interviews are a waste of time

[al3kci2]

after a few interviews it's becoming apparent that interviews are a waste of time. it's just a bunch of people acting phony. that's it. plus it's expensive and most tours aren't that great and consist mostly of a 5 minute walk and then a meal at the cafeteria. i didn't suddenly want to attend a school because the outside of a building was so impressive, or because a med student said the school was great (are there any schools where med students DON'T praise the school to interviewees???). they should save us money and forget the interviews. instead just send us a dvd showcasing the school (and the almighty cafeteria) and do a phone interview or videotaped regional interview or don't even bother with it. don't make us waste hundreds of dollars. they would save money with the dvd tour and could in turn reduce are app fees as well.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[drguy22]

after a few interviews it's becoming apparent that interviews are a waste of time. it's just a bunch of people acting phony. that's it. plus it's expensive and most tours aren't that great and consist mostly of a 5 minute walk and then a meal at the cafeteria. i didn't suddenly want to attend a school because the outside of a building was so impressive, or because a med student said the school was great (are there any schools where med students DON'T praise the school to interviewees???). they should save us money and forget the interviews. instead just send us a dvd showcasing the school (and the almighty cafeteria) and do a phone interview or videotaped regional interview or don't even bother with it. don't make us waste hundreds of dollars. they would save money with the dvd tour and could in turn reduce are app fees as well.

i disagree...then how are the med skools supposed to weed out the nerds that have no life and personality????? they also show how you interact with people FACE TO FACE not phone to phone.

 

[wends]

maybe a waste of time for us, but it is very impt for schools, its their job to make a class up, and i cant see that be an easy thing to do....

 

[stinkycheese]

i disagree...then how are the med skools supposed to weed out the nerds that have no life and personality????? they also show how you interact with people FACE TO FACE not phone to phone.

I havent been on any interviews yet, but I can safely say that I doubt they are an accurate reflection of how most people act in a regular setting, even in a professional one: we're not all going to be sitting up ramrod straight, on our best behavior, in our best clothes and shoes, for every minute of our professional life. It's all part of the dance, and they wanna know if you can get jiggy wid it.

 

[Dr.LeoSpaceman]

I havent been on any interviews yet, but I can safely say that I doubt they are an accurate reflection of how most people act in a regular setting, even in a professional one: we're not all going to be sitting up ramrod straight, on our best behavior, in our best clothes and shoes, for every minute of our professional life. It's all part of the dance, and they wanna know if you can get jiggy wid it.

True, they are not accurate to what we are not like normally. However, there are some qualities that you can see no matter what situation you are in. Just like its impossible to change people, its impossible (for the vast majority of people) to act in 2 completely different ways. These interviewers have seen enough applicants that they can pick out the important points, and wade through all the bull**** people throw at them.

 

[Mumpu]

I'd still show up -- interviews are as much as 50% of the admissions decision. It's a chance for you to see the school which is very important considering how much money and time you'll be putting in.

If you pick your schools carefully (i.e. realistically), you won't need to travel to 50 places.

 

[LUBDUBB]

They just want know if you are someone who others feel comfortable around, or uncomfortable.

 

[juniper456]

after a few interviews it's becoming apparent that interviews are a waste of time. it's just a bunch of people acting phony. that's it. plus it's expensive and most tours aren't that great and consist mostly of a 5 minute walk and then a meal at the cafeteria. i didn't suddenly want to attend a school because the outside of a building was so impressive, or because a med student said the school was great (are there any schools where med students DON'T praise the school to interviewees???). they should save us money and forget the interviews. instead just send us a dvd showcasing the school (and the almighty cafeteria) and do a phone interview or videotaped regional interview or don't even bother with it. don't make us waste hundreds of dollars. they would save money with the dvd tour and could in turn reduce are app fees as well.

thank you, holden caulfield. . .

 

[Megalofyia]

It would save SOOOO much money not to have to fly to places to interview. I'm with the OP. There is no way an interview is as much as 50% of our application.. IF anything it's probably more like 5 - 10%.

 

[Rugger81]

While I don't agree with the OP in that intervviews are a waste of time, I do think med schools could do a MUCH better job of organzing them. These middle of the week interviews are ridiculous. How are we supposed to deal with jobs and getting time off? And it is so damn expensive, unless you have a trust fund, you gotta work.


veeeeeeery frustrating.

 

[gtb]

After interviewing 10 - 25 people every day in the clinic for several decades, most physicians interviewing applicants are very skilled in determining whether the person they see in the interview is the same person in the application. They are trying to determine how well you communicate, your approach to problem solving, attitude and response to criticism, if you have some type of personality disorder, and if you're the type of person who will make it through medical school. Unfortunately a bad interview will likely keep you out of that medical school.

 

[leechy]

after a few interviews it's becoming apparent that interviews are a waste of time. it's just a bunch of people acting phony. that's it. plus it's expensive and most tours aren't that great and consist mostly of a 5 minute walk and then a meal at the cafeteria. i didn't suddenly want to attend a school because the outside of a building was so impressive, or because a med student said the school was great (are there any schools where med students DON'T praise the school to interviewees???). they should save us money and forget the interviews. instead just send us a dvd showcasing the school (and the almighty cafeteria) and do a phone interview or videotaped regional interview or don't even bother with it. don't make us waste hundreds of dollars. they would save money with the dvd tour and could in turn reduce are app fees as well.

I entirely agree that the interviews are a waste of time for the applicants. I do think it's a useful tool for the schools, BUT I wish schools would do regional interviews. I'm sure schools would get a broader geographic range of applicants if they did regional interviews, and it would certainly save us poor applicants a lot of time and money. One downside to regional interviews is that you don't get to see the school, but chances are, if you got in you would visit there anyway (and in fact, many people re-visit a school after getting in, since your impressions on interview day can be inaccurate or hurried). The whole idea of making a person fly all over the place, only to reject them half or two-thirds the time, is frustrating. If anything, I think schools should interview fewer people (so the acceptance rate for interviewees would be higher, like 70 or 80%). I think the interview should mostly be a check to make sure the person isn't totally socially inept and is normal. Putting a lot of weight on the interview, as some schools do, can backfire - in the sense that schools end up accepting the kids who are savviest at marketing themselves in the interview (and this doesn't always correlate with having the best personality for a physician).

 

[Ypo.]

I entirely agree that the interviews are a waste of time for the applicants. I do think it's a useful tool for the schools, BUT I wish schools would do regional interviews. I'm sure schools would get a broader geographic range of applicants if they did regional interviews, and it would certainly save us poor applicants a lot of time and money. One downside to regional interviews is that you don't get to see the school, but chances are, if you got in you would visit there anyway (and in fact, many people re-visit a school after getting in, since your impressions on interview day can be inaccurate or hurried). The whole idea of making a person fly all over the place, only to reject them half or two-thirds the time, is frustrating. If anything, I think schools should interview fewer people (so the acceptance rate for interviewees would be higher, like 70 or 80%). I think the interview should mostly be a check to make sure the person isn't totally socially inept and is normal. Putting a lot of weight on the interview, as some schools do, can backfire - in the sense that schools end up accepting the kids who are savviest at marketing themselves in the interview (and this doesn't always correlate with having the best personality for a physician).

Good points.
I agree, being able to smooth-talk under stressful situations-not a very becoming characteristic-better suited for car-dealerships. Seriously, I know this girl who told me her reasons for choosing medicine were
1. Respect from people
2. Earn lots of money
But in the interview, she completely kissed @$$ and won them over. Boy o boy.

 

[Bones2008]

I think the naysayers about interviews are missing a few important points:

1. Most doctors interact heavily with a variety of different people in a variety of situations every single day. It would be foolish for any admissions committee to allow someone to represent their school for the rest of his/her life without first making sure that the applicant can interact with people he/she doesn't know ahead of time.

2. Many committees try to pick a class that will bond and work well together. Numbers and words on a page are not enough information for this purpose.

3. Interviews are for the applicant, too. You could potentially be spending the next four (or more) years of life at a particular school. You owe it to yourself to check it out in person, and the adcoms want to make sure they bring people in who won't be disappointed with the setting once they arrive. Note that regional interviews would eliminate this benefit for the applicant entirely.

4. Being able to "smooth-talk [or keep cool] under stressful situations" is an absolutely necessary characteristic for a physician. In fact, it's probably one of the most important qualities a competent doctor can have. The job is an incredibly stressful one, and being able to keep cool and talk to people calmly in the heat of the moment is essential.

5. For the above reasons, unless you have a 3.9/42, interviews make up a lot more than 5-10% of the interview process.

Good luck to everyone on all your interviews; and don't forget that they're for your benefit, too.

 

[bewitched1081]

after a few interviews it's becoming apparent that interviews are a waste of time. it's just a bunch of people acting phony. that's it. plus it's expensive and most tours aren't that great and consist mostly of a 5 minute walk and then a meal at the cafeteria. i didn't suddenly want to attend a school because the outside of a building was so impressive, or because a med student said the school was great (are there any schools where med students DON'T praise the school to interviewees???). they should save us money and forget the interviews. instead just send us a dvd showcasing the school (and the almighty cafeteria) and do a phone interview or videotaped regional interview or don't even bother with it. don't make us waste hundreds of dollars. they would save money with the dvd tour and could in turn reduce are app fees as well.

it does cost a lot of money to go to interviews but i found that the interviews were very informative. the atmosphere and local area of a school are difficult to convey on a screen.

 

[IndyZX]

the ideal situation for the applicant would be to have no on-site interviews. of course, youd be missing out on the whole "checking out the school thing", but that can be done after youve narrowed down your acceptances.

 

[constructor]

yeah i feel they need to do remote interviews at at least a few schools... that way it'll be like the regular season - you play some on the road and you play some at home. can't expect us to win much if we can play at most 1 game at home and every other game on the road. poor analogy, but it's unfair what we have to do here and how much we have to spend.

 

[kstone13]

People seem to be overtly optimistic when discussing the real purpose of interviews. The interviewers dont look for reasons to select you, they look for reasons to screen you out and that's an important distinction. theyknow you're qualified and wouldnt invite you if they felt otherwise.

if people started thinkin in terms of what they can do in order to minimize reasons for an interviewer to screen them out instead of how you can impress them, i think they'd be better off. thats the reality and your fooling yourself if you think or do otherwise.

 

[IndyZX]

People seem to be overtly optimistic when discussing the real purpose of interviews. The interviewers dont look for reasons to select you, they look for reasons to screen you out and that's an important distinction. theyknow you're qualified and wouldnt invite you if they felt otherwise.

if people started thinkin in terms of what they can do in order to minimize reasons for an interviewer not to screen them out instead of how you can impress them, i think they'd be better off. thats the reality and your fooling yourself if you think or do otherwise.

that sounds nice and all, but in an interview setting "not screwing up" and "being impressive" are almost the same thing.

top schools dont need you to screw up to reject you, im sure they reject their share of decent interviewees.

 

[kstone13]

that sounds nice and all, but in an interview setting "not screwing up" and "being impressive" are almost the same thing.

top schools dont need you to screw up to reject you, im sure they reject their share of decent interviewees.

all im saying is that its a matter of perspective and people who think that its all about making the good things stand out annoy me to no end. you have your flaws and pple shouldnt be ashamed to state that masking them is half the battle.

 

[Ypo.]

I think the naysayers about interviews are missing a few important points:



4. Being able to "smooth-talk [or keep cool] under stressful situations" is an absolutely necessary characteristic for a physician. In fact, it's probably one of the most important qualities a competent doctor can have. The job is an incredibly stressful one, and being able to keep cool and talk to people calmly in the heat of the moment is essential.



Good luck to everyone on all your interviews; and don't forget that they're for your benefit, too.

Oh boy, I'm not saying interviews are not important - they are for many reasons. I was just making one tiny little point that sometimes people who have less than honorable intentions sneak in to medical school thru their ability to "smooth-talk"-whereas someone else who might have excellent communication skills-but flub their first interviews because they are nervous and want it so badly (for all the right reasons) don't get in. What was more important and pertinent to the admission of those students? Their ability to BS and smooth talk? I don't think so. The best smooth-talkers are not necessarily the best or most compassionate doctors (as we saw from my example). I'm not talking about good communication skills, which are important, but how can you get a good grasp on that from one high-stress interview? Many people learn to communicate better-if the desire and will is there, they will learn, and all students learn clinical skills. Smooth-talking is a necessary trait for the law field; medical students need compassion, sincerity, and of course an ability to communicate. But smooth-talk? I don't know...Of course, I disagree that "smooth-talk" is the same as keeping your head under stressful situations. One implies dishonesty and the ability to pull the wool over someone's eyes; the other implies, well, an ability to think and act well under stress.
Of course, any selection criteria you use is always going to have its flaws. I realize that, and was simply pointing one of them out.

 

[Ajay]

I havent been on any interviews yet, but I can safely say that I doubt they are an accurate reflection of how most people act in a regular setting, even in a professional one: we're not all going to be sitting up ramrod straight, on our best behavior, in our best clothes and shoes, for every minute of our professional life. It's all part of the dance, and they wanna know if you can get jiggy wid it.

You'd be surprised at how easy it is to recognize a disingenuous person.

 

[Ajay]

You'd be surprised at how easy it is to recognize a disingenuous person.

And yet plenty of jerks get into med school. But hey, we need surgeons too!

 

[Pinkertinkle]

Haha, I'm liking the talking to self thing you got going on Ajay.

 

[Bones2008]

And yet plenty of jerks get into med school. But hey, we need surgeons too!

And yet plenty of stereotypical a$$holes get into med school. But hey, we need people in our class to look down on, too!

so for one so unacquainted with medical education, I'd refrain from this kind of $hit if I were you. all it does it piss a lot of people off while making you seem like an idiot. stop trying to be cool, because you're not. all the cool people go into business or law school.

 

[Peterock]

You'd be surprised at how easy it is to recognize a disingenuous person.

Really? I think at least four of my individual interviewers said I was one of the most compassionate/genuine people they'd ever come across (not to my face, well one did, but in their written reviews).

Chumps, so easily fooled....