How do applicants with below average EC's do well in interviews?

[Padfoot]

---

Members do not see this ad.

I'm assuming once you're invited for an interview, that your stats don't really matter anymore. How do those with above average stats but not-so-good activities do well enough to get accepted over someone who has great EC's to talk about? Some of my EC's, like patient transport volunteering and providing companionship at nursing homes, were quite simple, and I can't really think of anything too impressive/interesting to say about them. I know a lot of interview questions don't have to pertain to the application, but I still feel at an disadvantage.

 

[WedgeDawg]

Everything matters. People don't enter the interview on equal footing.

 

[thatwouldbeanarchy]

I'm assuming once you're invited for an interview, that your stats don't really matter anymore. How do those with above average stats but not-so-good activities do well enough to get accepted over someone who has great EC's to talk about? Some of my EC's, like patient transport volunteering and providing companionship at nursing homes, were quite simple, and I can't really think of anything too impressive/interesting to say about them. I know a lot of interview questions don't have to pertain to the application, but I still feel at an disadvantage.

If I were you, I'd try to think more creatively about your ECs. What did you like/dislike about them? What did you learn? Have your experiences challenged you in any way? Have they given you any insight into your future as a physician? Why did you choose to do these things?

Stats definitely still matter. But even if you have the most impressive ECs in the world, it's going to hurt you if you can't convey in an interview what those ECs meant to you. It doesn't have to be anything super deep but it's gonna be mighty awkward if you don't have anything to say about what you've done.

 

[Azete]

I had similar thinking last cycle and all it got me was one wait list in 4 tries. For some reason I convinced myself that med school interviews were different than regular interviews and I was supposed to talk about my successes and activities for 30 minutes. That's not the case.

Talk about your activities if you're asked, but briefly and never try to sell yourself. Make the interview a conversation with lots of back and forth -- try to get them to open up about their own experiences. I found my worst interviews were the ones where I did most of the talking; in any interview this is a sure sign that it's not going well.

I reverted back to my old interview style this cycle and went 5-for-5.

 

[Goro]

The way you discuss said experiences (despite the hours) convinces us that you do indeed know what you're getting into and that you're an altruistic person.

 

[Padfoot]

Everything matters. People don't enter the interview on equal footing.

One of the schools I'm interviewing at doesn't let the interviewers see your stats, and then your acceptance just depends on how they score you, so I'm assuming the stats don't factor in

 

[Padfoot]

I had similar thinking last cycle and all it got me was one wait list in 4 tries. For some reason I convinced myself that med school interviews were different than regular interviews and I was supposed to talk about my successes and activities for 30 minutes. That's not the case.

Talk about your activities if you're asked, but briefly and never try to sell yourself. Make the interview a conversation with lots of back and forth -- try to get them to open up about their own experiences. I found my worst interviews were the ones where I did most of the talking; in any interview this is a sure sign that it's not going well.

I reverted back to my old interview style this cycle and went 5-for-5.

All my previous regular interviews were super short, so I haven't got much practice with those. Do you have strategies for getting a conversation going? I always feel awkward transitioning from talking about my duties as a volunteer to talking about how I felt about the experience.

 

[piii]

Part of being a good applicant requires you to articulate how meaningful your experiences are and what you've learned. Simply doing isn't enough. The onus is on you, OP, to step up.

 

[GrapesofRath]

One of the schools I'm interviewing at doesn't let the interviewers see your stats, and then your acceptance just depends on how they score you, so I'm assuming the stats don't factor in

Just because an interviewer can't see your stats doesn't mean that your stats don't matter once you are at the interview stage and a decision on your application has to be made after the interview. I remember there was an ADCOM on here a couple of weeks ago who said he did know of a few schools who refuse to use stats in a decision on an applicant once they get an interview but he also said those were in the distinct minority.

 

[Slave to the Game]

Neither of my interviews asked specifically about the plethora of EC's that I was involved in for years. Generally just getting a feel for who I was, my thoughts and opinions on medicine, healthcare, other things. Arrive prepared, and be confident that you deserve a seat in their class of 2020 (don't be arrogant, but don't downplay yourself like you seem to be doing).

 

[Planes2Doc]

This whole thing to me is very frustrating... Okay, imagine this. Let's pretend you're at some social event, and you meet someone who is not a pre-med, or even college student for the sake of argument. You're talking to them about what they do, and they tell you that they volunteer at the local charity. You ask how many hours they have done, and they tell you between 70 and 80. So how are you going to respond? Are you going to tell them what they are doing is great, or are you going to call them selfish bastards because they ONLY volunteered for 70-80 hours? If you're laughing at the latter, that's what happens here on SDN on a daily basis. You're pretty much saying that one person's "helping people" is superior to someone else's, and that someone may look really bad because they don't have enough hours "helping people."

I mean seriously, what has this come to?! Treat each of your experiences as something unique and special. That's what people do when they do things because they want to. I challenge you to talk to a genuinely altruistic person that does these activities because they want to (I met a couple in my life, and they are not pre-meds). Their faces light up when they talk about these things! So forget the hours you've done. Treat this like a unique thing that ADCOMs haven't seen before. Don't tell them that you just did "typical" things. Maybe if you treat your ECs the way they are meant to be treated, then you won't feel so inferior to other applicants.

 

[mimelim]

This whole thing to me is very frustrating... Okay, imagine this. Let's pretend you're at some social event, and you meet someone who is not a pre-med, or even college student for the sake of argument. You're talking to them about what they do, and they tell you that they volunteer at the local charity. You ask how many hours they have done, and they tell you between 70 and 80. So how are you going to respond? Are you going to tell them what they are doing is great, or are you going to call them selfish bastards because they ONLY volunteered for 70-80 hours? If you're laughing at the latter, that's what happens here on SDN on a daily basis. You're pretty much saying that one person's "helping people" is superior to someone else's, and that someone may look really bad because they don't have enough hours "helping people."

I mean seriously, what has this come to?! Treat each of your experiences as something unique and special. That's what people do when they do things because they want to. I challenge you to talk to a genuinely altruistic person that does these activities because they want to (I met a couple in my life, and they are not pre-meds). Their faces light up when they talk about these things! So forget the hours you've done. Treat this like a unique thing that ADCOMs haven't seen before. Don't tell them that you just did "typical" things. Maybe if you treat your ECs the way they are meant to be treated, then you won't feel so inferior to other applicants.

I certainly can't comment for the entirety of SDN, but personally...

In my experience altruistic individuals make better physicians. They are more likely when overworked, burned out and grumbling about how much the day sucks to still adopt the attitude of, "How can I make other peoples' lives better?" whether it be other members of the hospital team or the patients themselves. Personally, if I am going to help act as gate keeper for future people in the profession that I'm in, I'm biased toward trying to grab as many of them as possible. Clearly I'm not the only one that has this view as it is now commonly accepted by pre-meds and their advisers to volunteer and 'look' altruistic. But, that becomes problematic because 'looking altruistic' isn't going to be in that group of people that I am actually looking for.

There is a big difference between interacting with someone at a party and reviewing someone's application. This isn't about being superior to other people. We have no perfect methods for determining if someone has altruistic tendencies, we look to applications and interviews to make reasonable guesses. I am a relatively optimistic person, but with regard to this topic, I am relatively cynical.

A little gorilla math... For the typical traditional pre-med...
35,000 hours during 4 years of undergrad
~20,000 spent sleeping/in class/studying
~15,000 hours of unknown time

When I interview people, I am trying to figure out what they have done with that 15,000 hours because I think that it best represents who they are as an individual. Everyone needs down time, most people need family time, most people enjoy spending time with friends, or watching TV, but what fraction of their time do they think about others? Some people need to work to support family, that very understandable and when people's other ECs suffer because of it, nobody holds it against them.

When someone says on their application/interview, I spent 80 hours volunteering, I do question the authenticity of it relative to others. This isn't about diminishing the fact that they spent 80 hours volunteering. This is about questioning whether this is indicative of the kind of person that will be in a medical school class or in a residency. There isn't a magical tipping point in terms of hours and measuring things in hours as you have pointed out is silly. I've met/interviewed plenty of people who have put <100 hours on an application who very obviously 'lit up' when interviewed and got excited to talk about what they were doing. Most of them were under counting, or were doing other things that don't fit the traditional 'volunteering', but their focus was on other people.

 

[Planes2Doc]

I certainly can't comment for the entirety of SDN, but personally...

In my experience altruistic individuals make better physicians. They are more likely when overworked, burned out and grumbling about how much the day sucks to still adopt the attitude of, "How can I make other peoples' lives better?" whether it be other members of the hospital team or the patients themselves. Personally, if I am going to help act as gate keeper for future people in the profession that I'm in, I'm biased toward trying to grab as many of them as possible. Clearly I'm not the only one that has this view as it is now commonly accepted by pre-meds and their advisers to volunteer and 'look' altruistic. But, that becomes problematic because 'looking altruistic' isn't going to be in that group of people that I am actually looking for.

There is a big difference between interacting with someone at a party and reviewing someone's application. This isn't about being superior to other people. We have no perfect methods for determining if someone has altruistic tendencies, we look to applications and interviews to make reasonable guesses. I am a relatively optimistic person, but with regard to this topic, I am relatively cynical.

A little gorilla math... For the typical traditional pre-med...
35,000 hours during 4 years of undergrad
~20,000 spent sleeping/in class/studying
~15,000 hours of unknown time

When I interview people, I am trying to figure out what they have done with that 15,000 hours because I think that it best represents who they are as an individual. Everyone needs down time, most people need family time, most people enjoy spending time with friends, or watching TV, but what fraction of their time do they think about others? Some people need to work to support family, that very understandable and when people's other ECs suffer because of it, nobody holds it against them.

When someone says on their application/interview, I spent 80 hours volunteering, I do question the authenticity of it relative to others. This isn't about diminishing the fact that they spent 80 hours volunteering. This is about questioning whether this is indicative of the kind of person that will be in a medical school class or in a residency. There isn't a magical tipping point in terms of hours and measuring things in hours as you have pointed out is silly. I've met/interviewed plenty of people who have put <100 hours on an application who very obviously 'lit up' when interviewed and got excited to talk about what they were doing. Most of them were under counting, or were doing other things that don't fit the traditional 'volunteering', but their focus was on other people.

I see what you're saying, but this type of reasoning is still flawed. For example, I have a terrific group of friends. We have been close for years, and they were there for me when I needed them most. I judge them based on how they treat me, and others around them. Interestingly, not a single one of them takes part in volunteering. I also have never bothered to ask whether or not they took part in community service activities in their past. Why? It has absolutely no bearing on how I perceive them. Now, let's rewind back to my days as an ED volunteer. I remember an elderly volunteer came in early once during my shift (his shift was right after mine) because he just got back from a long vacation. He came in to make sure "everything in the ED was alright (because of course an ED would certainly fall apart without a volunteer)." During that time, he was acting very rudely and was bossing me around. At first I smiled, because I thought he was joking around. Then that awkward moment came when I realized he was dead serious about the things he was saying. Anyway, I wouldn't want this man to be my friend, and just because he volunteers doesn't mean that he is a good person.

Now I realize that as an ADCOM, you can't judge these applicants by other methods. Unless you have personally known someone for years, you won't know anything about them. I guess that's why ADCOMs must judge applicants by their ECs, which can be measured in a variety of ways. Hours, number of commitments, letters of recommendation, how applicants describe them in their personal statement, and how applicants describe them in the interview. But at the end of the day, whether or not someone does these things does not define who they are is a person. It's frustrating that it carries so much weight in the medical school application process, because often times you will have applicants strategically plan their activities to make themselves look better. You have applicants putting on a big facade to make themselves into someone they're not. In fact, I made a thread before about the paradoxical effect of many "great" ECs. If you have an applicant with stellar grades and a laundry-list of ECs, they are more likely to become future dermatologists, urologists, radiologists, and other competitive specialties. And how many of them will spend their weekends as physicians volunteering? I can't answer this, and it doesn't really matter. The point is that this "special" thing was turned into a box-checking exercise, and not just for pre-meds, but for other pre-professional students too. It's sad when people need to put on such a facade and tell others what they want to hear. Now I realize there are genuinely altruistic people out there who enjoy giving their time to others. But the vast number of pre-meds that engage in community service denigrates the meaning of it for everyone else. That's why I no longer care when I see someone's commitments in the WAMC thread or elsewhere. I just see it as someone else checking a box. And since I understand that volunteering is something people do because they want to, I don't judge anyone by their decision as to whether they do it or not. Instead I judge people by how they treat me and others.

 

[mimelim]

I see what you're saying, but this type of reasoning is still flawed. For example, I have a terrific group of friends. We have been close for years, and they were there for me when I needed them most. I judge them based on how they treat me, and others around them. Interestingly, not a single one of them takes part in volunteering. I also have never bothered to ask whether or not they took part in community service activities in their past. Why? It has absolutely no bearing on how I perceive them. Now, let's rewind back to my days as an ED volunteer. I remember an elderly volunteer came in early once during my shift (his shift was right after mine) because he just got back from a long vacation. He came in to make sure "everything in the ED was alright (because of course an ED would certainly fall apart without a volunteer)." During that time, he was acting very rudely and was bossing me around. At first I smiled, because I thought he was joking around. Then that awkward moment came when I realized he was dead serious about the things he was saying. Anyway, I wouldn't want this man to be my friend, and just because he volunteers doesn't mean that he is a good person.

Now I realize that as an ADCOM, you can't judge these applicants by other methods. Unless you have personally known someone for years, you won't know anything about them. I guess that's why ADCOMs must judge applicants by their ECs, which can be measured in a variety of ways. Hours, number of commitments, letters of recommendation, how applicants describe them in their personal statement, and how applicants describe them in the interview. But at the end of the day, whether or not someone does these things does not define who they are is a person. It's frustrating that it carries so much weight in the medical school application process, because often times you will have applicants strategically plan their activities to make themselves look better. You have applicants putting on a big facade to make themselves into someone they're not. In fact, I made a thread before about the paradoxical effect of many "great" ECs. If you have an applicant with stellar grades and a laundry-list of ECs, they are more likely to become future dermatologists, urologists, radiologists, and other competitive specialties. And how many of them will spend their weekends as physicians volunteering? I can't answer this, and it doesn't really matter. The point is that this "special" thing was turned into a box-checking exercise, and not just for pre-meds, but for other pre-professional students too. It's sad when people need to put on such a facade and tell others what they want to hear. Now I realize there are genuinely altruistic people out there who enjoy giving their time to others. But the vast number of pre-meds that engage in community service denigrates the meaning of it for everyone else. That's why I no longer care when I see someone's commitments in the WAMC thread or elsewhere. I just see it as someone else checking a box. And since I understand that volunteering is something people do because they want to, I don't judge anyone by their decision as to whether they do it or not. Instead I judge people by how they treat me and others.

I hear you. I don't like this system because it promotes box checking or simply less genuine applicants. I consider myself to be a relatively creative person and I just can't come up with a better way of trying to find the 'right' people. I don't know how to look at an application and a 15-30 minute interview and 'judge' an applicant based on how they treat you and others. For friends/colleagues, sure I can do that over the course of weeks, months or years. It is incredibly frustrating. I've tried a bunch of different adjuncts. We are about to interview 12 people for our residency. I looked at each of their web presence and facebook. Found all but 2 of them. I have no idea if it is actually useful or worthwhile, but my point is that I am certainly all ears about trying to find other ways of learning more about interviewees.

 

[Moose A Moose]

Because they're out socializing with that free time- at least the ones that aren't shut-ins.

 

[Planes2Doc]

I hear you. I don't like this system because it promotes box checking or simply less genuine applicants. I consider myself to be a relatively creative person and I just can't come up with a better way of trying to find the 'right' people. I don't know how to look at an application and a 15-30 minute interview and 'judge' an applicant based on how they treat you and others. For friends/colleagues, sure I can do that over the course of weeks, months or years. It is incredibly frustrating. I've tried a bunch of different adjuncts. We are about to interview 12 people for our residency. I looked at each of their web presence and facebook. Found all but 2 of them. I have no idea if it is actually useful or worthwhile, but my point is that I am certainly all ears about trying to find other ways of learning more about interviewees.

Funny you mention Facebook. When third year started, a lot of classmates started changing their names to weird things. Like Starfish Doggy and things like that. My Facebook is public and I encourage residency directors and residents to look me up. I will be working with them for years so I want them to know the real me. It's amazing how people try to shut out their true selves to this extent. Why?

 

[Mad Jack]

Interviewing is all about selling yourself. Someone who is good at them can turn even the most mundane experiences into interview gold. All those years I did sales really paid off come interview time- I could find the things within my stories that seemed to pique an adcoms interest, and thus elaborate on the things that seemed to pique their interest the most on the fly. Interviewing is a skill that is a blend of showmanship, salesmanship, and interpersonal skills, and is much more about how you present yourself than what you have done.

 

[mimelim]

Funny you mention Facebook. When third year started, a lot of classmates started changing their names to weird things. Like Starfish Doggy and things like that. My Facebook is public and I encourage residency directors and residents to look me up. I will be working with them for years so I want them to know the real me. It's amazing how people try to shut out their true selves to this extent. Why?

I don't get it either. But, then again, I've always adopted the, "Everyone in the world is going to see what you put on the internet, as long as you stand by what you put there and don't mind your family, bosses, colleagues etc seeing it, who cares?" Then again, with some of the stuff that people have on their facebook profiles... You can understand where some of the warnings come from. Some people really do need to be protected from themselves 😛.

 

[Goro]

I remember a line from Garrison Keillor that was : "A friend will help you move. A good friend will help you move a body".

Just because you're friends are good to you doesn't mean that they're altruistic. What we look for is evidence of service to others, and, as LizzyM likes to point "especially in those less fortunate than yourself".

This is the definition of altruism!

I see what you're saying, but this type of reasoning is still flawed. For example, I have a terrific group of friends. We have been close for years, and they were there for me when I needed them most. I judge them based on how they treat me, and others around them. Interestingly, not a single one of them takes part in volunteering. I also have never bothered to ask whether or not they took part in community service activities in their past.

 

[d.r.256]

Supporting what many have said before - I believe confidence in yourself at interviews and a history of service to others that is personal and meanigful to you is important. If you relay this well to interviewers genuinely, it sets you up pretty well.

 

[Cotterpin]

I hear you. I don't like this system because it promotes box checking or simply less genuine applicants. I consider myself to be a relatively creative person and I just can't come up with a better way of trying to find the 'right' people. I don't know how to look at an application and a 15-30 minute interview and 'judge' an applicant based on how they treat you and others. For friends/colleagues, sure I can do that over the course of weeks, months or years. It is incredibly frustrating. I've tried a bunch of different adjuncts. We are about to interview 12 people for our residency. I looked at each of their web presence and facebook. Found all but 2 of them. I have no idea if it is actually useful or worthwhile, but my point is that I am certainly all ears about trying to find other ways of learning more about interviewees.

Here's how you separate the altruists from the misanthropes. You send an old beggar woman to knock on the applicant's door on a winter's night. When they answer the door, the old woman offers the applicant a single rose in exchange for shelter from the bitter cold. If the applicant is repulsed by her haggard appearance, sneers at the gift, and turns her away, then she reveals herself to be an adcom and rejects the applicant. But if the applicant takes pity on the old woman, then the applicant gets an II.

 

[mimelim]

Here's how you separate the altruists from the misanthropes. You send an old beggar woman to knock on the applicant's door on a winter's night. When they answer the door, the old woman offers the applicant a single rose in exchange for shelter from the bitter cold. If the applicant is repulsed by her haggard appearance, sneers at the gift, and turns her away, then she reveals herself to be an adcom and rejects the applicant. But if the applicant takes pity on the old woman, then the applicant gets an II.

 

[ZedsDed]

Here's how you separate the altruists from the misanthropes. You send an old beggar woman to knock on the applicant's door on a winter's night. When they answer the door, the old woman offers the applicant a single rose in exchange for shelter from the bitter cold. If the applicant is repulsed by her haggard appearance, sneers at the gift, and turns her away, then she reveals herself to be an adcom and rejects the applicant. But if the applicant takes pity on the old woman, then the applicant gets an II.

What is Beauty and the Beast?

 

[Cotterpin]

What is Beauty and the Beast?

Ding ding ding!

 

[Padfoot]

I certainly can't comment for the entirety of SDN, but personally...

In my experience altruistic individuals make better physicians. They are more likely when overworked, burned out and grumbling about how much the day sucks to still adopt the attitude of, "How can I make other peoples' lives better?" whether it be other members of the hospital team or the patients themselves. Personally, if I am going to help act as gate keeper for future people in the profession that I'm in, I'm biased toward trying to grab as many of them as possible. Clearly I'm not the only one that has this view as it is now commonly accepted by pre-meds and their advisers to volunteer and 'look' altruistic. But, that becomes problematic because 'looking altruistic' isn't going to be in that group of people that I am actually looking for.

There is a big difference between interacting with someone at a party and reviewing someone's application. This isn't about being superior to other people. We have no perfect methods for determining if someone has altruistic tendencies, we look to applications and interviews to make reasonable guesses. I am a relatively optimistic person, but with regard to this topic, I am relatively cynical.

A little gorilla math... For the typical traditional pre-med...
35,000 hours during 4 years of undergrad
~20,000 spent sleeping/in class/studying
~15,000 hours of unknown time

When I interview people, I am trying to figure out what they have done with that 15,000 hours because I think that it best represents who they are as an individual. Everyone needs down time, most people need family time, most people enjoy spending time with friends, or watching TV, but what fraction of their time do they think about others? Some people need to work to support family, that very understandable and when people's other ECs suffer because of it, nobody holds it against them.

When someone says on their application/interview, I spent 80 hours volunteering, I do question the authenticity of it relative to others. This isn't about diminishing the fact that they spent 80 hours volunteering. This is about questioning whether this is indicative of the kind of person that will be in a medical school class or in a residency. There isn't a magical tipping point in terms of hours and measuring things in hours as you have pointed out is silly. I've met/interviewed plenty of people who have put <100 hours on an application who very obviously 'lit up' when interviewed and got excited to talk about what they were doing. Most of them were under counting, or were doing other things that don't fit the traditional 'volunteering', but their focus was on other people.

How would you describe someone "lighting up"? I feel like when I'm excited about something, I talk a lot and I talk really fast. And it usually involves me going off on random tangents

 

[Planes2Doc]

How would you describe someone "lighting up"? I feel like when I'm excited about something, I talk a lot and I talk really fast. And it usually involves me going off on random tangents

You can't really describe it... The person who "lights up" is genuinely passionate about what they do. It's very difficult, if not impossible, to fake this.

As I've mentioned before, I knew a couple people at my former workplace that volunteered extensively for most of their lives. They would always "light up" when they talked about their experiences. I have talked to many pre-meds face to face about their ECs, and have never once seen this happen.

 

[Lawpy]

Talk about your activities if you're asked, but briefly and never try to sell yourself. Make the interview a conversation with lots of back and forth -- try to get them to open up about their own experiences. I found my worst interviews were the ones where I did most of the talking; in any interview this is a sure sign that it's not going well.

Interviewing is all about selling yourself. Someone who is good at them can turn even the most mundane experiences into interview gold. All those years I did sales really paid off come interview time- I could find the things within my stories that seemed to pique an adcoms interest, and thus elaborate on the things that seemed to pique their interest the most on the fly. Interviewing is a skill that is a blend of showmanship, salesmanship, and interpersonal skills, and is much more about how you present yourself than what you have done.

Could you clarify?

 

[Mad Jack]

Could you clarify?

It's hard to without a situation with which to apply. You'd have to like, interview me. The short version is, there's more to the way you say something than there is to what that thing actually is in regard to how other people perceive it.

 

[Ancient_Eldritch]

The interview process is goofy and doesn't measure much of anything, except how wildly different the same person can be interpreted by multiple different interviewers.

Interviews are like a normal interaction with an individual except with all of the rationality removed, meaning clarifying gets you nowhere, nor does reasoning and further communication in the case of misunderstanding. It's quite nonsensical, as is expecting interviewers to envision you as their doctor. We aren't doctors yet, and making one person decide that when their perception can be so varied is nuts.

Interviews are ridiculously subjective and you'd be surprised how many totally off-base assumptions can be made about you by interviewers. To make matters worse, interviewers don't often bother to clarify or probe further to find out if it's really the case, and if you anticipate this sort of stuff going down and attempt to clarify it'll usually go nowhere. Also once it's in your evaluation you're toast and the admissions committee will take what's written as an objective fact, and blindly uphold it. Also good luck overcoming a first impression your interviewer doesn't like, at that point they might as well stop the interview and just tell you the outcome.

What makes interviews even sloppier is that most of the time interviewers seldom probe deeply about who you are, and mostly stick to the canned "why medicine, why osteopathy, what specialities you're interested in" script, even though you've travelled across the country to have your candidacy decided based on this interaction. I really wonder how these evaluations can serve any use at all when that's all that's asked. That's probably where all the off-kilter assumptions come in though.

Panel interviews are a lesson in confirmation bias and groupthink.

In interviews it is entirely on you to make it conversational because being asked unconnected Often vague questions read off a piece of paper isn't conversational at all.


I really wish they'd do away with interviews or weight them way less or even better realize how insanely subjective they are.

 

[Annabell Lee]

I certainly can't comment for the entirety of SDN, but personally...

In my experience altruistic individuals make better physicians. They are more likely when overworked, burned out and grumbling about how much the day sucks to still adopt the attitude of, "How can I make other peoples' lives better?" whether it be other members of the hospital team or the patients themselves. Personally, if I am going to help act as gate keeper for future people in the profession that I'm in, I'm biased toward trying to grab as many of them as possible. Clearly I'm not the only one that has this view as it is now commonly accepted by pre-meds and their advisers to volunteer and 'look' altruistic. But, that becomes problematic because 'looking altruistic' isn't going to be in that group of people that I am actually looking for.

There is a big difference between interacting with someone at a party and reviewing someone's application. This isn't about being superior to other people. We have no perfect methods for determining if someone has altruistic tendencies, we look to applications and interviews to make reasonable guesses. I am a relatively optimistic person, but with regard to this topic, I am relatively cynical.

A little gorilla math... For the typical traditional pre-med...
35,000 hours during 4 years of undergrad
~20,000 spent sleeping/in class/studying
~15,000 hours of unknown time

When I interview people, I am trying to figure out what they have done with that 15,000 hours because I think that it best represents who they are as an individual. Everyone needs down time, most people need family time, most people enjoy spending time with friends, or watching TV, but what fraction of their time do they think about others? Some people need to work to support family, that very understandable and when people's other ECs suffer because of it, nobody holds it against them.

When someone says on their application/interview, I spent 80 hours volunteering, I do question the authenticity of it relative to others. This isn't about diminishing the fact that they spent 80 hours volunteering. This is about questioning whether this is indicative of the kind of person that will be in a medical school class or in a residency. There isn't a magical tipping point in terms of hours and measuring things in hours as you have pointed out is silly. I've met/interviewed plenty of people who have put <100 hours on an application who very obviously 'lit up' when interviewed and got excited to talk about what they were doing. Most of them were under counting, or were doing other things that don't fit the traditional 'volunteering', but their focus was on other people.

[/QUOTE]

This makes me feel a little less worried about my EC's. I have volunteering hours with organizations I am legitimately passionate about, but the whole "single mom in college with two jobs" thing kind of makes it hard to have an impressive number of hours. I hope when my application cycle comes around I can properly articulate how much these experiences meant to me.

No idea why my response is in the quote box. I try to take I out and it goes back in. Blah,

 

[mimelim]

You can't really describe it... The person who "lights up" is genuinely passionate about what they do. It's very difficult, if not impossible, to fake this.

As I've mentioned before, I knew a couple people at my former workplace that volunteered extensively for most of their lives. They would always "light up" when they talked about their experiences. I have talked to many pre-meds face to face about their ECs, and have never once seen this happen.

Honestly, this is a little to do with what school you end up at. I don't know where you were at, but I can can say for sure that there was a stark difference between interviewing at HMS/JH vs. other places. Talking with other applicants, everyone was excited and would actively try to get you to be involved with what they were doing. It wasn't like a sales pitch so much as it was more that they couldn't help themselves because it was so much of who they were and couldn't turn it off.