Political questions during interview?

[esob]

The truth is, academia, in general, leans left, and even the most conservative individual needs to have the social awareness of that fact and be able to adapt to it for the duration of training. Another point is that part of being a good physician is the ability to navigate the diversity of patients even when the patient repulses you.

@skeptastic and I had a convo one night on the phone that if some guy comes in using the N word up and down and he is the only person who can treat him, he said that he would see it as an opportunity to provide the best care for the patient because it was a chance for him to change the patient's perspective of African Americans. We both know that it likely wouldn't, but that is an approach that makes him the winner regardless of the outcome.

At a root level, we have a sacred duty to provide healthcare to everyone. I've provided healthcare to everyone from decorated active-duty members to incarcerated child molesters and murderers. If I were interviewing someone, I would want to know that they have the social awareness to navigate the uncomfortable environment that is created when someone needs your help regardless of their personal beliefs.

Personally, as an "old white guy" I was asked questions on both sides of the spectrum and I am reasonably sure that all of them were baited questions. I was also asked patently ageist questions, which I also believe were baited questions. The adcoms aren't trying to see if you agree with a political ideology, they are trying to see if you are able to steer a conversation back to a comfortable neutral position or whether you instead will engage in a rant either for or against the topic. At the end of the day, my personal view is that they are testing equanimity, which is a critical component of a good physician's toolkit. I would be readily prepared to give thoughtful, considerate answers to all hot button issues for the foreseeable future.

 

[Rusino]

The truth is, academia, in general, leans left, and even the most conservative individual needs to have the social awareness of that fact and be able to adapt to it for the duration of training. Another point is that part of being a good physician is the ability to navigate the diversity of patients even when the patient repulses you.

@skeptastic and I had a convo one night on the phone that if some guy comes in using the N word up and down and he is the only person who can treat him, he said that he would see it as an opportunity to provide the best care for the patient because it was a chance for him to change the patient's perspective of African Americans. We both know that it likely wouldn't, but that is an approach that makes him the winner regardless of the outcome.

At a root level, we have a sacred duty to provide healthcare to everyone. I've provided healthcare to everyone from decorated active-duty members to incarcerated child molesters and murderers. If I were interviewing someone, I would want to know that they have the social awareness to navigate the uncomfortable environment that is created when someone needs your help regardless of their personal beliefs.

Personally, as an "old white guy" I was asked questions on both sides of the spectrum and I am reasonably sure that all of them were baited questions. I was also asked patently ageist questions, which I also believe were baited questions. The adcoms aren't trying to see if you agree with a political ideology, they are trying to see if you are able to steer a conversation back to a comfortable neutral position or whether you instead will engage in a rant either for or against the topic. At the end of the day, my personal view is that they are testing equanimity, which is a critical component of a good physician's toolkit. I would be readily prepared to give thoughtful, considerate answers to all hot button issues for the foreseeable future.

Good point. I have treated child molesters as a CNA as well and definitely learned the value of equanimity in that line of work.

 

[Ahmed786_]

The truth is, academia, in general, leans left, and even the most conservative individual needs to have the social awareness of that fact and be able to adapt to it for the duration of training. Another point is that part of being a good physician is the ability to navigate the diversity of patients even when the patient repulses you.

@skeptastic and I had a convo one night on the phone that if some guy comes in using the N word up and down and he is the only person who can treat him, he said that he would see it as an opportunity to provide the best care for the patient because it was a chance for him to change the patient's perspective of African Americans. We both know that it likely wouldn't, but that is an approach that makes him the winner regardless of the outcome.

At a root level, we have a sacred duty to provide healthcare to everyone. I've provided healthcare to everyone from decorated active-duty members to incarcerated child molesters and murderers. If I were interviewing someone, I would want to know that they have the social awareness to navigate the uncomfortable environment that is created when someone needs your help regardless of their personal beliefs.

Personally, as an "old white guy" I was asked questions on both sides of the spectrum and I am reasonably sure that all of them were baited questions. I was also asked patently ageist questions, which I also believe were baited questions. The adcoms aren't trying to see if you agree with a political ideology, they are trying to see if you are able to steer a conversation back to a comfortable neutral position or whether you instead will engage in a rant either for or against the topic. At the end of the day, my personal view is that they are testing equanimity, which is a critical component of a good physician's toolkit. I would be readily prepared to give thoughtful, considerate answers to all hot button issues for the foreseeable future.

So just keep a moderate position on things?

 

[Goro]

So just keep a moderate position on things?

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.

 

[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

 

[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.

 

[ron_johnson]

definitely think question two is worded to garner a specific response, but otherwise the ignorance in this thread is astounding. Politics and race affect every fabric of our lives, and if you don’t believe it does, well, that certainly means something. BLM is as relevant to medicine and healthcare systems as anything else. The “groupthink” and brainwashing takes are tired. That’s not what groupthink is. However, I personally could not imagine having a view different from ‘it is bad that black people are being murdered by the state with no recourse.”

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.

 

[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."

 

[OrthoTraumaMD]

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

I wish I could say this is rare, but it’s not.
We had a very well known murderer/rapist come to our ER after the prison guards beat him up (he had waited until a female prison guard was alone with him and tried to kill her, he had nearly succeeded in tearing out her eye when the other guards jumped on him). No one informed my (female) junior residents about his history when they came to see him. I only found out the next day when his name came up on the consult board and I recognized it. I was furious.

 

[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.

 

[veer_]

I wish I could say this is rare, but it’s not.
We had a very well known murderer/rapist come to our ER after the prison guards beat him up (he had waited until a female prison guard was alone with him and tried to kill her, he had nearly succeeded in tearing out her eye when the other guards jumped on him). No one informed my (female) junior residents about his history when they came to see him. I only found out the next day when his name came up on the consult board and I recognized it. I was furious.

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?

 

[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.

 

[OrthoTraumaMD]

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.

This guy was definitely not framed. Literally was witnessed trying to murder the female prison guard; and actually did rape, sodomize and murder another woman, was caught on video putting her body in the dumpster and had her blood on him.

The answer to the question is yes, in the acute setting, we are required to treat them, unless they are being actively violent toward us or staff. In the latter case you can either sedate and then treat them (if they are psychotic and don’t have capacity for example), or if they are violent and just an a-hole and are not emergently in danger you can kick them out (I’ve seen plenty of belligerent patients get kicked out of the ER). And you try to remain impartial and just treat the injury. Personally I’d put two bullets in his head if it were up to me to bring justice, but that’s not my job.

In the outpatient setting you can refuse to treat a non-emergency patient, or terminate a patient relationship, but you must fulfill certain obligations, including offering an alternative practitioner and giving them appropriate notice.

 

[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.

 

[veer_]

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,

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.

 

[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

 

[veer_]

I mean it's a media game. All those top schools are either associated with prestigious universities or extensive hospital networks. And who runs (for the most part) the mainstream media? Gotta keep the image up.

 

[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