Interviews-popularity contests?

[deleted445355]

Advertisement - Members don't see this ad

Hi,

I was just wondering if any of you would be willing to share if any of your perceptions of how well your interviews went correlated to your acceptance outcome to medical schools. I have heard of others saying how they felt they did well in an interview and clicked with an interviewer only to get up rejected or waitlisted. The reason I ask is that I've had bad luck all this year finding some random part-time jobs in my home town to fill my gap year. I attended several interviews and felt I did well, only to be rejected from the jobs I applied to. I'm nervous this trend will continue to hold when I interview for medical school next year and frankly, I'm pretty freaked about that since I'm starting to think there is something wrong with me. I feel like interviews are essentially a popularity contest and no matter how good your answers are or now friendly or charming you are, people are ultimately going to choose those they like and click with. Please let me know your perceptions on the interview process and whether you think I am making myself overly anxious.


Thanks,

PP

 

[Lost in Translation]

I felt I clicked with my interviewer at BU. I was deferred from the January decisions and then ultimately WL'd. The way they worded their WL, it seems that there was a good chance I could have gotten in off of it, but I can't see myself living in Buttf—I mean, Boston, for the rest of my life. Absolutely loved the school, though.

 

[chonc]

Two things: qualifications and situational awareness. You could've been a good match personality-wise, but there may have been other applicants who were better qualified for the job in some way. At my job, we picked our second favorite applicant simply because that person could commit an extra year. Second, I'm not saying that you and your interviewer didn't bond, but perhaps the "click" wasn't actually there. It's hard to gauge how well liked you are at an interview because of course, each side is showing their best face. I have no idea what specific issues you have during an interview but I'd say that in general exhibiting a balance between modesty & confidence + genuine answers with candidness (be professional) will earn you brownie points. On my interview trail (n=10), I found that my general perception post-interview correlated very much with the outcome.

 

[MaxPlancker]

I feel as if you can kind of tell the interviewer's general impression of you by emailing them a thank-you. I got into the schools where my interviewers responded with rather long replies to my emails (one even did though the admissions office said they tell all interviewers to ignore emails). Sometimes my interviewer actually emailed me which also ended in positive results. Of course, this is just an n=1 experience but I feel that if your interviewer takes the time to respond in a lengthy email, it is certainly not a bad sign (at least they remember you). Lastly, if your interviewer doesn't respond, it means nothing; they could just be busy etc.

 

[Lannister]

I now have zero trust in my impressions of how an interview went.
Case: clicked really well with both of my interviewers, felt very confident, wait listed.
Cincinnati: cried during interview, accepted.

Sent from my HTC6535LVW using SDN mobile

 

[Lannister]

One of my older, nontrad applicants as part of the adversity/challenge secondary essay write how her husband announced how he wanted to divorce a week before finals in postbacc. The interviewer she had at this Ivy was a psychiatrist who asked her about the divorce. Led to her nearly breaking down talking about the divorce, house foreclosure, etc while the doctor seemed to fall into a classic psychiatric interviewer (And what do you think about that?). By far it was her worst interview of the several she had. She attends the school today

Aww well that's great she got in! My interviewer at Case was a pediatric pulmonologist and we got into this long discussion about my seasonal allergies and what I use to treat them LOL.

Sent from my HTC6535LVW using SDN mobile

 

[mr.mkitty]

During one of my interviews we spent probably 5-10 minutes talking about football and fantasy football.. Another one of my interviews we spent 10-15 minutes conversing about a car I had restored and about different places we like to eat at..
With interviews I think it's important to realize two things:
1) Obviously if your interview does go well, it does give you a better chance.. but the committee still makes the decision based on a plethora of other factors.
2) Being able to connect and converse with a variety of people is obviously a quality that adcoms want to see in their 'matriculants.' Also, I felt really good after my interviews in which I was able to converse about things non-medically related.
3) Do mock interviews! They help a ton and will give you a more natural ability to converse rather than just talk on and on about the details of activities you did, ect.

 

[ace_inhibitor111]

This is exactly why the MMI was created. I don't know why it isn't more widespread by now.

 

[DesitnationMD]

Hi,

I was just wondering if any of you would be willing to share if any of your perceptions of how well your interviews went correlated to your acceptance outcome to medical schools. I have heard of others saying how they felt they did well in an interview and clicked with an interviewer only to get up rejected or waitlisted. The reason I ask is that I've had bad luck all this year finding some random part-time jobs in my home town to fill my gap year. I attended several interviews and felt I did well, only to be rejected from the jobs I applied to. I'm nervous this trend will continue to hold when I interview for medical school next year and frankly, I'm pretty freaked about that since I'm starting to think there is something wrong with me. I feel like interviews are essentially a popularity contest and no matter how good your answers are or now friendly or charming you are, people are ultimately going to choose those they like and click with. Please let me know your perceptions on the interview process and whether you think I am making myself overly anxious.


Thanks,

PP

I had 8 interviews, and they all went really well. In my experience, the more conversational my interviews became, the better I did and I was accepted 5/8 schools). The 3 schools i did not get into, the interviews were much more formal, and had some odd questions that to me, didn't seem to be related to much of anything medical student wise. I also had a group interview at a school which I did not get into. that was the worst to me.
I would agree 100% that its all about maknig a good personal impression. if you can get an interview, odds are you have the #s to get in, its amatter of do you fit the school. the same goes for residency interviews from what I've heard from friends. Do there people want to work with you for the next 3-5 years?

you cannot succeed in any business or industry without people skills, even medicine. this is exactly the point of the interview. to find out who YOU are beyond your stats and app info.

 

[Penguin33]

In my own (n=1) experience, I'd say that feeling good/bad about interviews didn't mean that much. I had several interviewers at a school tell me they thought I'd thrive there, and I didn't get in. I had a terrible interview at another school (my interviewer literally asked me "why BU?" and when I answered, said "that's too generic. that's true of everywhere." and I kind of just stared at her and said "well, I don't know what you want to say then.) and still was accepted there.

I think it helps to remember how some of these schools do admissions as well. For some of them, the interview is important, but ultimately does not have that much weight. For one of my unsuccessful schools, it was a committee of 30 that ultimately voted on each applicant. I'm guessing even if my 4-6 interviewers absolutely loved me and went to bat for me, if the others thought my stats/etc weren't a good match, it wouldn't make a difference. For a lot of these committees, the actual number of people who met you are still in the minority, which can be both positive and negative depending on your paper application. For one of my schools they told us to think of the interviews as having extra letters of rec-- people would write about how they felt about you in their interaction, but ultimately it was just one more piece to be added to your file for the final committee decision, where people would vote on each file for "waitlist," "accept," and "reject."

 

[virchow?]

I had an interview where it went super well and my interviewer literally said "I think you would be an excellent addition to the incoming 'ABC School' class," then got wait-listed. Conversely, thought I sounded unprepared and awkward in another school's interview with a panel of mostly stone-faced interviewers and got accepted.

 

[NeuResurgens]

The acdoms on this website have often said that students are notorious poor evaluators of how their interviews went. Many students who feel they did poorly get in, while those who think they did fantastically often get rejected. How you feel afterward often has nothing to do with how well it actually went.

 

[Goro]

Sorry to tell you this, but it's not about you, but about the patients.

Based upon the posts of SDNers, I conclude that most people are very poor judges of their own interview performance.

And med school interviews are not a zero sum game, so they're NOT popularity contests.

Hi,

I was just wondering if any of you would be willing to share if any of your perceptions of how well your interviews went correlated to your acceptance outcome to medical schools. I have heard of others saying how they felt they did well in an interview and clicked with an interviewer only to get up rejected or waitlisted. The reason I ask is that I've had bad luck all this year finding some random part-time jobs in my home town to fill my gap year. I attended several interviews and felt I did well, only to be rejected from the jobs I applied to. I'm nervous this trend will continue to hold when I interview for medical school next year and frankly, I'm pretty freaked about that since I'm starting to think there is something wrong with me. I feel like interviews are essentially a popularity contest and no matter how good your answers are or now friendly or charming you are, people are ultimately going to choose those they like and click with. Please let me know your perceptions on the interview process and whether you think I am making myself overly anxious.


Thanks,

PP

 

[El-Rami]

I had an interview that I felt went really well and got into that school. I also know folks with great applications who get rejected or waitlisted even after an interview they felt went really well.

There is a lot of subjectivity when it comes to these things. One can give very great answers to questions but still somehow leave doubt about their motivation for becoming a physician. It also seems that a good interview doesn't necessarily carry a lot of weight in admissions decisions while a poor interview does.

 

[NeuResurgens]

It also seems that a good interview doesn't necessarily carry a lot of weight in admissions decisions while a poor interview does.

I'd say probably true, but isn't that how most of the med school application game is though? So many qualified people trying to get into medical school that it seems like adcoms might have an easier time remembering the bad standouts than the good ones.

 

[DesitnationMD]

Sorry to tell you this, but it's not about you, but about the patients.

Based upon the posts of SDNers, I conclude that most people are very poor judges of their own interview performance.

And med school interviews are not a zero sum game, so they're NOT popularity contests.

"About the patients" Can you elaborate? Do you mean beside manner potential, communication skills,? I assume my smarts can be gauged via my app info. Would you say the interview is like a personality test/evaluation? I have met plenty of odd, rude or just plain arrogant people who got into medical school.

I don't think anyone here said interviews are a 0 sum game, but admissions is one, correct? And interviews are one part of the admissions process.

What would you say is an objective sign of a "good interview" a student can take away?

 

[Goro]

Yes, precisely. Interview candidates are viewed as future colleagues, and someone who might be touching my kids or your mom some day. We try to envision them as if they're wearing the white coat.

Interviews are not a zero sum game in that when you go interview, you are interviewing for a seat. It's not you vs John vs Sally for a single seat. If all three of you are good, all three get accepts.

This is impossible to answer. Your interviewer may love you but the Admissions Dean, or the Dean him/herself, might override the Adcom. Interviewers are trained to be polite and even if they say nice things to you to your face, that's just one interviewer. And most people are terrible judges of how they interview.


What would you say is an objective sign of a "good interview" a student can take away?

"About the patients" Can you elaborate? Do you mean beside manner potential, communication skills,? I assume my smarts can be gauged via my app info. Would you say the interview is like a personality test/evaluation? I have met plenty of odd, rude or just plain arrogant people who got into medical school.

I don't think anyone here said interviews are a 0 sum game, but admissions is one, correct? And interviews are one part of the admissions process.

What would you say is an objective sign of a "good interview" a student can take away?