Reasons to get rid of the admission interview

[gofer]

In 1982 the Brown University Program in Medicine eliminated the personal interview from its process of selecting applicants for admission to medical school. This study compares the 113 M.D.-program students admitted to the first three classes (entering between 1983 and 1985) without an interview with the 67 students in the previous three classes admitted with an interview. The students' characteristics were essentially the same with respect to the preadmission variables, the proportions of women and minority students, course performances, scores on Parts I and II of the National Board of Medical Examiners examinations, and evaluation scores from residency program directors. This study offers additional evidence that the selection interview, as practiced in most U.S. medical schools, does not contribute to the predictive validity of the admission process.

http://journals.lww.com/academicmed..._school_and_residency_performances_of.12.aspx

(C) 1991 Association of American Medical Colleges

My observations:
- Many European schools select students only on the basis of standardized tests and their doctors are better than ours in many respects

- Almost all PhD programs, who select our nation's professors and scientists, never require an admissions interview.

- the admission interview is usually used as an argument to reject qualified minorities who don't have minority status (e.g. Chinese, Koreans, East Indians, etc). Prejudices come into play.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[Hifey]

In 1982 the Brown University Program in Medicine eliminated the personal interview from its process of selecting applicants for admission to medical school. This study compares the 113 M.D.-program students admitted to the first three classes (entering between 1983 and 1985) without an interview with the 67 students in the previous three classes admitted with an interview. The students' characteristics were essentially the same with respect to the preadmission variables, the proportions of women and minority students, course performances, scores on Parts I and II of the National Board of Medical Examiners examinations, and evaluation scores from residency program directors. This study offers additional evidence that the selection interview, as practiced in most U.S. medical schools, does not contribute to the predictive validity of the admission process.

http://journals.lww.com/academicmed..._school_and_residency_performances_of.12.aspx

(C) 1991 Association of American Medical Colleges

My observations:
- Many European schools select students only on the basis of standardized tests and their doctors are better than ours in many respects

- Almost all PhD programs, who select our nation's professors and scientists, never require an admissions interview.

- the admission interview is usually used as an argument to reject qualified minorities who don't have minority status (e.g. Chinese, Koreans, East Indians, etc). Prejudices come into play.

your first point is arguable. I'm not saying European doctors are worse or better, but some may disagree with you.

your second point is no longer true (at least in the biology field). Everyone I know who applied for a PhD was subjected to interviews and by multiple people. They just treat their applicants a lot better than medical schools do.

the bolded doesn't make sense to me. Care to elaborate how minorities don't have minority status?

 

[venacontracta]

So, given this study, when and why did Brown re-institute interviews for its candidates?

 

[TooMuchResearch]

Is this the follow-up to your related thread from earlier that you claimed was a joke?

 

[gofer]

Care to elaborate how minorities don't have minority status?

Asians like Chinese, Koreans, East Indians, etc are not considered minorities for admissions purposes. Didn't you know that already?

 

[Hifey]

Asians like Chinese, Koreans, East Indians, etc are not considered minorities for admissions purposes. Didn't you know that already?

Sorry, I go to UCI where every other race is a minority on campus haha.

It was actually my impression that people of generally asian descent have more than their fair share of representation in medical school admissions, despite their "minority" status overall. That is why they're not treated as minorities.

 

[SpaceDementia]

My observations:
- Many European schools select students only on the basis of standardized tests and their doctors are better than ours in many respects

That's a tenuous claim, unless you can support it.

- Almost all PhD programs, who select our nation's professors and scientists, never require an admissions interview.

There are enormous differences between the roles of a scientist/professor and physician. It should be self-evident, but the former doesn't have to be humanistic/empathetic/compassionate to be excellent in his/her role, whereas the foundation of medicine is the patient-physician relationship. A physician not relating or communicating well to his/her patients is how a lot of poor health care manifests itself. Medical schools have to be judicious when bringing people into the profession, and that's why they'll employ things like the interview and LORs.

 

[Vadoff]

So, I'm assuming you lack interview/people/social skills?

 

[gofer]

Is this the follow-up to your related thread from earlier that you claimed was a joke?

What, have you started stalking me now?

 

[gofer]

.

 

[riverjib]

In 1982 the Brown University Program in Medicine eliminated the personal interview from its process of selecting applicants for admission to medical school. This study compares the 113 M.D.-program students admitted to the first three classes (entering between 1983 and 1985) without an interview with the 67 students in the previous three classes admitted with an interview. The students' characteristics were essentially the same with respect to the preadmission variables, the proportions of women and minority students, course performances, scores on Parts I and II of the National Board of Medical Examiners examinations, and evaluation scores from residency program directors. This study offers additional evidence that the selection interview, as practiced in most U.S. medical schools, does not contribute to the predictive validity of the admission process.

http://journals.lww.com/academicmed..._school_and_residency_performances_of.12.aspx

(C) 1991 Association of American Medical Colleges

My observations:
- Many European schools select students only on the basis of standardized tests and their doctors are better than ours in many respects

- Almost all PhD programs, who select our nation's professors and scientists, never require an admissions interview.

- the admission interview is usually used as an argument to reject qualified minorities who don't have minority status (e.g. Chinese, Koreans, East Indians, etc). Prejudices come into play.

What's up with your obsession with doing away with ALL factors other than the MCAT? Did you have a bad experience? You've posted twice this evening (the first time "just joking") with arguments against ALL criteria but the MCAT. Did you score a 40 and not get in? I didn't think much of it before, but now I'm seriously curious.

 

[TooMuchResearch]

What, have you started stalking me now?

No, but I remember names sometimes. Under certain circumstances.

 

[NotAsking4Much]

Nope. I am Native American and interviewing committees, who will mainly be White males or White females, won't like to hear what I have to say in interviews. They are pretty much guaranteed to ask me about my culture, and I cannot NOT be candid in my responses to them.

They won't like to hear at all what I have to say. At my last interview for a job, the conversation went to how many Indians were killed because Whites invaded America. The answer is about 100 million. They didn't like hearing that. There was another topic about how long Indians have been in America. The answer is nearly 50,000 years according to scientists and forever according to our people. They didn't like hearing that either. Then a question was why my driver license had long hair while my hair was shorter during the interview. In our culture, you cut your hair only if you are a coward or if someone has died. And they didn't like hearing exactly why I cut my hair for the interview. So my chances at any interview are pretty slim. Unless I lie, which goes against my culture.

Now, if Black professors interview me, they will love me and I am sure of being accepted. But how many Black professors do you see during an interview?

#1) So given the article, why does Brown interview people now when it obviously costs resources for them to interview and applicants to go over there for the interview?

#2) Who says European doctors are better than US's. Unless you provide a study that compared actual doctor practices (and not healthcare systems), you can hardly say that.

#3) Most colleges in the world are based on standardized tests only (all Asian countries come to mind, a lot of European countries, yet US universities and their students still rank in the top). Why? Because there is much more to education than a test number.

#4) PhDs do have interviews. I don't know where you hear that they don't. Also, a person sitting in a basement for 20 years running experiments can become a Nobel Prize winner. You would not want him to be a doctor. Medicine is an art that requires interpersonal skills which go beyond test scores. I would think this is obvious.

#5) You have some serious self-victimization with your race. I mean all that being said, wouldn't every Black applicant not get in? In fact, Japanese people wouldn't either with what happened in WWII. Much less any middle Eastern like Pakistan or Afghan applicant. Every race has had a history of being discriminated against. Raging about it does nothing. Rather incorporate it for your own growth.

Discrimination happens everyday (whether it be racial, cultural, socioeconomic, religious, etc)...it's inevitable. You might as well accept it and find how to frame your background in the best possible light.

 

[SouthernSurgeon]

Nope. I am Native American and interviewing committees, who will mainly be White males or White females, won't like to hear what I have to say in interviews. They are pretty much guaranteed to ask me about my culture, and I cannot NOT be candid in my responses to them.

They won't like to hear at all what I have to say. At my last interview for a job, the conversation went to how many Indians were killed because Whites invaded America. The answer is about 100 million. They didn't like hearing that. There was another topic about how long Indians have been in America. The answer is nearly 50,000 years according to scientists and forever according to our people. They didn't like hearing that either. Then a question was why my driver license had long hair while my hair was shorter during the interview. In our culture, you cut your hair only if you are a coward or if someone has died. And they didn't like hearing exactly why I cut my hair for the interview. So my chances at any interview are pretty slim. Unless I lie, which goes against my culture.

Now, if Black professors interview me, they will love me and I am sure of being accepted. But how many Black professors do you see during an interview?

This is beyond absurd...

 

[schrizto]

Nope. I am Native American and interviewing committees, who will mainly be White males or White females, won't like to hear what I have to say in interviews. They are pretty much guaranteed to ask me about my culture, and I cannot NOT be candid in my responses to them.

They won't like to hear at all what I have to say. At my last interview for a job, the conversation went to how many Indians were killed because Whites invaded America. The answer is about 100 million. They didn't like hearing that. There was another topic about how long Indians have been in America. The answer is nearly 50,000 years according to scientists and forever according to our people. They didn't like hearing that either. Then a question was why my driver license had long hair while my hair was shorter during the interview. In our culture, you cut your hair only if you are a coward or if someone has died. And they didn't like hearing exactly why I cut my hair for the interview. So my chances at any interview are pretty slim. Unless I lie, which goes against my culture.

Now, if Black professors interview me, they will love me and I am sure of being accepted. But how many Black professors do you see during an interview?

I hope this is a joke. You seriously think that all your interviews will make your ethnicity a topic of discussion? There are some silly stereotypes of interviewers you have in there.

 

[schrizto]

By the way, I might add that Brown Med usually admits their kids through a BA/MD program called PLME from high school. I haven't read the article, but I have to mention that PLME currently does not conduct medical school-style interviews on its candidates.

 

[marshds]

Nope. I am Native American and interviewing committees, who will mainly be White males or White females, won't like to hear what I have to say in interviews. They are pretty much guaranteed to ask me about my culture, and I cannot NOT be candid in my responses to them.

They won't like to hear at all what I have to say. At my last interview for a job, the conversation went to how many Indians were killed because Whites invaded America. The answer is about 100 million. They didn't like hearing that. There was another topic about how long Indians have been in America. The answer is nearly 50,000 years according to scientists and forever according to our people. They didn't like hearing that either. Then a question was why my driver license had long hair while my hair was shorter during the interview. In our culture, you cut your hair only if you are a coward or if someone has died. And they didn't like hearing exactly why I cut my hair for the interview. So my chances at any interview are pretty slim. Unless I lie, which goes against my culture.

Now, if Black professors interview me, they will love me and I am sure of being accepted. But how many Black professors do you see during an interview?

So, let me get this straight. You think that you do not have a fair chance in any interview because you are Native American? Unless, of course, you are being interviewed by black professors (maybe you are being sarcastic here)?

You can be candid in an interview without sacraficing your ideals. If you cannot figure out how to do this, then you are just not good at interviewing.

 

[Chemdude]

Look man. You have the right to say whatever you want, but sometimes you have to have some tact. You can't let politics get in the way of your professional life. Native Americans have gone through a lot of ****, but that doesn't mean that every second of your life has to be spent protesting for your people's rights. Adcoms don't like an overly political applicant.

Besides, your statements make it seem as if today's White people are responsible for the hardships of Native Americans. Sure, some of their ancestors might have been *******s, but the vast majority of White people are strongly for Native American rights.

 

[Chemdude]

and stop complaining. You have golden URM status.

 

[schrizto]

You know, I could see how the OP could make this a self-fulfilling prophecy. He walks into the interview, sees the interviewer is white, and gets standoffish just because the interviewer is white. You have one bad experience with an interview (and this looks to be from a job interview, not a medical school interview, which should be more professional) doesn't mean all of them will be that way. Furthermore, what do you mean by the vague description of "they didn't like hearing that"?

 

[RogueUnicorn]

obvious troll is very obvious.

 

[Neurocentric]

:troll:

He apparently just likes to start trouble with all the issues he finds with the medical school application process.

 

[rockaction]

and stop complaining. You have golden URM status.

Seriously. Native American is the ultimate.

I'm 1/8th Cherokee but I didn't have original tribal paperwork for my family so I couldn't claim to be Cherokee. But yeah, I totally looked into it.

 

[Suenya]

obvious troll is very obvious.

Bears repeating.

 

[SunnySideUp14]

So, let me get this straight. You think that you do not have a fair chance in any interview because you are Native American? Unless, of course, you are being interviewed by black professors (maybe you are being sarcastic here)?

You can be candid in an interview without sacraficing your ideals. If you cannot figure out how to do this, then you are just not good at interviewing.

Every thread I read that you start, OP, is about how you have a disadvantage in social situations (ie interviews) solely because you are Native American and "white people" don't like what you have to say. I have no idea what you're saying to piss people off, but I am also Native American. Yes, my culture came up in interviews. My interviewers were genuinely interested about my involvement with Native American communities because my interest in serving this underserved population was obvious. I only felt discriminated against once- and my interviewer was African American. She asked, "Now, it's not like you need to wear a feather on your head, but you don't look Indian, why not?" She asked these types of questions for around 45 minutes straight.

I have had a lot of experience with many different tribes, and if they had anything in common it was that they were proud of their heritage. They wanted to educate others about why our people are great. They will never forget what happened to their ancestors when Europeans came to North America, but they know that it's history. We have never focused on blame, but on education and friendship. Maybe you should remove the giant chip from your shoulder and reinvent the way you convey your thoughts about your culture to others.

 

[SweetRain]

I think he just likes getting attention. (I checked and this is not a racial comment and will not hurt you at an interview)

 

[Ischemic]

Nope. I am Native American and interviewing committees, who will mainly be White males or White females, won't like to hear what I have to say in interviews. They are pretty much guaranteed to ask me about my culture, and I cannot NOT be candid in my responses to them.

They won't like to hear at all what I have to say. At my last interview for a job, the conversation went to how many Indians were killed because Whites invaded America. The answer is about 100 million. They didn't like hearing that. There was another topic about how long Indians have been in America. The answer is nearly 50,000 years according to scientists and forever according to our people. They didn't like hearing that either. Then a question was why my driver license had long hair while my hair was shorter during the interview. In our culture, you cut your hair only if you are a coward or if someone has died. And they didn't like hearing exactly why I cut my hair for the interview. So my chances at any interview are pretty slim. Unless I lie, which goes against my culture.

Now, if Black professors interview me, they will love me and I am sure of being accepted. But how many Black professors do you see during an interview?

There's a difference between being candid and answering in a politically correct manner that won't offend your interviewer. You can answer without getting offended and sound like you're attacking your interviewer who may just be curious about certain things. Also, another question is do you want to be a doctor? You can swallow your pride for a 30 minute interview so you can achieve a lifetime's goal.

About your hair comment, you are entering a medical and professional field. You will be working and seeing patients who, get this, aren't going to be indian. And as stupid and unfair as this may sound you will be subjected to their own prejudices and biases, so learn to deal with it. You are expected to cut your hair and follow whatever professional/etc rules that are stressed by your medical school ... EVERYONE is subject to this requirement, not just you. This issue also won't go away once you enter practice because unless you go back and practice in a predominantly native american setting you will have patients, white or otherwise, who are going to be ignorant of your customs/culture and you will have to deal with all the BS that comes with people. Now once you finish residency and can open your own practice you can do whatever the hell you want. Otherwise, play along and stop acting like you're anything special because of your culture, we all have our own culture and although we don't reject it completely we follow the game rules.

 

[Drrrrrr. Celty]

Nope. I am Native American and interviewing committees, who will mainly be White males or White females, won't like to hear what I have to say in interviews. They are pretty much guaranteed to ask me about my culture, and I cannot NOT be candid in my responses to them.

They won't like to hear at all what I have to say. At my last interview for a job, the conversation went to how many Indians were killed because Whites invaded America. The answer is about 100 million. They didn't like hearing that. There was another topic about how long Indians have been in America. The answer is nearly 50,000 years according to scientists and forever according to our people. They didn't like hearing that either. Then a question was why my driver license had long hair while my hair was shorter during the interview. In our culture, you cut your hair only if you are a coward or if someone has died. And they didn't like hearing exactly why I cut my hair for the interview. So my chances at any interview are pretty slim. Unless I lie, which goes against my culture.

Now, if Black professors interview me, they will love me and I am sure of being accepted. But how many Black professors do you see during an interview?

50,000 years and yet the ice bridge which brought over about 80% of the Native Americans only appeared around 12,000 years ago. 20% of Native American's also did came from ice hopping Europeans who hunted moving herds of animals all the way to the Americas. Again 13,000 years ago. (sorry I'm a history freak).
In all honesty, your right. You believe others are going to judge you because of your culture. And of course they will. However how they judge you is up too them. Not you, it's your job to be as polite and respectful of their customs as much as it's their job to show them the same curiosity.

 

[morning]

There's a difference between being candid and answering in a politically correct manner that won't offend your interviewer. You can answer without getting offended and sound like you're attacking your interviewer who may just be curious about certain things. Also, another question is do you want to be a doctor? You can swallow your pride for a 30 minute interview so you can achieve a lifetime's goal.

About your hair comment, you are entering a medical and professional field. You will be working and seeing patients who, get this, aren't going to be indian. And as stupid and unfair as this may sound you will be subjected to their own prejudices and biases, so learn to deal with it. You are expected to cut your hair and follow whatever professional/etc rules that are stressed by your medical school ... EVERYONE is subject to this requirement, not just you. This issue also won't go away once you enter practice because unless you go back and practice in a predominantly native american setting you will have patients, white or otherwise, who are going to be ignorant of your customs/culture and you will have to deal with all the BS that comes with people. Now once you finish residency and can open your own practice you can do whatever the hell you want. Otherwise, play along and stop acting like you're anything special because of your culture, we all have our own culture and although we don't reject it completely we follow the game rules.

I think the op is the definition of a neurotic pre-med, but I'm going to play devil's advocate here...there are many people who think African American textured hair looks "unruly." There have been women who have been fired from their jobs for not straightening it, and men who have been fired for cornrows. There was a lady who was fired for shaving her hair and donating it to charity. Bowing down to a patient's comfort level with the physician's hair seems like opening a huge can of worms.

/back to our regularly scheduled programming. OP, you're fixated on this on a level that seems unhealthy to me. You might want to see a doctor before you try to become a doctor (if you're not trolling...)

 

[auburnO5]

 

[45408]

They have admissions interviews to keep out weirdos and trolls.

 

[Simplify]

You mean they don't want awkward, social introverts who can't formulate a sentence in a conversational setting? A doctor needs to be able to communicate. What better way to evaluate your ability as a communicator than at a face to face interview? You should get used to interviews. Whether or not you end up as a physician I can guarantee that decent jobs will be always be guarded by an interview.

 

[WholeLottaGame7]

You mean they don't want awkward, social introverts who can't formulate a sentence in a conversational setting? A doctor needs to be able to communicate. What better way to evaluate your ability as a communicator than at a face to face interview? You should get used to interviews. Whether or not you end up as a physician I can guarantee that decent jobs will be always be guarded by an interview.

Then there needs to be a changing of the guard, because my med school class (and I'm sure everyone else's) has their fair share of awkward, social introverts who can't formulate a sentennce in a conversational setting.

 

[Gabby]

Supposedly, the MCAT is supposed to include a communications component in the coming years. Wonder how the OP will respond to that.

 

[The Poet Sings]

Supposedly, the MCAT is supposed to include a communications component in the coming years. Wonder how the OP will respond to that.

isn't that what the essay section is for?

 

[gofer]

I am sorry for making so many of you upset with my post. That wasn't my intention. And I apologize.

 

[rmaj79]

Supposedly, the MCAT is supposed to include a communications component in the coming years. Wonder how the OP will respond to that.

Source? Not trying to be a jerk, just curious because I'm kinda interested in this aspect of medicine...

 

[Gabby]

There were links posted here over the past few years. I'll try to find some.

 

[Narmerguy]

Dangit I hope not. The MCAT has enough stuff on it already to stress and think about. Save this sort of stuff for AMCAS and interviews.

Also, standardized essays from tests are already pretty poorly graded.

 

[Parts Unknown]

Then there needs to be a changing of the guard, because my med school class (and I'm sure everyone else's) has their fair share of awkward, social introverts who can't formulate a sentennce in a conversational setting.

You should see who they rejected.

 

[TooMuchResearch]

Dangit I hope not. The MCAT has enough stuff on it already to stress and think about. Save this sort of stuff for AMCAS and interviews.

Also, standardized essays from tests are already pretty poorly graded.

They have been working on a new MCAT for a while now. I heard it will be put in use sometime in the 2012/2013 area. Maybe. Ah, here you go: http://www.aamc.org/programs/mr5/start.htm

You should see who they rejected.

Cue rimshot

 

[Law2Doc]

In 1982 the Brown University Program in Medicine eliminated the personal interview from its process of selecting applicants for admission to medical school. This study compares the 113 M.D.-program students admitted to the first three classes (entering between 1983 and 1985) without an interview with the 67 students in the previous three classes admitted with an interview. The students' characteristics were essentially the same with respect to the preadmission variables, the proportions of women and minority students, course performances, scores on Parts I and II of the National Board of Medical Examiners examinations, and evaluation scores from residency program directors. This study offers additional evidence that the selection interview, as practiced in most U.S. medical schools, does not contribute to the predictive validity of the admission process.

http://journals.lww.com/academicmed..._school_and_residency_performances_of.12.aspx

(C) 1991 Association of American Medical Colleges

My observations:
- Many European schools select students only on the basis of standardized tests and their doctors are better than ours in many respects

- Almost all PhD programs, who select our nation's professors and scientists, never require an admissions interview.

- the admission interview is usually used as an argument to reject qualified minorities who don't have minority status (e.g. Chinese, Koreans, East Indians, etc). Prejudices come into play.

First, I don't think many US doctors will concede that any country does a better job of selecting and educating doctors than the US. Some arguably do as good, but no, "their doctors are NOT better than ours in many respects".

Here's the deal. Other medical systems predated that of the US. The US chose to set up medical schools where people first typically attend a college, and then the med school admission is set up as very difficult and strict so that we didn't have to use a "selection by attrition" approach used by most other nations or fields. Meaning once you are in a US med school, you most probably will end up a physician. Not so in other countries, where they let more people in, only to throw them out later. Further, after seeing other systems and after a series of changes in focus in patient rights and expectations, the admissions process moved away from a very objective one to a partially objective, and partially subjective one. It was agreed by the US profession that there is more to being a doctor than high scores. We want not only high scores, but also folks who bring other things to the table, in terms of experiences, ECs, interpersonal skills. So in our system the interview is huge. Which actually makes sense because you will realize once you are further into this field that it is barely a science, and mostly a service industry. It has more in common with the legal or consulting industry than it does with most PhD science jobs. We intentionally chose this approach because the med schools prior to 1980 were not really cranking out the kind of doctors the profession or patients wanted. So we tweaked it, made non-sci majors a popular option, encouraged women, minorities, and nontrads into the profession, and put emphasis on interpersonal skills and experiences. And never turned back because we liked the end result better than the strictly numbers oriented admissions process that preceded it. So the interview makes a ton of sense in our system because we are looking for folks with interpersonal skills for this service oriented field. That other nations don't have the same view of the field is fine; they presumably are cranking out the kind of doctors that are desired by their local professions. But don't kid yourself into thinking that they are better -- many actually do horribly when they try to come over and integrate into the US system. Our admissions and subsequent training is what makes sense for the field here. And we crank out some of the most talented physicians in the world, who tend to be more dynamic because many have more diverse backgrounds and experiences you get when you don't start med school right out of high school and when you don't select purely based on numbers. It's a better system, at least for the US. If you dislike the system so much, you might actually dislike the field of medicine as it's practiced here because the skills required to interview are also the skills required to be a good clinician. Food for thought.

 

[auburnO5]

First, I don't think many US doctors will concede that any country does a better job of selecting and educating doctors than the US. Some arguably do as good, but no, "their doctors are NOT better than ours in many respects".

Here's the deal. Other medical systems predated that of the US. The US chose to set up medical schools where people first typically attend a college, and then the med school admission is set up as very difficult and strict so that we didn't have to use a "selection by attrition" approach used by most other nations or fields. Meaning once you are in a US med school, you most probably will end up a physician. Not so in other countries, where they let more people in, only to throw them out later. Further, after seeing other systems and after a series of changes in focus in patient rights and expectations, the admissions process moved away from a very objective one to a partially objective, and partially subjective one. It was agreed by the US profession that there is more to being a doctor than high scores. We want not only high scores, but also folks who bring other things to the table, in terms of experiences, ECs, interpersonal skills. So in our system the interview is huge. Which actually makes sense because you will realize once you are further into this field that it is barely a science, and mostly a service industry. It has more in common with the legal or consulting industry than it does with most PhD science jobs. We intentionally chose this approach because the med schools prior to 1980 were not really cranking out the kind of doctors the profession or patients wanted. So we tweaked it, made non-sci majors a popular option, encouraged women, minorities, and nontrads into the profession, and put emphasis on interpersonal skills and experiences. And never turned back because we liked the end result better than the strictly numbers oriented admissions process that preceded it. So the interview makes a ton of sense in our system because we are looking for folks with interpersonal skills for this service oriented field. That other nations don't have the same view of the field is fine; they presumably are cranking out the kind of doctors that are desired by their local professions. But don't kid yourself into thinking that they are better -- many actually do horribly when they try to come over and integrate into the US system. Our admissions and subsequent training is what makes sense for the field here. And we crank out some of the most talented physicians in the world, who tend to be more dynamic because many have more diverse backgrounds and experiences you get when you don't start med school right out of college and when you don't select purely based on numbers. It's a better system, at least for the US. If you dislike the system so much, you might actually dislike the field of medicine as it's practiced here because the skills required to interview are also the skills required to be a good clinician. Food for thought.

Straight pwnage.

 

[45408]

Then there needs to be a changing of the guard, because my med school class (and I'm sure everyone else's) has their fair share of awkward, social introverts who can't formulate a sentennce in a conversational setting.

So be an interviewer and reject the people who you don't think should get in.

 

[Quaero]

I think interview is a great way to meet adcom and students with a possible school tour. Remember, they don't know you and you don't know them. The only bad thing would be the cost.

 

[schrizto]

Straight pwnage.

I agree, pwnage, although it would have been even more pwnage if it had some indentation.

 

[BerlinDude]

First, I don't think many US doctors will concede that any country does a better job of selecting and educating doctors than the US. Some arguably do as good, but no, "their doctors are NOT better than ours in many respects".

Our admissions and subsequent training is what makes sense for the field here. And we crank out some of the most talented physicians in the world, who tend to be more dynamic because many have more diverse backgrounds and experiences you get when you don't start med school right out of high school and when you don't select purely based on numbers. It's a better system, at least for the US. If you dislike the system so much, you might actually dislike the field of medicine as it's practiced here because the skills required to interview are also the skills required to be a good clinician. Food for thought.

Don't mean to argue, but it is common knowledge that the US healthcare system is the worst or among the worst of all industrialized countries. We spend more per capita on healthcare than any nation on Earth, and the outcomes are lower than many third world countries. (In terms of life expectancy, infant mortality rates, etc, America is ranked between 40-50). How could America's physicians NOT be at least largely responsible for that?

 

[Dianyla]

Don't mean to argue, but it is common knowledge that the US healthcare system is the worst or among the worst of all industrialized countries. We spend more per capita on healthcare than any nation on Earth, and the outcomes are lower than many third world countries. (In terms of life expectancy, infant mortality rates, etc, America is ranked between 40-50). How could America's physicians NOT be at least largely responsible for that?

This has everything to do with how the business of medicine operates, and little to do with individual physician quality.

If anything, it would be a lot worse if it weren't for the devoted efforts of most physicians to practice good medicine in spite of the insurance companies and healthcare MBAs.

 

[BerlinDude]

This has everything to do with how the business of medicine operates, and little to do with individual physician quality.

If anything, it would be a lot worse if it weren't for the devoted efforts of most physicians to practice good medicine in spite of the insurance companies and healthcare MBAs.

That's a total distortion of history. The insurance companies arose IN RESPONSE to physicians bilking their patients. Even today, one major reason healthcare costs are so high is that physicians order unnecessary tests and procedures that do nothing to advance health. Especially if you have good insurance, you go to the doctor's office expecting him to try and rip you off.

 

[Dianyla]

Ordering lots of diagnostics is all about reducing the risk of malpractice in an excessively litigious society.