emmd2b said:
I agree that you should make your ROL based on where you want to be, but you have to figure out what makes you want to be there. For me, personally, the interview and the interpersonal skills of the faculty is really important. I want to be at a place where they care who I am as a person and what I can bring to the program. I have low tolerance for programs that ask generic questions to all the candidates looking for "the best" or the "most interesting" answers. I have definitely been rubbed the wrong way by several programs and it makes an impact.
I find it interesting that programs can have "strange" interviews but people still like the program. It's like reputation and patient base is all that matters. Somehow, I don't think that the applicants get that much wiggle-room....like "that applicant is horrible in person, but their application looks great!" Unlikely....
So, I may be touchy-feely, but how comfortable I felt during the interview definitely will affect my ROL.
Great post and good thoughts.
What about strange interviews and interviewers? Let's suppose you have four interviews at a place and 2 of them felt wierd. You've seen perhaps 3 of 15 to 50 faculty and 1 of 18 to a bazillion residents. You've got a small smaple space and it may be unrepresentative. The program on the other hand has 4 samples of the whole population (n=1, you). Samples may still be unrepresentative, since we are seeing you in an artificial and stressful situation. that may be ok, since we are considering you for an artificial and stressful career!
I think that if people can have strange interviews, but still like the program, they must be experiencing cognitive dissonance. Interestingly, if you go ask people a year after they've started if they're happy with the program, most will say yes, regardless of their initial impression (cognitive dissonance or just the program's performance, you decide).
I wasn't saying that the nature of the interview is unimportant or that "touchy-feeley" impressions shouldn't be considered. In fact just the opposite, I think they are very important. You're right, at our place a good candidate on paper who comes across as horrible in person ain't getting ranked even though we might be wrong. You might use the same policy, also realizing that you may be wrong. I suspect we have less uncertainty, given that we have scores, dean's letters with composites or many supervisors opinions, SLORs and four interviews of the whole product.
You have "reputation", statistics, accreditation status and a small sample of the whole program.
What I have been pushing all through this is to suggest that you can't know what your interviewers are thinking. Most of them have been doing this longer than you have, most are naturally polite and most are naturally friendly. Others may be less forthcoming, but as Quinn said that may just be then. I've known and admired his PD for years, I suspect he's very good at his job, he is quiet. Secondarily, the nature of the match makes their opinion of you, even if you could get it, irrelevant to your interests.
Anyway, got to go to work,
Cheers.
BTW Quinn, if you don't mind give us the 411. What did you answer to your chair that was "wrong"
edited for grammar and meaning 1/20/06 1751 mdt