Illegal interview question?

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.
Axes said:
What's your issue against the academic circle/humanities/political economy??
Can't measure it in a graduated cylinder and it's not real?
Click to expand...
Eh, they confuse conjecture with knowledge, they base their theories on things that lack empirical evidence, they bully those who bother to point out these completely obvious facts, etc, etc. This is why eminent scientists (such as Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, and even Noam Chomsky) tend to disparage and mock academia so.
 
Also, on taking offense:

People "get offended" as a result of emphasis of one of their disadvantaged identities. So, while not "taking offense"-- that is, not responding to an action or comment or whatever that capitalizes on one's disadvantaged identity-- is often seen as personal strength, it also perpetuates the oppression of that disadvantaged identity. It's not about going into a tizzy, it's about recognizing oppressive social structures.
 
twistedroses said:
I was just asked by an interviewer whether I have considered what it would be like to be a physician as a female. The follow up question - have I ever shadowed a female physician before? I thought it was illegal to ask such questions during interview.

I normally wouldn't think too much of it, but the entire interview was unpleasant and it seemed like more of an attack than well intentions.

Would it be appropriate to notify the admissions office? Or should I just let it go?
Click to expand...
LOL is this person serious?
 
Axes said:
Also, on taking offense:

People "get offended" as a result of emphasis of one of their disadvantaged identities. So, while not "taking offense"-- that is, not responding to an action or comment or whatever that capitalizes on one's disadvantaged identity-- is often seen as personal strength, it also perpetuates the oppression of that disadvantaged identity. It's not about going into a tizzy, it's about recognizing oppressive social structures.
Click to expand...
I have no idea what the conversation is at hand, but is this really how you talk in person? Its like reading a fifth grader's essay who just discovered what a thesaurus is

EDIT: And I do not say this to be harsh, its that someone who has a clear understanding of whats happening shouldnt have to resort to such a roundabout away to say it
 
steelersfan1243 said:
I have no idea what the conversation is at hand, but is this really how you talk in person? Its like reading a fifth grader's essay who just discovered what a thesaurus is

EDIT: And I do not say this to be harsh, its that someone who has a clear understanding of whats happening shouldnt have to resort to such a roundabout away to say it
Click to expand...

This isn't a roundabout way to say it. This is the vocabulary used in academic study of the subject. It's also just not that complex, not sure what you're seeing.

Edit: Oh also the comment responds to a bunch of stuff that's been posted earlier, so it's probably a bit weird without context.
 
Last edited:
Ad2b said:
My question for all the females is this: do laugh when you see the jokes about how men only think with one head, and not the one on top of their shoulders?

I am betting that every guy who reads that laughs. Perhaps loudly and nods. Are they offended? No. Because it doesn't matter to them. My son is 23 and he laughs ... says it's spot on. I tell him "TMI TMI TMI" ... 🙂 anyway,

My question is why are the little things that are done taken so emotionally deep?
Click to expand...

To be fair, if men had a history of being oppressed and were currently being discriminated against in some kind of systemic way (e.g. if they often got paid less than women because of the stereotype that they only think with the little head), then that joke might offend them.
 
steelersfan1243 said:
I have no idea what the conversation is at hand, but is this really how you talk in person? Its like reading a fifth graders essay who discovered what a thesaurus is
Click to expand...
I don't think it's really helpful to insult when you haven't even been following man.
 
I do love when males try to tell females what gender inequality and social oppression are 🤣

Dude, if it isn't being used against me, it isn't oppressing me :laugh:
 
Cotterpin said:
To be fair, if men had a history of being oppressed and were currently being discriminated against in some kind of systemic way (e.g. if they often got paid less than women because of the stereotype that they only think with the little head), then that joke might offend them.
Click to expand...

Does it help to let you know I am a woman, who has been working for close to 30 years and I have ALWAYS been paid less than a man doing the same role. I am offended by few things. Life is easier that way.
 
rachiie01 said:
I do love when males try to tell females what gender inequality and social oppression are 🤣

Dude, if it isn't being used against me, it isn't oppressing me :laugh:
Click to expand...

I'm not trying to tell you anything. I'm just stating the academic view.
 
Ad2b said:
Does it help to let you know I am a woman, who has been working for close to 30 years and I have ALWAYS been paid less than a man doing the same role. I am offended by few things. Life is easier that way.
Click to expand...

You have clearly had to develop a thick skin to succeed in your business, and I respect that. I mean, in 10 years, I won't even have been alive for 30 years. But don't you want better for women that follow in your footsteps? I mean that's what social reform is all about-- each subsequent generation should have to settle less. Life is easier if you don't think about social/institutional injustices, wouldn't it be be even easier if those injustices didn't exist?
 
Axes said:
People "get offended" as a result of emphasis of one of their disadvantaged identities. So, while not "taking offense"-- that is, not responding to an action or comment or whatever that capitalizes on one's disadvantaged identity-- is often seen as personal strength, it also perpetuates the oppression of that disadvantaged identity. It's not about going into a tizzy, it's about recognizing oppressive social structures.
Click to expand...
Here's the issue with this post: you're insinuating that an interviewer asking about being a female physician is emphasizing the interviewee's "disadvantaged identity". From there, you reason that to not take offense to this question is perpetuating oppression of females. << That is absurd.

There was nothing oppressive about the interviewer's question. Identifying that being a female physician will be a unique experience from male physicians is not oppressive or offensive, it's just fact. Asking the interviewee to reflect on this is fair game and should be answered thoughtfully without being labeled as failing to "recognize oppressive social structures".

You're grasping for straws here to identify oppression where none exists.
 
Ad2b said:
Does it help to let you know I am a woman, who has been working for close to 30 years and I have ALWAYS been paid less than a man doing the same role. I am offended by few things. Life is easier that way.
Click to expand...

I know you're a woman. So am I. If you look back at my other posts in this thread, I think you'd see that I mostly agree with you. I definitely don't think it's worth it to take action about every small thing that offends you. But I'm also pointing out that context is important. And yes, some people are more easily offended than you or I might be, but their feelings aren't incorrect or deserving of ridicule. It's more a matter of how you choose to respond than whether or not you feel offended.
 
rachiie01 said:
Here's the issue with this post: you're insinuating that an interviewer asking about being a female physician is emphasizing the interviewee's "disadvantaged identity". From there, you reason that to not take offense to this question is perpetuating oppression of females. << That is absurd.

There was nothing oppressive about the interviewer's question. Identifying that being a female physician will be a unique experience from male physicians is not oppressive or offensive, it's just fact. Asking the interviewee to reflect on this is fair game and should be answered thoughtfully without being labeled as failing to "recognize oppressive social structures".

You're grasping for straws here to identify oppression where none exists.
Click to expand...

Yeah I mean if you look at my first post in this thread I said that the interview thing wasn't worth reporting. The discussion has shifted from that starting point.
 
@Axes - thank you 🙂 I have had a lot of varied experiences. Mostly good.

Social reform doesn't start with people pointing fingers at the people. Newton's 3rd. And sadly, injustice will ALWAYS be a part of life.

Social reform, to me, comes from being an example to the rest of the world, and continuing to push forward while not blaming, or complaining. It doesn't come from questioning minor things, or running to HR or to the EEOC. It doesn't come from beating the fist on the counter and demanding because EVERYONE shuts down.

IF something is bad enough (rape, injury, blah blah blah) then yes, obviously HR and the EEOC are the appropriate avenues. In this particular case, the one that started this entire thread, it was none of that.

Take a look at Nelson Mandela, Gandhi, Carter (I did not like him as PoTUS but my gosh, what a great man!). Those great men did not point fingers at people and say, "You did this to me therefore you must and your entire gender/race/society must pay for that wrong" - they simply worked to make things better.

What can we do as women?

Not work for a place that does not pay us equally. IF enough qualified and exceptional women simply worked for the better places, change would happen. BELIEVE in your self value!

Get involved in politics - support candidates, see their agendas, talk to them. It's easy. Most candidates are willing to accept volunteer help.

Stop looking at yourselves like victims. We're not victims. Advocate for yourself. Advocate for other women. Advocate for men. You're stronger that way.

When I hired women, I paid them exactly what I paid the men in the department IF they were as well qualified. In one case, I paid a woman more 🙂 because she was better qualified.

I also helped found an organization of women's leadership in my city so that female leaders from very large companies and very large firms to the small companies could get guidance, advice and help from those who have been there before. That organization was supported 100% by everyone at the firm and funded by the firms. At one local meeting, we had a MAN speak 😀 about how empowering women was making the lives of the staff better.

In answering your question about having the younger women follow in my footsteps to a brighter tomorrow for women, yes. Of course I would like a better tomorrow for EVERYONE not just women. As a mother to my adult son, I also see reverse discrimination against him.

White male, 23, good looking ( 😉 ), single, no kids, no drugs, no booze, no illegal activities, solid life vs. 23 female with similar credentials.

Who do you think gets the nod?
 
Axes said:
Yeah I mean if you look at my first post in this thread I said that the interview thing wasn't worth reporting. The discussion has shifted from that starting point.
Click to expand...
I understand that the discussion has shifted, but your statement was a general (and bold) one that could apply to the interviewer's question. When you say that emphasis on a disadvantaged identity is a form of oppression, that applies to situations beyond the one you're currently discussing. I used the interviewer's question to demonstrate to you how absurd the implications of your post can be.
 
Ad2b said:
@Axes - thank you 🙂 I have had a lot of varied experiences. Mostly good.

Social reform doesn't start with people pointing fingers at the people. Newton's 3rd. And sadly, injustice will ALWAYS be a part of life.

Social reform, to me, comes from being an example to the rest of the world, and continuing to push forward while not blaming, or complaining. It doesn't come from questioning minor things, or running to HR or to the EEOC. It doesn't come from beating the fist on the counter and demanding because EVERYONE shuts down.

IF something is bad enough (rape, injury, blah blah blah) then yes, obviously HR and the EEOC are the appropriate avenues. In this particular case, the one that started this entire thread, it was none of that.

Take a look at Nelson Mandela, Gandhi, Carter (I did not like him as PoTUS but my gosh, what a great man!). Those great men did not point fingers at people and say, "You did this to me therefore you must and your entire gender/race/society must pay for that wrong" - they simply worked to make things better.

What can we do as women?

Not work for a place that does not pay us equally. IF enough qualified and exceptional women simply worked for the better places, change would happen. BELIEVE in your self value!

Get involved in politics - support candidates, see their agendas, talk to them. It's easy. Most candidates are willing to accept volunteer help.

Stop looking at yourselves like victims. We're not victims. Advocate for yourself. Advocate for other women. Advocate for men. You're stronger that way.

When I hired women, I paid them exactly what I paid the men in the department IF they were as well qualified. In one case, I paid a woman more 🙂 because she was better qualified.

I also helped found an organization of women's leadership in my city so that female leaders from very large companies and very large firms to the small companies could get guidance, advice and help from those who have been there before. That organization was supported 100% by everyone at the firm and funded by the firms. At one local meeting, we had a MAN speak 😀 about how empowering women was making the lives of the staff better.

In answering your question about having the younger women follow in my footsteps to a brighter tomorrow for women, yes. Of course I would like a better tomorrow for EVERYONE not just women. As a mother to my adult son, I also see reverse discrimination against him.

White male, 23, good looking ( 😉 ), single, no kids, no drugs, no booze, no illegal activities, solid life vs. 23 female with similar credentials.

Who do you think gets the nod?
Click to expand...

Haha, we aren't going to bridge this generation gap. Injustice doesn't have to be a part of life. Mandela was a terrorist for years.
 
I'll go one step further 😀

In 1983, at NDSU there was a professor in the biochem department complete .... shameful to say things about the deceased but ...

That man told me on my first day with my shining A's and college prep work that, "You don't belong in this field you're a woman." And then he did everything he could to make sure I failed.

He was quite successful. The year was 1983. In 32 years look how far we've come! Not only would some asinine statement like that rarely if ever be stated, we are encouraged to go into biochem and physio and medicine. We are encouraged to be brave.

Go be brave!
 
@Axes - it is not a generation gap. If I wanted to, I could be offended by that statement. Are you telling me because I'm far older than you that I cannot understand how you think? or that I don't belong? (I'm not offended, btw, just indicating a point).

Simply, injustice is always going to be a part of life. Just ask people in the Philippines, or China, or Ghana or Ecuador or Chile or Mexico or Belize or ... it's always going to be there.
 
Ad2b said:
@Axes - it is not a generation gap. If I wanted to, I could be offended by that statement. Are you telling me because I'm far older than you that I cannot understand how you think? or that I don't belong? (I'm not offended, btw, just indicating a point).

Simply, injustice is always going to be a part of life. Just ask people in the Philippines, or China, or Ghana or Ecuador or Chile or Mexico or Belize or ... it's always going to be there.
Click to expand...

No, of course you can understand, I'm just going by the trope that says the young usually think they can fix the world. Call it naïveté/optimism
 
The year was 1983. In 32 years look how far we've come!
Click to expand...

I believe that he was behind the times for 1983 . I believe that by then already about 40% of med school classes were female.
 
Axes said:
No, of course you can understand, I'm just going by the trope that says the young usually think they can fix the world. Call it naïveté/optimism
Click to expand...

I also believe *I* can change the world. *I* want to change the world. I want to go to the countries where no one else will go to help, to deliver care to the most vulnerable on the planet. I want to be an example for others who have no hope, to have it. I want to get into medical school to do so and have the optimism that I can and will, despite MANY people telling me I will not even get evaluated.

I would not have survived everything I have without hope and optimism and fierce desire to succeed. In that way you and I are exactly the same.

It's how we go about it. You will be successful. Be brave!
 
Stagg737 said:
This may not be catered to medical interviews, but here's a list of "illegal" interview questions. There are some missing and others on this list may not be illegal in a med interview (ie. what clubs/organizations are you a part of), but it's a decent jumping off point:
http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/careers/resources/interviewillegal.htm
Click to expand...

This. This was the article I said was wonderful. Not the one other people referred to.

IMO, the questions @Gastrapathy brought up were simply more specific versions of the question "How would you respond to adversity". While there's no need to say one would simply remain complacent if such events were ongoing, it is certainly useful in gauging the professionalism of the interviewee. .
Click to expand...

That's why I like the article above.
I interviewers just need to beware and watch whay they're saying so they don't open a can of words.

And I agree asking questions aed at exploring how an applicant's background via diversity/adversity questions is fair game. Just tread carefully.

Goro said:
Not at all. While the interviewer I think phrased the question inexpertly, there are plenty of instances where you ask a candidate something, and they either have the experience, or they don't. It's not lethal at my osteopathic school for a candidate to have never shadowed a DO, for example.

Another might be "I see you shadowed Dr X, who's a Primary Care doc. Have you shadowed a ___ " [fill in blank with any specialty]

If I were the Admissions dean at the school in question, I would have asked the interviewer to simply rephrase the question, or at least explain what they were trying to get at, and then ask the interviewee's opinion.

And believe me, we ask plenty of questions where not saying or not having done something will be lethal. I have several designed to ferret out controls freaks, for example, and others to weed out people who have very patriarchal attitudes. And no, I'm not sharing.

QUOTE="NotASerialKiller, post: 16837705, member: 703602"]I agree with most of this, except that from my perspective if an interviewer asks you if you've ever shadowed a doctor from whatever demographic you belong to, doesn't that mean that you'll do worse in the interview by saying no? I have to think that by asking that question they're hoping that you did, and not having done this will therefore worsen your chances at getting in by making you seem ill-prepared in a way that could never happen to a white male. That's what I meant by saying that they "have" to; if you belong to a potentially disadvantaged group you either shadow someone from that group as expected or lose points. That's why I think an interviewer shouldn't be asking that question, not because I find it fundamentally offensive or horribly sexist.
Click to expand...
[/QUOTE]

I'm with Goro here.
I think the interviewer in question should have asked her questions differently and been more careful.

Ad2b said:
🙄 @Crayola227 seriously. People who blow things out of proportion - no matter the context, the question as innocuous and her response then and here is nauseating. If that makes you nauseous, then so be it.
Click to expand...

I'm with Gatropathy and Goro in that they say admittedly that the interviewer was stepping into it.

Goro said:
Wonderful article! !!

A curse of the Millenials is the mindset of "you can't say that! Someone might be offended! "
Click to expand...

I adressed this above.

That particular article gave examples of how to not step in horse**** in an interview by part of interviewers.

All I'm saying is if I'm asked questions I think are crappy I would report them if I'm not worried about bridges on fire.

In this case, the report would just be to whoever is running the interview process what happened.

It sounds like if Goro and Gastropathy were running the process and questions of this nature came up and an interviewee said, "I found the question about "have you considered what being a black or Jewish or female or male doctor would be like" or "have you shadowed --- type of doctor" if we're talking about protected classes, that they would just respond by telling interiewer/group of interviewers (not singling out one maybe) better ways of asking those questions related to age/sex/race/disability or what have you.

While we might say what's the big deal let it go, I would say what's the big deal with just saying something to someone so this can be considered and responded to by institution for a little CYA? Run it by the institution risk management and everyone can go to the interview better prepared not to step in it.

In my experience, that proves to be more helpful than harmful to everyone involved.
 
Axes said:
This isn't a roundabout way to say it. This is the vocabulary used in academic study of the subject. It's also just not that complex, not sure what you're seeing.

Edit: Oh also the comment responds to a bunch of stuff that's been posted earlier, so it's probably a bit weird without context.
Click to expand...

Not saying this to be a jerk or anything, but that's not the vernacular of the medical community and it does sound roundabout to individuals oriented towards the hard sciences. The goal in medicine is to say exactly what you mean in the most simple and concise way possible. Eloquence is unnecessary, and and often frowned upon (especially when you're talking to people that have been on 12+ hour shifts). If you speak to an attending or resident using the same structure you use on here, you'll likely get torn apart.
 
Stagg737 said:
The goal in medicine is to say exactly what you mean in the most simple and concise way possible. Eloquence is unnecessary, and and often frowned upon (especially when you're talking to people that have been on 12+ hour shifts). If you speak to an attending or resident using the same structure you use on here, you'll likely get torn apart.
Click to expand...

I am in deep guano.
 
Stagg737 said:
Not saying this to be a jerk or anything, but that's not the vernacular of the medical community and it does sound roundabout to individuals oriented towards the hard sciences. The goal in medicine is to say exactly what you mean in the most simple and concise way possible. Eloquence is unnecessary, and and often frowned upon (especially when you're talking to people that have been on 12+ hour shifts). If you speak to an attending or resident using the same structure you use on here, you'll likely get torn apart.
Click to expand...

Yes this is very true. We're all very busy and tired and I don't want to spend 5 minutes listening to convoluted nonsense and spend another 5 minutes trying to figure out what you meant to say in the first place.
 
cmeyr.jpg
 
If the wage gap was real, wouldn't clever and/or progressive businesses exploit the situation and just hire a bunch of women that would do equal work for less pay, without sacrificing quality?
 
ChillDawg said:
If the wage gap was real, wouldn't clever and/or progressive businesses exploit the situation and just hire a bunch of women that would do equal work for less pay, without sacrificing quality?
Click to expand...
Isn't it the other way?
 
ChillDawg said:
If the wage gap was real, wouldn't clever and/or progressive businesses exploit the situation and just hire a bunch of women that would do equal work for less pay, without sacrificing quality?
Click to expand...

Good point. Plus. If you are to believe people who say stuff women are actually better at everything anyway. I mean like super superior. Except maybe killing spiders and lifting heavy things into the back of a vehicle.
 
jdh71 said:
Good point. Plus. If you are to believe people who say stuff women are actually better at everything anyway. I mean like super superior. Except maybe killing spiders and lifting heavy things into the back of a vehicle.
Click to expand...
What? How is that a good point at all? What would these employers do when they have to accommodate maternal leave for all these not-really-superior women?
 
Last edited:
DokterMom said:
They did @ChillDawg . For years. They called it teaching, nursing, secretarial work, librarians.
Click to expand...
I think he means in higher positions that require terminal degrees. For example, why wouldn't a hospital just hire a bunch of women physicians and pay them less as a way to cut costs? This doesn't add up for two reasons: 1. women aren't illegal immigrants that are desperate for under the table work and 2. lower pay for women often comes from the perception that women aren't as qualified as men, thus they are paid less or not chosen for hire over their male counterparts.
 
Stagg737 said:
Not saying this to be a jerk or anything, but that's not the vernacular of the medical community and it does sound roundabout to individuals oriented towards the hard sciences. The goal in medicine is to say exactly what you mean in the most simple and concise way possible. Eloquence is unnecessary, and and often frowned upon (especially when you're talking to people that have been on 12+ hour shifts). If you speak to an attending or resident using the same structure you use on here, you'll likely get torn apart.
Click to expand...

Perhaps the problem is with the medical community and not with the rest of the world, then.
Everything he says could be clearly understood by a 10th grader who's ever cracked open a serious book/magazine or taken a humanities course.

Personal cultivation is not the prerogative of the philosophy or comparative literature department.
 
Doudline said:
Perhaps the problem is with the medical community and not with the rest of the world, then.
Everything he says could be clearly understood by a 10th grader who's ever cracked open a serious book/magazine or taken a humanities course.

Personal cultivation is not the prerogative of the philosophy or comparative literature department.
Click to expand...
I understand him just fine, but expressing yourself in a concise manner is a skill that should be mastered and appreciated.
 
rachiie01 said:
I understand him just fine, but expressing yourself in a concise manner is a skill that should be mastered and appreciated.
Click to expand...

This is a discussion forum, not the OR. Three and a half lines to explain an idea doesn't seem too wild to me.

How would you have said it?
 
Yes, the point is your need to tread carefully. Like it or agree or not gender is a federally protected criterion under EO and civil rights.


So say this person didn't get an acceptance after the interview where the innocent question of being a female physician or shadowing a female physician was asked. She could file a complaint; b/c it's a question that singles out her gender rather than focuses on what it would be like for her to be a physician.


Sure, people are what they are. Their unique perspectives of being male, female, gay, straight, religious, non-religious and such, I am sure, will influence their life such that these things may also indirectly affect what they perceive their role in medicine would be like. But you are singling out these protected areas, and make no mistake, whether you agree with it or not, you had better be careful with it.


As I said before, I don't see how such questions are relevant to being a physician, so it's a bit of a flag to me that anyone would lead or include them during the interview process. If, however, someone has a compelling URM story, finesse that out of him or her w/o hitting on an area of protected status. Some interviewers are better and wiser at that than others.


Hey I don't have a problem with my gender. A person walking down the street could ask me how I like it, and while it would seem a bit strange out of the blue, I'd smile and say I pretty much like it just fine. But when you are interviewing someone for a position or a seat in a program, everything you say to them will pretty much be connected to "How's this affect my chances of acceptance?" in their mind. You may be trying to throw questions to see if you get some visceral versus controlled response. These questions are silly anyway, b/c a lot of people know how to play them. You get genuine stuff out of people over a period of time; b/c people are like onions--even when they are fairly forthright.


The genuinely logical issue here is this. Why make a specific issue out of something that falls into the protected-status area like this? The interviewer didn't have to separate out gender. He could have asked her about what she feels medicine would be like for her, given her current and long-term goals. He could have asked her about sharing shadowing experiences with various physicians. The idea that he specifically separated out gender brings things into question, and if the OP wanted, she in fact could report that this was an unnecessary line of questioning; b/c what the heck does it have to do with medical school or becoming a physician???? Ultimately these questions that refer to protected status cannot be used to hold someone back for admission or a position, according to the law. So here again I say, “Why ask them?” Like it or not, that's the way it is so that people wouldn't get discriminated against b/c of gender, religion, race, age, sexuality, etc. The protected areas are outlined as protected for a reason.


I simply think that the interviewer should re-think how he formulated these, perhaps purposely, reactivity-producing questions.


For the zillionth time, if he had asked a him or her how he or she thought being gay would affect him or her as a physician, you’d better bet this would get reported. Why should it be different when someone purposely separates out gender?


It violates the spirit of the CR laws is all I am saying, and watch it. Not everyone is going to run away and say, "Oh I am not going to report this b/c it could affect me getting into another MS." This is equivalent to being bullied by a mob mentality.


So, yes! Some people have the chutzpa to say, "Wait a second now? I am not going to be penalized for standing up for equal opportunity protection, and questions that seem to be leading in that regard." If you are getting any federal funding at all, you need to be careful about stepping too close to or over the line. If all private, you still have to be careful.


There is a reason employers have been instructed by their LDs to be careful with this kind of thing. It doesn't matter if you like it, agree wit it, find it thought-policing, which really isn't what Orwell was talking about. None of that matters.


What matters is if it can be shown that the line of questioning can in itself be questioned as stepping into a protected status area unnecessarily. The OP didn't bring up this herself, that we know of; hence, the question remains. Why did the interviewer bring it up in such a way? Why did he single that out?


The thought-police stuff is indeed more about the extreme application of PC stuff--like in The Coddling of American Students thread. This issue raised by the OP is an entirely different issue, and you have to make the distinctions, given the federal regulation and the fact that singling out each or any of these areas in completely impertinent to seeking the position or seat in med school. Completely unnecessary.


If you want to pose visceral or Gotcha kinds of question, you have to be more careful and smooth with it, b/c it could end up causing a problem.


If you had asked me such a question, sure I wouldn't get all shocked over it. I would inwardly think that this person isn't wise about his line of questioning. I'd still answer the question, b/c "Don't hate the player, hate the game." And that's what such questions are about--trying to game someone into some visceral response or seeing if they can keep their VSs controlled while hooked up to the lie, I mean, emotional detector. LOL Personally, I don’t’ know if I would have reported it; b/c I wasn’t there. But later on, I may have written that I find the line of questions problematic, given the need to give everyone an equal opportunity and provisions set forth by EO Laws. Doesn’t make me overly sensitive whacko. I am conservative for God’s sake. But if you have laws under the guise of fairness, well let’s make sure they are applied fairly else they aren’t worth crap.


These games go on all the time, and you can't let them bother you. But when it comes to going for a position and someone brings up a protected status issue in the way the person in the OP did, yes. Definitely someone can file a complaint about it; b/c it was a completely unnecessary question--just as asking about someone's religion or sexuality are unnecessary questions. Since they are unnecessary questions that separate out a protected status, if the applicant did or didn't get in, the law could find merit in her complaint b/c of those kinds of questions. Just b/c it's gotten away with does not mean it will always be so. Better to think and pose your interview questions more carefully.
 
Last edited:
Don't worry Doud, I have seen prographs from all the posters over time. It's a way to do an ad hominem--its under the wire stuff, if people were to be completely honest. If you don't lay out your points, you will be misinterpreted or said to be unclear. Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

Disagree, agree. It doesn't matter. What matters is when someone has the chutspa to go to a lawyer and file against such things.

The essential question to ask is this: Is this question, stated in this way, really necessary? Can it be construe in anyway as stepping on a protected class issue, such that a complaint can be made?

Don't consider these things, and deal with the potential consequences. You can get away with them for a while, perhaps, but not forever. If it's not really relevant in terms of their abilities and commitment as a student or physician, leave it alone.

Although I am pretty conservative in a lot of way, I live in a very liberal area, and I will tell you, we don't step into such unnecessary questions. Why? B/c they are unnecessary and they can cause a bell to go off in someone's mind, and then issues follow. We don't do it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

M
completely botched interview question
Replies
8
Views
1K
IlDestriero
IlDestriero
C
Interview question re: alternative careers?
Replies
7
Views
1K
artgal
A
hopefulfish
[Interview Prep] Possible Interview Question
Replies
13
Views
2K
Mr.Smile12
Mr.Smile12
M
Interview Scheduling
Replies
6
Views
622
maybefuturedoctor7
M
PickaGodnPray
Question regarding student interviewers
Replies
6
Views
1K
AsclepiusAdvisingLLC
AsclepiusAdvisingLLC
Top