Medical Interviewing at my top choice - Should I name drop and mention that I want to stay within the system?

[MusicDOc124]

---

Members don't see this ad.

I was hoping to receive advice on possible approaches to take for an upcoming interview I have. I would like to continue my residency, fellowship, etc there as the schools and affiliated organizations are internationally recognized within the field.

My questions are:
* Is it worth mentioning that I'd like to grow and continue my career within the university and affiliated institutions if possible? The school does tout ~50% retention of their MD students to their residencies.

* I'm also fairly familiar with quite a few of the physician-scientists work (some even prior to being at the school). Is this worth mentioning in bits and pieces throughout the interview that their work and potential mentorship (on top of the typical curriculum, funding, etc) are a strong driver for me having chosen the medical school?

* I know an MS1 and a former medical student who was involved in admissions who have given me some insight into the school. Should I name drop them or simply vaguely mention them as an additional reason for knowing the school is a good fit for me.

Thank you for helping me out. Its my first interview so I'm obviously nervous. I really want to get this right because its an incredibly good fit for what I hope to accomplish in my career.

1) It's not worth mentioning anything that specific as so much changes during med school. It's better to frame is that you're from the area (if you are) and wish to remain close by. A med school it's going to select you for stating you want to stay with them as that's unrealistic to some extent. What is realistic and plausible is having connections to the area and wanting to be near those connections.

2) It won't hurt to mention them, but that depends on the context. If you've done research yourself and maybe cited them, or if their work is similar to what you've worked on, that would be great. Just going off rambling about their work instead of about you would NOT be great. They don't want a "brown-noser" - they want a solid, independent applicant who will do solid work and be successful.

3) I would not name drop as you do not know how they are perceived at the school, for better or worse. It would not hurt to mention you know a few people here and that that has given you some insight as to the culture that you do not have elsewhere, and thus why you have aim for this school, or something to that effect.

Just be you. Do not think you're gonna be sly or have some magic sentence you say that will give you an auto-accept. When interviewing you, they want to get to know you - you as a person, you as an applicant, you as a future physician. They don't want to know that you know XYZ, and you're friends with ABC, and you know about someones obscure research from 10 years ago (obviously a little sarcasm here, but you get the point).

Be you and good luck!

 

[Mr.Smile12]

Who is interviewing you? What's the format?

No, don't drop any names of people you know on the committee except to say you've networked with them. They should recuse themselves from deliberating on your file.

Unless you're interviewing for a research position, knowing about their research may not have any impact. You need to focus on the curricular offerings and rotation opportunities at least.

Do mock interviews. Get the nerves out and be confident in whatever happens.

Sent from my SM-N960U using SDN mobile

 

[Mr.Smile12]

1-on-1 and its a physician from what I can gather.

I should have clarified, its a student who was formerly involved with the admissions committee, not currently.

The school has this incorporated into their curriculum and swaths of internationally recognized faculty/staff within the field of medicine I plan to be involved in.

Of course I'd be bringing up that massive health network, funding, and support/resources that the school has to offer coupled with how their curriculum structure is a good fit for me. I was hoping to "reciprocate" the schools utility/resources made available to students with my unique skill set and background etc.

I do take your points though and I had concerns of jumping towards this angle and instead just being myself, making conversation etc. I'm pretty talkative and easy-going so I could always just go that route.

How many one-on-ones? Just physicians or are researchers included? Alumni?

Students on admissions committees are generally to provide insight to the committee and don't (shouldn't?) have voting rights. The impact of a particular student serving on the admissions committee can be negligible. Of course, as a director of admissions, I also have some serious ethical issues with students on admissions committees acting as admissions counselors while they are reviewing applications.

I've been around academic administration to have a balanced perspective regarding faculty. Yes, they can be very impressive, but it doesn't mean they'll be your teachers or be your best teachers. Schools have adopted focused sub-curriculum for a while (which I like rather than having everyone go through a cookie-cutter curriculum or only a select few getting the opportunity to "choose their own path"), so know the ones you are attracted to, including how you would gain experience to help position you for residency later on.

1 1-on-1. I cant find any more in depth information beyond that. The student is not involved in the adcom anymore.

I'll make sure to have that in mind. The SCP is technically a select few but for informatics it can only be applied to during fall of MS1.

 

[lord999]

If you are going into informatics as an MSTP, know that the institution that you are applying to has very, very demarcated lines ever since Clem McDonald was at Wishard. I echo the advice above not to name drop, because I will bet good money that there is at least one person on your committee that will be hostile to be your name drop. In fact, IUPUI, Regenstrief, and IU School of Medicine have a complicated interrelationship and there have been several attempts by university administration between the institutions to promote a more cooperative than competitive atmosphere.

 

[lord999]

did you mean competitive rather than cooperative? I'm also a regular MD candidate not MSTP. Why the hostility if so many of the investigators are also faculty at the medical school?

I think you have a ways to go to understand how medical scientists work when funding is involved. No, competition has never been the problem there. And, if you do not know, then I would definitely reinforce not name dropping and your statement needs to be reexamined as the relationship between the different institutions is not necessarily interdisciplinary.

 

[Goro]

did you mean competitive rather than cooperative? I'm also a regular MD candidate not MSTP. Why the hostility if so many of the investigators are also faculty at the medical school?

What my wise colleagues are trying to get across is that Faculty at med schools are mere human beings and as such, have all of their flaws. We do not live is a happy , kumbaya world, and some PIs, even at my school, despise each other! At Harvard, there's blood on the floor. Further, just because a PI is well renowned in their field, they may not be known to people in other specialties or fields.