So I got some feedback from a school i am waitlisted at

[drpep]

I was told that 2/3 of my interviewers did not find me to be genuine.

They said that I talked about what I did but that it was important to them to see what I got out of it, what I learned about it, how it affected me as a person, etc. I remember doing those things but I guess I did not stress it enough.

They said that I was lacking a passion when I was talking about everything. They wanted to get to know the person, but I guess I just gave them what they already saw on paper. This is probably pretty accurate since I have enjoyed what I have done but never really felt passionate about anything.

Any advice on how to fix this? This is something that goes well beyond doing well in the interview process and I have no idea how to develop something like this.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[drpep]

And I did poorly enough in the interview season for me to realize that it is actually a problem. It sucks because I had always thought I was a pretty good interviewer since I am in general a very likable person.

I figured being friendly and having good qualifications would be enough.

 

[ReptarBar]

i'm ****ing scared now

 

[Mahliah]

OOC what exactly was it that you did?

 

[Druggernaut]

I had three interviews. I felt the first was terrible. I opened up the first question he asked me with a drawn out, "Uhhhh... Hmmm...." and a good amount of silence. I thought I was done right off the bat. I actually thought about standing up in the middle of the interview, apologizing for wasting the interviewer's time, and walking out. I recovered some on the next few questions, then took a somewhat politically incorrect stance on another question and tied it in to some things I've seen working as an EMT. He nodded along, as he did the whole way through, and seemed a little amused, but did disagree and correct me on one point, if I recall correctly. Walking out, I still thought I was dead in the water. A few weeks later, I received an acceptance.

The second interview felt like one of the best I'd had for anything in my entire life. I thought I was well-spoken and positive, and only mildly regretted how I had answered one question. I thought I'd played it perfectly, if a little vanilla, and expected an acceptance. Waitlisted.

The third interview was a group one, and I wasn't all that interested in the school, so my participation was fairly minimal, usually just giving one response toward the end of the discussion on each topic. As I sat there, I again thought I was headed for a rejection. Since I was somewhat indifferent at the time at whether I'd be accepted or rejected, I decided to try rocking the boat a bit and again giving some less politically correct responses, and attempting to draw the other interviewees into an argument rather than just having us all agree with each other, as it had been the whole way through. A few comments on the personal responsibility of patients later, including singling out overweight people as an example in the point I was trying to make (and being seated next to an overweight interviewer), and making statements, when prompted, about some people being more deserving of scarce medical commodities than others, and the interview ended. Accepted.

After all that rambling, my point is: try to take a position on something that differs from what you feel is the "safe" answer, if you believe in it. Maybe I read far more into my experiences than what was actually there, but I think I didn't give enough sense of myself as a real person in interview #2. In the flesh, I was a cookie cutter applicant. Stepping outside the bounds of strict P.C. answers gives you the opportunity to appear passionate and opinionated about something. Don't tell them you hate a certain ethnic group, but don't be afraid to tell that you don't want to be a primary care physician serving the underserved and fighting the good fight for free and equal medical care for all, all the time, and for any reason, if that's not what you're really into.

 

[DrSmday]

I guess the only advice I can think of is to do things that you ARE passionate about... don't just do activities that you think adcoms like to see... there is no way you are not passionate about ANYTHING...

I started volunteering at a seniors community after my grandma passed, because i wanted to connect with seniors like her... It became one of the most meaningful things I have done though had nothing to do with medicine... At an interview I was asked what I learned from it... and, to be honest, i couldnt even think of a textbook answer (ie. worked with diverse ppl, different age group, needy demographic)... I got so passionate telling them that it was a wonderful experience and I became friends with people over 80 years old and that I absolutely loveddd it... I became so passionate that the panel was just all smiles and said smth along the lines of "wow, it really did mean a lot to you"...

so find something that you enjoy doing and the passionate answers will come through on their own... pretending to be passionate about something you don't care about is going to come across even worse than not even trying.

I was told that 2/3 of my interviewers did not find me to be genuine.

They said that I talked about what I did but that it was important to them to see what I got out of it, what I learned about it, how it affected me as a person, etc. I remember doing those things but I guess I did not stress it enough.

They said that I was lacking a passion when I was talking about everything. They wanted to get to know the person, but I guess I just gave them what they already saw on paper. This is probably pretty accurate since I have enjoyed what I have done but never really felt passionate about anything.

Any advice on how to fix this? This is something that goes well beyond doing well in the interview process and I have no idea how to develop something like this.

 

[circulus vitios]

A few comments on the personal responsibility of patients later, including singling out overweight people as an example in the point I was trying to make (and being seated next to an overweight interviewer), and making statements, when prompted, about some people being more deserving of scarce medical commodities than others, and the interview ended. Accepted.

Sounds like something I would do.

 

[rafflecopter]

I would say possible reasons for getting waitlisted include ending sentences with prepositions.

 

[Musclemass]

I was told that 2/3 of my interviewers did not find me to be genuine.

They said that I talked about what I did but that it was important to them to see what I got out of it, what I learned about it, how it affected me as a person, etc. I remember doing those things but I guess I did not stress it enough.

They said that I was lacking a passion when I was talking about everything. They wanted to get to know the person, but I guess I just gave them what they already saw on paper. This is probably pretty accurate since I have enjoyed what I have done but never really felt passionate about anything.

Any advice on how to fix this? This is something that goes well beyond doing well in the interview process and I have no idea how to develop something like this.

It's hard to tell from your description, but is the message that your responses seemed mechanical and lacking feeling? If the conversation seemed flat to them, you might have appeared as someone who just went through the motions because you thought the various activities were "required", not because you had an interest or passion in what you were doing. Whether or not that's true doesn't matter.

You may be reserved in communications with strangers. For whatever reason, you need to show ease and enthusiasm in expressing yourself and in dealing with people you don't know well. It's what most physicians spend most every day doing.

Get a job as a tour guide. A greeter in a store or become a host/hostess in a restaurant. Become comfortable with being outwardly friendly and enthusiastic until it becomes your habit.

If I've misunderstood, please disregard, was only trying to help.

 

[Musclemass]

I would say possible reasons for getting waitlisted include ending sentences with prepositions.

Say what? A preposition is a perfectly good choice for a word to end a sentence with.

 

[UMICHPremed]

Thank you, this has been one of the most relevant and potentially helpful post I have ever read on SDN.

 

[patel2]

interesting that they told you this while still on the waitlist. Are you still in contention for the school?

 

[ucladoc2b]

I was told that 2/3 of my interviewers did not find me to be genuine.

They said that I talked about what I did but that it was important to them to see what I got out of it, what I learned about it, how it affected me as a person, etc. I remember doing those things but I guess I did not stress it enough.

They said that I was lacking a passion when I was talking about everything. They wanted to get to know the person, but I guess I just gave them what they already saw on paper. This is probably pretty accurate since I have enjoyed what I have done but never really felt passionate about anything.

Any advice on how to fix this? This is something that goes well beyond doing well in the interview process and I have no idea how to develop something like this.

I am really surprised the school told you this information. Fear of lawsuits usually prevents them from revealing subjective information.

 

[CaliGirl14]

Thank you, this has been one of the most relevant and potentially helpful post I have ever read on SDN.

+1

 

[rafflecopter]

Say what? A preposition is a perfectly good choice for a word to end a sentence with.

Just looked it up and you sir are correct. It's apparently a myth perpetuated by some English professors and is completely false. I shall now give it up.

 

[drpep]

It's hard to tell from your description, but is the message that your responses seemed mechanical and lacking feeling? If the conversation seemed flat to them, you might have appeared as someone who just went through the motions because you thought the various activities were "required", not because you had an interest or passion in what you were doing. Whether or not that's true doesn't matter.

You may be reserved in communications with strangers. For whatever reason, you need to show ease and enthusiasm in expressing yourself and in dealing with people you don't know well. It's what most physicians spend most every day doing.

Get a job as a tour guide. A greeter in a store or become a host/hostess in a restaurant. Become comfortable with being outwardly friendly and enthusiastic until it becomes your habit.

If I've misunderstood, please disregard, was only trying to help.

yes this is exactly the problem. i guess i never really understood what the interviewers wanted. i know i need to ease up a bit. but i should have come up with a more personal approach to my activities, that I have, but just didn't express.

when asked about X experience, i would pretty much just tell them what was on my AMCAS + more information. textbook answers as another poster mentioned. i just thought they wanted more information on the actual WHAT that I did.

in reality, they wanted me to personalize what I saw. they wanted me to see how the experience was actually meaningful.

i may have already said this earlier, but even in my written updates to the school, i did the exact same thing. i told them what i did, how much money we tried to raise, what it was for. I have a great story for why we did it, one that is very touching and personalized, but I never told them this.

Again, its not that I don't think I can, its just that the thought of doing that never even crossed my mind. I did a mock interview at my university and was told I was great, probably because of the amicable persona I give off. But when interviewing at the top schools in the country, this wasn't enough. When every school has 100s of people who are passionate about something and can easily express it, what do they care about me.

Advice to future applicants: Keep a journal. Everyday you do something interesting in any of your activities, write it down and remember it forever. For years of experience in a particular activity, just one meaningful story about how it was all worth it to you would blow the adcoms away!

 

[rHinO1]

From reading your posts, it sounds to me like you were too reserved during your interviews. This seems to be a common mistake many people make. I think for some people, it can be an intimidating process. You have to remember to smile, and try to give answers that are thoughtful but not prepared.

I wouldn't worry so much about including everything you did, and focus more on how you explain it. The goal is to be personable, articulate, and reflect maturity. Basically, you want to make the interviewer like you. If you can do that, you are golden.

 

[drpep]

Giving answers that are thoughtful is where I slipped up. I told them what I did, but should have told them what I got from the experience.

I definitely smile, act very respectful all of that stuff. I think for me, it was a verbal communication issue.

 

[EpicBearMan]

you were too reserved during your interviews

I had the same problem. I'm very much passionate about things, but didn't really show it that well. I just don't get all excited very easily, especially in an environment like a med school interview. I gradually got better at it over the course of the interview season, and things turned out well in the end.

Thankfully, being reserved, in itself, is not a deal breaker.

 

[iamcool]

I was told that 2/3 of my interviewers did not find me to be genuine.

They said that I talked about what I did but that it was important to them to see what I got out of it, what I learned about it, how it affected me as a person, etc. I remember doing those things but I guess I did not stress it enough.

They said that I was lacking a passion when I was talking about everything. They wanted to get to know the person, but I guess I just gave them what they already saw on paper. This is probably pretty accurate since I have enjoyed what I have done but never really felt passionate about anything.

Any advice on how to fix this? This is something that goes well beyond doing well in the interview process and I have no idea how to develop something like this.

This sounds like a ****ty reason to not accept an applicant.

Do these adcoms not realize that everyone does research, volunteering, and shadowing because it is a requirement, not a choice? Nobody is really touched or moved by these activities. It is what it is. Everyone is in it for money or prestige. There are better professions out there to help people which does not require 10 years of training.

Physicians in other countries do not have to go through this silly interview process and all this volunteering bull crap to get into medical school. And physicians still turn out to be as qualified and provide healthcare just as comparable. And they are still not millionaires as they are in US.

It is about time we change the system in US so applicants can finally have peace of mind and save some $$.

 

[Alejandro]

Physicians in other countries do not have to go through this silly interview process and all this volunteering bull crap to get into medical school. And physicians still turn out to be as qualified and provide healthcare just as comparable. And they are still not millionaires as they are in US.

Hm, you bring up a good point, but i think part of the reason why other countries can get away with that is that most countries are not as "capitalistically-driven" like the US.

Being rich and socially IN is one of the hallmarks of the American people, for better or for worse. MTV culture, social stratification, etc--i don't think you see it as much as you do in the US. Besides, a lot of other countries out there, see health and/or healthcare as a RIGHT, whereas we're still trying to figure that out. I think in America, health care is seen as a very profitable field to exploit.

True, that this volunteering may or may not be required, but I think the point behind doing such work is two-fold: A) To see how well you can discover something about yourself, society, or whatever on YOUR OWN...without having some silly checklist of prereqs at a med school dictate what you do, and B) Actually gaining that perspective before you go to med school, because once you're in, you hardly get a chance to turn back or pause to "see the bigger pictures."

Not sure if adcoms would like to hear me say this, but I think a large part of the premed population is focused on "how to get into medical school," rather than "how can i be a better doctor." Myself included, no lie. (Research is an example) But I know that the experiences that I jumped into with the mentality that "that this will make me a better doctor," has given me perspective that I would have never gotten otherwise.

I think my lesson learned was that being a "premed should never be following a checklist."

 

[anfleisch]

Research no doubt makes people better doctors. Basic research helps you appreciate molecular biology and how the process works instead of just the words on a textbook. And prepares you for interpreting clinical studies, which pretty much are how we know everything that we know. It is just that there is a process to become a well rounded doctor, and certain experiences help you get to where you need to be.

 

[Alejandro]

Research no doubt makes people better doctors. Basic research helps you appreciate molecular biology and how the process works instead of just the words on a textbook. And prepares you for interpreting clinical studies, which pretty much are how we know everything that we know. It is just that there is a process to become a well rounded doctor, and certain experiences help you get to where you need to be.

I agree, research is quite powerful. Reading a lot of the NEJM helped me realize the bigger picture behind it. But I think what I was trying to get at, is the mindset that you enter these activities can hinder your chances at seeing how such activities can lend you insight on being a health care provider.

And my first post was not saying that research doesn't help people become beter doctors, I was just saying that research was one of those things that i treated as a box to check off, rather than a "let's see where this takes me, maybe i'll learn something."

 

[ReptarBar]

Giving answers that are thoughtful is where I slipped up. I told them what I did, but should have told them what I got from the experience.

I definitely smile, act very respectful all of that stuff. I think for me, it was a verbal communication issue.

yea you definitely messed up a little. even if i were BSing, i would talk about why i started doing the activity, what i did, and what i learned from it.

 

[drpep]

yeah i really have no idea what i was thinking. i mean i am positive i spent some time talking about all 3 but the bulk of it was what i did. the why i did it and what i learned from it are the personal reasons i think they were looking for

 

[osumc2014]

I had three interviews. I felt the first was terrible. I opened up the first question he asked me with a drawn out, "Uhhhh... Hmmm...." and a good amount of silence. I thought I was done right off the bat. I actually thought about standing up in the middle of the interview, apologizing for wasting the interviewer's time, and walking out. I recovered some on the next few questions, then took a somewhat politically incorrect stance on another question and tied it in to some things I've seen working as an EMT. He nodded along, as he did the whole way through, and seemed a little amused, but did disagree and correct me on one point, if I recall correctly. Walking out, I still thought I was dead in the water. A few weeks later, I received an acceptance.

The second interview felt like one of the best I'd had for anything in my entire life. I thought I was well-spoken and positive, and only mildly regretted how I had answered one question. I thought I'd played it perfectly, if a little vanilla, and expected an acceptance. Waitlisted.

The third interview was a group one, and I wasn't all that interested in the school, so my participation was fairly minimal, usually just giving one response toward the end of the discussion on each topic. As I sat there, I again thought I was headed for a rejection. Since I was somewhat indifferent at the time at whether I'd be accepted or rejected, I decided to try rocking the boat a bit and again giving some less politically correct responses, and attempting to draw the other interviewees into an argument rather than just having us all agree with each other, as it had been the whole way through. A few comments on the personal responsibility of patients later, including singling out overweight people as an example in the point I was trying to make (and being seated next to an overweight interviewer), and making statements, when prompted, about some people being more deserving of scarce medical commodities than others, and the interview ended. Accepted.

After all that rambling, my point is: try to take a position on something that differs from what you feel is the "safe" answer, if you believe in it. Maybe I read far more into my experiences than what was actually there, but I think I didn't give enough sense of myself as a real person in interview #2. In the flesh, I was a cookie cutter applicant. Stepping outside the bounds of strict P.C. answers gives you the opportunity to appear passionate and opinionated about something. Don't tell them you hate a certain ethnic group, but don't be afraid to tell that you don't want to be a primary care physician serving the underserved and fighting the good fight for free and equal medical care for all, all the time, and for any reason, if that's not what you're really into.

What I gather from your experience is that the interview doesnt really matter, and no matter how you do, good or bad, it doesnt really effect the outcome?

 

[Musclemass]

yeah i really have no idea what i was thinking. i mean i am positive i spent some time talking about all 3 but the bulk of it was what i did. the why i did it and what i learned from it are the personal reasons i think they were looking for

Be careful here with the lesson learned, I'm not sure you have it quite right.

You want your interviewers to walk away with the right feelings about your passion and your personal motivation based on HOW you interact with them, not based upon what you say. You need to display enthusiasm, not talk about it.

Maybe I've misunderstood, but from what you said, you're likely to sound just as robotic as before but with a longer list of things to mention. That likely won't cut it. Good luck, remember that your need for these skills won't stop with interview success, they'll be just as important to you when you're a physician (unless you go into radiology or other specialty with minimal patient contact).

 

[Musclemass]

Physicians in other countries do not have to go through this silly interview process and all this volunteering bull crap to get into medical school. And physicians still turn out to be as qualified and provide healthcare just as comparable. And they are still not millionaires as they are in US.

It is about time we change the system in US so applicants can finally have peace of mind and save some $$.

The US has the best system of medical schools in the world. Admission decisions aren't based strictly on objective measures (grades and test scores) as is the case in many other countries, and the system is better because of it. That won't change.

If there's another country's approach you like better, you should go there.

 

[BiopsychStudent]

Generally speaking, I think stories help make your interview experience a lot more memorable and conversational. Anyone can say, "Yeah, my tutoring experience was really rewarding, um, it really helped me develop my passion for working with disadvantaged kids and teaching and..." but its not going to convince the interviewer of those things nearly as much as a vivid and well-told anecdote.

 

[Raziela]

This sounds like a ****ty reason to not accept an applicant.

Do these adcoms not realize that everyone does research, volunteering, and shadowing because it is a requirement, not a choice? Nobody is really touched or moved by these activities. It is what it is. Everyone is in it for money or prestige. There are better professions out there to help people which does not require 10 years of training.

Physicians in other countries do not have to go through this silly interview process and all this volunteering bull crap to get into medical school. And physicians still turn out to be as qualified and provide healthcare just as comparable. And they are still not millionaires as they are in US.

It is about time we change the system in US so applicants can finally have peace of mind and save some $$.

This is untrue. Getting into an English medical school requires standardized testing, interviews, volunteering, research, etc. It is extremely competitive. And you can make lot of money in England as a doctor in private practice. The ones I worked with drove their sport cars to work from their homes in Surrey...

 

[iamcool]

The US has the best system of medical schools in the world. Admission decisions aren't based strictly on objective measures (grades and test scores) as is the case in many other countries, and the system is better because of it. That won't change.

If there's another country's approach you like better, you should go there.

Really? I do like to see some research showing if interviewing contributes in any way yielding better physicians and how this makes US medical schools superior. Picking those students who have the highest stats first is probably best for this country. This is how things are done in majority of countries in the world.

We need physicians who provide excellent healthcare and can get the results. We don't need physicians who waste time talking to their patients for an hour and get mediocre results. In the end, patients want results and this is what I would want as well.

Looking at whole person and not just stats may look nice in a speech or on paper. But this is not how the real world works. Cut the crap and get to the point. That is all I am saying.

 

[mauberley]

We need physicians who provide excellent healthcare and can get the results. We don't need physicians who waste time talking to their patients for an hour and get mediocre results. In the end, patients want results and this is what I would want as well.

How can you determine an appropriate treatment if you can't get an accurate history?

 

[iamcool]

How can you determine an appropriate treatment if you can't get an accurate history?

I was trying to make a point. We need physicians who get in, get the job done, and get out. All this compassionate and caring crap is just BS at best.

 

[mauberley]

I was trying to make a point. We need physicians who get in, get the job done, and get out. All this compassionate and caring crap is just BS at best.

You're imagining a dichotomy where there is none.

 

[patel2]

I was trying to make a point. We need physicians who get in, get the job done, and get out. All this compassionate and caring crap is just BS at best.

 

[iamcool]

I knew I was going to get flamed by those who have low stats. What I said was absolutely the truth but no one has guts to admit it. I m done with this thread.


Flame on.

 

[mauberley]

I knew I was going to get flamed by those who have low stats. What I said was absolutely the truth but no one has guts to admit it. I m done with this thread.


Flame on.

Okay.

 

[StudyShy]

I want a physician who cares.

 

[AsianPersuasion]

I want a physician who cares.

About my well-being and soul!!

 

[slowbutsteady]

Say what? A preposition is a perfectly good choice for a word to end a sentence with.

No, it is not.

 

[slowbutsteady]

This sounds like a ****ty reason to not accept an applicant.

Do these adcoms not realize that everyone does research, volunteering, and shadowing because it is a requirement, not a choice? Nobody is really touched or moved by these activities. It is what it is. Everyone is in it for money or prestige. There are better professions out there to help people which does not require 10 years of training.

Physicians in other countries do not have to go through this silly interview process and all this volunteering bull crap to get into medical school. And physicians still turn out to be as qualified and provide healthcare just as comparable. And they are still not millionaires as they are in US.

It is about time we change the system in US so applicants can finally have peace of mind and save some $$.

The interview is to weed out people like you who feel that way.

Just because you don't like research or volunteering you assume NO ONE does?

 

[mauberley]

The interview is to weed out people like you who feel that way.

http://forums.studentdoctor.net/showpost.php?p=10943577&postcount=266

I do wish him the best of luck, however.

 

[ladybug1122]

I want a physician who cares.

Agreed.

 

[apumic]

I was told that 2/3 of my interviewers did not find me to be genuine.

They said that I talked about what I did but that it was important to them to see what I got out of it, what I learned about it, how it affected me as a person, etc. I remember doing those things but I guess I did not stress it enough.

They said that I was lacking a passion when I was talking about everything. They wanted to get to know the person, but I guess I just gave them what they already saw on paper. This is probably pretty accurate since I have enjoyed what I have done but never really felt passionate about anything.

Any advice on how to fix this? This is something that goes well beyond doing well in the interview process and I have no idea how to develop something like this.

Have you done things you're actually passionate about?

I know I have to dial down the passion when talking about something I care about. If you're passionate about something, it should just exude from you. It's not something anyone can advise you on. You simply need to develop passions. Passionate people inspire others naturally. It's kind of like confidence. You don't "put on an air of confidence" (people that attempt that usually come off obnoxious and arrogant -- to really "put on confidence" means to slowly develop it through personal experience).

 

[drpep]

in general, i am not a very passionate person. right now, i do many many things a little bit but don't really have the one or two things i am extra passionate about.

but i did do all of my activities because i wanted to and not because they would look good on an application. i figured this would be enough

 

[ButImLETired]

yes this is exactly the problem. i guess i never really understood what the interviewers wanted. i know i need to ease up a bit. but i should have come up with a more personal approach to my activities, that I have, but just didn't express.

when asked about X experience, i would pretty much just tell them what was on my AMCAS + more information. textbook answers as another poster mentioned. i just thought they wanted more information on the actual WHAT that I did.

in reality, they wanted me to personalize what I saw. they wanted me to see how the experience was actually meaningful.

i may have already said this earlier, but even in my written updates to the school, i did the exact same thing. i told them what i did, how much money we tried to raise, what it was for. I have a great story for why we did it, one that is very touching and personalized, but I never told them this.

Again, its not that I don't think I can, its just that the thought of doing that never even crossed my mind. I did a mock interview at my university and was told I was great, probably because of the amicable persona I give off. But when interviewing at the top schools in the country, this wasn't enough. When every school has 100s of people who are passionate about something and can easily express it, what do they care about me.

Advice to future applicants: Keep a journal. Everyday you do something interesting in any of your activities, write it down and remember it forever. For years of experience in a particular activity, just one meaningful story about how it was all worth it to you would blow the adcoms away!

This is good advice, but I don't think the issue is necessarily a lack of "stories". It's more a matter of affect. Not everything I've ever done to prep for med school has been 100% exciting, and I definitely had a lot of resume-padders...we all have to do that to some extent, very few of us actually LOVE shadowing and research and volunteering and leading clubs and studying a zillion hours a day. Instead of thinking about stories, I'd think about something good and something bad that you "got out" of your experience.

For example, I've always been very interested in neuroscience and psychiatry. For that reason, I shadowed/worked with a psychiatrist for a summer. By week 2, I was basically over it- I couldn't spend a lot of time with patients, and hearing about them wasnt nearly as fun as talking to them. Moreover, I realized I didn't like the day to day life of a psychiatrist. So when I was asked about this experience, I told them precisely that- that it was pretty cool to see the inner workings of a psych clinic, that the few patients I did get to hang out with taught me a lot, and that I didn't want to be a psychiatrist, ever. My research experience? I admitted that I was bored after a few months, and that while running a study has its moments, I am not going to do it for a living.

All of this stuff might not be as "vanilla", or even what the interviewers want to hear, but in order to be an effective doctor you have to be able to express things that others might not want to hear and do so eloquently. As long as you can put into words the good and bad inherent to each experience, they'll know you can evaluate a situation from every angle and that you're not afraid to speak your mind or go against the grain. Also, a good sense of humor and perspective on what you've done makes you a real person, and interviewers are more likely to remember you if you make them laugh or even disagree with them, than if you're just that other vanilla applicant in the dark suit.

My advice to everyone would be to rehearse less. I do think that going over a mock interview once just so that you can think of good ways to word things is valuable, but don't overdo it. I've seen some people who have such rehearsed answers that it's like I'm reading an essay- that's when the interviewer will pull out the really random questions that tell him/her more about how the interviewee can handle thinking on his/her feet than anything else. If you can stay fairly comfortable and not sound like you're reading from a script, you'll be fine.

 

[Narmerguy]

This is good advice, but I don't think the issue is necessarily a lack of "stories". It's more a matter of affect. Not everything I've ever done to prep for med school has been 100% exciting, and I definitely had a lot of resume-padders...we all have to do that to some extent, very few of us actually LOVE shadowing and research and volunteering and leading clubs and studying a zillion hours a day. Instead of thinking about stories, I'd think about something good and something bad that you "got out" of your experience.

I'm going to assume that you mean very few of us love doing them all at once or something of that nature, right?

Have you done things you're actually passionate about?

I know I have to dial down the passion when talking about something I care about. If you're passionate about something, it should just exude from you. It's not something anyone can advise you on. You simply need to develop passions. Passionate people inspire others naturally. It's kind of like confidence. You don't "put on an air of confidence" (people that attempt that usually come off obnoxious and arrogant -- to really "put on confidence" means to slowly develop it through personal experience).

I understand what you're saying but it's hard, it really is. I've actually got things that I'm passionate about but I remember times when I didn't (coming out of high school) and hearing people give advice like that, doing what you're passionate about, etc, and it's hard for everyone to have a passion.

I think sometimes we should accept that some people just aren't passionate about anything, and perhaps never will be. I think it's sad and I don't personally understand it, but practicality dictates that we accept it. I mean, how many of the supposed matriculating med students have become "passionate" doctors? Since I don't think that we can genuinely expect the majority of our applicants to truly be passionate about stuff, why not zero in on other traits? Like being genuine? Or empathetic? Perhaps willing to accept that someone may have the first and thus not show the second?

Either way, developing a genuine passion is difficult stuff and I see very few people that actually display that passion in their actions. However, there is certainly a place/role for individuals that, though lacking passion, have a clear desire to practice medicine and help patients.

 

[apumic]

I'm going to assume that you mean very few of us love doing them all at once or something of that nature, right?



I understand what you're saying but it's hard, it really is. I've actually got things that I'm passionate about but I remember times when I didn't (coming out of high school) and hearing people give advice like that, doing what you're passionate about, etc, and it's hard for everyone to have a passion.

I think sometimes we should accept that some people just aren't passionate about anything, and perhaps never will be. I think it's sad and I don't personally understand it, but practicality dictates that we accept it. I mean, how many of the supposed matriculating med students have become "passionate" doctors? Since I don't think that we can genuinely expect the majority of our applicants to truly be passionate about stuff, why not zero in on other traits? Like being genuine? Or empathetic? Perhaps willing to accept that someone may have the first and thus not show the second?

Either way, developing a genuine passion is difficult stuff and I see very few people that actually display that passion in their actions. However, there is certainly a place/role for individuals that, though lacking passion, have a clear desire to practice medicine and help patients.

THAT is a passion. You just contradicted yourself! If you have a clear desire to help patients, YOU HAVE A PASSION! The thing is that you need to develop that passion. Channel it. Use it. If it simply sits there as an interest, it's nothing. It's worthless. But if you use it, it becomes everything! People who have "no passion" never progress. (What would they progress toward?) Passion is what drives and inspires people. If you are passionate about caring for the sick and dying, the helpless and the hopeless, then get out and start doing it!!! (You don't have to be an EMT or CNA to serve broken, hurting, desperate people.) You don't develop a passion by sitting in your dorm room day in and day out reading and writing posts on SDN. You don't develop passion by attending the occasional inspiring speech put on by your premed club. (This is why our premed program doesn't do "inspiring speeches" -- they're such a d*mn waste of time and resources. Instead, we provide our students with opportunities to serve and grow.)

I mean, how many of the supposed matriculating med students have become "passionate" doctors? Since I don't think that we can genuinely expect the majority of our applicants to truly be passionate about stuff, why not zero in on other traits? Like being genuine? Or empathetic? Perhaps willing to accept that someone may have the first and thus not show the second?

The happiest docs I know are passionate about their work. The unhappy ones are jaded, lack passion or enjoyment of their work, etc. They have nothing to keep them going but the next paycheck.

Genuineness and empathy are two things adcoms do look for. Passion shows a desire to develop those traits when they're not there. Further, passionate people tend to have already done things that developed those traits in the individual.

 

[Narmerguy]

THAT is a passion. You just contradicted yourself! If you have a clear desire to help patients, YOU HAVE A PASSION! The thing is that you need to develop that passion. Channel it. Use it. If it simply sits there as an interest, it's nothing. It's worthless. But if you use it, it becomes everything! People who have "no passion" never progress. (What would they progress toward?) Passion is what drives and inspires people. If you are passionate about caring for the sick and dying, the helpless and the hopeless, then get out and start doing it!!! (You don't have to be an EMT or CNA to serve broken, hurting, desperate people.) You don't develop a passion by sitting in your dorm room day in and day out reading and writing posts on SDN. You don't develop passion by attending the occasional inspiring speech put on by your premed club. (This is why our premed program doesn't do "inspiring speeches" -- they're such a d*mn waste of time and resources. Instead, we provide our students with opportunities to serve and grow.)




The happiest docs I know are passionate about their work. The unhappy ones are jaded, lack passion or enjoyment of their work, etc. They have nothing to keep them going but the next paycheck.

Genuineness and empathy are two things adcoms do look for. Passion shows a desire to develop those traits when they're not there. Further, passionate people tend to have already done things that developed those traits in the individual.

I have a clear desire to eat my breakfast...doesn't mean I'm passionate about it.