How exactly are medical school interviews fair or objective at all?

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

FergusonMO

Membership Revoked
Removed
7+ Year Member
Joined
Feb 18, 2015
Messages
13
Reaction score
6
Members don't see this ad.
They just seem totally subjective, flawed, and there's a large portion of sheer randomness involved, which is frustrating given the costs to even attend interview and how many of us fly across the country to even be there. Some people get chill conversational interviews who like them or click with them, while others have gotten tense interviewers who grill us to death and seem to take an automatic disliking to us.

It also seems like a lot of the time interviewers have already made their decision about us based off of reading our files, so our conversation is pretty much just filler/insignificant. And even if that isn't the case a lot of the time interviewers just seem to get locked into an opinion of applicants based off of a totally baseless assumption within the first two minutes to make their decision, and everything we say to them after that just acts as confirmation bias to back up their claim. Why even bother giving us 30 minutes if you've already made your decision in 2 mins and nothing can change your mind? Not to mention a lot of interviewers are from an older generation of doctors who were selected for totally different reasons than we are being chosen for. At that point it was less about empathy, compassion, and care, and more about being a top researcher, so I'd question their ability to evaluate us based on current criteria. Not to mention these traits we are being evaluated on are entirely subjective and vary greatly between individual to individual, so a person seen as “not compassionate” may be seen as compassionate to another interviewer.

MMIs try to fix that by giving us multiple interviewers that are application blind, but it's basically just 10 first impressions instead of one, and a lot of the decision making process can easily come down to totally arbitrary and superficial decision-making. It just seems like a glorified popularity contest or like being picked for kickball team in middle school. All the "cool popular" kids get picked first and everyone else is left sitting on the sidelines (rejected) until people are forced to pick them. Not to mention some of the scenarios they give us are pretty questionable like acting scenarios. What exactly are they supposed to judge about our ability to be a doctor? Being able to act is totally different from being in the actual situation and taking care of a patient in the REAL world.

It gets even worse if you look at how variable interviews can be from interviewer to interviewer, not to mention their spectrum of opinions and biases they have. Yet interview inputs for candidates are considered by admissions, as though they were all conducted the exact same way. It’s baffling.

How are interviews fair or objective at all? I'd think there would be a way more objective way to assess applicants given the costs and sacrifices we endure in applying not to mention flying across the country. You may say it's entitlement to say that, but we premeds go through and sacrifice a lot to even get an interview, and we deserve a way better process that doesn't shut the door on so many qualified people for absolutely no rational reason. It’s even worse that often times we are denied the opportunity by schools to be given actual feedback about why we are rejected.
 
To give you a little bit of perspective... it's not a meritocracy. You will see that medicine is 90% luck, human connections, and impressions. You impress your patients and you get their business, trust, adherence to recommendations. You impress them with fund of knowledge and technical ability as much as you do with your communication and social skills. You know what those cool kids might have that you might not -- they are personable and someday their patients will think that too. They connect with people. Consider a challenging interviewer to be a challenging patient. You gotta break them down somehow, else you're not being a doctor.
 
No one forces you to fly to interviews. Some applicants are in better locations geographically but if you see transportation as a major issue, relocate to Philly (or NY or Boston or DC) for a gap year and travel from there.... (One reason it is great to be an applicant in Philadelphia -- so many schools are within driving distance -- or bus/train).

Interviewers know what they are looking for and they are trained to conduct interviews. Some interviewers are known as being more lenient or being more cranky and the admissions committee takes that into account when reviewing reports from those interviewers. Also, isn't it rare to have just one interview with a single interviewer?

Do we come in with pre-conceived biases? Of course. I started an interview a few years ago having almost no respect for an applicant based on a variety of issues I had with the application. He didn't help matters by kicking my desk by accident and then swinging his leg and thumping the desk repeatedly with his shoe. Yet, the content of the interview was such that I was won over and I recommended him for admission and I have not been disappointed given his performance in the coursework.

We are trained to overcome our biases and if biases sneak in, the adcom members will call an interviewer on a bias and discount the interviewer's comments.

It does appear that sour grapes are on the menu today.
 
OP, I'm guessing you either suck at interviews or you're not friendly, approachable, or personable at all. If it's the latter, then I wouldn't want you to become a doctor at all. #ICallEmAsISeeEm
 
Just think about your past interviews, and think of ways that you can improve. The reality is...yes, there will be times when judgments will be made about you before you walk into the door, but how you carry yourself can determine the judgments that are made about you once you leave.
 
taylorcat.jpg
 
Last edited:
Interviews are meant to allow the school to see what the candidates are like in person. There simply is no real way to accomplish this without an interview, so I would say it is an important part of the application process. As for lack of objectivity, not every interview needs to be the same for all people. You don't need them to "like" you as much as you need them to respect you as a candidate. Even if you don't connect personally, if you can navigate complicated questioning then there certainly is room for you to earn the respect of the interviewer. Furthermore, many schools will do self-analysis of their adcoms to determine if there are patterns where one interviewer is consistently putting forth more negative assessments than anyone else, and I have heard of individuals being removed from the interview rotation for this reason. Finally, subjectivity is present well before the interview process begins. How personal statements, secondary essays, and letters of rec are weighted all represent subjective opinions that dictate if you get an interview or not.
 
Ace Khalifa said:
OP, I'm guessing you either suck at interviews or you're not friendly, approachable, or personable at all. If it's the latter, then I wouldn't want you to become a doctor at all. #ICallEmAsISeeEm
Click to expand...

Dude, you've been waitlisted or rejected post-interview from all but one of the schools you applied to and interviewed at. You have no room to talk or criticize my interview skills, so keep the baseless assumptions about me to yourself.
You may "call them as you see them" but I'm Ray Charles to your bs. There's far more to interviewing than any of the factors you suggested, so it's just plain ignorant to boil interviews outcomes down to the factors you suggested.

You should work on your interview skills and interpersonal skills and in case that doesn't work for you, you could always try computer science, since you're way more suited to interacting with machines than actual human beings. See? I can make insulting characterizations too.
 
FergusonMO said:
They just seem totally subjective, flawed, and there's a large portion of sheer randomness involved, which is frustrating given the costs to even attend interview and how many of us fly across the country to even be there. Some people get chill conversational interviews who like them or click with them, while others have gotten tense interviewers who grill us to death and seem to take an automatic disliking to us.
Click to expand...

Yeah, that's luck. S*** happens. But you really have no way of judging how the interviewer is assessing you, why they are doing so, and what they do to anybody else. A relaxed interview may be testing to see if you get complacent. They still have guidelines and are supposed to be able to provide exactly what the adcoms need to know. They often grill you because that's the only way they're getting that info out of you.

FergusonMO said:
Not to mention a lot of interviewers are from an older generation of doctors who were selected for totally different reasons than we are being chosen for. At that point it was less about empathy, compassion, and care, and more about being a top researcher, so I'd question their ability to evaluate us based on current criteria. Not to mention these traits we are being evaluated on are entirely subjective and vary greatly between individual to individual, so a person seen as “not compassionate” may be seen as compassionate to another interviewer.
Click to expand...

Does that mean that they don't have experience with what patients respond positively to? Many ADCOMS are not physicians, yet they are in charge of sending you a "welcome" or a "go to hell (respectively)". You don't have to have a trait to recognize it in somebody else.

Yes, the traits are subjective and variable, and there's still a lot of debate as to whether or not it's being done correctly. The problem? It's relatively new, and not as much data behind it as we'd like.


FergusonMO said:
MMIs try to fix that by giving us multiple interviewers that are application blind, but it's basically just 10 first impressions instead of one, and a lot of the decision making process can easily come down to totally arbitrary and superficial decision-making. It just seems like a glorified popularity contest or like being picked for kickball team in middle school. All the "cool popular" kids get picked first and everyone else is left sitting on the sidelines (rejected) until people are forced to pick them. Not to mention some of the scenarios they give us are pretty questionable like acting scenarios. What exactly are they supposed to judge about our ability to be a doctor? Being able to act is totally different from being in the actual situation and taking care of a patient in the REAL world.
Click to expand...

There's also a lot of debate as to whether or not MMIs work.

Also, I think 10 first impressions are pretty indicative. If 4-5 interviewers say you aren't warm, pensive, charismatic, etc., then I don't know how to break this to you, but...

Yes, people have bad days. Everybody. And EVERYBODY has one interview day. If you sucked on that day, tough luck. There are too many applicants to do this over and over again, just so that you put your best foot forward. And there are no "cool", or "popular" kids, as they don't know anybody beforehand. Sounds like you are projecting your own insecurities, and I'm sorry for that.

And about the acting, it's about being able to watch your thought processes in action, interacting with people. Of course it's awkward. Yes, trying to play along with a women who's terrified of flying doesn't teach you to take a history, but it evaluates how you talk to people, how you approach them, how you approach situations, and how you tackle problems, in "real-time". Largely debated, but it forces applicants to think and act on their feet, with no prep, and in traditional interviews, it's easy to "tweak" past experiences because you've practiced.

FergusonMO said:
It gets even worse if you look at how variable interviews can be from interviewer to interviewer, not to mention their spectrum of opinions and biases they have. Yet interview inputs for candidates are considered by admissions, as though they were all conducted the exact same way. It’s baffling.
Click to expand...

Of course they're different. So are you applicants. The interviewer might fit another candidate, and not fit you. What do you expect? And what do you suppose they should request for input? You a few interviews; the schools has hundreds of interviewees. What kind of worksheet would you like? "Did you interviewer act like an ass****?" If you want to complain, you have nobody stopping you. You'll deal with terrible patients; are you going to ask them to be different people? Good physicians adapt, because they deal with the widest spectrum. Tough luck; handle it.

FergusonMO said:
How are interviews fair or objective at all? I'd think there would be a way more objective way to assess applicants given the costs and sacrifices we endure in applying not to mention flying across the country. You may say it's entitlement to say that, but we premeds go through and sacrifice a lot to even get an interview, and we deserve a way better process that doesn't shut the door on so many qualified people for absolutely no rational reason. It’s even worse that often times we are denied the opportunity by schools to be given actual feedback about why we are rejected.
Click to expand...

Yes, pre-meds do sacrifice a lot. So do committees that read 10K applications, and have to find ways to get information out of hundreds of applicants, all of whom have different personalities, have different "lines" that you try not to cross, and get pre-meds to take off the "nerves, oversensitive, overreactive" goggles, and just keep a conversation.

There's mistakes on both sides, that's certainly true. But you're dealing with conversations between humans, so how do you expect "objective"? The best way to judge you is not to ask a question with a blank stare, write it down, and move on. It's about having a conversation with you. In fact, having different personalities, but being able to interact positively, regardless, is strong, because your colleagues will also have different personalities. Plus, you have no idea how your interview went, or what they are thinking. You are projecting, based upon your emotions of the experiences. You can do well and be rejected, or blow it and get a full tuition scholarship. You have no idea!

My favorite quote from a past professor: "You wish I was fair? Wish in one hand, sh** in the other. Tell me which is filled first."
 
Last edited:
FergusonMO said:
They just seem totally subjective, flawed, and there's a large portion of sheer randomness involved, which is frustrating given the costs to even attend interview and how many of us fly across the country to even be there. Some people get chill conversational interviews who like them or click with them, while others have gotten tense interviewers who grill us to death and seem to take an automatic disliking to us.

It also seems like a lot of the time interviewers have already made their decision about us based off of reading our files, so our conversation is pretty much just filler/insignificant. And even if that isn't the case a lot of the time interviewers just seem to get locked into an opinion of applicants based off of a totally baseless assumption within the first two minutes to make their decision, and everything we say to them after that just acts as confirmation bias to back up their claim. Why even bother giving us 30 minutes if you've already made your decision in 2 mins and nothing can change your mind? Not to mention a lot of interviewers are from an older generation of doctors who were selected for totally different reasons than we are being chosen for. At that point it was less about empathy, compassion, and care, and more about being a top researcher, so I'd question their ability to evaluate us based on current criteria. Not to mention these traits we are being evaluated on are entirely subjective and vary greatly between individual to individual, so a person seen as “not compassionate” may be seen as compassionate to another interviewer.

MMIs try to fix that by giving us multiple interviewers that are application blind, but it's basically just 10 first impressions instead of one, and a lot of the decision making process can easily come down to totally arbitrary and superficial decision-making. It just seems like a glorified popularity contest or like being picked for kickball team in middle school. All the "cool popular" kids get picked first and everyone else is left sitting on the sidelines (rejected) until people are forced to pick them. Not to mention some of the scenarios they give us are pretty questionable like acting scenarios. What exactly are they supposed to judge about our ability to be a doctor? Being able to act is totally different from being in the actual situation and taking care of a patient in the REAL world.

It gets even worse if you look at how variable interviews can be from interviewer to interviewer, not to mention their spectrum of opinions and biases they have. Yet interview inputs for candidates are considered by admissions, as though they were all conducted the exact same way. It’s baffling.

How are interviews fair or objective at all? I'd think there would be a way more objective way to assess applicants given the costs and sacrifices we endure in applying not to mention flying across the country. You may say it's entitlement to say that, but we premeds go through and sacrifice a lot to even get an interview, and we deserve a way better process that doesn't shut the door on so many qualified people for absolutely no rational reason. It’s even worse that often times we are denied the opportunity by schools to be given actual feedback about why we are rejected.
Click to expand...

You know, in some ways I agree with you. I think all medical schools should be like Michigan State and not even offer interviews. Or at least be amenable to the idea of phone/Skype interviews, will save the applicants a lot of money.

That being said, no one cares what you think or I think. Life ain't fair and it's never been fair. The medical schools look at it this way, either attend the interview or face a rejection, as simple as that. They get way too many applications, they can afford to be pricy.
 
GomersGoToGround said:
Yeah, that's luck. S*** happens. But you really have no way of judging how the interviewer is assessing you, why they are doing so, and what they do to anybody else. A relaxed interview may be testing to see if you get complacent. They still have guidelines and are supposed to be able to provide exactly what the adcoms need to know. They often grill you because that's the only way they're getting that info out of you.



Does that mean that they don't have experience with what patients respond positively to? Many ADCOMS are not physicians, yet they are in charge of sending you a "welcome" or a "go to hell (respectively)". You don't have to have a trait to recognize it in somebody else.

Yes, the traits are subjective and variable, and there's still a lot of debate as to whether or not it's being done correctly. The problem? It's relatively new, and not as much data behind it as we'd like.




There's also a lot of debate as to whether or not MMIs work.

Also, I think 10 first impressions are pretty indicative. If 4-5 interviewers say you aren't warm, pensive, charismatic, etc., then I don't know how to break this to you, but...

Yes, people have bad days. Everybody. And EVERYBODY has one interview day. If you sucked on that day, tough luck. There are too many applicants to do this over and over again, just so that you put your best foot forward. And there are no "cool", or "popular" kids, as they don't know anybody beforehand. Sounds like you are projecting your own insecurities, and I'm sorry for that.

And about the acting, it's about being able to watch your thought processes in action, interacting with people. Of course it's awkward. Yes, trying to play along with a women who's terrified of flying doesn't teach you to take a history, but it evaluates how you talk to people, how you approach them, how you approach situations, and how you tackle problems, in "real-time". Largely debated, but it forces applicants to think and act on their feet, with no prep, and in traditional interviews, it's easy to "tweak" past experiences because you've practiced.



Of course they're different. So are you applicants. The interviewer might fit another candidate, and not fit you. What do you expect? And what do you suppose that do with input? If you want to complain, you have nobody stopping you. You'll deal with terrible patients; are you going to ask them to be different people? Good physicians adapt, because they deal with the widest spectrum. Tough luck; handle it.



Yes, pre-meds do sacrifice a lot. So do committees that read 10K applications, and have to find ways to get information out of hundreds of applicants, all of whom have different personalities, have different "lines" that you try not to cross, and get pre-meds to take off the "nerves, oversensitive, overreactive" goggles, and just keep a conversation.

There's mistakes on both sides, that's certainly true. But you're dealing with conversations between humans, so how do you expect "objective"? The best way to judge you is not to ask a question with a blank stare, write it down, and move on. It's about having a conversation with you. In fact, having different personalities, but being able to interact positively, regardless, is strong, because your colleagues will also have different personalities. Plus, you have no idea how your interview went, or what they are thinking. You are projecting, based upon your emotions of the experiences. You can do well and be rejected, or blow it and get a full tuition scholarship. You have no idea!

My favorite quote from a past professor: "You wish I was fair? Wish in one hand, sh** in the other. Tell me which is filled first."
Click to expand...
YESx1000000!! MVP post right here. This should be stickied. #insightful #yourock
 
FergusonMO said:
Dude, you've been waitlisted or rejected post-interview from all but one of the schools you applied to and interviewed at. You have no room to talk or criticize my interview skills, so keep the baseless assumptions about me to yourself.
You may "call them as you see them" but I'm Ray Charles to your bs. There's far more to interviewing than any of the factors you suggested, so it's just plain ignorant to boil interviews outcomes down to the factors you suggested.

You should work on your interview skills and interpersonal skills and in case that doesn't work for you, you could always try computer science, since you're way more suited to interacting with machines than actual human beings. See? I can make insulting characterizations too.
Click to expand...


I usually lurk on these threads and only post to offer congratulations and encouragement but I am compelled to get into this conversation. To the OP: I clicked on this thread because after going through the interview process I wondered what about them could be so unfair. I believe that becoming a great physician has so much more to do with the personal connections and trust that you build with your patients than the medical facts that you will command. It is of the utmost importance that we build this trust and break down barriers to communication within the first few minutes of meeting someone new. Trust me, a new patient will be interviewing you without saying a word during their first visit. To hear you say that a interviewer who forms a subjective opinion about you is unfair doesn't really make sense. Life is subjective. The way we carry ourselves and the way we speak allows observers to form instant opinions of us. Whether those opinions are dead on accurate or not is up for debate, but I can definitely say that first impressions are pretty darn accurate. It is the main point of the interview to form an opinion of YOU, not your paper application.

I don't believe that being "cool" has anything to do with getting into medical school unless the definition of cool is someone who is mature, compassionate, articulate, dedicated, and intelligent. You seem very frustrated and I can imagine how disappointed you must be with not getting the results you want, but future interviews are a clean slate. To carry these thoughts with you to your next interview is a recipe for disaster. It only takes one! Your bad attitude is apparent, and I promise you that life is 10% what happens to you and 90% how you react to it. Get back on the horse. Remember your journey and why you want to be a physician. If you don't get in this year it isn't the end, what's one more year to wait for something you want to do for the rest of your life?

One last thing. Hurling insults on an internet forum makes others form unflattering subjective opinions. I wish you the best of luck and hope you get through the tough times.
 
FergusonMO said:
Dude, you've been waitlisted or rejected post-interview from all but one of the schools you applied to and interviewed at. You have no room to talk or criticize my interview skills, so keep the baseless assumptions about me to yourself.
You may "call them as you see them" but I'm Ray Charles to your bs. There's far more to interviewing than any of the factors you suggested, so it's just plain ignorant to boil interviews outcomes down to the factors you suggested.

You should work on your interview skills and interpersonal skills and in case that doesn't work for you, you could always try computer science, since you're way more suited to interacting with machines than actual human beings. See? I can make insulting characterizations too.
Click to expand...

Woah... Rude much?

All you need is one yes... Btw
 
Woah, I forgot how intense these forums are after a long while away from them. Personally, I understand those thoughts. I went to a number of interviews back in the day, and it's true every now and then I would run into an interviewer that was just having a bad day and looking to take it out on someone- though looking back those were on the PhD side of things. I've always thought MMI's seem like a silly way to get to know people, but they do remove some of the variability..

Anyway, the bottom line is it's very hard to design a system where you get an accurate picture of every applicant. Every year some people will get screwed and some will get lucky.

Medical school is 100000000% about jumping through hoops arbitrarily decided on by people above you on the totem pole. Some is a total waste of time, but some of those people have a lot of wisdom and end up making you into a better person.
 
Summertime012 said:
I usually lurk on these threads and only post to offer congratulations and encouragement but I am compelled to get into this conversation. To the OP: I clicked on this thread because after going through the interview process I wondered what about them could be so unfair. I believe that becoming a great physician has so much more to do with the personal connections and trust that you build with your patients than the medical facts that you will command. It is of the utmost importance that we build this trust and break down barriers to communication within the first few minutes of meeting someone new. Trust me, a new patient will be interviewing you without saying a word during their first visit. To hear you say that a interviewer who forms a subjective opinion about you is unfair doesn't really make sense. Life is subjective. The way we carry ourselves and the way we speak allows observers to form instant opinions of us. Whether those opinions are dead on accurate or not is up for debate, but I can definitely say that first impressions are pretty darn accurate. It is the main point of the interview to form an opinion of YOU, not your paper application.

I don't believe that being "cool" has anything to do with getting into medical school unless the definition of cool is someone who is mature, compassionate, articulate, dedicated, and intelligent. You seem very frustrated and I can imagine how disappointed you must be with not getting the results you want, but future interviews are a clean slate. To carry these thoughts with you to your next interview is a recipe for disaster. It only takes one! Your bad attitude is apparent, and I promise you that life is 10% what happens to you and 90% how you react to it. Get back on the horse. Remember your journey and why you want to be a physician. If you don't get in this year it isn't the end, what's one more year to wait for something you want to do for the rest of your life?

One last thing. Hurling insults on an internet forum makes others form unflattering subjective opinions. I wish you the best of luck and hope you get through the tough times.
Click to expand...

This was a very rational, even-keeled response to the OP. I think it does a fantastic job with the issue at hand, but I would like to expand a bit more on it. In my mind, people who are "cool" are extremely charismatic. They walk into a room and become friends with everyone. They're the people who remember your name and say hello in passing, making your day just a bit better than it was previously. All of these things translate into a strong interview, and I absolutely want these qualities in a doctor. Someone who you can build a connection with is not to be taken lightly. To OP: the path to becoming a doctor is definitely a rough one, and I'm not ashamed to say that I have done my fair share of crying and ranting. It is important to vent and to let your emotions out. However, once you let those feelings out, it is also important to take the advice of others, and to try to improve yourself after every drawback. If you want this, you will make it.
 
FergusonMO said:
You should work on your interview skills and interpersonal skills and in case that doesn't work for you, you could always try computer science, since you're way more suited to interacting with machines than actual human beings. See? I can make insulting characterizations too.
Click to expand...

As a computer scientist going into medicine, I am offended.
 
As many have said....nothing in life is fair....not the fact that youre worrying about the fairness of med school interviews when some poor kid out there is worrying about what theyre going to eat or where theyre going to sleep - you just got to play the hand you get....Of course that doesnt mean we shouldnt try to make everything fairer - but i'm not sure how we could objectively measure compassion....do you look at how much the applicant has volunteered?...thats flawed ..someone can have more volunteer hours but be less compassionate...do you give them an MMI situation to test compassion?....some people who aren't that compassionate will ace the test and some that are truly compassionate will flunk.....or do you just let people ?...of course its flawed...but there has to be some way of choosing applicants...
But....I dont think anyone thought the interview process was objective or completely fair.....I definitely have to say that the financial aspect of applications is really not the best either......and for some applicants it is a lot of stress to fund the whole process (mcat prep, travelling etc)...but what can I say...life aint fair.
 
PREMED1992 said:
As many have said....nothing in life is fair....not the fact that youre worrying about the fairness of med school interviews when some poor kid out there is worrying about what theyre going to eat or where theyre going to sleep - you just got to play the hand you get....Of course that doesnt mean we shouldnt try to make everything fairer - but i'm not sure how we could objectively measure compassion....do you look at how much the applicant has volunteered?...thats flawed ..someone can have more volunteer hours but be less compassionate...do you give them an MMI situation to test compassion?....some people who aren't that compassionate will ace the test and some that are truly compassionate will flunk.....or do you just let people ?...of course its flawed...but there has to be some way of choosing applicants...
But....I dont think anyone thought the interview process was objective or completely fair.....I definitely have to say that the financial aspect of applications is really not the best either......and for some applicants it is a lot of stress to fund the whole process (mcat prep, travelling etc)...but what can I say...life aint fair.
Click to expand...

I apologize ahead of time for being "that guy", but ellipsis consist of three dots [...] not four, not five, not six. I know this is the internet and that you can play fast and loose with spelling and grammar; however, how you present your ideas, especially how readable those ideas are, is very important when trying to get a point across.
 
  • Like
Reactions: FFH
I think med app interviews are much better than work interviews. Just upping my count with a random opinion.
 
PREMED1992 said:
As many have said....nothing in life is fair....not the fact that youre worrying about the fairness of med school interviews when some poor kid out there is worrying about what theyre going to eat or where theyre going to sleep - you just got to play the hand you get....Of course that doesnt mean we shouldnt try to make everything fairer - but i'm not sure how we could objectively measure compassion....do you look at how much the applicant has volunteered?...thats flawed ..someone can have more volunteer hours but be less compassionate...do you give them an MMI situation to test compassion?....some people who aren't that compassionate will ace the test and some that are truly compassionate will flunk.....or do you just let people ?...of course its flawed...but there has to be some way of choosing applicants...
But....I dont think anyone thought the interview process was objective or completely fair.....I definitely have to say that the financial aspect of applications is really not the best either......and for some applicants it is a lot of stress to fund the whole process (mcat prep, travelling etc)...but what can I say...life aint fair.
Click to expand...

"Life" may not be fair, and we have all known that from the beginning or at least had that realization rather quickly, however, that shouldn't be used as a reason to downplay issues with the interview process and limitations. It should also be recognized that there's a lot of people and great doctors who don't fit the mold interviewers may want, and that doesn't make them less qualified in any way, shape, or form. Compassion cannot be objectively measured and all of the ways mentioned including interviews are flawed. Compassion also isn't always being the shoulder to cry on. Showing empathy and compassion at a certain time may not be saying anything, but still working the hardest to provide the patient the care they need. Medicine needs all kinds of people and interviewers should recognize that there's multiple ways of showing compassion that doesn't match with their ideals, and none of them make things less valid. Without that this process is just very myopically-sighted, and there's a lot of bs generalizing that's done by interviewers that isn't very far removed from stereotyping someone based off of their race. It's also like saying "you can say anything as long as you articulate it well, but YOUR ANSWER is wrong". It's nonsensical.

The costs of this process are atrocious, and I agree about that for sure, but if anything these costs should give more incentive to overhaul the interview process, and provide applicants with more feedback and be more transparent about the admissions process. No one should be rejected after flying across the country because they happened to get a bad interviewer or be evaluated before they have a chance to even show anything. If that person messed up the interview, the blood is on their hands, but that's different.


@SkipJunior - I like what you have to say. Nobody may care about what we have to say, but it's still important to voice it, especially since we're being subjected to this flawed process. We should do everything in our power to make the best of the cards we're dealt, but having so much boil down randomness and assumptions made by interviewers over a short period of time is very frustrating. Championing holistic review and then doing this sort of stuff is unacceptable.

If someone's completely devoid of social skills they should definitely be rejected in interviews, but once those applicants are removed from the pool it just seems like a lot of bsing and more of an artificial barrier. I've seen the incorporation of so many short-sighted biases in interviews, and shoddy over-generalizations. If interviewers have already decided yes or no about us in 2 minutes or even before the interview, they should decide then, and save us all the costs and energy of flying there, bottom line.
 
Kaelis said:
I apologize ahead of time for being "that guy", but ellipsis consist of three dots [...] not four, not five, not six. I know this is the internet and that you can play fast and loose with spelling and grammar; however, how you present your ideas, especially how readable those ideas are, is very important when trying to get a point across.
Click to expand...

This is the first time in my life I have seen somebody correct a person for incorrectly using an ellipsis. What a moment...
 
caffeinemia said:
To give you a little bit of perspective... it's not a meritocracy. You will see that medicine is 90% luck, human connections, and impressions. You impress your patients and you get their business, trust, adherence to recommendations. You impress them with fund of knowledge and technical ability as much as you do with your communication and social skills. You know what those cool kids might have that you might not -- they are personable and someday their patients will think that too. They connect with people. Consider a challenging interviewer to be a challenging patient. You gotta break them down somehow, else you're not being a doctor.
Click to expand...

👍

One cannot underestimate the importance of soft skills. If you feel like you're not connecting with your interviewer, it's on you to get creative and make that connection. There are a ton of great books about people skills and developing charisma if you need to develop your confidence in that arena.

ETA: Just saw the OP's username. 😕
 
Excellent responses abound in this thread.

I would like to know what OP thinks all these schools should be doing instead? I understand the frustration, but if you're going to say that something of this magnitude is flat out wrong, you should be prepared to offer a concrete alternative.
 
Same could be said for the business world, and yet interviews are still widespread. Fact is, sometimes actually interacting with the person is completely different than what you see on paper. You need to meet face to face and talk to really get a feel for someone. The numbers give them a general idea, and an interview can reinforce the good things or even show them why you're still a good candidate despite imperfect stats. You HAVE to be able to get along and interact with people to work on medicine. The interview is just a test of your interpersonal skills, not much more than that.
 
Wait I'm so lost.....who is this OP that everyone seems to be referring about? I mean it sounds like s/he might have posted here before on another account is what people are implying?

And also who's Moop & why's s/he banned...?
 
OP = Original Poster
Moop was one of the loose cannons that come on to SDN every now and then.

bear2roo said:
Wait I'm so lost.....who is this OP that everyone seems to be referring about? I mean it sounds like s/he might have posted here before on another account is what people are implying?

And also who's Moop & why's s/he banned...?
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

WildWing
[Announcement] 2025 Virtual Medical School Fair - AAMC
Replies
0
Views
411
WildWing
WildWing
Mr.Smile12
ICYMI: 2025 AAMC Virtual Medical School Fair webinars (advice)
Replies
0
Views
158
Mr.Smile12
Mr.Smile12
E
Should I submit my entire school list all at once or split them into batches?
Replies
8
Views
2K
Mr.Smile12
Mr.Smile12
S
All Late Interviews
Replies
7
Views
1K
LizzyM
LizzyM
tinyhandsbob
What are the procedural skills that are formally assessed for medical school graduation?
Replies
1
Views
262
Goro
Goro
Top