qualifications vs. the "like" factor

[smalltownpsych]

---

Members don't see this ad.

I just have a hard time with the process as I feel like it's really advantageous for extraverts and introverts can be penalized for not fitting the mold of how they want people to be. Being an introvert/extrovert doesn't make you a better or worse clinician. The one on one interviews with professors are great, although for the majority of my "interviews" the professors talked 90% of the time, but the grad student environment can be extremely tough for introverts. Some schools did smaller groups with grad students, which was great for me and I could learn a lot and relax, but others did a whole large group and all 60 some applicants were thrown into one room and expected to chat with everyone, easily, which seems a bit unfair, but also allowed me to know what environment I would *not* want to be around for the next 5-7 years. I'm sure I "failed" those tests if you asked the grad students, but I don't think that has to do with my ability to be a clinician or researcher by any means.

Most psychologists that I have known prefer more intimate social settings. It sort of fits with what we do. I can schmooze a bit without looking like a freak quivering in the corner, but it is definitely not my comfort zone.

 

[WisNeuro]

Until I see a sound study done, I won't accept the theory that extraverts get significantly more offers than introverts once other factors are controlled for. Who wants to write a grant to do a longitudinal study? 🙂

 

[bostongal109]

Until I see a sound study done, I won't accept the theory that extraverts get significantly more offers than introverts once other factors are controlled for. Who wants to write a grant to do a longitudinal study? 🙂

Ha! That would be interesting to see. I think they only have an advantage over schools where grad students have more weight and have those large events. Why oh why do schools do such large events?

 

[researchgirl]

I just have a hard time with the process as I feel like it's really advantageous for extraverts and introverts can be penalized for not fitting the mold of how they want people to be. Being an introvert/extrovert doesn't make you a better or worse clinician. The one on one interviews with professors are great, although for the majority of my "interviews" the professors talked 90% of the time, but the grad student environment can be extremely tough for introverts. Some schools did smaller groups with grad students, which was great for me and I could learn a lot and relax, but others did a whole large group and all 60 some applicants were thrown into one room and expected to chat with everyone, easily, which seems a bit unfair, but also allowed me to know what environment I would *not* want to be around for the next 5-7 years. I'm sure I "failed" those tests if you asked the grad students, but I don't think that has anything to do with my ability to be a clinician or researcher by any means. I've never experienced that to my impact my work.

I will say, from my experience of n=1 program and n=1 internship, you are not likely being evaluated during those large scale events with graduate students/interns, unless you do something outlandish. My grad program and internship program has dinners/lunches where the applicants could talk to the interns in a group setting, and I was never asked to evaluate any applicants based on those interactions - only asked to report back egregious behavior/red flags.

 

[WisNeuro]

Ditto to what researchgirl said. The only time I remember a group dinner coming back to bite an applicant was when he got really drunk and started hitting on our female grad students. If that was unfair, well then, I'm ok with that.

 

[bostongal109]

There is clearly a lot of differences in programs.

 

[smalltownpsych]

I'm speaking from an experience where a grad student critiqued the number of students I spoke with/how much I spoke, so didn't exactly feel like "group outings don't count!" sort of thing, but maybe that was a weird program. There is clearly a lot of differences in programs.

From what you are saying, that would reveal more about the grad student than yourself. Now if you said that you tried to overcompensate for your social anxiety by downing shots of whiskey and then threw up on someone and the grad student had concerns about "fit" now that would be a different story.

 

[Ollie123]

I generally agree that the social outings are not typically used in that way. We are chatting with folks, getting to know them, etc. So yes - I suppose there is somewhat of a bias in the sense that if someone makes a really strong positive impression whereas another one sat alone in the corner most of the time, the first one is probably slightly more likely to be accepted. At least in the programs I've been affiliated with, we are likely talking about an incredibly microscopic effect on likelihood of acceptance (if any at all). Generally speaking, I think the events are probably 95% about making the applicants feel welcome, treated well and maybe trick them into thinking that full catered meals are a weekly occurrence😉 Its also just as much an excuse for us to get together as anything else. We're talking to one another, catching up and no one is taking notes on who talks to how many people. Now...I DO think that introverts may be more likely to worry about being introverted at these events (which I know certainly contributes to my own introversion at times). In most situations, I think its fine. In many cases, probably better than being the center of attention.

For us, I think applicants are loosely ranked prior to coming in though not necessarily explicitly. My program left pretty much everything up to individual mentors, so I'm sure the specifics of that varied tremendously. Interviews are more an opportunity to move down the rankings than up. Usually for grossly inappropriate behavior like that described above or just for other reasons about fit. For instance...mentor is moving in a new direction and describes their grant that just got funded...applicant reacts positively or seems more interested in the work they were conducting 10 years ago and have moved on from? I think things like this are reasonable to get from interviews and where they may hold some predictive validity. I think personality match is where it gets nebulous, but I still get it. Frankly, I want to meet my potential supervisors before going somewhere too and absolutely make judgments about a place based on how pleasant they are to interact with...so I'm not sure I can expect otherwise from them. I recently turned down a post-doc based on a very abstract, visceral "ick" when I went there...despite the fact that I don't have anything else lined up at present. Quite possibly stupid...but I'm quite comfortable with having done it.

 

[smalltownpsych]

Sounds like the consensus is that the only thing to worry about is not doing something really asinine and the rest of the social stuff is minor variations that are unpredictable and out of the applicants control. Isn't everyone done interviewing for this round? I hope people aren't already getting anxious about next years interviews. 😱

 

[kestrelcry]

A writing sample is not only a good predictor to use but an actual work sample is the best predictor according to what I remember from my EPPP studies. Also, I am not saying that personality factors should not be a factor at all, rather I am just cautioning against drawing too strong of a conclusion based on the interview, and this is based solidly on both research and experience of interviewing and hiring people. Also, one factor of likability is physical attractiveness, is it not? So watch for those biases.

Oh, I totally agree there are biases at work in interviewing process - I've read that research too. Of course, there's also the biases in the written application process as well (different assessments made of the same CV with different gendered, or culturally affiliated names attatched), so I would never argue that any hiring process is fair. If I had a dollar for everytime I've taken out extra earrings for interviews, earrings which I am quite confident do not affect my skills as a clinician or a researcher, I'd be able to buy myself a reasonably nice dinner. I've also seen dinguses make it past the interview process and some advisors who seem to consistently choose poor fits. Ain't nothin' perfect in this world, and hiring processes are no exception.