Political questions during interview?

[Ahmed786_]

Yup. I mean, if you have a patient heading to your ICU who has a swastika tattooed on his forehead, what are you going to do? Stick the vent down his esophagus?

And in your clinical career, you WILL meet patients like this. Not all patients are nice people.

What if you refer him to the psych ward

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[Matthew9Thirtyfive]

Yup. I mean, if you have a patient heading to your ICU who has a swastika tattooed on his forehead, what are you going to do? Stick the vent down his esophagus?

And in your clinical career, you WILL meet patients like this. Not all patients are nice people.

Yep. I’ve had to take care of folks who committed egregious crimes, including multiple homicide.

 

[Vault-Tec]

I used to dread these types of questions in interviews, but having become more well-read in general on social issues (and not in the college-educated type of way, which is severely bias) I find myself able to find common ground with people posing these topics. For example in your situation, I have a mental record of several lesser-known police brutality cases that I feel strongly about and would almost certainly resonate with anyone who genuinely cares about this issue. As opposed to the activism we see in news and pop culture which is either misapplied, dishonest, or lacks focus.

The result is I come off as authentic and also educate/inform the interviewer. So if you feel ideological tension at the mere utterance of these social justice questions, the above has cured this for me. From there, it's about connecting the police brutality angle to medicine, which tbh sounds like a leap to me...you can't do anything to prevent police brutality in the moment. I suppose you could assert your intent to counter any and all prejudice in medicine, if that's an issue (I genuinely don't know if it is).

Sadly that does sound like a baited question, and hopefully after trying my method, they don't continue to press you to support things you shouldn't. That seems to be the real problem in modern political discourse; we "know" these injustices to be true so if you dissent in any way, you are clearly prejudice. That's where I'd tap out. Surely there's other institutions that don't prioritize politics so highly.

 

[Ahmed786_]

Cmon man that is such a strawman, literally nobody is in favor of police violence. People are against BLM because they don't believe defunding the police is going to help the black community. In the city I live in, people (overwhelmingly black) are murdered (not by the police) on what is almost a weekly basis.

People are against BLM for a lot of reasons. Some are genuine reasons, some are bigoted reasons. Of course, you can disagree with certain aspects of BLM (the movement) and still support black lives. But many people, like the ALM crowd, IMO don't want to help the black community. Maybe I'm wrong though.

 

[Goro]

Let's stick tot he OP and not devolve into a political discussion, because the mods WILL lock this thread.

 

[LizzyM]

Yep. I’ve had to take care of folks who committed egregious crimes, including multiple homicide.

But as one psych nurse said to the other, "he's killed people....but not recently."

 

[Matthew9Thirtyfive]

But as one psych nurse said to the other, "he's killed people....but not recently."

Lol yeah. This guy had been in prison for decades.

 

[Matthew9Thirtyfive]

This is a lil off topic, sorry, and a dumb question but--and I am completely serious about this--does going into medicine mean you absolutely must treat anyone that walks through your doors and consents to treatment? That feels like such a moral injury to me. I mean, the idea of medicine is to do no harm and then do good right? Is it imp[possible to retreat to the 'no harm' level and pass on treating someone like that?

Depends on the situation. But keep in mind that your job is not to judge. No matter what they did, they are still people who need help. The courts and justice system may judge them, but your job is medicine.

 

[borrawin95]

This is a lil off topic, sorry, and a dumb question but--and I am completely serious about this--does going into medicine mean you absolutely must treat anyone that walks through your doors and consents to treatment? That feels like such a moral injury to me. I mean, the idea of medicine is to do no harm and then do good right? Is it imp[possible to retreat to the 'no harm' level and pass on treating someone like that?

From my perspective—we are not the judge or the jury so it isn’t our job to condemn even the worst criminals. The justice system isn’t perfect but neither is the judgment of one individual with only a fraction of the facts. Who knows? Maybe they were framed or something.

 

[CricB4Tube]

This is a lil off topic, sorry, and a dumb question but--and I am completely serious about this--does going into medicine mean you absolutely must treat anyone that walks through your doors and consents to treatment? That feels like such a moral injury to me. I mean, the idea of medicine is to do no harm and then do good right? Is it imp[possible to retreat to the 'no harm' level and pass on treating someone like that?

I'm not a doctor yet but as a military medic, we have to treat enemies if they surrender or are no longer deemed a threat. It sounds counterproductive having to use your very limited medical supplies on people who were just trying to kill you and your team, but that's what's expected of medical professionals. "Do no harm" means do no harm to your patient, not play philosopher-god and try to determine who we should let die for the greater good.

 

[babadonka]

I know this conversation has.... digressed... but I was also asked political questions on two interviews.

On one interview I mentioned that my father is a foreign service officer. My interviewer then asked me what my father thought of Trump getting rid of career FSOs and lots of FSOs leaving due to the administration. I deflected as much as possible and tried to give an impartial answer, then ended up saying my father was upset and frustrated with the lack of attention given to career FSOs. My interviewer responded with "good answer." I was very thrown for a loop by the question. To me it seemed like the interviewer was genuinely curious about my response, but I was also worried about offending him. My father also thought it was sort of bizarre (although we were more surprised that my interview knew anything about the state department lol).

On another interview I was asked about anti-maskers in relation to COVID-19. I was then asked if there should be penalties for not wearing a mask, whether mask regulations should be on a state or federal level, and how states should respond to individuals who refuse to wear masks. Obviously this question has a more public health slant and is much more related to medicine, but I was still worried about offending my interviewer's political beliefs with my answer, since unfortunately politics are now inextricably linked to wearing a mask.

 

[deleted1085718]

I was then asked if there should be penalties for not wearing a mask, whether mask regulations should be on a state or federal level, and how states should respond to individuals who refuse to wear masks.

so what'd you say if you don't mind me asking?

 

[babadonka]

so what'd you say if you don't mind me asking?

I said not wearing masks is irresponsible and individuals should be held accountable for such behavior. I said something about how the anti-mask movement demonstrates a lack of care and compassion for our fellow man and that most of american society lacks any collective identity and the ability to work together toward a common goal (yes... sorry, i'm one of those people lmao). I also said that I think penalties are important (again, I'm sorry I'm one of those people lol) and useful but you do run the risk of angering people. You have to decide which is worth it-- angering a few people with penalties and fines or risking potentially hundreds of deaths. I also said that federal mandates, while appealing, are unlikely to work and state-by-state penalties and mandates regarding mask-wearing are probably more effective.

 

[deleted1085718]

I said wearing masks is irresponsible

you had me in the first 5 words lol

 

[Matthew9Thirtyfive]

I said wearing masks is irresponsible and individuals should be held accountable for such behavior. I said something about how the anti-mask movement demonstrates a lack of care and compassion for our fellow man and that most of american society lacks any collective identity and the ability to work together toward a common goal (yes... sorry, i'm one of those people lmao). I also said that I think penalties are important (again, I'm sorry I'm one of those people lol) and useful but you do run the risk of angering people. You have to decide which is worth it-- angering a few people with penalties and fines or risking potentially hundreds of deaths. I also said that federal mandates, while appealing, are unlikely to work and state-by-state penalties and mandates regarding mask-wearing are probably more effective.

I’m guessing you meant “not” wearing a mask is irresponsible lol.

 

[babadonka]

I’m guessing you meant “not” wearing a mask is irresponsible lol.

Hah, yes, I edited it! I'm clearly too tired to be posting anything comprehensible lmao

 

[Matthew9Thirtyfive]

Last warning to keep the thread on topic and keep political/racial posts out of it. The thread is not the place to discuss politics.

 

[CricB4Tube]

I know this conversation has.... digressed... but I was also asked political questions on two interviews.

On one interview I mentioned that my father is a foreign service officer. My interviewer then asked me what my father thought of Trump getting rid of career FSOs and lots of FSOs leaving due to the administration. I deflected as much as possible and tried to give an impartial answer, then ended up saying my father was upset and frustrated with the lack of attention given to career FSOs. My interviewer responded with "good answer." I was very thrown for a loop by the question. To me it seemed like the interviewer was genuinely curious about my response, but I was also worried about offending him. My father also thought it was sort of bizarre (although we were more surprised that my interview knew anything about the state department lol).

On another interview I was asked about anti-maskers in relation to COVID-19. I was then asked if there should be penalties for not wearing a mask, whether mask regulations should be on a state or federal level, and how states should respond to individuals who refuse to wear masks. Obviously this question has a more public health slant and is much more related to medicine, but I was still worried about offending my interviewer's political beliefs with my answer, since unfortunately politics are now inextricably linked to wearing a mask.

The mask questions seem kind of fair, but I guess it's not our job to decide on penalties for people who don't. I think you answered it well. I was never asked about penalizing people for not wearing, but when I was asked about what I thought about anti-maskers, I talked about how it is partially the medical community's responsibility since so many of our patients no longer trust us. I then went into how to get involved with your community and all that to gain better rapport with your patient population.
The FSO question definitely sounds like the interviewer just genuinely curious, but I also hate when politician names come up, as you have to answer according to their beliefs. Like in college, I knew which of my professors were conservative and which were liberal, and I tailored my essays to their political views and always did very well. Gotta play the game unfortunately.

 

[deleted889094]

I said not wearing masks is irresponsible and individuals should be held accountable for such behavior. I said something about how the anti-mask movement demonstrates a lack of care and compassion for our fellow man and that most of american society lacks any collective identity and the ability to work together toward a common goal (yes... sorry, i'm one of those people lmao). I also said that I think penalties are important (again, I'm sorry I'm one of those people lol) and useful but you do run the risk of angering people. You have to decide which is worth it-- angering a few people with penalties and fines or risking potentially hundreds of deaths. I also said that federal mandates, while appealing, are unlikely to work and state-by-state penalties and mandates regarding mask-wearing are probably more effective.

If I were an interviewer, I think my follow-up to that would be asking whether or not you think someone who smokes and drinks excessively for 40 years should be able to benefit equally from government health insurance as someone who didn't, seeing as that's not an uncommon patient case.

Genuinely curious what you think since you're advocating for people being held accountable for their health practices.

 

[DNAJB6]

The mask questions seem kind of fair, but I guess it's not our job to decide on penalties for people who don't.

I disagree. When hospitals are maxed out and there comes a time to ration ventilators, they should be the first ones to be denied or pulled off if it comes to it. You propagate the virus and don't take reasonable precautions to prevent it, then you should be prioritized lower. Doctors prioritize lives all the time. Think transplant list.

 

[deleted889094]

I disagree. When hospitals are maxed out and there comes a time to ration ventilators, they should be the first ones to be denied or pulled off if it comes to it. You propagate the virus and don't take reasonable precautions to prevent it, then you should be prioritized lower. Doctors prioritize lives all the time. Think transplant list.

I think it should be viewed more as an educational problem. Doctors need to find better ways to connect to the average non-medical person. Because if we decide not wearing a mask should bump you down for treatment, why shouldn't other risky behaviors like unprotected sex, drug use, or driving too fast?

 

[babadonka]

If I were an interviewer, I think my follow-up to that would be asking whether or not you think someone who smokes and drinks excessively for 40 years should be able to benefit equally from government health insurance as someone who didn't, seeing as that's not an uncommon patient case.

Genuinely curious what you think since you're advocating for people being held accountable for their health practices.

good question.
I believe that addiction is an illness (again, sorry I'm one of those people lol), and it's not my job to judge people for their decisions, merely treat them accordingly (hence why the mask penalty question make me uncomfy, since I'm not sure it's my job as a physician to decide how to penalize people). I feel uncomfortable penalizing someone by denying them health insurance over a crippling addiction that deserves help and treatment. anti-maskers do need help lol.... just a different kind of help.
I hope that answers your question?
obviously smoking and drinking can hurt others as much as not wearing a mask-- driving while impaired can cause serious injuries and second-hand smoke can cause serious health problems-- however, anti-masking is not only not an addition and illness, but can also potentially put more people at risk.

 

[babadonka]

The FSO question definitely sounds like the interviewer just genuinely curious, but I also hate when politician names come up, as you have to answer according to their beliefs. Like in college, I knew which of my professors were conservative and which were liberal, and I tailored my essays to their political views and always did very well. Gotta play the game unfortunately.

I agree. I think he was genuinely curious, and honestly the question didn't bother me. I was just unsure of the answer he wanted!

 

[deleted889094]

good question.
I believe that addiction is an illness (again, sorry I'm one of those people lol), and it's not my job to judge people for their decisions, merely treat them accordingly (hence why the mask penalty question make me uncomfy, since I'm not sure it's my job as a physician to decide how to penalize people). I feel uncomfortable penalizing someone by denying them health insurance over a crippling addiction that deserves help and treatment. anti-maskers do need help lol.... just a different kind of help.
I hope that answers your question?
obviously smoking and drinking can hurt others as much as not wearing a mask-- driving while impaired can cause serious injuries and second-hand smoke can cause serious health problems-- however, anti-masking is not only not an addition and illness, but can also potentially put more people at risk.

I wouldn't paint everyone who smokes and drinks with the broad brush of addiction. You seem to have an interesting level of sympathy for them that doesn't apply to people who don't trust the medical system or the news. If I were an interviewer, I'd probably not like that answer tbh.

 

[babadonka]

I wouldn't paint everyone who smokes and drinks with the broad brush of addiction. You seem to have an interesting level of sympathy for them that doesn't apply to people who don't trust the medical system or the news. If I were an interviewer, I'd probably not like that answer tbh.

what can I say, I'm a sympathetic person haha? I've worked in the ED for three years in an urban, underserved area. I see patients who are addicted to serious drugs and alcohol all the time. It has never diminished my sympathy for them. Again, I feel like as a physician it is not my job to judge others, merely treat them as responsibly as I can. I still think the drug and alcohol industry are horribly abusive and exploitative, and many people who drink excessively or abuse drugs do condemnable things. in my eyes its still an illness. I'm sorry! like I said, I'm just one of those people haha. If an interviewer didn't like my response, that would be ok. I want to be as honest and true to my beliefs and values as possible. That may be naïve, but I'd rather be honest and true to myself.

As an aside- I'm not interested in arguing with anyone about my beliefs regarding masks, addiction, etc. I simply wanted to post my experiences so OP knows they're not alone. I understand that I am vastly more liberal than anyone here. That doesn't bother me and I am not interested in engaging in any argument with anyone over any subject.

 

[deleted889094]

what can I say, I'm a sympathetic person haha? I've worked in the ED for three years in an urban, underserved area. I see patients who are addicted to serious drugs and alcohol all the time. It has never diminished my sympathy for them. Again, I feel like as a physician it is not my job to judge others, merely treat them as responsibly as I can. I still think the drug and alcohol industry are horribly abusive and exploitative, and many people who drink excessively or abuse drugs do condemnable things. in my eyes its still an illness. I'm sorry! like I said, I'm just one of those people haha. If an interviewer didn't like my response, that would be ok. I want to be as honest and true to my beliefs and values as possible. That may be naïve, but I'd rather be honest and true to myself.

I think you misunderstood. I think you should have similar sympathy for people who are skeptical of the medical system and health experts. Sympathy is a good thing. I also have no idea what "one of those people" would mean.

 

[babadonka]

I think you misunderstood. I think you should have similar sympathy for people who are skeptical of the medical system and health experts. Sympathy is a good thing. I also have no idea what "one of those people" would mean.

yeah, sorry, I probably misunderstood you. I have sympathy for everyone. It's our responsibility as health care practitioners to reach out to those who are skeptical and do a better job building relationships with individuals who mistrust the system.

as for the "those people," I'm a super super liberal person, definitely way more than anyone here! I just don't want to offend anyone with my views or beliefs. I don't want to make anyone uncomfortable with my statements.

 

[deleted889094]

yeah, sorry, I probably misunderstood you. I have sympathy for everyone. It's our responsibility as health care practitioners to reach out to those who are skeptical and do a better job building relationships with individuals who mistrust the system.

as for the "those people," I'm a super super liberal person, definitely way more than anyone here! I just don't want to offend anyone with my views or beliefs. I don't want to make anyone uncomfortable with my statements.

As long as you're professional and explain your reasoning, nobody will mind you having that viewpoint. And besides, most people will be able to tell if you're that liberal lol

 

[Goro]

How would answering that question by deflecting it and saying something along the lines of 'i think it speaks to the inherent distrust of both government and/or the medical and scientific community many americans maintain and how that is a challenge for healthcare providers' then go on to talk about how increasing public education could earn more people's trust and get more people on board..? That's how I would answer that and I'm wondering if that falls into ignoring the question or answering something wrong.

I would note immediately that you didn't answer the question, point that out to you, and then restate the question.

 

[LittleBrother]

I didn't do secondaries because of these questions.

This is a blatant ideology test and I would ask whether the intention is to screen me on my polticial beliefs.

 

[Rusino]

I didn't do secondaries because of these questions.

This is a blatant ideology test and I would ask whether the intention is to screen me on my polticial beliefs.

Wait, then how did you apply if you didn't do secondaries?

 

[deleted1085718]

It’s honestly worse at top schools. They make the interviews more about social justice than about medicine. It’s sickening.

 

[LittleBrother]

Wait, then how did your apply if you didn't do secondaries?

I applied to the schools that didn't have blatant ideology tests in their secondaries.

 

[LittleBrother]

It’s honestly worse at top schools. They make the interviews more about social justice than about medicine. It’s sickening.

Yeah I felt really uncomfortable at a T5 interview because that was the only thing all the other applicants talked about.

 

[TwistedTea]

Interviewers like those mentioned by the OP aren’t interested in hearing what you think. They just want affirmation that you’ll be a good SJW drone

 

[FunkyFrog994]

I think the key to a question like this is to stick to the middle ground and not come off as either a left wing or right wing extremist. Your patients are gonna come from diverse backgrounds so you should be able to leave your personal beliefs at home and do your job regardless of how you feel about their politics, gender identity etc. which is what I think the interviewer is looking to test when asking such a question. Also I should probably mention my family isn't American so maybe its a cultural thing but my religious beliefs, race, politics, sexual preferences, gender identity and so on aren't things I feel like I have to shove down the throat of every single person I come into contact with... Personally I prefer to keep those things as ambiguous as possible.

 

[TwistedTea]

All my interviews were chill except one where they’re really got into hard scenarios and serious questions and I absolutely did not rank that place (blew the last lady’s question off I was already done with that hot mess). I would honestly think twice about attending a program where they drill you in interviews unless you really want to go there. Just wait until you sign that contract and are sitting through daily social justice morning rounds.

lol pass

 

[Goro]

Major corporations owned by billionaires? These 15 Billionaires Own America's News Media Companies

Sorry don't see the connection.

*sigh* and this has what to do with the OP?

Some of you seem intent on getting this thread locked.

 

[Rusino]

*sigh* and this has what to do with the OP?

Some of you seem intent on getting this thread locked.

You mean you never ask applicants to list the 15 billionaires in charge of America's news companies? Clearly I prepped for the wrong interviews....

 

[Matthew9Thirtyfive]

I believe that addiction is an illness (again, sorry I'm one of those people lol),

lol this is not a controversial opinion in medicine anymore

 

[TwistedTea]

TLDR version and to keep it on topic I would just say something like “I do my best to look at the facts to make informed voting decisions” smile and leave it at that. If they push harder just don’t rank them.
If they ask loaded questions like the OP got I would (even if I agreed with the stance) go somewhere else. Asking about police brutality and BLM is stuff that should not be brought up in interviews and it’s a simple push to see if you are a fit for their program. I lean left and I’m pretty sure I would be disappointed if I was asked those questions in a format that assumes the BLM movement and police brutality is a one sided fact instead of a multifaceted issue as it is.

glad you are not going to that crap hole the interviewer and Admin are likely not the type you want dictating the next few years of life.

 

[OrthoTraumaMD]

Your patients are gonna come from diverse backgrounds so you should be able to leave your personal beliefs at home and do your job regardless of how you feel about their politics, gender identity etc. which is what I think the interviewer is looking to test when asking such a question.

If they wanted to test this they would have worded the question differently. “what kind of issues affect communities today” rather than “how would you support” a certain movement. The first assumes you have one of potentially many opinions. The second assumes there is only one correct opinion to have.
If you want to care for patients with diverse backgrounds, the latter assumption is the worse one for an interviewer to look for. You never want ideological purity of any kind.

 

[babadonka]

lol this is not a controversial opinion in medicine anymore

I mean, considering people's responses to me on this thread... I wouldn't be so sure lmao. I'm damned whatever I say and whatever I don't say here.

Edited to say this is the last I intend to comment on anything lmao. I said it before but I am not interested in arguing with anyone on my stance on anything. I just wanted OP to know I also got asked mildly political questions during interviews.

 

[deleted889094]

I mean, considering people's responses to me on this thread... I wouldn't be so sure lmao. I'm damned whatever I say and whatever I don't say here.

Edited to say this is the last I intend to comment on anything lmao. I said it before but I am not interested in arguing with anyone on my stance on anything. I just wanted OP to know I also got asked mildly political questions during interviews.

I think the way you presented it was the main thing. But it's definitely not controversial. The thing I disagreed with was your stance on punishing people who don't wear masks but not applying the same principal to other issues.

 

[FunkyFrog994]

If they wanted to test this they would have worded the question differently. “what kind of issues affect communities today” rather than “how would you support” a certain movement. The first assumes you have one of potentially many opinions. The second assumes there is only one correct opinion to have.
If you want to care for patients with diverse backgrounds, the latter assumption is the worse one for an interviewer to look for. You never want ideological purity of any kind.

I definitely understand that point of view, but I feel like If I were the one asking that question I'd want to see if a "conservative" student could at the very least demonstrate some empathy for a group that feels like they are being targeted, regardless of how they feel about BLM. In terms of what they plan to do to support the movement they could literally just say I plan to continue treating everyone I encounter on campus and in our community with the same level of respect I expect to be shown by others and call out any acts of injustice that occur in my presence. I don't think they necessarily have to commit to marching through the streets. On the other hand if it's a "liberal" student I'd want to see if they could approach the issue in a rational manner and not come off as someone who's hanging out with Antifa on the weekends. If anything I'd almost think the student who supports BLM might actually reveal more than they should because they feel the interviewer is in agreement with them. If you don't support BLM all you have to do is just stay calm and give a pretty generic answer. At the same time I doubt anyone conducting an interview is going to ask a student how they plan to support Qanon so maybe it isn't appropriate, however I think medical students should be able to have a conversation about a polarizing topic without getting triggered. I actually think it would be a good idea to ask highly controversial questions just to weed out people that might not have the temperament to be physicians, such as medical students calling for all of their peers to take oaths supporting BLM or be removed from medical school. I personally question these students ability to treat half our population fairly and wonder if maybe they themselves have no place in medicine. I suppose thats just my opinion, but ultimately I don't have much of a problem with the question at the end of the day.

 

[LittleBrother]

I definitely understand that point of view, but I feel like If I were the one asking that question I'd want to see if a "conservative" student could at the very least demonstrate some empathy for a group that feels like they are being targeted, regardless of how they feel about BLM. In terms of what they plan to do to support the movement they could literally just say I plan to continue treating everyone I encounter on campus and in our community with the same level of respect I expect to be shown by others and call out any acts of injustice that occur in my presence. I don't think they necessarily have to commit to marching through the streets. On the other hand if it's a "liberal" student I'd want to see if they could approach the issue in a rational manner and not come off as someone who's hanging out with Antifa on the weekends. If anything I'd almost think the student who supports BLM might actually reveal more than they should because they feel the interviewer is in agreement with them. If you don't support BLM all you have to do is just stay calm and give a pretty generic answer. At the same time I doubt anyone conducting an interview is going to ask a student how they plan to support Qanon so maybe it isn't appropriate, however I think medical students should be able to have a conversation about a polarizing topic without getting triggered. I actually think it would be a good idea to ask highly controversial questions just to weed out people that might not have the temperament to be physicians, such as medical students calling for all of their peers to take oaths supporting BLM or be removed from medical school. I personally question these students ability to treat half our population and wonder if maybe they themselves have no place in medicine. I suppose thats just my opinion, but ultimately I don't have much of a problem with the question at the end of the day.

Yeah I agree with what you are saying but you get the answers for the questions you ask. You would get better answers for "how do you feel about X" than you will "how would you support BLM." The questions OP mentioned were obviously leading. I think there is plenty of value in the things you identify, but the questions as-stated don't elicit any of that valuable information.

The other thing is that in these polarized times interviewers should steer away from these subjects. I've seen Med schools highlight their social justice stuff on the front page of their websites. They hardly seem unbiased or entertaining of other narratives.

Its not that how applicants approach these topics can't be invaluable to understanding them, its that med school adcoms don't have the requisite trust to ellicit honest answers outside of the most dogmatic activist.