Shouldn't interviewers be reading apps before interview?

[ped-estrian]

---

Members don't see this ad.

I'm an MS4 interviewing for peds residencies. Recently, I've had several interviews where the interviewer did not read my application beforehand. A good portion of the interview is devoted to discussing basic information (where I attend med school, what are my career goals, what are my hobbies) that are already discussed at length in my application.

Is it good interview ettiquette for a residency interviewer to review look over the interviewee's ERAS app in advance? It bugs me a lot when my interviewer doesn't read my app, but maybe I'm overreacting.

 

[koan]

I agree with you - it's annoying when they haven't even looked at your application. Or when they start the interview with "Do you have any questions for me?" But I just tell myself that the main thing they're after is getting a read on your interpersonal dynamics, and those situations give you the opportunity to direct the interview (whether you wanted to or not).

 

[FutureInternist]

Yes they should be doing it but then the interview could go off into weird tangents that can throw people off
This way you can have a scripted response to the most often asked Qs

 

[Siggy]

On ERAS, for the personal interest section, I listed playing the vibraphone (played competitively in HS, and own one that I play on everyone once in a while now). Every interview has had at least one person ask what the heck a vibraphone is.

 

[operaman]

In my experience thusfar, most people have read my app before the interview and it's pretty obvious they have. Sometimes they have to remind themselves which one I am but that totally makes sense. I can imagine if I read 40 similar CVs and then the PC brings in some dude in a suit and says "here's John." Well crap. Which one was this guy? "Tell me a little about yourself, John" [operaman frantically skims cover page, personal statement, letters while listening to John's opener]

There have a small handful that clearly haven't read it at all but these seem to be either 1) faculty who didn't screen apps/didn't screen my app but were asked to do interviews or 2) old school faculty who just want to have a conversation rather than go over someone's CV. Both are fine. It's actually kind of nice because I feel like I put all the strong points about me in the application, so if someone hasn't really read it yet, that's all "new" material I can use to start a discussion.

The "do you have questions" opener threw me at first but now I don't really mind it at all. Since all the answers to the usual questions are on the websites or covered in the initial presentations, I usually take the time to ask questions about the interviewer, the city, their family, their personal goals, etc., since that stuff isn't really covered elsewhere. I consider it a good day when I can look back at the faculty pictures and feel like I really got to know something about each person.

 

[Chicago2012]

I'm fine either way. What annoyed me is that I interviewed at a program last Thursday where two of the three interviewers read through my file DURING the interview. That's not even the only example of their sloppiness.

 

[Law2Doc]

It's better when they don't read the application. That means they are taking for granted that the PD culled the field down to people who are worthy of being interviewed, and the interview itself can be a conversation. There's really nothing worse than an interview where the interviewer says, so I see you did X and then gets a planned response about EC X, and so on -- you learn nothing about an applicant that way.

Also bear in mind that most people doing interviews are being pulled away from other duties to interview -- it's not like they have that much time to focus on the fifty applicants they will meet with over the course of the interview season to pore through long CVs.

 

[j4pac]

If I was conducting an interview I would read the personal statement and personal information.

I am excellent at reading people, so I know immediately if it is a closed file evaluation or if the interviewer didn't prep. I treat interviews as if the program is on the interview as well, and there is no question that I dock programs that are ill prepared. These are the same attendings that are going to be too busy to teach you as a resident. I also want a good working relationship with my attendings, and it really is tough to determine if I would fit if i am doing nothing but answering stock questions. I just got done with my ROL and the programs that interviewed the best are generally at the top of my list.

 

[drcrispmd]

Also realize that schedules can change and they may need to pull another attending or resident last minute to interview you. It happens and should not be seen as a negative against the program. Patient care has to come first and schedules get altered.

 

[drcrispmd]

It's better when they don't read the application. That means they are taking for granted that the PD culled the field down to people who are worthy of being interviewed, and the interview itself can be a conversation. There's really nothing worse than an interview where the interviewer says, so I see you did X and then gets a planned response about EC X, and so on -- you learn nothing about an applicant that way.

Also bear in mind that most people doing interviews are being pulled away from other duties to interview -- it's not like they have that much time to focus on the fifty applicants they will meet with over the course of the interview season to pore through long CVs.

Or way too long personal statements.

 

[Law2Doc]

... there is no question that I dock programs that are ill prepared. These are the same attendings that are going to be too busy to teach you as a resident. I also want a good working relationship with my attendings, and it really is tough to determine if I would fit if i am doing nothing but answering stock questions. I just got done with my ROL and the programs that interviewed the best are generally at the top of my list.

I think the point some of us are making though is (1) the guy who can hold a nice conversation with you without the crutch of questions from a CV is the guy youd rather dialogue with during your residency -- this street runs both ways. And (2) if the guy they send in to interview you is a guy with nothing better to do than cull through a ton of CVs, that's not the guy you'll be working with or learning from anyhow. You want the guy who is too busy to have time for that because that's the guy you'll most likely be working with day in and out. You WANT a program to have busy attendings who are patient, not interview, focused. So I think you may be creating a rank list which emphasizes the wrong things.

 

[deleted245139]

Completely agree with Law2Doc.
I've done a fair amount of interviewing, both in med school and residency. The ERAS application is a summation of your career thus far, and that, combined with scores and schooling act like the key to the the lock that is a residency interview. Once you're in the door, I'm not looking to rehash the application... I'm looking to get to know YOU. Now if there is something in the application that serves as a conversation starter, then great. The interview is to test personal fit. Why would you WANT to exclusively talk about the app? This is coming from a guy who has been through it. I get it... that app took HOURS to put together, but honestly, when you're invited to interview, it's because someone read that app and thought you were worthy of further consideration. The interview is a personal experience... it determines 'fit' for both sides.

 

[fishingboat]

Completely agree with Law2Doc.
I've done a fair amount of interviewing, both in med school and residency. The ERAS application is a summation of your career thus far, and that, combined with scores and schooling act like the key to the the lock that is a residency interview. Once you're in the door, I'm not looking to rehash the application... I'm looking to get to know YOU. Now if there is something in the application that serves as a conversation starter, then great. The interview is to test personal fit. Why would you WANT to exclusively talk about the app? This is coming from a guy who has been through it. I get it... that app took HOURS to put together, but honestly, when you're invited to interview, it's because someone read that app and thought you were worthy of further consideration. The interview is a personal experience... it determines 'fit' for both sides.

Points taken, and I agree with much of your view of the interview's highest and best use. But what I find frustrating about not reading the app is that it has often been a barrier to "getting to know [ME]." Or each other. Because in a 15-20 minute conversation we burn half of it with recapitulating what's on the first page of the app (where are you from, what's your story, blah blah).

The interviews where I had great conversations were those where we were able to start with more substantive topics because the app had been read.

I think an attending can be "focused on patients" and do the most cursory prep for an interview without too much strain. But whatever. It's definitely easier for the candidate to burn through 10 minutes with basics and the interviewer awkwardly flipping through papers. But don't kid yourself that this the path to getting to know anyone better.

 

[group_theory]

As an interviewer, each applicant file contains EVERYTHING - your entire ERAS application (including your MSPE, personal statement, official USMLE scores, etc) ... each application is quite thick (if printed) or several MB in size (if in PDF format). And if you're interviewing 5-6 applicants at a time, that is a lot of information to go through. Now add that several times a week, every week, for 3-4 months - and it can be hard to stay on top of each detail on every applicants. And remember, this is on top of my usual clinical duties and administrative duties. I don't get extra compensation for this, or reduce clinical duties. I try to read them the night before ... and it takes me an hour or two to go through the entire packets of potential interviewees scheduled for the next day. So I might not remember the details of a personal statement on the 3rd person that I'm interviewing that day (and the 15th of the week, and 40th person I've interviewed this season). I seldom have time to "review" between interviews ... and my morning usually consist of either rounding, calling patients back who called our office, or on the phone getting prior-auths or filling out paperworks, or in some hospital committee meeting with administrators who likes to hold meetings.

And my main goal that I'm trying to answer during the interview is "can I work with this person as an intern/resident? can I work with this person as a future colleague of mine?" Sometimes I use it to clarify some things that jumps out like "so it says here that you were a nobel prize recipient and that you were a tenured professor at harvard at the age of 21. Please tell me more about this accomplishment" or "I see you co-author a paper on this subject? How interesting since that is my interest" ... caught a few applicants who "embellish" their applications this way. (I wasn't trying to catch them ... sometimes the timing of events just didn't make sense, or it was pure coincident that they got caught)

 

[Law2Doc]

Points taken, and I agree with much of your view of the interview's highest and best use. But what I find frustrating about not reading the app is that it has often been a barrier to "getting to know [ME]." Or each other. Because in a 15-20 minute conversation we burn half of it with recapitulating what's on the first page of the app (where are you from, what's your story, blah blah).

The interviews where I had great conversations were those where we were able to start with more substantive topics because the app had been read.

I think an attending can be "focused on patients" and do the most cursory prep for an interview without too much strain. But whatever. It's definitely easier for the candidate to burn through 10 minutes with basics and the interviewer awkwardly flipping through papers. But don't kid yourself that this the path to getting to know anyone better.

Still think some of you guys are missing the point. First: The interview doesn't have to be about your application at all. If you see from a Picture on the wall that the guy is into NASCAR, and have a 30 minute conversation about NASCAR, that's a much better interview than any interview about whatever is on the second page of your CV. Or if he asks you where you are from and you then have a conversation of whether X restaurant is still there, and what took its place and where you can get the best burger in that town, or whatever.
The best interviews are the unscripted one. You are basically annoyed that the guy didn't read the script in what is meant to be an improv show.

Second, if you want to talk about something on your CV, just steer the conversation there. Get into the drivers seat -- he'd rather you do that then have a structured question- answer interview anyway. A bad interview is one where it purely question followed by answer. You didn't need him to have read that you did X to ask about X so you could talk about X. Just bring it up. Find an artful way to lead into it. Let him be surprised to hear about it. Why care if he knew about something the night before, when you have him sitting right in front of you and can tell him all about it now? If anything, it gives you MORE to talk about, gives you more ammunition from which to pitch yourself if he comes in cold. He will leave there thinking it's cool, and in the wrap up meeting tell his colleagues -- did you know this guy did X -- as if he uncovered something. It's really not hard to bring up topics of interest in a conversation. And makes you a better interview than the guy you only can learn about if you ask the right CV based question.

Clearly you wanted the groundwork to be done for you, and didn't have the right attitude when it wasn't -- really you should have seen this as an opportunity not a negative. A lot of residency is about attitude and this was the perfect example of having the choice of letting the lemons sour the interview or instead smiling and just making lemonade. But my point is, the place you had a good conversation and sold yourself as a Person was better than the place that read and stuck to the script. I don't think ranking programs based on how insulted you felt based on their preparation is either reasonable or rational. The guy who doesn't have time to read your CV and with whom you talked about burgers and NASCAR is going to be a lot more fun to work with.

 

[fishingboat]

Still think some of you guys are missing the point. First: The interview doesn't have to be about your application at all. If you see from a Picture on the wall that the guy is into NASCAR, and have a 30 minute conversation about NASCAR, that's a much better interview than any interview about whatever is on the second page of your CV. Or if he asks you where you are from and you then have a conversation of whether X restaurant is still there, and what took its place and where you can get the best burger in that town, or whatever.
The best interviews are the unscripted one. You are basically annoyed that the guy didn't read the script in what is meant to be an improv show.

Second, if you want to talk about something on your CV, just steer the conversation there. Get into the drivers seat -- he'd rather you do that then have a structured question- answer interview anyway. A bad interview is one where it purely question followed by answer. You didn't need him to have read that you did X to ask about X so you could talk about X. Just bring it up. Find an artful way to lead into it. Let him be surprised to hear about it. Why care if he knew about something the night before, when you have him sitting right in front of you and can tell him all about it now? If anything, it gives you MORE to talk about, gives you more ammunition from which to pitch yourself if he comes in cold. He will leave there thinking it's cool, and in the wrap up meeting tell his colleagues -- did you know this guy did X -- as if he uncovered something. It's really not hard to bring up topics of interest in a conversation. And makes you a better interview than the guy you only can learn about if you ask the right CV based question.

Clearly you wanted the groundwork to be done for you, and didn't have the right attitude when it wasn't -- really you should have seen this as an opportunity not a negative. A lot of residency is about attitude and this was the perfect example of having the choice of letting the lemons sour the interview or instead smiling and just making lemonade. But my point is, the place you had a good conversation and sold yourself as a Person was better than the place that read and stuck to the script. I don't think ranking programs based on how insulted you felt based on their preparation is either reasonable or rational. The guy who doesn't have time to read your CV and with whom you talked about burgers and NASCAR is going to be a lot more fun to work with.

I didn't say any of the things you mention in this reply to my post, maybe it was meant to be directed to someone else. What I said was that interviewers use a lot of time asking questions on the first page of the app. The best conversations were the ones where we didn't waste a bunch of time doing that. And finally that you'll get to know someone better by having the very spontaneous discussions you mention-- when we move past the boring stuff, by which I mean nearly everything on eras.

 

[Law2Doc]

I didn't say any of the things you mention in this reply to my post, maybe it was meant to be directed to someone else. What I said was that interviewers use a lot of time asking questions on the first page of the app. The best conversations were the ones where we didn't waste a bunch of time doing that. And finally that you'll get to know someone better by having the very spontaneous discussions you mention-- when we move past the boring stuff, by which I mean nearly everything on eras.

I lumped you in with other posters on this thread with my use of "you guys" -- I'm responding to the group of you whose posts are imho aligned. But I continue to disagree with you to the extent that you seem to think that the material on the first page is any worse of a starting place. None of that really matters - you have to start someplace and then it's up to you to steer.

 

[maxxor]

The guy who doesn't have time to read your CV and with whom you talked about burgers and NASCAR is going to be a lot more fun to work with.

This is so true. In my case, it was an interview about Llamas.

 

[e30ftw]

if you spend most of your time discussing your application, the interview probably hasn't gone as well as you'd hoped.

 

[waitlist22]

I don't think anyone here disagrees that the best interviews are the ones that are spontaneous and don't necessarily have anything to do with your application. However, I think it is much easier to have these types of interviews if the interviewer has read something about you so you don't have to spend time telling them the details about X activity and how you were involved and instead can talk about what you like about the activity. Or the interviewer can ask about activities on your CV that both the applicant and interviewer share and spark a conversation from there. These types of interviews were much more frequent when my interviewer had read my file. If the interviewer has already read your file we don't spend time talking about the boring things on the application and can talk about more interesting things instead of re-hashing my entire ERAS application.

Plus it is the way the question makes you feel as an applicant and whether you feel that they care about getting to know you or picking a good candidate for their program. To me there is a huge difference between "So, I haven't read your file, have you done any research?" (which was word for word what I was asked in an interview) and "I see you have done research on Z, tell me about that." The question is essentially the same but the attitude and sense of your time as an applicant being important to them are vastly different and absolutely affect your feel of the interview and ultimately the program. We, as applicants are expected to know and have done research on the programs, why should we not hold programs to similar standards in doing their research on us before the interviews? On the surface, whether the interviewer read your file or not shouldn't influence which programs you rank highly but it ultimately contributes to the overall feeling you get during the interview day and certainly has affected my gut feelings at certain programs.

 

[BrooklynBulls]

The fact that they haven't read my application (and I don't mean have trouble remembering, I mean haven't read) indicates several things to me: they're either VERY busy or they don't care. Both are troubling to me in terms of being a resident working on their service. Their "free" time is vital to my learning. Now is that attending spending time teaching instead of reading applications? Maybe. But I'll tell you dollars to donuts, the places that knew less about me, told me a lot more about how "self-directed" residency tended to be, and that nobody would "hold my hand." Code words for "you're on your own, unless I'm in a good mood."

An interview that veers off course from the standard application questions is great. One that focuses most of its time asking you to describe your application to them as if they were illiterate, and they gain no further insight and neither do you? That's a program that doesn't care very much about their standard of resident and is moreso looking to fill the spot than anything else.

 

[rd31]

Still think some of you guys are missing the point. First: The interview doesn't have to be about your application at all. If you see from a Picture on the wall that the guy is into NASCAR, and have a 30 minute conversation about NASCAR, that's a much better interview than any interview about whatever is on the second page of your CV. Or if he asks you where you are from and you then have a conversation of whether X restaurant is still there, and what took its place and where you can get the best burger in that town, or whatever.
The best interviews are the unscripted one. You are basically annoyed that the guy didn't read the script in what is meant to be an improv show.

Second, if you want to talk about something on your CV, just steer the conversation there. Get into the drivers seat -- he'd rather you do that then have a structured question- answer interview anyway. A bad interview is one where it purely question followed by answer. You didn't need him to have read that you did X to ask about X so you could talk about X. Just bring it up. Find an artful way to lead into it. Let him be surprised to hear about it. Why care if he knew about something the night before, when you have him sitting right in front of you and can tell him all about it now? If anything, it gives you MORE to talk about, gives you more ammunition from which to pitch yourself if he comes in cold. He will leave there thinking it's cool, and in the wrap up meeting tell his colleagues -- did you know this guy did X -- as if he uncovered something. It's really not hard to bring up topics of interest in a conversation. And makes you a better interview than the guy you only can learn about if you ask the right CV based question.

Clearly you wanted the groundwork to be done for you, and didn't have the right attitude when it wasn't -- really you should have seen this as an opportunity not a negative. A lot of residency is about attitude and this was the perfect example of having the choice of letting the lemons sour the interview or instead smiling and just making lemonade. But my point is, the place you had a good conversation and sold yourself as a Person was better than the place that read and stuck to the script. I don't think ranking programs based on how insulted you felt based on their preparation is either reasonable or rational. The guy who doesn't have time to read your CV and with whom you talked about burgers and NASCAR is going to be a lot more fun to work with.

...Right. That's all peaches and cream. But what you're not understanding is that interviewers who haven't read our application often ASK us everything about our application and you have no choice but to answer such questions. This happened to me probably 25% of the time this season and the outcome was always the same...we spent nearly all 30 minutes re-iterating/summarizing what could have been read ahead of time. They're so obviously "using" our interview time to learn the very basics of our applications...which they often have to know for ranking meetings. "Steering" the conversation in a different direction is much easier said than done when you're not sitting in front of someone who affects your position on a rank list. Perhaps you're more socially skilled than the rest of us, but I'm not sure how I can smoothly respond to the rapidfire "What research have you done? Now what leadership activities were you involved with? Were you AOA? (*checks the box*) OK we have 2 minutes left so what ECs did you do?" with "so I see that Nascar poster on your wall" without seeming completely attention deficit.

 

[Law2Doc]

...Right. That's all peaches and cream. But what you're not understanding is that interviewers who haven't read our application often ASK us everything about our application and you have no choice but to answer such questions. This happened to me probably 25% of the time this season and the outcome was always the same...we spent nearly all 30 minutes re-iterating/summarizing what could have been read ahead of time. They're so obviously "using" our interview time to learn the very basics of our applications...which they often have to know for ranking meetings. "Steering" the conversation in a different direction is much easier said than done when you're not sitting in front of someone who affects your position on a rank list. Perhaps you're more socially skilled than the rest of us, but I'm not sure how I can smoothly respond to the rapidfire "What research have you done? Now what leadership activities were you involved with? Were you AOA? (*checks the box*) OK we have 2 minutes left so what ECs did you do?" with "so I see that Nascar poster on your wall" without seeming completely attention deficit.

Interviewing is something useful to master. Its something you can practice and get better at -- its not a skill you are born with. You will use it not just at this juncture but throughout the career. It not about being "more socially skilled", so much as knowing what you want to bring up, being patient for the opportunity, and having the comfort to jump in and use that opportunity to sell yourself through a pleasant conversation. Having been on both sides of the interview table in multiple careers, I can assure you there are many of your competitors who are far more polished and adept at interviewing than me, and most of the better applicants are able to steer the conversation much more than you seem to think. The interviewer who is inquiring about things on your application is really not locked in on a particular direction -- he doesn't care about the form, he has no boxes to check, he is just trying to find a topic you will talk about. Such an interviewer almost always will give you the opportunity to steer. You just have to recognize it and jump in. Also the interviewer who too early in the interview asks if you have any questions. They are telegraphing that they WANT you to take the reigns. It has nothing to do with having amazing social skills it has to do with you being there to sell your product (you) by smiling and making conversation. Again, you don't need to stay on script -- that just a prop, and the longer the interviewer has to fumble with that it really tells me you didn't help him out and grab the steering wheel.

You can learn a lot from watching the guests on late night television. David Letterman, for instance, used to have a range of different types of interviewees sit on his couch. there were some that he clearly had to stick to those blue canned question note cards, and watching the interview was often like pulling teeth. And then there those where the cards were essentially put aside and Dave barely got a word in. Guess which interviewees were more entertaining and got asked back? If it were a job interview guess which person would get the job?

 

[Law2Doc]

The fact that they haven't read my application (and I don't mean have trouble remembering, I mean haven't read) indicates several things to me: they're either VERY busy or they don't care. Both are troubling to me in terms of being a resident working on their service. Their "free" time is vital to my learning. Now is that attending spending time teaching instead of reading applications? Maybe. But I'll tell you dollars to donuts, the places that knew less about me, told me a lot more about how "self-directed" residency tended to be, and that nobody would "hold my hand." Code words for "you're on your own, unless I'm in a good mood."

An interview that veers off course from the standard application questions is great. One that focuses most of its time asking you to describe your application to them as if they were illiterate, and they gain no further insight and neither do you? That's a program that doesn't care very much about their standard of resident and is moreso looking to fill the spot than anything else.

I think if you are going to take it so personally and as an insult that the interviewer is not more prepared you might struggle in residency -- you need a much thicker skin-- This "snub" should roll right off of you by now. And each interviewer probably looks at dozens of applications per cycle, that all look similar, and he's going to face cancellations and reschedules etc. And it's not really his primary job (unless he's the PD), it's often something he got roped into out of the expectation that faculty serve on committees to get promoted. Would be nice if he was better prepared, but you are being too self aggrandizing if you think "how dare he" and let that influence much. It probably DOES mean that he spends his time taking care of patients and teaching the resident that actully come to the program rather an the ones that haven't yet signed on. It's also tough to maintain the same level of interest throughout. Long interview season -- the first week the guy may have read every application, then the next week my have skimmed some, then most, then none. I wouldn't take it personally -- he's got a job and a life. The guy working at the "self directed" residency is actually going to be the one who had ample time to read every CV, so you might be jumping to the exact wrong conclusion anyhow. That being said, show me an unprepared interviewer and I'll show you a guy who would be DELIGHTED to have you jump in and steer the conversation. It's actually BETTER for you, if you know how to use such an opportunity. Your best interviews ought to be those where the guy doesn't care a lick about the form and just wants you to grab the reigns so he can put down that crutch/prop.

 

[BrooklynBulls]

I think if you are going to take it so personally and as an insult that the interviewer is not more prepared you might struggle in residency -- you need a much thicker skin-- This "snub" should roll right off of you by now. And each interviewer probably looks at dozens of applications per cycle, that all look similar, and he's going to face cancellations and reschedules etc. And it's not really his primary job (unless he's the PD), it's often something he got roped into out of the expectation that faculty serve on committees to get promoted. Would be nice if he was better prepared, but you are being too self aggrandizing if you think "how dare he" and let that influence much. It probably DOES mean that he spends his time taking care of patients and teaching the resident that actully come to the program rather an the ones that haven't yet signed on. It's also tough to maintain the same level of interest throughout. Long interview season -- the first week the guy may have read every application, then the next week my have skimmed some, then most, then none. I wouldn't take it personally -- he's got a job and a life. The guy working at the "self directed" residency is actually going to be the one who had ample time to read every CV, so you might be jumping to the exact wrong conclusion anyhow. That being said, show me an unprepared interviewer and I'll show you a guy who would be DELIGHTED to have you jump in and steer the conversation. It's actually BETTER for you, if you know how to use such an opportunity. Your best interviews ought to be those where the guy doesn't care a lick about the form and just wants you to grab the reigns so he can put down that crutch/prop.

I find it pretty funny that you read my post and decided I was offended. I'm not offended at all-- but I use it as a barometer. I'm not asking for the interview to consist of my CV. In fact, I would like the opposite. But the worst interview is the one where the interviewer ASKS me my CV, and seems genuinely surprised by some of what I have on there. That's an indicator to me. And it's not like it flies in the face of the rest of the program-- uniformly, the programs who seem surprised to meet me are the programs that just aren't very impressive in most other categories.

If the interview is as important as most seem to say it is, it is a natural logical extension to expect the interview to gain some knowledge heretofore unknown. But at some programs, they knew no more after the interview than before. And before you decide to accuse my interview skills, I've discussed this with other applicants whose interviews at these places went similarly. It's not as if I'm such a cold fish that I can't hold my own in an interview. But instead, I'm stuck with awkward silence as somebody actively reads a paper they've never seen before in their lives.

To be honest, 5 minutes of preparation would be sufficient to conduct a proper interview-- find 2-3 things you find interesting about the applicant, jot them down on the facesheet. Other, more invested interviewers did precisely this.

 

[Law2Doc]

I find it pretty funny that you read my post and decided I was offended. I'm not offended at all-- but I use it as a barometer. I'm not asking for the interview to consist of my CV. In fact, I would like the opposite. But the worst interview is the one where the interviewer ASKS me my CV, and seems genuinely surprised by some of what I have on there. That's an indicator to me. And it's not like it flies in the face of the rest of the program-- uniformly, the programs who seem surprised to meet me are the programs that just aren't very impressive in most other categories.

If the interview is as important as most seem to say it is, it is a natural logical extension to expect the interview to gain some knowledge heretofore unknown. But at some programs, they knew no more after the interview than before. And before you decide to accuse my interview skills, I've discussed this with other applicants whose interviews at these places went similarly. It's not as if I'm such a cold fish that I can't hold my own in an interview. But instead, I'm stuck with awkward silence as somebody actively reads a paper they've never seen before in their lives.

To be honest, 5 minutes of preparation would be sufficient to conduct a proper interview-- find 2-3 things you find interesting about the applicant, jot them down on the facesheet. Other, more invested interviewers did precisely this.

It's not 5 minutes of preparation -- it's 5 times the hundred of so applicants the place will interview. So we are up to 8 hours of prep time you suggest, and that's assuming five minutes would be enough to commit much into memory. Would it be nice if they did this? Sure. Is it necessary in order to evaluate someone in an interview? No. I think what's not on the CV, or the way the applicant connects themselves when the interviewer is obviously at a loss for what to ask next says a lot, and would lead to a better interview in some cases. Asking your peers what they thought is pointless because it's quite clear from my own experiences and those on SDN that many, if not most, applicants have no clue how well their interviews went. I also continue to think your barometer isn't necessarilly telling you what you think it is, and quite possibly the opposite. You are regarding things as snubs, but it might be that those too prepared are the ones that need to be because their product isn't quite as good. I won't try to convince you further, but it will be interesting to see if your tune changes over time.

 

[Helen Wheels]

Sorry. Accidental phone post.