How important is the interview really?

[ChordaEpiphany]

I just want some perspective from people who've seen the other side. I'd imagine about 80% of interviews are about the same, just like about 80% of medical students seem about the same to most clinical preceptors. What's the most typical situation (and in what specialty)?

1) The interview decides all. Once an interview is given out, all candidates are equal, and the interview decides who gets ranked where.

2) The candidates are ranked before interviews, and interview scores allow for major shifts, very often taking candidates from ranked to match to unlikely to match and vice-versa.

3) The candidates are ranked before interviews, scores make up a small percentage of the overall rank, and a really strong/weak interview can help you/hurt you, but most of the time it doesn't affect the final outcome.

4) The candidates are ranked before interviews, only truly psychopathic behavior or god-like social skills will make a big enough difference to take a candidate from RTM to unlikely to match or vice-versa.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[LucidSplash]

If you get an interview, it means you meet a baseline level of acceptability. Ranking happens after the interview. Great candidates on paper who come across as duds or as egomaniacal jackasses who are untrainable get ranked lower than they think they will or sometimes not at all. Just ok paper candidates who are great interviewees get ranked well.

And don’t forget that when you’re “just hanging out” with the residents, they absolutely will report bad behavior or anything that rubs them the wrong way.

 

[SurfingDoctor]

Candidates are never ranked before interviews... at least not from a MATCH rank list...

MATCH rank lists only occur after all the interviews are completed. Then the combination allows for one to jockey up the list.... or down.

 

[eyeeye_captain]

I highly doubt any program puts everyone on equal footing prior to the interview. There has to be some weight to your paper ranking, but the percentage will vary. Some places try to standardize things to a numerical score, others just bring the application stuff when ranking.

The first question at the ranking meeting for my residency, in an open forum, was are there any absolutely no go applicants? You better believe the faculty and residents had some strong feelings on a few people every year. From there, the list shifts depending on department procedures and culture.

 

[Redpancreas]

I just want some perspective from people who've seen the other side. I'd imagine about 80% of interviews are about the same, just like about 80% of medical students seem about the same to most clinical preceptors. What's the most typical situation (and in what specialty)?

1) The interview decides all. Once an interview is given out, all candidates are equal, and the interview decides who gets ranked where.

2) The candidates are ranked before interviews, and interview scores allow for major shifts, very often taking candidates from ranked to match to unlikely to match and vice-versa.

3) The candidates are ranked before interviews, scores make up a small percentage of the overall rank, and a really strong/weak interview can help you/hurt you, but most of the time it doesn't affect the final outcome.

4) The candidates are ranked before interviews, only truly psychopathic behavior or god-like social skills will make a big enough difference to take a candidate from RTM to unlikely to match or vice-versa.

Seen a bit of the other side, but by no means am I seasoned.

1.) It's more important than you'd think
-Highly weighted on paper
-Important for screening out bad apples so best version of yourself at all times

2.)...but your performance is less in your control than you think.
-Questions they ask are ones anyone with a pulse can answer/prepare for. It's more about how you answer them. Rehearsed answers are generally not engaging unless you're a theater major.
-Some places double dip and say things like good scores/research in the interview eval, when it's just a reiteration of things they have scored elsewhere.

 

[Dral]

My program falls under #1.

We go back to the apps if we are trying to decide between two people who are really close in our ranking process.

 

[operaman]

I think it matters a lot. But it’s also hard to separate it from the paper app. When we interviewed we had the apps with us but it was more about weeding out weirdos and feeling out who would mesh well with our group.

What’s interesting is that as residents we didn’t really care much about scores and research, it was almost all about personality and sense of fit. Our entire dept participated in every interview and the scores were combined and a rank list generated. Our resident list based almost entirely on personality was almost identical to the overall list that presumably also accounted for the paper stuff.

I suspect that the people who end up with stellar paper apps are also really strong in interviews. Clinical grades in particular are largely about personality and how well you fit with different groups. It’s no surprise that those people would probably interview well too.

 

[cj_cregg]

At my program faculty/chiefs voted on the rank list after interviews were done, and any individual faculty/chief may weight the interview differently in comparison to other component of the app. That said, a bad interview/rotation could tank someone who looked great on paper, and someone with an okay/mediocre application could get ranked a lot higher than anticipated if they impressed in person.

 

[NotAProgDirector]

Although I know you want to "know" the answer to this type of question, there isn't one. And any answer doesn't change what you should do with ranking or considering programs.

The answer is going to be very program and field dependent. Consider a very competitive field (or a very competitive program in a mid-competitive field). Every applicant interviewed is likely to be a superstar -- top quartile of their class, great USMLE/COMLEX scores, research proudctvity, LOR's, etc. In that type of environment, ranking people based upon their "academic performance" may be meaningless. Is a USMLE score of 280 really any better than 275 or 270? So in that case, interview performance may be very impactful. This might also apply to very small programs -- imagine a NS program that takes one person per year, you'd want someone that's going to fit in well.

Compare that to a mid competitive IM or FM program. These programs probably interview a spectrum of applicants -- some may be top performers, some may be mid performers. They also will be matching a bunch of people, so trying to define "fit" is much less important. In this case, it's more likely that candidates will be primarily ranked by their academic performance, modified by their interview performance. For sure, good interview performance can move you somewhat up the list, but a poor perfomance could move you down quite a bit (or off the list completely).

 

[Mr.Smile12]

Related though not directly answering the topic. Enjoy (audio only).

 

[Tenk]

It’s more complex than any of these but generally an interview can either bump you up or down a bit or eliminate you completely. You are very unlikely to go from bottom of the barrel to top of the list just from an interview unless you turn out to be the long lost son or daughter of the PD.

 

[chord]

Surgical subspecialty-

Interview is hugely important. There are a lot of good programs out there (and a few bad ones). Fit is everything. Are you going to work well within the established team and culture at are program? We're legitimately interested in 95% of the people we interview. If you're weird interacting with residents/faculty or have poor interviews, you're gonna go way down. If you interview and interact well and seem like someone we want to spend "80" hours per week every week with for years on end, you're gonna go way up.

 

[MrBigglesworth]

Interview is extremely important. Many kids figure out how to make good grades and score well - especially with all these online resources. The interview is to see how normal you are and if you can interact well. Introverts like myself can have a hard time with that. Definitely something one can work on though.

 

[Goro]

I just want some perspective from people who've seen the other side. I'd imagine about 80% of interviews are about the same, just like about 80% of medical students seem about the same to most clinical preceptors. What's the most typical situation (and in what specialty)?

1) The interview decides all. Once an interview is given out, all candidates are equal, and the interview decides who gets ranked where.

It's as important as ANY job interview.

You're going to be working with these people for the next 3-7 years, so they want to know if you'll be a good member of the team or not.

 

[Rapsidy]

Question regarding some interview comments, and I know I am asking people to read tea leaves so I get if an answer can’t be provided. But how should we take interviewers who specifically say something like I hope to see you here as a resident next year, or you would be a great fit for us and I hope you rank us highly.

I got comments similar to things like that on my top 2 choices right now, but I honestly don’t know how often these types of comments are said. Do many attendings/PDs say this to most applicants in order to hope we’ll rank them high? Or are comments like these really only reserved for applicants they actually want to be there.

 

[NotAProgDirector]

You should assume they are meaningless drivel. We want everyone whom matches to feel welcome. And they are trying to influence your rank list.

 

[purpledoc1]

I just want some perspective from people who've seen the other side. I'd imagine about 80% of interviews are about the same, just like about 80% of medical students seem about the same to most clinical preceptors. What's the most typical situation (and in what specialty)?

1) The interview decides all. Once an interview is given out, all candidates are equal, and the interview decides who gets ranked where.

2) The candidates are ranked before interviews, and interview scores allow for major shifts, very often taking candidates from ranked to match to unlikely to match and vice-versa.

3) The candidates are ranked before interviews, scores make up a small percentage of the overall rank, and a really strong/weak interview can help you/hurt you, but most of the time it doesn't affect the final outcome.

4) The candidates are ranked before interviews, only truly psychopathic behavior or god-like social skills will make a big enough difference to take a candidate from RTM to unlikely to match or vice-versa.

Where are you getting these numbers and if ~80% of interviews are the same/80% of med students are the same, then your point is that interviews are pointless? That's not how the real world works.