Midyear Interview Scoring System

[pharmdfellow]

Advertisement - Members don't see this ad

From what I've heard from current and past fellows, interviewers numerically score candidates using a score card.

Is there anyone here who can shed light on the scoring system and how heavily this plays into progressing through interviews?

 

[patmcd]

Are you referring to industry fellowships?

 

[Argentium]

From what I've heard from current and past fellows, interviewers numerically score candidates using a score card.

Is there anyone here who can shed light on the scoring system and how heavily this plays into progressing through interviews?

Maybe for first round, but second round is usually on-site with middle management from what I understand

 

[IndustryPharmD]

Depends on a company. Each company uses a very different form to evaluate candidates (and some may not be using a form at all, though all the programs I have ever spoken with do). Different programs look for different things, obviously. And different people tend to score differently, and tend to perceive intangibles differently. It's all about more art than science. I also find that rookie interviewers tend to rely on interview guides/suggested questions/score sheets and other materials company provides more than the experienced ones.

But funnily enough, every single meeting I have been a part of has always been the same. The top three or so candidates were obvious and universally agreed upon without even resorting to any notes or scorecards. It's when you start going below your top five or six choices when you really need to pull out numbers because they are not really standouts and all blend together. Generally, people invite about 5 or 6 people on site for interviews, but because things happen, it's always good to have a pool of three or four reserve candidates in case you don't get your top picks to pick you. Same thing happens when the final decisions about the offer are being made. Never an argument about #1, rarely about #2 - it's when you go to the rest of the pack, when you need to rely on notes and perceptions of different interviewers to come to a common decision.

 

[pharmdfellow]

Thanks for the replies everyone!
Although I do understand these are more or less general guidelines, I would still love to know some specific parameters that interviewers score candidates on--or at least, what kind of things interviewers look at in general. For instance, are candidates scored on how they perform during the interview--as in how well they communicate--or on their qualifications--having previous leadership experience, industry rotations, etc?

The reason I ask is because I have not had any leadership positions in professional organizations and would hate to not progress through any first round interviews because I failed to meet some kind of scoring threshold.

I am confident I will make a good first impression; I just don't want my lack of leadership positions to hurt my chances any more than they might!

 

[patmcd]

Thanks for the replies everyone!
Although I do understand these are more or less general guidelines, I would still love to know some specific parameters that interviewers score candidates on--or at least, what kind of things interviewers look at in general. For instance, are candidates scored on how they perform during the interview--as in how well they communicate--or on their qualifications--having previous leadership experience, industry rotations, etc?

The reason I ask is because I have not had any leadership positions in professional organizations and would hate to not progress through any first round interviews because I failed to meet some kind of scoring threshold.

I am confident I will make a good first impression; I just don't want my lack of leadership positions to hurt my chances any more than they might!

You will likely be scored on all of the above and a deficiency in one area is not going to necessarily not pass the first round. In the end its about the total package you bring to the table.

 

[IndustryPharmD]

I am confident I will make a good first impression; I just don't want my lack of leadership positions to hurt my chances any more than they might!

The biggest thing is the impression you make in your very first interview with that company. Your CV is a very secondary thing because there is simply no time to go over it in any detail because we talk to people before we see their resumes at the Midyear. The thing is, can you give good enough answers to the interviewers' questions if you do not have the experiences to base them on? Maybe you can - and then you will progress at least to the second round at the Midyear (a lot more students go through two or three rounds at the Midyear than get invited to onsite interviews). But if you cannot - it is not your lack of experiences per se that has killed your chances, it is your lack of soft skills the company is looking for (and it really is about attitudes and personalities and thinking and communication skills, because even if you have done a couple internships in the exact area where you seek a fellowship, it still doesn't count as any real work experience). We know that students don't have relevant work experience, the fellowship is meant to be the point of entry into industry. We know that different pharmacy schools provide different opportunities to their students - so I will hold lack of an industry rotation against a Rutgers or a USP students because they get those rotations handed to them on the silver plate. I will not hold lack of industry experience against someone from University of Idaho, or Mississippi or whatever. But if the student really has nothing to show for themselves except going to school - I won't consider them because they lack initiative and ability to handle multiple things at once, not because I cannot check a certain number of boxes on the evaluation form.

 

[pharmdfellow]

Thanks for the replies, guys. I think I have nothing to fear!