interview went well?

[cooldude5555]

I've had a few interviews and I was just confused as to how you know the interview is going/went well? Everyone I talked to after the interview said that their interview was good. If that is really the case, how do they eliminate applicants based on the interview?! How do your tell your interview was actually really good?

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[LikeClockWork]

You might want to look at some of the "Interview Tips" threads to see suggestions for a good interview, then compare them to what you experienced.

In general, I understand that an interview that is more conversational than interrogation is best. If you feel like you gave a good impression of yourself, and didn't completely flounder on any questions, then that's the best you could have done. That would be a "good" interview on your part. I couldn't even begin to visit the motivations of the adcoms though, so I won't even try.

 

[postbacker]

Most interviewers are trained to try to leave the interviewee feeling "good" about the encounter...as the interviewee, therefore, you cannot judge "how it went" in terms of any conclusions the interviewer made about you...chances are an interviewer will focus on one very small factor early on in the interview - a choice of words, a facial expression you made, a hesitation (where there should not have been one), how you are dressed, etc. - to make a plus or minus recommendation on you.

In fact, I believe that these judgments are usually made in the first 30 seconds or so, and the fact that an interview "goes well" in your mind after that may be a function of the fact that the interviewer has already blackballed you and is just trying to fill the time with pleasantries, "how about this weather?" and the like...

 

[pittnative]

Most interviewers are trained to try to leave the interviewee feeling "good" about the encounter...as the interviewee, therefore, you cannot judge "how it went" in terms of any conclusions the interviewer made about you...chances are an interviewer will focus on one very small factor early on in the interview - a choice of words, a facial expression you made, a hesitation (where there should not have been one), how you are dressed, etc. - to make a plus or minus recommendation on you.

In fact, I believe that these judgments are usually made in the first 30 seconds or so, and the fact that an interview "goes well" in your mind after that may be a function of the fact that the interviewer has already blackballed you and is just trying to fill the time with pleasantries, "how about this weather?" and the like...

Harsh, though I totally agree. Conversational interviews seem great, but unless you're talking about your research/interests it's all just fluff and how will this interviewer remember you??? I've done several video-taped mock interviews and the best were when if the questions took a turn towards random crap I changed the subject back to something about me. It's nice when you're interviewer does most of the talking and you learn about the school, but isn't that what the tour/Q&A sessions are for?

 

[Lshapley]

Here is what I gathered from an interview workshop we just had at my postbac program.

The interviewers are very trained, in many cases they have been giving interviews for years...even decades! They know what to look for, like postbacker said, and can usually tell very quickly. That being said, they do go into the interview with an interview matrix. This matrix has some very specific qualities they are looking to rate you on. These are generally things like maturity and motivation to pursue medicine, but may include some other specific qualities as well (i.e., are you judgemental, etc) This is why it is so important to practice and think about answers to questions like "tell me about yourself?" and "why medicine?"

Also, the interviewer may interrogate you are act like your best friend. That really doesn't matter. What matters is that the interviewer's role is to be your advocate in the application process. THEY WANT TO LIKE YOU!!! Even if they don't act that way. Only a sociopath would volunteer time from their busy schedules to submarine potential medical school applicants.

 

[TheRealMD]

I know I had a "good" interview (better than average) when my interviewer actually went off on a rant about Iraq. I'm not exactly sure how we got there, but it was cool!

 

[EddieIndy]

My interview yesterday at IU went perfectly well... Until the ethics question. My interviewer kept clearing his throat while I was answering :/

 

[st0w]

I would tend to agree with postbacker.. Primarily because, it's human nature. People make their initial impressions/judgements usually within the first thirty seconds of meeting somebody. After that, it can be very hard to change them because the person is already looking at every action and word in the context of their existing impression/prejudice.

So your ethics response may or may not have had any impact on your overall review. It probably didn't - I would highly doubt that any one thing you say in an interview will completely sway the decision one way or another, unless you describe how you want to violate your interviewer and do bad things to them.

Granted, I would hope interviewers would go into things being more open-minded.. But who knows? I'd love to hear the likes of LizzyM or other adcoms chime in on this one, and gives us an insight into the psyche of the interviewer...

 

[BlueCow]

Here is what I gathered from an interview workshop we just had at my postbac program.

The interviewers are very trained, in many cases they have been giving interviews for years...even decades! They know what to look for, like postbacker said, and can usually tell very quickly. That being said, they do go into the interview with an interview matrix. This matrix has some very specific qualities they are looking to rate you on. These are generally things like maturity and motivation to pursue medicine, but may include some other specific qualities as well (i.e., are you judgemental, etc) This is why it is so important to practice and think about answers to questions like "tell me about yourself?" and "why medicine?"

Also, the interviewer may interrogate you are act like your best friend. That really doesn't matter. What matters is that the interviewer's role is to be your advocate in the application process. THEY WANT TO LIKE YOU!!! Even if they don't act that way. Only a sociopath would volunteer time from their busy schedules to submarine potential medical school applicants.

Most medical school interviewers are not professionally trained to interview as you have depicted. They are just normal people with a busy schedule.

From what I have seen, if you are grilled by the interviewers then they are interested in you. If you don't get too many questions then the interview is not going so good.

 

[Jpc984]

Isn't how you feel about an interview relative you your own experience? If I usually mess up answers, but did not at a certain interview, I will make the assumption that it went well.

However, the interviewer does not know your normal "interview ability" and has to compare you to everybody else.

In summary, I do not think it matters if you think an interview went well, it matters what the interviewers thought.

 

[medguy83]

I think you can generally tell whether or not an interview is going smoothly. However, the infamous "stress" interviews are fairly common as well. I remember a few friends being so stressed out because of an interview they felt went badly because of the combativeness or boredom of the interviewer. Later on, they found out that the interviewers gave them strong recommendations, so you never know. I say, be yourself, confident, honest, and prepare for any possible topics via browsing the feedback here on SDN. relax, and you should be fine.

 

[Kikaku21]

Most interviewers are trained to try to leave the interviewee feeling "good" about the encounter...as the interviewee, therefore, you cannot judge "how it went" in terms of any conclusions the interviewer made about you...chances are an interviewer will focus on one very small factor early on in the interview - a choice of words, a facial expression you made, a hesitation (where there should not have been one), how you are dressed, etc. - to make a plus or minus recommendation on you.

In fact, I believe that these judgments are usually made in the first 30 seconds or so, and the fact that an interview "goes well" in your mind after that may be a function of the fact that the interviewer has already blackballed you and is just trying to fill the time with pleasantries, "how about this weather?" and the like...

I doubt it.

I mean, this might be expected if you were interviewing for a job at a law firm or a large well organized company with some HR. You have to remember that you will be interviewed by doctors and students.... maybe a dean. Hate to say it, but most doctors are pretty busy, and probably don't spend a lot of time learning the subtleties of making someone feel like an interview is going well. Look, you will feel like your interview "goes well" if 2 things happen: 1. You don't choke on a question or back yourself into a corner. 2. The interviewer is "nice." By "nice" I mean he asks conversational, non-confrontational (i.e. prove yourself) type questions.

Now, in my experience, which is only a few med school interviews, but tons of non-med school interviews, its more about whether you connect with the interviewer and they feel you are genuine. You know how you can tell when someone is full of sh**? Well, an interviewer can also tell if you are full of sh**. At my most recent interview, my interviewer said he like my answers, and that he HAS talked to people who he thought were exagerating, or were non-genuine. So be real... Thats the best you can do.

Having been an interviewer myself, it is not just the first 30 seconds that count. Sure, first impressions are important, but never under estmiate the negative effects of stuffing your foot in your mouth 20 minutes into the interview.

 

[Kikaku21]

Most medical school interviewers are not professionally trained to interview as you have depicted. They are just normal people with a busy schedule.

From what I have seen, if you are grilled by the interviewers then they are interested in you. If you don't get too many questions then the interview is not going so good.

Even this isn't true. I have been in interviews where I was asking like 3 questions and the rest of the time, the guy sat and talked about himself. Then I was offered a job.

Seriously, its tough to tell sometimes.

 

[Daydreamer2008]

So basically, we come to the conclusion that you can never really tell if you did well on an interview until you receive the outcome

 

[flaahless]

I nailed one interview and I'm pretty sure I did well on the other. If I don't get accepted, it won't be because of my interview.

 

[Kikaku21]

I nailed one interview and I'm pretty sure I did well on the other. If I don't get accepted, it won't be because of my interview.

Yeah... Thats the other thing. The outcome in this case may not be related to the interview. You could get picked over someone else, or vice versa, for something totally unrelated to the interview.

 

[Jolie South]

Yeah... Thats the other thing. The outcome in this case may not be related to the interview. You could get picked over someone else, or vice versa, for something totally unrelated to the interview.

your interviewer might like you, but your interviewer is not the whole committee. your acceptance depends on more than just what happens in your interview.

 

[Kikaku21]

your interviewer might like you, but your interviewer is not the whole committee. your acceptance depends on more than just what happens in your interview.

Yep. The interviewers comments are just part of the package. Just like everything else. God, I can't wait for this process to be over.

 

[Quix]

I've had a grand total of three interviews for medical schools, so take this with a grain of salt.

Interview #1 (student interview): Very difficult to judge - while we had some things in common, the conversation felt a little forced and/or stilted at times.

Interview #2 (faculty interview at the same school): Much different experience; significant areas of common interest, very abstract discussion akin to one of my philosophy classes (and ultimately rated 9 out of 10 by the reviewer), interviewer indicated that he would recommend admission.

Result: Waitlisted

Interview #3 (faculty interview at a different school): significant areas of common interest (including local restaurants), very peer-oriented once he read my CV, indicated that he would recommend admission.

Result: Unknown for the next 4-6 weeks.

All of these interviews were billed as non-cognitive, and simply designed to get an idea of who you are as a person.

I get the impression that most people believe that they've nailed their interviews (myself included), but that subjective impression may have very little to do with the final result.

 

[postbacker]

I doubt it.

I mean, this might be expected if you were interviewing for a job at a law firm or a large well organized company with some HR. You have to remember that you will be interviewed by doctors and students.... maybe a dean. Hate to say it, but most doctors are pretty busy, and probably don't spend a lot of time learning the subtleties of making someone feel like an interview is going well. Look, you will feel like your interview "goes well" if 2 things happen: 1. You don't choke on a question or back yourself into a corner. 2. The interviewer is "nice." By "nice" I mean he asks conversational, non-confrontational (i.e. prove yourself) type questions.

Now, in my experience, which is only a few med school interviews, but tons of non-med school interviews, its more about whether you connect with the interviewer and they feel you are genuine. You know how you can tell when someone is full of sh**? Well, an interviewer can also tell if you are full of sh**. At my most recent interview, my interviewer said he like my answers, and that he HAS talked to people who he thought were exagerating, or were non-genuine. So be real... Thats the best you can do.

Having been an interviewer myself, it is not just the first 30 seconds that count. Sure, first impressions are important, but never under estmiate the negative effects of stuffing your foot in your mouth 20 minutes into the interview.

Doctors "make their living" forming quick judgments...the first 30 seconds or so are critical...make a poor first impression, and the interviewer may view all subsequent interactions as "confirming" their initial suspicions...

 

[Kikaku21]

Doctors "make their living" forming quick judgments...the first 30 seconds or so are critical...make a poor first impression, and the interviewer may view all subsequent interactions as "confirming" their initial suspicions...

I'd hate to have a doctor that made a diagnosis based on his first impression, instead of on a thorough history and physical, as well as an unbiased examination and differential diagnosis.

That said, having interviewed people who wish to join the firm I work for: First impressions are important, but they are not everything. My previous point stands. You can screw up an interview at some point other than the first 30 seconds. Furthermore, a good interviewer will want to truely know if you could be a good doctor and whether you would be a good fit for the school. Someone who is green at interviewing would know that first impressions do not tell the whole story, and be MORE LIKELY to consider the interview as a whole... Not less likely, as you suggest in your post earlier.

 

[TheRealMD]

I'd hate to have a doctor that made a diagnosis based on his first impression, instead of on a thorough history and physical, as well as an unbiased examination and differential diagnosis.

That said, having interviewed people who wish to join the firm I work for: First impressions are important, but they are not everything. My previous point stands. You can screw up an interview at some point other than the first 30 seconds. Furthermore, a good interviewer will want to truely know if you could be a good doctor and whether you would be a good fit for the school. Someone who is green at interviewing would know that first impressions do not tell the whole story, and be MORE LIKELY to consider the interview as a whole... Not less likely, as you suggest in your post earlier.

I hope you didn't make any kind of references like this anywhere in your app or during interviews. This is #1 way to piss off adcoms: doctor bashing.

By the way, this world isn't perfect. Maybe 2 minutes is all you may get with a patient in an emergency situation. Would you prefer the doctor not do anything out of fear of mistakes caused by incomplete info?

 

[sanchopanza]

Someone earlier said that med school interviewers have done it a lot before and are good at it. That's hopefully true for the majority of them, but it's definitely not the rule. I just had an interview with someone who clearly wasn't a seasoned interviewer (that was manifest in many ways).

So just keep in mind that you might get someone who's quite dedicated to the admissions process at the school and who will take the interviewer very seriously, you might get someone who just wants to have a comfortable conversation with you, you might get someone who is very busy and should have looked over your app. but hasn't, etc. Your interviewers are normal people too, so they could be nice and warm, clueless and aloof, or preoccupied and rude.

 

[Kikaku21]

I hope you didn't make any kind of references like this anywhere in your app or during interviews. This is #1 way to piss off adcoms: doctor bashing.

By the way, this world isn't perfect. Maybe 2 minutes is all you may get with a patient in an emergency situation. Would you prefer the doctor not do anything out of fear of mistakes caused by incomplete info?

You need to read my post again. I clearly was not doctor bashing. I was responding to postbackers post by making a hypothetical example. He said doctors "make a living" with blink judgements. My comment was an attempt to suggest that this is not the case and that a good doctor would NOT make a snap judgement.

As for emergencies, obviously you want a doctor who can make decisions with incomplete information. But, having shadowed an ER doc or 2, I can tell you that they attempt to gather AS MUCH relevant information as possible, be it patient or family testimony, imaging history--you name it. Then they make the best decision they can with the available information. Furthermore, they are AWARE of what information they are missing. They might talk about how diagnosis would have been easier had they had time to learn about X or Y.

Now, an interview IS NOT and emergency. I imagine a good ER doc would gather as much information as possible if he were your interviewer. In fact, in my opinion, that is what docs do-- they gather and assimilate information. Our hypothetical doctor would not make a snap judgement based on the look in your eye during the handshake.

 

[Phoenix.]

I thought my first interview today went great. I've had a ton of interviews in the corporate world, and hope I have a good sense of things by now. The interviews were conversational and interesting, and I saw them nodding, smiling, and approving of most of my responses. They also really tried to sell the school at the end (although they could do that for everyone). Finally, they both told me something to the effect that I'd do very well and have lots of options. *shrug* Regardless, it was very nice to hear!

 

[enigmaticsea]

i can never tell if an interview went well because first i thought as long as it was conversational, i gave them genuine answers, and i wasn't acting crazy, then it went well.

then i thought, it's so competitive out there, so many excellent candidates and i am sure lots of people can hold a decent conversation. so how is a good conversation going to distinguish me from other applicants, and eventually win me that precious spot? wouldn't i have to sell myself? but i hate to use every question to say, oh i have learned this and that lesson and that's why i will be a good doctor. wouldn't that be kinda stretching it?

some ppl have said that you should go into an interview with a message, and don't leave the interview without having conveyed the points. so every question asked should be a chance to make your point across. i can never do that!!!! whats wrong with me? i always just get caught up in the conversation and don't really convey any point at all, except let the conversation flow. for example this interviewer asked me about why my parents decided to move to america. i told him my whole entire family story but failed to say anything about how it made me stronger, more independent, etc. yes it was a good conversation, but i thought i wasn't satisfied with my interview performance.

 

[etf]

you'll know your interview went well if you get an acceptance from them. you'll know if your fellow interviewees' interviews went well if you see them there next year.

 

[chickenlittle84]

I came out of the one interview I had had so far feeling pretty good, but was thrown off when ALL of the interviewers felt like they had a really great, laid-back interview...we did not all have a great interview.

But I am fairly confident that mine went well based on feedback I received from the interviewer while we were conversing. Statements such as "Your energy is contagious," "You could do anything you wanted to within this field," have led me to believe that mine was one of the interviews that actually did go well. I guess he could have just been trying to make me feel comfortable, but that would be a little too nice of him.

Now does this mean I will get in? Not at all...he is one person who seemed to like me, but I am guessing there will be MANY more on this adcom who will have a serious problem with giving me a chance based on my weaknesses...

 

[pukuhouse]

I've had a grand total of three interviews for medical schools, so take this with a grain of salt.

Interview #1 (student interview): Very difficult to judge - while we had some things in common, the conversation felt a little forced and/or stilted at times.

Interview #2 (faculty interview at the same school): Much different experience; significant areas of common interest, very abstract discussion akin to one of my philosophy classes (and ultimately rated 9 out of 10 by the reviewer), interviewer indicated that he would recommend admission.

Result: Waitlisted

Interview #3 (faculty interview at a different school): significant areas of common interest (including local restaurants), very peer-oriented once he read my CV, indicated that he would recommend admission.

Result: Unknown for the next 4-6 weeks.

All of these interviews were billed as non-cognitive, and simply designed to get an idea of who you are as a person.

I get the impression that most people believe that they've nailed their interviews (myself included), but that subjective impression may have very little to do with the final result.

you have already been waitlisted at a school??? i find that surprising. but i guess adcoms can do anythign they want with us.

 

[Phoenix.]

you have already been waitlisted at a school??? i find that surprising. but i guess adcoms can do anythign they want with us.

He also applied last year. I'm guessing he was referring to that application cycle.

 

[MassTransport]

I'm sure most interviews go well in the sense that no invectives were thrown around. I'm also sure that you can't judge how well your interview went.

The question is if a good interview promises admission, and that isn't the case. There was a thread this or last week that had a poll that asked what happened after an interviewer straight out said that s/he would push for your admission. Turns out a good chunk went to waitlist or rejection.

 

[armybound]

I think the interview goes well if you're able to tell them why you belong at their school. The conversation may go poorly and you may get grilled, but if you sell yourself, you did all you could.

It's up to the committee to decide if that's good enough for acceptance.

 

[chespirido]

I think the interview goes well if you're able to tell them why you belong at their school. The conversation may go poorly and you may get grilled, but if you sell yourself, you did all you could.

It's up to the committee to decide if that's good enough for acceptance.

I 100% agree with this. You dont necessarily need all the "correct" ethical answers, the people interviewing you want to get a feel for whether or not they would be comfortable having you around on a regular basis.

 

[CONSTANCE35]

Personally, I can feel if the interview went well, but there so many other factors which can make you determine whether you were great or not. On of them is the interviewers' reactions, another the period which passes between the interview and the moment they call you back...and so on. Read these interview tips and suggestions.
Ah! Another thing....have you followed-up after the interview?

 

[g8terboi]

those who have received post-interview responses from schools should take this poll: http://forums.studentdoctor.net/showthread.php?t=462520

it's not scientific, but at least we get to see general patterns among many different interviewees/interviewers