A common question (or related) that I encountered in several interviews was "where do you see yourself after your training." Here you were expected to outline your future career as a physician-scientist (whether that be as an academic, researcher in industry, etc.), how much research you would be doing (traditional 80-20), and general field or research problem you wanted to tackle (cancer, Alzheimer's, heart disease etc.)
Although there are programs that are more open-minded than others, I got a strong impression that programs had a clear preference for the responses to this question. Some programs were very clearly looking for a traditional 80-20 academic physician-scientist looking to enter the field that they were strong at, while others seemed to be fine as long as you were doing some sort of research in the future. I've talked to some other interviewees who said that they received strong negative reactions from more "traditional" PDs after expressing interest in entering the industry or being part of clinical trials, for example.
My guess is that these questions are not mainly meant to test your "resolve" in sticking to the path exactly as you just outlined; whether, they seemed to be testing a) whether you have at least thought of a coherent plan for your future career and b) whether you will find program X to be a satisfactory program in reaching your goals and c) whether program X has produced the kind of physician-scientists as the one you see yourself becoming. The worst thing you can do, imo, is being vauge or selling yourself short in responding these questions; in one of my earlier interviews, I gave a fairly vague answer to this question that resulted in my interviewer asking for more and more information. Like many other things, I've found that larger, better-established programs were usually more flexible in what they were looking for.
