NY Med and Red Flags

[psyche]

Anyone else put off by the "red flag" question at NY Med? During the information session before interviews you are told that your interviewer will be asking you about any "red flags" in your application--something glaringly bad like a sememster of low grades, etc. I was annoyed by the presumption that every applicant has some deficiency that needs to be explained away, and my interviewer seemed to think I should have some ready-made answer to this silly question. When I told my interviewer my overall G.P.A. was a tad low but that there was nothing in my file that merited the designation "red flag", she seemed a little annoyed as if I had weaseled out of the question. Apparently this is a standard practice at NY Med interviews. I think it's tacky and reflects poorly on the school. I realize that the school is giving applicants a chance to explain any weaknesses with this question, but the way it's handled just rubs me the wrong way.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[lake show]

never had an issue with the red flag question. in fact, i think it's great for a school to let you rationally explain an issue, whether it be personal or external reasons for a bad semester, MCAT, etc. maybe the way your interviewer broached the topic was not good, but i've never heard anything bad about it. i guess your interviewer was thinking that within the 4 years of college, some incident must have happened that prevented you from focusing on schoolwork and pre-med studies 100%. even if it was trivial, i think most applicants have some blotch on their apps that could use some explaining...

 

[none]

The vast majority do! If your overall GPA is your red-flag, couldn't you just discuss that?

 

[psyche]

I know I may sound a bit defensive in original post and I do think it's a good idea for schools to allow applicants to explain any percieved weaknesses. My G.P.A. is 3.4, just below the average at this school so that doesn't seem to qualify as a "red flag". I'm not saying I'm a flawless applicant. Maybe it's just the use of the term "red flag" and the ways it's become a formalized part of the interviewing process there that bugs me. If instead applicants were asked to explain possible weaknesses in file, it wouldn't bother me so much. To me, "red flag" connotes a serious problem and to expect all applicants to identify a serious problem with their applicaion seems unreasonable.

 

[lake show]

well the reason it's formalized, imo, is so that every applicant has an opportunity to explain a problem in their application, not just a few select people whose interviewer asked them the question. in any case, i don't have any major red flags either, but i could've talked about numerous occasions where there were personal issues or external factors (ie 9/11 attacks) which could've resulted in bad marks. i think with these interviews, it's more about showcasing yourself by running with the interviewer and pleasing them through your answers (not lying of course!). imo, i'd never answer a questions, without a decent reply.