RELIGION - Did it come up in your interview?

[curlycity]

---

Members do not see this ad.

I think it's ridiculous for them to ask about your plans to have children (if you're female), and I think many schools ban that question, and I think the one Islamic interviewer cornering the guy on the Crusades is absurd. I would've been stifling the desire to punch him in the face.

Yeah, almost everyone I know is offended by the children question, but I told them, if someone asks, it's always better to have a good answer than no answer. If I were asking someone that question and they had a sound plan to combine family and education I would be impressed that they'd given it some thought. There are a few reasons someone might ask that question, including judging your response, attitude, foresight, maturity ... aside from just being a bigot who thinks women don't belong in medicine. And that attitude would shine through I think, in which case you request another interview immediately.

 

[Blake]

Women don't belong in medicine ? Considering up to 70 % of new medical students in my province ( french canada ) are female, I wonder what it's like in the USA ?

 

[oasis786]

Whether or not it's illegal is one question, but I have heard of med schools asking inflammatory questions to guage your response, and yeah, the topic came up in several of my interviews in varying degrees of inflammatory-ness (yay, it's after midnight, let's invent words!).

The bottom line is the adcom needs to know you can check your biases in at the door. We all have issues we're passionate about and that's human - docs aren't supposed to be robots. But we have to learn to be as objective as possible to work with patients (tzalli gives a pretty extreme example of this) and have to be ready to not receive a similar objectivity back. Demonstrating that you can see things from multiple points of view, extreme as they might be, while completely separating from your own, is a valuable skill both for everyday life and to demonstrate in your interview.

I agree that it absolutely blows to go through an interview where those kinds of things are discussed, regardless of the interviewer's intent. All you can do is control your response, and act as professionally as possible. In the end though, I think it's a good learning process and an opportunity for personal development - you will always have patients, colleagues, superiors, etc. who will have very strong biases, many of which may affect you unfairly.

 

[samurai_lincoln]

Whether or not it's illegal is one question, but I have heard of med schools asking inflammatory questions to guage your response, and yeah, the topic came up in several of my interviews in varying degrees of inflammatory-ness (yay, it's after midnight, let's invent words!).

The bottom line is the adcom needs to know you can check your biases in at the door. We all have issues we're passionate about and that's human - docs aren't supposed to be robots. But we have to learn to be as objective as possible to work with patients (tzalli gives a pretty extreme example of this) and have to be ready to not receive a similar objectivity back. Demonstrating that you can see things from multiple points of view, extreme as they might be, while completely separating from your own, is a valuable skill both for everyday life and to demonstrate in your interview.

I agree that it absolutely blows to go through an interview where those kinds of things are discussed, regardless of the interviewer's intent. All you can do is control your response, and act as professionally as possible. In the end though, I think it's a good learning process and an opportunity for personal development - you will always have patients, colleagues, superiors, etc. who will have very strong biases, many of which may affect you unfairly.

I am by nature not a particularly argumentative person (at least not in person, as opposed to on the internet), and would in all likelihood just suck up any initial shock in receiving such a question. I think in many respects you are better off just calmly answering the question, just as you described, rather than refusing.

That said, let me play devil's advocate here. While your reasoning above is solid, it also applies to virtually every conceivable career path out there. Any job that deals with the public requires one to contend with a wide variety of viewpoints, personalities, etc. Yet these employers are not allowed to "test the waters" by asking blatantly illegal questions during an interview, just to gauge your response. What makes a med school special? Particularly when the very hospitals and other health care entities which will be employing the graduates are prohibited from asking the same questions?

I just think the potential for bias on the part of the interviewer is too great, should they find the substance of your answer violates their belief system. And not all interviewers may be as pure of motive as we assume - they may actually be using their position of power to flesh out the student's religious tendencies.

 

[flighterdoc]

Whether or not it's illegal is one question, but I have heard of med schools asking inflammatory questions to guage your response, and yeah, the topic came up in several of my interviews in varying degrees of inflammatory-ness (yay, it's after midnight, let's invent words!).

The bottom line is the adcom needs to know you can check your biases in at the door. We all have issues we're passionate about and that's human - docs aren't supposed to be robots. But we have to learn to be as objective as possible to work with patients (tzalli gives a pretty extreme example of this) and have to be ready to not receive a similar objectivity back. Demonstrating that you can see things from multiple points of view, extreme as they might be, while completely separating from your own, is a valuable skill both for everyday life and to demonstrate in your interview.

I agree that it absolutely blows to go through an interview where those kinds of things are discussed, regardless of the interviewer's intent. All you can do is control your response, and act as professionally as possible. In the end though, I think it's a good learning process and an opportunity for personal development - you will always have patients, colleagues, superiors, etc. who will have very strong biases, many of which may affect you unfairly.

Good point. And it helps to have a way to divert such highly charged questions - for instance, if someone asked my religion or politics, I'd just say that "they're personal - what are yours?" If that doesn't satisfy them, too bad.

Now, if they ask what I'd do in an appropriate question (for example, if they asked my opinions about euthanasia or abortion) I'd give an appropriate answer.

 

[curlycity]

Good point. And it helps to have a way to divert such highly charged questions - for instance, if someone asked my religion or politics, I'd just say that "they're personal - what are yours?" If that doesn't satisfy them, too bad.

Now, if they ask what I'd do in an appropriate question (for example, if they asked my opinions about euthanasia or abortion) I'd give an appropriate answer.

Yes, euthanasia and abortion are medical topics, but it could be argued they are inflammatory, personal and religious questions also. I actually got the abortion question and a lot of people I talked with were surprised by that, thinking that was also an off-limits topic.

The best way to couch your replies is, not whether YOU think something is "right or wrong," but to discuss what you feel the doctor's role/perspective should be in such a sensitive area. For example, are you obligated to violate your conscience for your professionalism? How could you ethically provide care to someone requesting something you disagree with? How good are you at seeing these issues from multiple points of view? Do you have mental flexibility + moral courage/inner strength? If your interviewer is asking these questions for the right reasons, that will be what they're looking for in your answer. That said, if you think your doc is anti- one of those things and is going to hold your answer against you, time to speak up and get another interview.

Another thing I learned is, it's impossible to tell what the interviewer thinks of you sometimes! I got accepted at one school where I had two quite awkward (although not controversial) interviews. I had no idea WHAT those people thought of me - straight faces the entire time, regulated pauses between questions, very textbook questions.

 

[MDodgerMD]

The grand danger of stating that interview questions should be illegal is that it implies that the conversation that follows the question should never happen. When we embrace the avoidance of difficult conversations, I think we are doing a disservice to the issues and to the medical community.

It is another issue entirely if you feel like the topic has been broached to directly target and offend you in an interview situation. In this case, you should feel free to react as you will.

However, even though these hot topics--stem cell research, abortion, and euthanasia--can instigate a TON of discomfort in an interview, they also promote the assertion of intellectual thought, weighing of arguments, personal conviction, and the perspective from which one will practice medicine. I don't think that anyone should even feel that they necessarily need to be pinned to one side of an issue; however, you should be able to articulate and support one or both sides of an issue.

I think it is the fear of offending others around ethics that lead to the standoffishness around the health politics and the 'under-training' of medical professionals around these issues. For example: In 1998, a survery of OB/GYN residency training programs showed that less than half of these programs routinely offered 1st trimester abortion training...less than 30% offered 2nd trimester training. For a nation of medical professionals who, when surveyed, are overwhelmingly pro-choice, shouldn't medical training back up the stance? At least offer these trainings for basic medical knowledge and to provoke discussion.

Don't stop the dialogue--and support one's opinions--whatever they are-- with conviction. It gives the medical profession meaning.

 

[flighterdoc]

The grand danger of stating that interview questions should be illegal is that it implies that the conversation that follows the question should never happen. When we embrace the avoidance of difficult conversations, I think we are doing a disservice to the issues and to the medical community.

It is another issue entirely if you feel like the topic has been broached to directly target and offend you in an interview situation. In this case, you should feel free to react as you will.

However, even though these hot topics--stem cell research, abortion, and euthanasia--can instigate a TON of discomfort in an interview, they also promote the assertion of intellectual thought, weighing of arguments, personal conviction, and the perspective from which one will practice medicine. I don't think that anyone should even feel that they necessarily need to be pinned to one side of an issue; however, you should be able to articulate and support one or both sides of an issue.

I think it is the fear of offending others around ethics that lead to the standoffishness around the health politics and the 'under-training' of medical professionals around these issues. For example: In 1998, a survery of OB/GYN residency training programs showed that less than half of these programs routinely offered 1st trimester abortion training...less than 30% offered 2nd trimester training. For a nation of medical professionals who, when surveyed, are overwhelmingly pro-choice, shouldn't medical training back up the stance? At least offer these trainings for basic medical knowledge and to provoke discussion.

Don't stop the dialogue--and support one's opinions--whatever they are-- with conviction. It gives the medical profession meaning.

I don't think anyone is saying that the discussion of difficult topics is illegal, just that there are appropriate times and places for them. A school or job interview (where the biases of the interviewer have a great deal of power over the interviewee) isn't the right time or place. A discussion in (perhaps) an ethics class, or over a beer (well, I guess not for muslims) is.

And of course, discussing the options for medical procedures with patients and colleagues are appropriate places. Colleagues, not interviewers.

 

[Geronimo]

I was a little concerned religion would come up in my interviews and it did, more than once. I was concerned because I have strong views on issues such as abortion, homosexuality, and other ethical scenarios. As it turned out, I was accepted at every school where it came up. I suppose that it didn't turn out to be just like I had thought it would. I think they were curious if it was my position or my parents. They also seemed concerned with whether or not I had considered how my religious views would impact my practice. In the end, my actual views seemed to matter less than what I would do with or how I would handle my views.