be to win a Nobel Prize or similarly prestigious honor.
 
You can hit an interview home run and still not win the game. My strategy is to just avoid striking out.
 
tacrum43 said:
Well, keep in mind this is coming from someone who actually once marched right up to his teacher and informed them that they had added up the points on my test wrong, and in fact given me too high of a score, but I prefer understatement with the ability to firmly back up anything that I say.
Wait, let me guess...do you also think that you can save *every* patient? ;)
 
DarkFark said:
You can hit an interview home run and still not win the game. My strategy is to just avoid striking out.

Well, given that about 1 in 4 people make it past the interview stage, you'll want to at least shoot for extra bases. Lots of people who have luke warm interviews will end up back in the minor leagues or put on waivers. :)
I like one of the above posters' suggestion about demonstrating goals that fit into the school's mission statement (and for lots of schools this is not going to be research FYI - especially those with high primary care reankings or state schools with committments to the underserved). Don't expect schools to even want you to remain there after med school and into residency as shredder had suggested in his original post -- most places want you to succeed and move on to the best match you can get so they will have better match lists to publish.
Most adcoms really are looking for maturity -- someone who is well thought out, not going into medicine for the bling or because their parents want them to, has some story as to why they are taking this route, and has a level of excitement and enthusiasm about some aspect of medicine. They also want someone who is not one dimensional -- i.e. they usually dislike folks with high grades but no personality.
If you suggest or hint that you expect to be a famous or big shot doc some day, you will lose tons of points in terms of maturity and going into med for the wrong reasons.
 
Law2Doc said:
Well, given that about 1 in 4 people make it past the interview stage, you'll want to at least shoot for extra bases. Lots of people who have luke warm interviews will end up back in the minor leagues or put on waivers. :)
I like one of the above posters' suggestion about demonstrating goals that fit into the school's mission statement (and for lots of schools this is not going to be research FYI - especially those with high primary care reankings or state schools with committments to the underserved). Don't expect schools to even want you to remain there after med school and into residency as shredder had suggested in his original post -- most places want you to succeed and move on to the best match you can get so they will have better match lists to publish.
Most adcoms really are looking for maturity -- someone who is well thought out, not going into medicine for the bling or because their parents want them to, has some story as to why they are taking this route, and has a level of excitement and enthusiasm about some aspect of medicine. They also want someone who is not one dimensional -- i.e. they usually dislike folks with high grades but no personality.
If you suggest or hint that you expect to be a famous or big shot doc some day, you will lose tons of points in terms of maturity and going into med for the wrong reasons.
hmm that last point is true, its tough skirting the line between arrogance/pretentious and not selling oneself. i think the mission statement is a good way to prep--im trying to memorize some key points and words to regurgitate later on. and of course, some schools will favor research and others primary care, this mostly varies according to ranking. but you definitely cannot go in with the no strike out mentality, bc the 1/4 stat doesnt allow that
 
1 in 4 chance?!
At Mayo Medical School its like 1 in 5, at others its a lot higher than that!

I just figured I would reassure myself of that :laugh:
 
Hurricane95 said:
1 in 4 chance?!
At Mayo Medical School its like 1 in 5, at others its a lot higher than that!

I just figured I would reassure myself of that :laugh:


I am pretty sure mayo has a higher acceptace rate than stated above. I think you may be comparing the number interviewed vs. the number matriculated. I am not sure what the actual number accepted is...

I believe for USC its a 2/3 chance of being accepted (resident only) after the interview (comparing the number interviewed vs. the number accepted)...

For most schools its a 1/2 chance...
 
I'm a 4th year medical student. Interviewers want to see that you are interested... in anything related to medicine. Hinting about how you are going to contribute money to the school later on seems outright absurd. You can't know that. What you can know is how excited you are about medicine. So act natural and act excited. I can't repeat that enough.
I'm currently applying for residencies, and the deans and program directors here (I'm at a good school) keep giving the same advice for residency interviews: the most important thing is to show that you are interested in the field and that you are excited about the program.
Don't act fake; it won't work.
 
Law2Doc said:
Well, given that about 1 in 4 people make it past the interview stage, you'll want to at least shoot for extra bases. Lots of people who have luke warm interviews will end up back in the minor leagues or put on waivers. :)
I like one of the above posters' suggestion about demonstrating goals that fit into the school's mission statement (and for lots of schools this is not going to be research FYI - especially those with high primary care reankings or state schools with committments to the underserved). Don't expect schools to even want you to remain there after med school and into residency as shredder had suggested in his original post -- most places want you to succeed and move on to the best match you can get so they will have better match lists to publish.
Most adcoms really are looking for maturity -- someone who is well thought out, not going into medicine for the bling or because their parents want them to, has some story as to why they are taking this route, and has a level of excitement and enthusiasm about some aspect of medicine. They also want someone who is not one dimensional -- i.e. they usually dislike folks with high grades but no personality.
If you suggest or hint that you expect to be a famous or big shot doc some day, you will lose tons of points in terms of maturity and going into med for the wrong reasons.


Firstly, MOST of the schools I have interviewed at accept at least 40, if not 50+% of their interviewed applicants (examples: Northwestern, Case, Pitt, both NJMS schools, NYU, etc.). They only enroll 1/4 to 1/8 of the interviewees, but that's not the relevant statistic. If my app is good enough to get a september/october interview, then I'm content to let my app do the heavy lifting the rest of the way.

Second, it seems to me that most interviews these days are really low impact. Maybe in the past they were seriously evaluative, but if you only get a handful of basic questions about your activities followed by 'why do you want to be a doctor?' and 'why do you want to go here?', where is there room to hit your home run? I think interviews are overly emphasized because once you get to them, they are the only remaining component of your application that is yet to be determined, so they are the only thing left to do that matters. They are never the most important thing.

Thirdly, I'm not saying that you should go in there and say nothing. Give honest, complete, and simple answers. If you get a chance, talk about music or sports, and you'll come across as far more human and balanced. If your app has a flaw, use the opportunity to put it in a better light. That's it. This strategy you're discussing that revolves around determining exactly what they want to hear and then forcing those points across seems just plain risky. I mean, maybe try it if you have nothing to lose (i.e. interviewing for a waitlist spot late in the season). Otherwise, you'll risk sounding wierd and/or tripping the interviewer's BS alarm.

Lastly, how many times have you heard the story of the guy or girl who had the perfect interview and still got rejected? I know a couple of people to whom this personally happened. It's not like nailing the interview makes it a sure thing. If the person who interviews you isn't on the ADCOM, there's a good chance it won't even matter that much. If, on the other hand, you come off as psychotic, your whole app could get dumped over one lousy half hour.

If you want your interview to really help you get into medical school, then practice talking about the issues. It'll make your conversation smooth and easy. Or maybe you're just naturally good at these things. That helps too. But don't overswing- you'll strike out or pop up, like all those hitters in that 18 inning game yesterday.

When a major leaguer hits a home run, chances are he'll tell you he was just trying to make contact and hit the ball hard. That's all I try to do.
 
Bluntman said:
Wait, let me guess...do you also think that you can save *every* patient? ;)

Well yes. I mean I know it takes a lot of work, but someday I too will attain the superhuman status that is being an M.D. ;)
 
DarkFark said:
Firstly, MOST of the schools I have interviewed at accept at least 40, if not 50+% of their interviewed applicants (examples: Northwestern, Case, Pitt, both NJMS schools, NYU, etc.). They only enroll 1/4 to 1/8 of the interviewees, but that's not the relevant statistic. If my app is good enough to get a september/october interview, then I'm content to let my app do the heavy lifting the rest of the way.

Second, it seems to me that most interviews these days are really low impact. Maybe in the past they were seriously evaluative, but if you only get a handful of basic questions about your activities followed by 'why do you want to be a doctor?' and 'why do you want to go here?', where is there room to hit your home run? I think interviews are overly emphasized because once you get to them, they are the only remaining component of your application that is yet to be determined, so they are the only thing left to do that matters. They are never the most important thing.

Thirdly, I'm not saying that you should go in there and say nothing. Give honest, complete, and simple answers. If you get a chance, talk about music or sports, and you'll come across as far more human and balanced. If your app has a flaw, use the opportunity to put it in a better light. That's it. This strategy you're discussing that revolves around determining exactly what they want to hear and then forcing those points across seems just plain risky. I mean, maybe try it if you have nothing to lose (i.e. interviewing for a waitlist spot late in the season). Otherwise, you'll risk sounding wierd and/or tripping the interviewer's BS alarm.

Lastly, how many times have you heard the story of the guy or girl who had the perfect interview and still got rejected? I know a couple of people to whom this personally happened. It's not like nailing the interview makes it a sure thing. If the person who interviews you isn't on the ADCOM, there's a good chance it won't even matter that much. If, on the other hand, you come off as psychotic, your whole app could get dumped over one lousy half hour.

If you want your interview to really help you get into medical school, then practice talking about the issues. It'll make your conversation smooth and easy. Or maybe you're just naturally good at these things. That helps too. But don't overswing- you'll strike out or pop up, like all those hitters in that 18 inning game yesterday.

When a major leaguer hits a home run, chances are he'll tell you he was just trying to make contact and hit the ball hard. That's all I try to do.

That......................was..............................beautiful.

I think I'm crying a little. :)
 
DarkFark said:
Firstly, MOST of the schools I have interviewed at accept at least 40, if not 50+% of their interviewed applicants (examples: Northwestern, Case, Pitt, both NJMS schools, NYU, etc.). They only enroll 1/4 to 1/8 of the interviewees, but that's not the relevant statistic.

How sure are you of these numbers? I was under the impression that med schools don't over-accept. That is, they only dole out further acceptances after people withdraw.
 
DarkFark said:
Second, it seems to me that most interviews these days are really low impact. Maybe in the past they were seriously evaluative, but if you only get a handful of basic questions about your activities followed by 'why do you want to be a doctor?' and 'why do you want to go here?', where is there room to hit your home run? I think interviews are overly emphasized because once you get to them, they are the only remaining component of your application that is yet to be determined, so they are the only thing left to do that matters. They are never the most important thing.

An entirely benign interview in which you are asked generic questions and you give superficial answers is never a good thing. Especially at prestigious schools that have their pick of hundreds of qualified applicants, you need to prove why the adcom should pick you over the next guy. If you can't present a good argument for your admittance, and you leave the interview feeling that you didn't market yourself well, I'd strike it up as a loss. IMHO
 
TheMightyAngus said:
How sure are you of these numbers? I was under the impression that med schools don't over-accept. That is, they only dole out further acceptances after people withdraw.


US News and World Report is my source. I have the subscription.


I didn't say answer superficialy. I said honest and clear. Allow me to clarify what I think is the best thing to do:

Be confident, humble, and enthusiastic, and admit to yourself that it's almost completely out of your hands now. And as Coach Tom Coughlin says about the NFL (switching sports metaphors) "There are more games that are lost in this league than there are won"


And thanks for your kind words little_late_MD, I worked hard on that ;).
 
TheMightyAngus said:
How sure are you of these numbers? I was under the impression that med schools don't over-accept. That is, they only dole out further acceptances after people withdraw.

I'm pretty sure schools do over-accept, as I think I remember at UMich they were aiming for 180 enrolled, and they ended up with 187 or so because they were "unusually fortunate" in the number of people accepted who actually attended.
 
I think talking about how you desperately want to give dollars to the institution and work in their grant procurement office and go out and recruit wealthy students would be a great plan if you were interviewing with the president of the university or someone else who is really running the business. However, you are most likely interviewing with a faculty member, student or someone on the admissions committee. These people are not the ones out to make more money for the school. They are just the lowly employees of the company.
 
One of my interviewiers last month commented on the fact that my interview "seemed consistent" with my application. Basically, that my ECs and interests supported what I said I wanted to do as an MD.
During the interview, she told me that one of the worst things an applicant can do is BS. She gave the example of the applicants who say they want to do primary care medicine in a rural or underserved community, yet they live in a big city and their only clinical experience is shadowing a cardiologist. The basic message: Don't try to impress the interviewer by saying what you think they want to hear. Be honest!
 
goodeats said:
I'm pretty sure schools do over-accept, as I think I remember at UMich they were aiming for 180 enrolled, and they ended up with 187 or so because they were "unusually fortunate" in the number of people accepted who actually attended.

Yup, I'm positive it's just like undergrad. All schools run statistics on the likelihood of applicants to accept admission based on previous years and determine how many people to accept on that basis.

The name of the game is yield and it's very difficult to play...That is, unless you're Harvard.
 
goodeats said:
I'm pretty sure schools do over-accept, as I think I remember at UMich they were aiming for 180 enrolled, and they ended up with 187 or so because they were "unusually fortunate" in the number of people accepted who actually attended.

Yup, I'm positive it's just like undergrad. All schools run statistics on the likelihood of applicants to accept admission based on previous years and determine how many people to accept on that basis.

The name of the game is yield and it's very difficult to play...That is, unless you're Harvard.
 
goodeats said:
I'm pretty sure schools do over-accept, as I think I remember at UMich they were aiming for 180 enrolled, and they ended up with 187 or so because they were "unusually fortunate" in the number of people accepted who actually attended.

Yup, I'm positive it's just like undergrad. All schools run statistics on the likelihood of applicants to accept admission based on previous years and determine how many people to accept on that basis.

The name of the game is yield and it's very difficult to play...That is, unless you're Harvard.
 
Top