How much do interviews actually matter for residency?

[chajjohnson]

So far during my interview season it seems like about half of my interviewers have literally no interest in asking me questions. They'll maybe ask where I'm from and why psych, but then spend the rest just asking if I have questions. Some don't even ask the first few questions. Between these and some of the really short interviews with PDs I'm really questioning what use interviews actually are. How much do these limited and often superficial interviews actually play into adcoms decisions? Is it mostly a numbers (I.e. Grades and step) game and the interview is to screen out monsters? Considering how many people they interview and how subjective they can be I just can't see them being all that useful, unless someone is totally socially inept or manages to blow people out of the water with their personality.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[FlowRate]

There's no one answer. Varies by program and by interviewer. Can work strongly against you, for you, or just be neutral. Interviews are also your opportunity to try and form an impression of a place.

 

[DD214_DOC]

As mentioned above, it really depends upon the program. Although this was several years ago, in my program what you were on paper got you in for an interview. The interview determined if you were actually offered a position. Every cycle, at least one or two people who were stellar on paper were either not ranked or ranked extremely low because they were just terrible people in person. Typically, it was because they were either really creepy in some way or did not work well with the faculty and residents.

 

[TexasPhysician]

You would be amazed at how applicants can blow the simplest interviews. Shocking to me.

 

[NontradCA]

So far during my interview season it seems like about half of my interviewers have literally no interest in asking me questions. They'll maybe ask where I'm from and why psych, but then spend the rest just asking if I have questions. Some don't even ask the first few questions. Between these and some of the really short interviews with PDs I'm really questioning what use interviews actually are. How much do these limited and often superficial interviews actually play into adcoms decisions? Is it mostly a numbers (I.e. Grades and step) game and the interview is to screen out monsters? Considering how many people they interview and how subjective they can be I just can't see them being all that useful, unless someone is totally socially inept or manages to blow people out of the water with their personality.

It’s an archaic thing that’s there to make you waste time and money.

 

[valid username]

Last year in psychiatry, the interview was given 4.9/5.0 in terms of importance by program directors. Not much else was ranked that high.

http://www.nrmp.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/NRMP-2016-Program-Director-Survey.pdf

In other words, very important.

 

[3lefts]

.

 

[Merely]

You would be amazed at how applicants can blow the simplest interviews. Shocking to me.

Examples would be appreciated, I don't understand how you can go through med school but blow a simple conversation/interview...

 

[TexasPhysician]

Examples would be appreciated, I don't understand how you can go through med school but blow a simple conversation/interview...

Argue, cry, yell, etc.

 

[Amygdarya]

.

Hey, where did you get my photos?

 

[Mass Effect]

I've been interviewing applicants this year. I can tell you that what I'm looking for is not for A-plus answers necessarily, but how you conduct yourself. Are you easy to talk to, are you uncomfortable, are you BSing me with your answers in order to tell me what you think I want to hear? Are you articulate, smart, likeable. Are you full of yourself? Are you someone I would want to work with, someone I would want to teach? The interview is extremely important in this regard.

 

[erg923]

As far as I am aware, almost no one utilizes principles of I/O psychology (probably says something about the state of dissemination research/permeation and relevance of that field doesn't it?), so my assumption is that it matters alot..but for all the wrong reasons. Blatant aberrant or disruptive behavior is a red flag though, obviously.

Subjective impressions of "do they play nice in the sandbox" or responses to nonsense such as "what vegetable would you be" are just fodder for academics who, for some reason, don't what to utilize empirical correlates of job performance and behavioral prediction. We could say the same for things like, they were "guarded" when talking about their personal live or they had "suspicious" or inadequate reasons for having a passion/interest about psychiatry.

The notion that psychiatry is one of a variety of specialties pursued by the applicant could be important of course, and should be flushed out. However, even then, I would argue that ones variety of potential interests should not count against them so long as they have the experience and interest. I would hope all psych applicants have an interest and curiosity about various aspects of medicine. This is not culinary school, after all.

 

[DisorderedDoc417]

It is probably the single most important thing following getting that initial invite. You’re being watched at the interview dinner, your questions and unprompted interest are being commented on, and the way you interact with others is being filed away. Don’t underestimate the interview, even if you just blow off small talk with one of the interns during the lunch.... after nailing every single other thing... it will be commented on, and it will hurt your rank with the program. Being nice, honest, and polite is easy. Dont shoot yourself in the foot by being anything else.

 

[Mass Effect]

Subjective impressions of "do they play nice in the sandbox" or responses to nonsense such as "what vegetable would you be" are just fodder for academics who, for some reason, don't what to utilize empirical correlates of job performance and behavioral prediction.

When one applicant snubs or intentionally says something rude to another applicant, as I saw done two years ago, I think it's pretty safe to say they don't play nice in the sandbox. If they can't control their sarcastic streak for interview day, of all days, what makes me think they can control it during night float or their months on medicine? Also, I have yet to see or hear anyone ask "what vegetable would you be?"

 

[thoffen]

As an interviewer, I'm looking for the person behind the application and fitting my observations to what is there. I don't think specific questions are necessary to elicit that, but I'll try to be curious about something specific in a person's application or manifest content to see how rich and driven by genuine passion it is. Otherwise, I do feel nearly everyone I interview has been readily qualified for residency. I think an interviewer's role is to help them find the right fit and share perspective on the program. If I have two residents that are good enough, I'd rather use my efforts collaborating on who would fit here most than analyzing who has the most to offer.

If it seems your interviewers are simply disinterested in you or the program, that is a significant concern.

 

[Daedra22]

I've been interviewing applicants this year. I can tell you that what I'm looking for is not for A-plus answers necessarily, but how you conduct yourself. Are you easy to talk to, are you uncomfortable, are you BSing me with your answers in order to tell me what you think I want to hear? Are you articulate, smart, likeable. Are you full of yourself? Are you someone I would want to work with, someone I would want to teach? The interview is extremely important in this regard.

I have a very similar approach. In general my program sees the interview as one of the more important aspects of the process - if there's someone who presents in an especially off-putting way during the interview they will likely be lower on the list, regardless of other academic factors. The screening process for interviews generally weeds out people with significant academic issues, anyway. I'm always amazed by how many applications there are to screen.

 

[NontradCA]

As far as I am aware, almost no one utilizes principles of I/O psychology (probably says something about the state of dissemination research/permeation and relevance of that field doesn't it?), so my assumption is that it matters alot..but for all the wrong reasons. Blatant aberrant or disruptive behavior is a red flag though, obviously.

Subjective impressions of "do they play nice in the sandbox" or responses to nonsense such as "what vegetable would you be" are just fodder for academics who, for some reason, don't what to utilize empirical correlates of job performance and behavioral prediction. We could say the same for things like, they were "guarded" when talking about their personal live or they had "suspicious" or inadequate reasons for having a passion/interest about psychiatry.

The notion that psychiatry is one of a variety of specialties pursued by the applicant could be important of course, and should be flushed out. However, even then, I would argue that ones variety of potential interests should not count against them so long as they have the experience and interest. I would hope all psych applicants have an interest and curiosity about various aspects of medicine. This is not culinary school, after all.

Speaking from personal experience, the one program that used this type of interviewing was the most uncomfortable one I’ve had yet. There was a disclaimer on the empirical evidence behind it, which didn’t make answering the same question 5 times from robotic interviewers anymore pleasant. Maybe this speaks about me, but all the other applicants agreed with me. Needless to say, I won’t be ranking them high. I think there’s a reason programs don’t do this. First impressions....