Interview Question

[KnightDoc]

---

Members don't see this ad.

I know from reading old threads that, back in the day, it wasn't uncommon for interviewers to ask where else you applied or were interviewing or accepted. I assume this is less common today, since AAMC took away tools used to be able to sue to see where else you were accepted, but that some interviewers either didn't get the memo or still just want the information.

In the world of virtual interviews, am I correct, and, if so, how did people handle it last cycle or plan on handling it this cycle? Of course, answering if one is comfortable doing so is the simplest solution. Next up is saying you're not comfortable talking about other schools, and that you want to focus on the present school, your most favorite one of all! 🙂

Beyond that, though, if the interviewer is persistent and you don't want to disclose, any advice on how to handle it? Sticking to my guns and being labeled difficult does not seem attractive. Also really don't want to lie, but I don't want to be judged based on where else I applied, or received interviews. Any advice from anyone who has confronted this, from either side of the interview table or Zoom camera, would be GREAT appreciated. Thanks in advance!!!

 

[DoctorFate]

I would generally give a location based response instead of a specific school or numbers based response. Last cycle, I mentioned that I applied to my university college (as would be obvious and expected) and mostly colleges around my location (technically true, if you count adjacent states as near my location haha). For interviews, I would just quickly say when you got the interviews rather than which schools they were to (I was excited to receive invitations in early August and a few more in the coming weeks!). Very unlikely your interviewer will press beyond that, but if they do, then just answer honestly.

 

[Orims]

Don't know if it was normal, but out of 6 IIs and 12+ individual interviews with different individuals, none of them asked me where/how many/what other IIs I had. Interview times ranged from 20 to 40 mins.

 

[KnightDoc]

So you prefer to be judged on being difficult, evasive, raising questions as to "why?" interviewer's mind? The moment you start talking vaguely about what schools you applied to is the moment you will be pressed for names. If this is your stance, I would simply answer "I prefer not to say." Of course the interviewer may recommend in their summary "I would prefer not admit." So here is your choice

A) Being potentially judged on what schools you applied to or interviewed at
OR
B) Being potentially judge on being difficult or evasive in answer questions

Take your pick, Those are the only choices you get

This is EXACTLY what I'm afraid of. Hence the thread! 🙂 I'm seeking tactful ways to avoid providing information that I fear might be used against me, and that I strongly believe should not be part of the information mix used to judge me.

@Goro is fond of saying med schools are not like jealous dates, and yet this question has elements of just that (i.e., my desirability is determined to an extent by who else I am talking to and who else has expressed interest in me). The MAR was eliminated for this very reason. While the schools found that inconvenient at first, they have managed to navigate around it very well.

TBH, my hope, based on @Orims' response, is that this might not be a concern with virtual interviews. I have a feeling they are recorded since that is so easy to do, and I'd be surprised if the official policy at all schools nowadays was not to stay away from this question.

By the way, in a world in which the MAR and NAR do not exist, there is a third choice, and that's telling them what I think they need to hear, whatever that is, and regardless of whether or not it is true! 🙂

 

[DoctorFate]

This is EXACTLY what I'm afraid of. Hence the thread! 🙂 I'm seeking tactful ways to avoid providing information that I fear might be used against me, and that I strongly believe should not be part of the information mix used to judge me.

@Goro is fond of saying med schools are not like jealous dates, and yet this question has elements of just that (i.e., my desirability is determined to an extent by who else I am talking to and who else has expressed interest in me). The MAR was eliminated for this very reason. While the schools found that inconvenient at first, they have managed to navigate around it very well.

TBH, my hope, based on @Orims' response, is that this might not be a concern with virtual interviews. I have a feeling they are recorded since that is so easy to do, and I'd be surprised if the official policy at all schools nowadays was not to stay away from this question.

By the way, in a world in which the MAR and NAR do not exist, there is a third choice, and that's telling them what I think they need to hear, whatever that is, and regardless of whether or not it is true! 🙂

I mean, I seriously doubt even if your interviewer asks, they expect you to list 15 schools by name that you applied to. Hence, I felt an answer like "I applied to my state school and mostly other schools near me" would suffice. But of course, if adcoms disagree with me then ignore that advice.

 

[LizzyM]

Interviews are being recorded? Not at my school! We have been instructed explicitly not to ask that question.

If I were coaching a nephew, I'd suggest saying, "Like pretty much everyone, I've applied to quite a few schools but today I'm 100% focused on this school and what a great fit it feels like for me. What do you think makes this such a special place for students?"

 

[KnightDoc]

Interviews are being recorded? Not at my school! We have been instructed explicitly not to ask that question.

If I were coaching a nephew, I'd suggest saying, "Like pretty much everyone, I've applied to quite a few schools but today I'm 100% focused on this school and what a great fit it feels like for me. What do you think makes this such a special place for students?"

Perfect!!! This is exactly the response I was hoping for!! I know back in the day it was a common question, but I also know that back in the day schools had easy access to multiple acceptance reports that no longer exist.

As far as recording goes, since I haven't had an interview yet I have no way to know for sure, but recording is built-in functionality in Zoom, so I just assumed it would be something schools would avail themselves of, both to protect themselves as well as to be able to provide other adcoms access to the candidate's interview. While I guess I'd be a little self-conscious about being recorded, it's probably a good way to ensure that interviewers follow guidelines set by schools.

 

[LizzyM]

No one has time for recordings. If we have 45 candidates per week and each has interviews totaling 60-90 minutes, who will spend 45 hours (or more!) going over those recordings? Even if played at double speed, that's just too labor intensive for the committee. Also, at least in my experience, the recording function in Zoom has to be activated -- it doesn't just happen automatically. I can't see anyone seeing it as a good idea. I'd love to hear about what other schools are doing.

 

[Zuggelder]

No one has time for recordings. If we have 45 candidates per week and each has interviews totaling 60-90 minutes, who will spend 45 hours (or more!) going over those recordings? Even if played at double speed, that's just too labor intensive for the committee. Also, at least in my experience, the recording function in Zoom has to be activated -- it doesn't just happen automatically. I can't see anyone seeing it as a good idea. I'd love to hear about what other schools are doing.

Last year, an interviewer at a school that receives a lot of applications told me that the med school's interview portal/software automatically programs Zoom to record whenever the meeting is initiated (you can tell by the flashing red dot in top left corner) and the Zoom meeting recording is then automatically uploaded to the "cloud" where the final decision making adcom can access it, if they wish.

I'm not sure whether the adcom watches all videos, but it's safe to assume that if an applicant is borderline or if an applicant looks great on paper but didn't get good interviewer remarks, the adcom could watch the interview and judge for themselves, if they wanted. Again, I assume this would only happen for borderline / rare situations, so an adcom doesn't waste time watching hundreds of hours of footage.

 

[gyngyn]

I know back in the day it was a common question, but I also know that back in the day schools had easy access to multiple acceptance reports that no longer exist.

We never had access to where applicants were interviewed, waitlisted or rejected.
Information on any candidate's acceptances was not available until after a decision was rendered and even then, it was in the Spring (well after many schools had completed the season).

 

[KnightDoc]

No one has time for recordings. If we have 45 candidates per week and each has interviews totaling 60-90 minutes, who will spend 45 hours (or more!) going over those recordings? Even if played at double speed, that's just too labor intensive for the committee. Also, at least in my experience, the recording function in Zoom has to be activated -- it doesn't just happen automatically. I can't see anyone seeing it as a good idea. I'd love to hear about what other schools are doing.

Yeah, I wasn't imagining adcoms sitting around reliving highlights from interviews. I was thinking more along the lines of adding them to a file to use as a shield if anyone was accused of acting inappropriately, or if there was anything particularly noteworthy that an interviewer wanted to share with the rest of the committee.

Again, I haven't seen anything one way or the other on this yet, but it wouldn't shock me if schools enabled the record function, since it costs nothing beyond storage space. I also get why interviewers might not want to be recorded, so it also wouldn't shock me if schools went the other way. The only thing that would shock me would be if candidate preference was a consideration. 🙂

 

[KnightDoc]

We never had access to where applicants were interviewed, waitlisted or rejected.
Information on any candidate's acceptances was not available until after a decision was rendered and even then, it was in the Spring (well after many schools had completed the season).

Maybe I misunderstood, but my understanding was that the MAR was available in February, and acted as you describe (only accepted candidates, and only available to schools where you were accepted), while a NAR (National Acceptance Report) was available in April that allowed ALL schools to see where ANYONE was accepted. Of course, the NAR could and probably was used to pass over people on a WL who already held acceptances at "better" schools, in order to manipulate yields, while the MAR was probably used to craft merit scholarship awards in addition to estimating yield.

 

[FluffyCat1212]

FWIW, I was never asked where else I was applying at any points during interviews. I was asked about the other DO schools I was applying to on one DO secondary and was asked where I chose to attend instead when filling out acceptance withdrawal forms. Otherwise, it never came up.

However, if this does come up, LizzyM's response is awesome!

 

[Goro]

Last year, an interviewer at a school that receives a lot of applications told me that the med school's interview portal/software automatically programs Zoom to record whenever the meeting is initiated (you can tell by the flashing red dot in top left corner) and the Zoom meeting recording is then automatically uploaded to the "cloud" where the final decision making adcom can access it, if they wish.

I'm not sure whether the adcom watches all videos, but it's safe to assume that if an applicant is borderline or if an applicant looks great on paper but didn't get good interviewer remarks, the adcom could watch the interview and judge for themselves, if they wanted. Again, I assume this would only happen for borderline / rare situations, so an adcom doesn't waste time watching hundreds of hours of footage.

While our Zoom interviews may be recorded (I have no recollection if they are or not), we sure as hell don't watch them at our Adcom meetings. They're long enough as they are.

The wily old Admissions Dean has also forbidden us to ask if people have been accepted or interviewed elsewhere, or where people have applied.

 

[KnightDoc]

Of course they wouldn't. The first time the School's General Counsel (lawyers) found out they would shut it down. That is all a school would need to leave a potential evidence trail over something said at an interview that an applicant would want to complain was biased, unfair, illegal or otherwise somehow prevented their admission. Could you imagine the utter issues a failed applicant could do with legal action, no matter how far fetched, that now required to produce and maintain records of them, possibly deal with depositions of professors, it would be a nightmare. Since the only records are the already submitted AMCAS and secondary, all of which are already seen by applicant, there is magnitudes less than an issue

Okay.... You know way more about this than I do, but I would think it would be easier for schools to actually control the conduct of their interviewers, and to then have easily created evidence that whatever accusations of wrongdoing are nothing more than delusions of overwrought applicants, than to have it be a "he said, she said" with no evidence trail.

It's hard for a lay person like me to see how a Zoom recording of an interview would create litigation risk that didn't already exist. I actually think it would serve as a highly effective shield against frivolous litigation. OTOH, if some interviewers are off doing their own thing, maybe there needs to be some credible threat of litigation to counter balance the power that the sellers' market might otherwise confer on interviewers to go off script with impunity.

I find it very interesting that you are quick to advise that applicants seeking a positive outcome really have no choice but to capitulate to whatever demands are placed on them during an interview, while also advising that schools are well served to not create records of the proceedings, thereby avoiding the potential production of evidence of possible wrong doing, in the name of not wanting to encourage frivolous litigation. Seems VERY school-centric to me. Viva la sellers' market! 🙂

I'm not sure what you are afraid of here, since, in addition to a primary and secondary, aren't there already internal notes and impressions that would be discoverable in litigation, and wouldn't a recording of an interview just be nothing more than another piece of potential evidence? What determines whether, and for how long, anything already created by the adcom during the cycle is preserved, and why would interview recordings be any different?

Have you considered the possibility that, since the adcom does not control the environment in which the candidate is conducting their side of a virtual interview, that an audio or video record of the proceedings could be created and retained entirely outside the control of the adcom??? In such a case, I'd think the school would want its own record, rather than having the only record be that created by a failed applicant with a far fetched claim! Just how is a general counsel going to shut down my recording the interview through the software (if that control is available to me) or through an iPhone in the room with me? 😎

Based on responses already provided by @LizzyM and @Goro, it sounds to me like guidelines provided to interviewers have changed substantially over the past few years, and that potentially inappropriate questions that might have been common in the past are forbidden today. It also sounds like the possibility of the creation of evidence of any potentially inappropriate lines of questioning, either by the school or by the candidate, will render any concerns I might have moot.

 

[LizzyM]

I've been interviewing candidates for longer than I've been a member of SDN (that's how I found this site, looking for tips on interviewing candidates) and for decades we've been told not to ask about all the protected classes (age, race, marital status, childbearing intentions, etc) as well as where else one has interviewed or been admitted. It is interesting to think that interviews could be recorded by the applicant and used in litigation. I've never heard of such a thing actually happening.

 

[KnightDoc]

I've been interviewing candidates for longer than I've been a member of SDN (that's how I found this site, looking for tips on interviewing candidates) and for decades we've been told not to ask about all the protected classes (age, race, marital status, childbearing intentions, etc) as well as where else one has interviewed or been admitted. It is interesting to think that interviews could be recorded by the applicant and used in litigation. I've never heard of such a thing actually happening.

As you undoubtedly know, you are truly one of the good guys. This is why you never did such a thing. In addition, from what I have surmised regarding the caliber of your school, there are no concerns in your corner of the world regarding where anyone else might have applied or interviewed. Other schools apparently do not have that luxury. I did a search on this and found several SDN threads circa 2010-12 in which this was common, so YMMV.

@gonnif is the one who suggested that lawyers at schools would never allow recording of Zoom interviews due to not wanting to create evidence of possible wrongdoing for production to potential litigants. I was just pointing out that the risk already exists with respect to everything else in an applicant's file, and that schools could not control what candidates do on their side of the camera, so, they might as well record in order to create their own record. You, of course, would have never heard of such a thing, since it only became a possibility with the advent of virtual interviews!

 

[LizzyM]

As you undoubtedly know, you are truly one of the good guys. This is why you never did such a thing. In addition, from what I have surmised regarding the caliber of your school, there are no concerns in your corner of the world regarding where anyone else might have applied or interviewed. Other schools apparently do not have that luxury. I did a search on this and found several SDN threads circa 2010-12 in which this was common, so YMMV.

@gonnif is the one who suggested that lawyers at schools would never allow recording of Zoom interviews due to not wanting to create evidence of possible wrongdoing for production to potential litigants. I was just pointing out that the risk already exists with respect to everything else in an applicant's file, and that schools could not control what candidates do on their side of the camera, so, they might as well record in order to create their own record. You, of course, would have never heard of such a thing, since it only became a possibility with the advent of virtual interviews!

For as long as there have been cell phones, there's been the possibility of audio recording interviews. We just don't hear of this sort of thing leading to litigation.

 

[KnightDoc]

For as long as there have been cell phones, there's been the possibility of audio recording interviews. We just don't hear of this sort of thing leading to litigation.

Sounds about right. So, @gonnif and his general counsels have nothing to worry about. I'd think they'd want to record to be able to investigate any allegations of inappropriate conduct, since it is so easy and inexpensive.

 

[KnightDoc]

I have interacted with multiple GC’s offices at length. its the management of such records and potential requests for extensive requests/orders that litigation presents. If the records never exists it removes any risk.

I am very school centric and very realistic in what students needto do to be successful. Since medical school admissions is a heavily negative process, that is any individual school needs remove some 85% of applicants prior to II. Whether it should be or not is not the point. I just try to tell people how the other side of this equation works

I get it, and I really do love you. You tell it like it is, and you don't sugar coat anything.

I'm just a wannabe consumer advocate here. I totally get that being a trouble maker is not a recipe for success in a sellers' market, which is why I was looking for tactful outs.

I was genuinely concerned when I started the thread, but the responses from @LizzyM and @Goro have allayed my fears and reassured me that my disclosure concern was misplaced. Schools are apparently now counseling their interviewers to avoid the question, in contrast to 10 years ago, as reflected in SDN posts from that era, probably due to guidance from AAMC regarding potential litigation risks as well as their experience over the past few cycles that they really don't need this information to successfully manage their process.

While I respect your perspective regarding lawyers not wanting to create evidence that might be used against their institutions, I wonder if it is misplaced in light of @LizzyM's observation that disgruntled applicants don't use surreptitious recordings that they could easily make? Why wouldn't schools want to use the technology at their disposal to create evidence to use to defend frivolous allegations?

 

[LunaOri]

At my school we do not record. Applicants are instructed that they are not allowed to record.

 

[KnightDoc]

My concern for your original question is you can get the annoying interviewer who keeps pressing you and that is what you have to do to prepare for, the worst case scenario. And so my original question still remains, you can remain steadfast in your resolve to not give any information no matter how much they press or you can give it up. You have to be prepared for that possibility.

Thank you for your sage advice. Don't worry, I am not going to be obstinate to the point of annoying the interviewer. First off, I really am less concerned than when I first posted. If push comes to shove, I will try to answer as @LizzyM suggested. If that doesn't work, I'll stick to naming schools in the geographical area and in the same tier, so that the interviewer should have nothing to worry about regarding my level of interest.

 

[voxveritatisetlucis]

I would just say list peer schools that have a similar vibe