Prediction of Interview Settings for 2021-2022 Cycle

[Laura Jean]

I know this is kind of a random question, but I am curious about what other people think... Obviously, most interviews this year were online, but I was wondering what people think about the next cycle? Predictions and opinions about whether or not the interview cycle will go back to mostly in-person, partially both, or still primarily online are all welcome.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[Shunsui]

Kinda hoping for in person to get a feel for the campus tbh but wouldn't mind online to save money/time.

 

[deleted1001544]

Dr. Fauci has said everyone that wants a vaccine will most likely be able to get one by May. My university is planning to return to in-person classes this fall. So I would imagine in-person.

 

[4pf]

been thinking about this as well, would love to hear from any Adcoms @Goro @LizzyM

 

[Stride]

The pandemic could be under control by summer, but I highly doubt it will be something that just ends abruptly. Masks likely will still be necessary in the late summer, and this would make schools decide between having to do interviews in person without seeing someone's facial reactions or doing them virtually to know that this problem will be evaded. I would guess more schools choose the latter.

Some schools probably actually benefit from having virtual interviews, especially if they are located in the middle of nowhere with not much to attract candidates in terms of scenery.

 

[Goro]

I know this is kind of a random question, but I am curious about what other people think... Obviously, most interviews this year were online, but I was wondering what people think about the next cycle? Predictions and opinions about whether or not the interview cycle will go back to mostly in-person, partially both, or still primarily online are all welcome.

Everything depends upon what the COVID situation is like.

My feeling is that he lower the positivity rates are with testing, the great the odds that we'll go back to live interviews.

 

[Isomerase]

I think it's worth noting that one or two schools I interviewed at, I think Pitt for sure, said they are considering permanently moving to online interviews to save applicants money.

 

[EdgeTrimmer]

They all should be online and use second looks to get the feel.

 

[Isomerase]

From the perspective of the school it's an interesting gamble. The upside is it likely ensures that even top tier applicants will show up to interviews (though how many applicants are turning down Pitt interviews??). The downside is it probably decreases the post interview yield since applicants have no in-person experience and may not care enough to do a second look.

 

[r2med]

I have a feeling it is going to be online for the most part, except for maybe schools that need to show off. Cheaper and faster for all parties.

 

[mvsrocks]

I work for a family medicine doc and it seems like vaccines are rolling out pretty quickly. I think things should be mostly in-person next cycle, but who knows with the new COVID strain and what the response to that will be like

 

[LizzyM]

Now that we've shown that we can do virtual interviews, and given that the application cycle is already hideously expensive, and given that we are supposed to be breaking down barriers to groups who are underrepresented in medicine due to cost of an application cycle being a barrier, I think that some woke schools will stay with online interviews or offer both alternatives, on different days, maybe, to let people choose which works best given their circumstances. We'd have to be careful that we didn't have a bias one way or the other and it would be interesting so see if the yield (admitted applicants who matriculate) was different controlling for ties to the area (which might make it more likely that the applicant interviews in person and more likely that they choose to matriculate) and financial situation (which might make it more likely to interview virtually and to choose a school with a lower net cost of attendance after free money is figured in).

Other schools may feel that they can push themselve up from #2 to #1 on your list after you see the campus and that the benefit of in-person interviews and tours (and food and swag) tilts the balance toward in-person interviews as soon as it is safe to do so.

 

[EdgeTrimmer]

Now that we've shown that we can do virtual interviews, and given that the application cycle is already hideously expensive, and given that we are supposed to be breaking down barriers to groups who are underrepresented in medicine due to cost of an application cycle being a barrier, I think that some woke schools will stay with online interviews or offer both alternatives, on different days, maybe, to let people choose which works best given their circumstances. We'd have to be careful that we didn't have a bias one way or the other and it would be interesting so see if the yield (admitted applicants who matriculate) was different controlling for ties to the area (which might make it more likely that the applicant interviews in person and more likely that they choose to matriculate) and financial situation (which might make it more likely to interview virtually and to choose a school with a lower net cost of attendance after free money is figured in).

Other schools may feel that they can push themselve up from #2 to #1 on your list after you see the campus and that the benefit of in-person interviews and tours (and food and swag) tilts the balance toward in-person interviews as soon as it is safe to do so.

I hope all schools agree to one method (virtual or in-person) otherwise it will be like how elections are run in this country.

 

[pBar]

This will probably be variable depending on the status of COVID-19 come this fall. The administration at my institution have indicated that their is a preference to move back to in-person once possible.

 

[KnightDoc]

I have a feeling it is going to be online for the most part, except for maybe schools that need to show off. Cheaper and faster for all parties.

I respectfully disagree. This would be true if schools actually cared about applicants, but all of the adcom references on SDN to the seller's market shows that this is just not the case. It's not measurably cheaper or faster for schools -- what does it cost them to do in-person interviews? Lunches and goodie bags?? Other than that, exactly how much less time does the school actually spend online than in person? From reading the school specific threads, many of the current interview days seem to last all day, just like every other year.

The fact is, live interviews are a huge sink of time and money for applicants. Not so much for schools. But, there is no substitute for a live, in-person evaluation, so it's hard for me to imagine these conservative, stuck in their ways institutions moving to a format that arguably benefits us while disadvantaging them. With an overall accept rate around 40%, no US MD school "needs to show off." What they want to do is be able to do a deep dive, in-person evaluation of us. JMHO.

 

[LizzyM]

I respectfully disagree. .... With an overall accept rate around 40%, no US MD school "needs to show off." What they want to do is be able to do a deep dive, in-person evaluation of us. JMHO.

Now I respectfully disagree. Come April, the top schoolsa are competing for a small pool of highly coveted applicants. Schools would like to start courting those hot prospects on interview day by wowing them with meals, tours, and engaging presentations. This is particularly true if the school is in a city many students have never visited. For that reason, as well as for the advantages that might be gained by a face-to-face interview, some schools will want to go to in-person events. That said, there could be some pressure from the accrediting body to ditch the in-person interview as elitist and a barrier to the recruiting of a diverse student body and some schools will bring this up in their next self-study as a step they've taken to be more incllusive in their admissions process.

 

[KnightDoc]

Now I respectfully disagree. Come April, the top schoolsa are competing for a small pool of highly coveted applicants. Schools would like to start courting those hot prospects on interview day by wowing them with meals, tours, and engaging presentations. This is particularly true if the school is in a city many students have never visited. For that reason, as well as for the advantages that might be gained by a face-to-face interview, some schools will want to go to in-person events. That said, there could be some pressure from the accrediting body to ditch the in-person interview as elitist and a barrier to the recruiting of a diverse student body and some schools will bring this up in their next self-study as a step they've taken to be more incllusive in their admissions process.

I hope you're right! What you are describing at the end of the cycle with top schools jockeying for top candidates, however, is not the issue and doesn't address the concern regarding the cost and inconvenience of having to take time off from whatever to travel to distant cities so schools can size us up in person, without us knowing whether or not we will even be wanted at the end, let alone be wooed. Don't schools already address the diversity issue you raised by covering travel expenses for some candidates? I don't know about med schools, but I know UGs do that for diversity candidates during second look days. Some UGs (even state schools) do it for high stat scholarship candidates, so I know for a fact there is money for this!

Schools can absolutely do the hard sell at the end without in person activities on the front end. As you well know, it's hardly a one-way street, and top candidates won't write off a T5 or T10 school at the end, without a second look, because their interview was virtual rather than in-person. Speaking as a future candidate, I'm pretty sure reputation, opportunities, match lists, location and, last but not least, money, all play far greater roles in ultimate decisions than superficial niceties during meals and other recruiting events. At least they will for me, assuming I make it that far.

It would be AWESOME if schools said that virtual worked this year, so let's change the system, but, given how the entire process seems to be designed with the schools' needs in mind rather than the applicants' (including the wining and dining at the end), excuse me for saying I'll believe it when I see it. I'll be applying next cycle, so it would work out great for me, but I'm not holding my breath. I'll be praying for the opportunity to take the time and spend the money to accept as many IIs as I can get, but, yeah, virtual IIs would work far better for me as a recent grad with a limited ability to take time off from whatever I end up doing, and to spend what little money I have to try to score a med school A.

 

[proudofmykids]

Now that we've shown that we can do virtual interviews, and given that the application cycle is already hideously expensive, and given that we are supposed to be breaking down barriers to groups who are underrepresented in medicine due to cost of an application cycle being a barrier, I think that some woke schools will stay with online interviews or offer both alternatives, on different days, maybe, to let people choose which works best given their circumstances. We'd have to be careful that we didn't have a bias one way or the other and it would be interesting so see if the yield (admitted applicants who matriculate) was different controlling for ties to the area (which might make it more likely that the applicant interviews in person and more likely that they choose to matriculate) and financial situation (which might make it more likely to interview virtually and to choose a school with a lower net cost of attendance after free money is figured in).

Other schools may feel that they can push themselve up from #2 to #1 on your list after you see the campus and that the benefit of in-person interviews and tours (and food and swag) tilts the balance toward in-person interviews as soon as it is safe to do so.

this all makes a ton of sense. But, is there something to be said for the 'feel' the candidates get from being in campus? I know I've heard candidates discussing or having extra dialogs with current students, seeing/visiting facilities etc. Optional in-personwould be ideal, but then I think your 'test' shouldn't just be for Yield, but also include for in-person vs remote interview biases on the Acceptances offered.

 

[KnightDoc]

I hope all schools agree to one method (virtual or in-person) otherwise it will be like how elections are run in this country.

????? And this would be a problem why????

All schools already use one method for VITA, for MMI, for how they use WLs, for when they set CTE dates, for how they decide who to interview, for what percent of their interviewees receive As, etc., etc., etc., right? So, if some schools keep virtual while others go back to in-person, the world as we know it will end, because, other than this, all schools already have agreed to one method for everything else????

Anyway, why wouldn't schools continue to have the freedom to run their process independently of other schools? And, for the very same reason, why shouldn't states also be able to decide how their elections are run? Should California really be telling Texas how to do things? Or maybe you think Alabama should be telling California how things need to be done??

 

[deleted1063986]

Now that we've shown that we can do virtual interviews, and given that the application cycle is already hideously expensive, and given that we are supposed to be breaking down barriers to groups who are underrepresented in medicine due to cost of an application cycle being a barrier, I think that some woke schools will stay with online interviews or offer both alternatives, on different days, maybe, to let people choose which works best given their circumstances.

Just wanted to add that, in addition to being more equitable for applicants with fewer financial resources, virtual interviews could be preferable for applicants with physical disabilities. I hope that virtual interviews continue to be an option. Interview days were too stressful to get a real "feel" for the schools and cities anyway.

 

[simuu]

Am I the only one who wants interviews in-person? Interviewing online is so awkward. I can't read facial expressions or body posture well. Not only that, but the risk of complications occurring increases.

If some applicants want online interviews due to their budget then that's fine and I think schools should offer that option. Perhaps when medical schools send out interviews, applicants can choose in-person or online. However I do hope that no permanent switch to online interviews occurs for the next cycle.

If anything I see this as a win-win approach, students who don't have the financial means to apply broadly can try interviewing for much more schools, and those students who put in travel expenses for an in-person interview can demonstrate their motivation and build a direct connection with the interviewer.

 

[KnightDoc]

Am I the only one who wants interviews in-person? Interviewing online is so awkward. I can't read facial expressions or body posture well. Not only that, but the risk of complications occurring increases.

If some applicants want online interviews due to their budget then that's fine and I think schools should offer that option. Perhaps when medical schools send out interviews, applicants can choose in-person or online. However I do hope that no permanent switch to online interviews occurs for the next cycle.

If anything I see this as a win-win approach, students who don't have the financial means to apply broadly can try interviewing for much more schools, and those students who put in travel expenses for an in-person interview can demonstrate their motivation and build a direct connection with the interviewer.

Ehhh. I see your point about in person giving you an enhanced opportunity to make a personal connection and be better able to read the interviewer. On the other hand, most people do not have thousands of dollars collecting dust waiting to be spent to fund overnights around the country, so virtual interviews definitely make the process more accessible to more people.

With all due respect, your hybrid approach would be a non-starter rather than a win-win. Nobody would willingly cede whatever advantage can be obtained by in person interviews if they are offered as an option, so it would really have to be all or nothing. Even if schools assured us that both groups would be treated equally, SDN would explode with threads questioning that, and no one would believe it.

Maybe win-win for you if you are willing and able to fund the necessary travel and are maybe hoping others would not be in a position to avail themselves of the same opportunity. Not so much for the people struggling to make ends meet who would feel pressured to join you on campus, or would worry about their chances if they don't. JMHO.

 

[simuu]

Ehhh. I see your point about in person giving you an enhanced opportunity to make a personal connection and be better able to read the interviewer. On the other hand, most people do not have thousands of dollars collecting dust waiting to be spent to fund overnights around the country, so virtual interviews definitely make the process more accessible to more people.

With all due respect, your hybrid approach would be a non-starter rather than a win-win. Nobody would willingly cede whatever advantage can be obtained by in person interviews if they are offered as an option, so it would really have to be all or nothing. Even if schools assured us that both groups would be treated equally, SDN would explode with threads questioning that, and no one would believe it.

Maybe win-win for you if you are willing and able to fund the necessary travel and are maybe hoping others would not be in a position to avail themselves of the same opportunity. Not so much for the people struggling to make ends meet who would feel pressured to join you on campus, or would worry about their chances if they don't. JMHO.

I understand your point but I like to see traveling as an investment, not a hindrance.

Considering that it's extremely unlikely one is getting 20+ interviews from all over the country, sparing aside a grand or two at max for traveling around the U.S. for interviews when people are willing to repay >200k of student loans for a medical school acceptance doesn't seem like a major issue to me?

Plenty of applicants have already spent considerable amounts of money before the pandemic. The majority of that money is spent on applying to primaries and secondaries.

Looking online right now, I can find cheap flights across the country for $200 or less (obviously the pandemic factors, but even before the pandemic domestic flights weren't super expensive). I imagine a hotel room for one night is not deathly expensive either.

Maybe I am looking at this through rose-colored glasses, and forgive me if I sound overprivileged, but I imagine if you were truly interested in a specific school, one wouldn't mind spending money equivalent to the cost of a couple textbooks for a flight to an interview...

 

[Moko]

I personally have enjoyed interviewing in gym shorts (so much more comfortable) and not needing to spend 30 minutes in transit to and from campus just for a few hours of interviewing. It's just a shame that it took a pandemic for this to happen.

From a practical standpoint, most applicants will not get into any school, and many will only be accepted to one. So getting a "feel" for each school is largely irrelevant for the majority of interviewees. In my mind, it makes no sense to impose significant financial costs to all interviewees when only a minority would benefit from being on campus. This is in addition to minimizing the impact on financially disadvantaged applicants. Those who are accepted to multiple schools and want to get a better feel for each school can either visit on their own time, or during second look (which hopefully will be in-person again next year).

Looking online right now, I can find cheap flights across the country for $200 or less (obviously the pandemic factors, but even before the pandemic domestic flights weren't super expensive). I imagine a hotel room for one night is not deathly expensive either.

Maybe I am looking at this through rose-colored glasses, and forgive me if I sound overprivileged, but I imagine if you were truly interested in a specific school, one wouldn't mind spending money equivalent to the cost of a couple textbooks for a flight to an interview...

When I was an applicant, I had to fly coast-to-coast for a few interviews. The airfare itself was often several hundred dollars round trip, and staying in a Super 8 motel for even one night cost up to a couple hundred more (*cough* Stanford *cough*). Each of these trips was equivalent to a few months' worth of groceries, and again, just for the chance to be accepted there. To your point, the amount spent on traveling to one interview is a drop in the bucket compared to the cost of attendance, but multiple drops here and there (the residency process costs even more) can eventually turn into a large puddle, especially with compounding interest. Just my thoughts.

 

[EdgeTrimmer]

Also for those in school have to skip several days of classes if they get multiple interviews.

 

[The Med-Peds Dude]

I know this is kind of a random question, but I am curious about what other people think... Obviously, most interviews this year were online, but I was wondering what people think about the next cycle? Predictions and opinions about whether or not the interview cycle will go back to mostly in-person, partially both, or still primarily online are all welcome.

I don't think we really know for certain... and the issue of affordability and equity should be an important considerations.

BTW, AAMC has not yet offered up information about the proposed application timeline next year.