How much does the interview really influence the actual ranking?

[deleted1168269]

After going through several interviews so far, they seem very short and I feel like I can’t really get my strengths across the interview because they’re so short. Especially since they’re virtual.

With that being said, do programs already have an idea how they are going to rank the interviewees and the interviews just kinda tweak the list a little bit?

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[Dr. Anonymouss]

After going through several interviews so far, they seem very short and I feel like I can’t really get my strengths across the interview because they’re so short. Especially since they’re virtual.

With that being said, do programs already have an idea how they are going to rank the interviewees and the interviews just kinda tweak the list a little bit?

Would love to hear from anyone involved in the actual admissions process. But when I talked to the PD at two different programs what I gathered was that they all tend to have a point system where you get points in different areas like clinical rotations (honors), class rank, step 2 score, research, etc. and then the interview process also gets a numerical score. The sum of your points determines your class rank and then the admissions committee will go through the rank list and determine if they want individuals moved up or down based on their current positioning.

So in my opinion people who have really good networking like doing aways can get moved up on their position even if the computer gave them a lower rank. I also believe if you were very personable during your interview and you have someone vouch for you during the admissions committee meetings you can definitely get moved up as well. I’m not involved in the process though so this is a minute of my opinion as well as information I’ve gathered from talking to program directors.

 

[deleted1168269]

Would love to hear from anyone involved in the actual admissions process. But when I talked to the PD at two different programs what I gathered was that they all tend to have a point system where you get points in different areas like clinical rotations (honors), class rank, step 2 score, research, etc. and then the interview process also gets a numerical score. The sum of your points determines your class rank and then the admissions committee will go through the rank list and determine if they want individuals moved up or down based on their current positioning.

So in my opinion people who have really good networking like doing aways can get moved up on their position even if the computer gave them a lower rank. I also believe if you were very personable during your interview and you have someone vouch for you during the admissions committee meetings you can definitely get moved up as well. I’m not involved in the process though so this is a minute of my opinion as well as information I’ve gathered from talking to program directors.

Approximately what percent of the score is the interview?

 

[Dr. Anonymouss]

Approximately what percent of the score is the interview?

That I have no idea. I just know the overall system that is used to rank students, but I don’t know the specific breakdown

 

[mvenus929]

Approximately what percent of the score is the interview?

This is an impossible question to answer because it's going to vary from specialty to specialty and program to program.

Interviews can tank you--if you're rude to the support staff or current residents/fellows, that will get you dropped much further on the rank list (or even off the rank list all together). Interviews can also give you the opportunity to rise above deficiencies in your application.

Interviews will likely mean more at small programs compared to larger ones--if you don't mesh perfectly well with one person, you can hide in a large program, but that could mean years of strife in a very small program. Some programs will put more emphasis on research or community service or future plans than others will.

 

[operaman]

Yeah this varies widely. Even at a single program it’s hard to say. For us, once you had an interview I’d say you had a fairly even chance with every other interviewee and the interview was by far the deciding factor.

But of course your CV greatly influences the interview itself, so tip top applicants tended to interview better because they had more to talk about and people were probably more interested in them because they had an impressive background.

We had all faculty and residents interview every applicant and everyone submitted a score for each person. Those were then computed and a rank list generated. It was pretty much left as is unless there were compelling reasons to move someone up or down (or off).

 

[deleted1168269]

Yeah this varies widely. Even at a single program it’s hard to say. For us, once you had an interview I’d say you had a fairly even chance with every other interviewee and the interview was by far the deciding factor.

But of course your CV greatly influences the interview itself, so tip top applicants tended to interview better because they had more to talk about and people were probably more interested in them because they had an impressive background.

We had all faculty and residents interview every applicant and everyone submitted a score for each person. Those were then computed and a rank list generated. It was pretty much left as is unless there were compelling reasons to move someone up or down (or off).

What are some specific things which get you a higher interview score?

 

[Dr. Anonymouss]

What are some specific things which get you a higher interview score?

Probably just being personable. I mean the interview means the program thinks you are academically on par to be at the program, so the interview is when they just want to get to know you. If you mesh really well with the interviewers and leave a good impression I.e you are likeable, then I guarantee that’s a sure way to get ranked highly in the interview

 

[guytakingboards]

After going through several interviews so far, they seem very short and I feel like I can’t really get my strengths across the interview because they’re so short. Especially since they’re virtual.

With that being said, do programs already have an idea how they are going to rank the interviewees and the interviews just kinda tweak the list a little bit?

As several people have said, it's going to vary widely across programs and specialties.

In general, the interviewees are already stratified well before anyone comes to visit. Interview invites go out in waves, with earlier waves typically being stronger (on paper) candidates. My program did a mix of strong paper candidates with local (city and/or state) connections in earlier waves. The avg step score definitely went down in the succeeding waves of interview invites.

How the interview tweaks the list is gonna be variable.

What are some specific things which get you a higher interview score?

TBH, just being normal is a big thing. Being a calm, friendly human being is not as common as you'd think in a high stakes interview situation. There's a ton of very nervous people who are just looking to rattle off their CV at you, thinking that they need to impress you with accomplishments rather than take the opportunity to both gauge the program and exhibit the non-CV aspects of their application (their personality).

An interesting thing I observed while interviewing resident applicants was that the background of the interviewer influenced what they found good/bad about the applicants. My department had a lot of FMG's who did a lot of research and scored highly on their boards, so that's what those interviewers emphasized in the post-interview group meetings. The American trained docs, perhaps with less research and possibly lower board scores, tended to focus on the person/personality and if they'd want to work with them. (sample size of me of course).

 

[Anakinmemer]

But of course your CV greatly influences the interview itself, so tip top applicants tended to interview better because they had more to talk about and people were probably more interested in them because they had an impressive background.

This is a point I've been trying to tell people since med school apps. When the interview is listed as the most important factor, the things in your CV that were talked about in the interview are a huge component. It's not just about how well you can articulate words or make small talk.

I have no data to back this but I imagine the interview has more of a chance to move you down substantially if you suck versus move you up substantially because you somehow give speeches like Jesus Christ.

 

[Dral]

I won't get into the nitty gritty of how we rank people, but once people get interviews, they are all pretty much on equal ground. Thus the interview really makes a difference. I interview for residency spots and fellowship and it's similar for both.

I suspect that the opposite is true as well though (and everything in between), with some programs generally having people ranked before the interview and just use the interview time to make sure someone doesn't have some very off personality issues.

 

[deleted1168269]

I won't get into the nitty gritty of how we rank people, but once people get interviews, they are all pretty much on equal ground. Thus the interview really makes a difference. I interview for residency spots and fellowship and it's similar for both.

I suspect that the opposite is true as well though (and everything in between), with some programs generally having people ranked before the interview and just use the interview time to make sure someone doesn't have some very off personality issues.

How do you differentiate candidates based on the interview? Are the interviews longer (30+ minutes)?

 

[FlowRate]

I was on resident selection comm in residency. At our program, the interview was the major factor as to where you fell on the preliminary rank list. The selection committee debated specific candidates who we felt needed to be moved up/down (usually it was by a few spots, rarely by a lot.)

I don't recall whether preinterview info factored into rank list position at all. If it did, it was a minor factor.

I gather this is different than some programs which may weight CV information pretty heavily.

I also had some issues with this because our APD was black and white with interviewees, rating them either 0 or 100 and almost never anywhere in the middle. Also our APD and PD's interview scores were more heavily weighted. Those two factors combined meant the APD basically determined whether you'd be on top half or bottom half of the rank list.

 

[Dr. Anonymouss]

Interesting. I mean if I was a program director I would also create a system where the interview was the deciding factor. If you only interview individuals who you believe will succeed academically and pass their boards (step 2 cutoff, class rank, clinical grades) then what you really want to know is “will this individual fit into the culture of our program” and “can we work alongside this individual for X amount of years”. Determining rank list based on someone’s CV with research and step score doesn’t make sense. That’s what gets your foot in the door. Your personality should be what determines if you make the final cut. Just my unsolicited opinion.

 

[FlowRate]

Interesting. I mean if I was a program director I would also create a system where the interview was the deciding factor. If you only interview individuals who you believe will succeed academically and pass their boards (step 2 cutoff, class rank, clinical grades) then what you really want to know is “will this individual fit into the culture of our program” and “can we work alongside this individual for X amount of years”. Determining rank list based on someone’s CV with research and step score doesn’t make sense. That’s what gets your foot in the door. Your personality should be what determines if you make the final cut. Just my unsolicited opinion.

I agree with you overall. The main argument against it that I would have is the PD (who I otherwise loved) and APD had pretty idiosyncratic ways of rating applicants. PD and APD both had a very heavy "they seem to specifically want to come to our program" preference. It's a top program, it's not like anyone applying or interviewing with us (especially since this was pre-COVID) DOESN'T want to come here. So you'd see examples of students with perfect records, glowing LOR, who many of the not-PD/APD interviewers liked, who were tanked by PD and/or APD thinking they weren't head-over-heels for our program. I feel like we ranked some candidates who would be really strong resident colleagues lower than I would like in doing so. Fixes to that issue would be either not giving PD+APD much heavier interview weights or including some degree of CV scoring.

 

[guytakingboards]

Interesting. I mean if I was a program director I would also create a system where the interview was the deciding factor. If you only interview individuals who you believe will succeed academically and pass their boards (step 2 cutoff, class rank, clinical grades) then what you really want to know is “will this individual fit into the culture of our program” and “can we work alongside this individual for X amount of years”. Determining rank list based on someone’s CV with research and step score doesn’t make sense. That’s what gets your foot in the door. Your personality should be what determines if you make the final cut. Just my unsolicited opinion.

Well, that's a big thing. If you're at a low or mid-tier program you're not really deciding among 100% people who you're certain will succeed. Depending on the year and the specialty you could have a lot of marginal applicants interviewing.

Flip side, at stronger programs there's still multiple considerations. As I mentioned, some faculty really prize research and see trainees as a means to either add prestige to the department and/or crank out papers for them. Others really care about the personality of the person they're working with clinically.

 

[Dr. Anonymouss]

Well, that's a big thing. If you're at a low or mid-tier program you're not really deciding among 100% people who you're certain will succeed. Depending on the year and the specialty you could have a lot of marginal applicants interviewing.

Flip side, at stronger programs there's still multiple considerations. As I mentioned, some faculty really prize research and see trainees as a means to either add prestige to the department and/or crank out papers for them. Others really care about the personality of the person they're working with clinically.

That’s fair. I guess that’s also why it’s super important for interviewees to try to get an insight into the culture of the programs. Programs aren’t just interviewing you, but you are interviewing them as well. Do you want to be a place that emphasizes prestige and accomplishments or one that emphasizes culture and fit.

 

[thumbz]

I interview and rank for a community IM program. What many others above have said is how we do it. Essentially everything gets a score, and your interview is somewhere around 30% of the overall composite. Board(s) scores, med school, class rank, LOR's and eval comments all play into the other 70%.

What makes a great interview? I look at the clock for the first time when the interview is 90% over. What makes a terrible interview? When I pray it's 90% over and the clock reminds me we still have 80% of the time to go. It's all about being personable. Answer the questions in a way to get the conversation flowing. I want to get to know you - over the next 3 years we are going to spend more time together than you'll probably spend with your family (not actually but close). So I want to make sure it's someone I'll enjoy spending that time with.

Interviews are a make or break for exactly that reason. I can teach people medicine. I can't teach them how to have a better personality or not be weird (for the most part). At our rank meetings there tends to be spirited discussion focusing on the interview, and it can move people up or down the rank list drastically (like from the top 10% to the bottom 10% in one circumstance).

So, if you know you struggle with interviewing, try and get some practice. Do a zoom session with your friends. Find a mock interview. They're way more important than I thought they were when I was in your shoes as a med student.

 

[Dr. Anonymouss]

I interview and rank for a community IM program. What many others above have said is how we do it. Essentially everything gets a score, and your interview is somewhere around 30% of the overall composite. Board(s) scores, med school, class rank, LOR's and eval comments all play into the other 70%.

What makes a great interview? I look at the clock for the first time when the interview is 90% over. What makes a terrible interview? When I pray it's 90% over and the clock reminds me we still have 80% of the time to go. It's all about being personable. Answer the questions in a way to get the conversation flowing. I want to get to know you - over the next 3 years we are going to spend more time together than you'll probably spend with your family (not actually but close). So I want to make sure it's someone I'll enjoy spending that time with.

Interviews are a make or break for exactly that reason. I can teach people medicine. I can't teach them how to have a better personality or not be weird (for the most part). At our rank meetings there tends to be spirited discussion focusing on the interview, and it can move people up or down the rank list drastically (like from the top 10% to the bottom 10% in one circumstance).

So, if you know you struggle with interviewing, try and get some practice. Do a zoom session with your friends. Find a mock interview. They're way more important than I thought they were when I was in your shoes as a med student.

Great feedback and advice!

 

[operaman]

What are some specific things which get you a higher interview score?

Others have kinda nailed but - it's really about personality and general fit. 5 years is a loooooong time and you want people who generally fit in with the overall vibe of a place. Being a normal human, easy to talk with, and able to discuss anything on your CV are the basics.

Honestly, the HR research shows overwhelmingly that we're all terrible interviewers, but we all think we're good at it. It's mostly a gut feeling thing and I'm not sure just how useful it is other than to weed out the weirdos. All the people on our rank list that fell below the match level all tended to match at really amazing programs - pretty much everyone else in the Top 10 as well. I don't know what would make someone be ranked to match at one top program and well below match range at another, but that's how it went sometimes. Even away rotators who were DNR'd for something seemingly terrible often went on to match well and I'd see them presenting at meetings and landing great fellowships.

I think we just aren't that good at selecting people, but since the applicant pool is already so good it's not as obvious how bad we are. We tried to get around this by asking everyone in the dept to interview and would even shut down all our clinics for a day to accomodate it. The hope was that with ~50 different people offering impressions, we might have a better shot at selecting the best candidates.

Rather than trying to get a higher score, I would view interviews more as you trying to figure out where you want to end up. It's a weird switch, but after your last interview when you sit down to make your rank list, you suddenly have all the power and all the responsibility and one switch of position may drammatically change your career. You'll want all the information you can get and you'll want to have a sense of who the people are and how you fit with them so you can make the best decision.

In this way, I think interviews in the match system may work pretty well as that vibing thing tends to be a two way street. People we really liked tended to really like us, and I think that holds true everywhere. As a result, people are more likely to wind up somewhere they fit well.

 

[vomitcom]

In my few interviews thus far they have gone from me asking questions for 25 minutes to being peppered with situational questions for 25 minutes. I would have to think that these two programs have different philosophies on how they view the interview and how important it is.

 

[Anakinmemer]

In my few interviews thus far they have gone from me asking questions for 25 minutes to being peppered with situational questions for 25 minutes. I would have to think that these two programs have different philosophies on how they view the interview and how important it is.

What specialty?

 

[guytakingboards]

In my few interviews thus far they have gone from me asking questions for 25 minutes to being peppered with situational questions for 25 minutes. I would have to think that these two programs have different philosophies on how they view the interview and how important it is.

It may be even more random than that.

When I did interviews, we got pretty much no guidance on what the programs goals/desires were. Thus interviewers could go in and really ask/do whatever they wanted. In hard times when we were short of available interviewers, we would pull in whatever warm body was available and they definitely got no guidance on how to conduct the interview.

There can be a chaotic element to interviews, so I would say don’t stress to much about factors outside your control.

 

[NotAProgDirector]

The thread question is unanswerable. It's going to vary widely by program. Some programs, all applicants will look stellar on paper, and the interview may count for everything. Other programs will have a wide spectrum of interviewed applicant performance, and interviews may count less. As an applicant, you have no way to tell.

So you do your best, and not stress about what you can't control.