Stories of perfect candidates being rejected?

[getdown]

I would like to add that this issue of hubris isn't just isolated to medical school admissions. It's true for residency matches as well as getting a job after residency. I would gladly work with someone with a lower STEP 1 score but has a good attitude and works hard rather than a person with a 260 who's a giant dick. It's easier to teach someone medical knowledge rather than change their personality. Furthermore, your attitude during residency affects the prospects of job since you'd be surprised how small the field is. People talk and those hiring will often know someone in your department and if you're not generally liked you won't get the job no matter how qualified you are. No one wants to work with a difficult person.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[SnakeDoc9497]

.

 

[Mad Jack]

The Cat in the Hat might know a thing or two about that...

 

[mimelim]

Mcat is designated as important strictly because it correlates with step 1, which in turn I would imagined residencies feel correlates with physician quality. Are either of these incorrect?

If we can attach step 1 to physician quality, we certainly can attach mcat to step 1. If we can't, everyone needs to stop taking the mcat asap.

Incorrect? No. Wildly incomplete? Yes.

To be a good physician, you have to be academically sound. You have to be able to take in a relatively large amount of information and apply it. Nobody questions that. This is why we prefer our applicants for medical school to have strong MCAT scores and for residency to have strong Step 1 scores. But, does a better step 1 score mean that you are of higher quality than someone with a lower score? After a certain point, this is definitely not the case.

In addition to having sound academics, you have to be able to learn to be a physician. Residency is more apprenticeship than it is schooling. If you are less capable of functioning on a team, working with superiors, colleagues and minions, you are not going to be trained as well. It doesn't matter if you have a 260+ Step 1 score. You are not as good as that candidate with a 230 who can actually be taught. I have been on the wards for 6 years now. I have seen far more errors and patient safety issues secondary to hubris than lack of knowledge. There is a reason that nurses sometimes develop the attitude of "We are protecting patients from doctors."

We are getting ready to interview for our residency program. We had well over 100 applications for 2 spots. We didn't consider anyone with a Step 1 score below a 230 because, well we only have 2 spots and we have dozens of people with 250+ applying to our program. But, now that that initial screen is complete, we care very little about if you have a higher Step 1 score. It is all about fit. These are residents that will be with us for 5-7 years. They will have to function as an intern, junior resident and then as a chief. They will have to interact with attendings, co-residents above and below them, residents on other services, NPs, PAs, RNs, social workers, case managers, hospital administrators, etc. Hubris is pathological. And, vascular surgery is sobering.

In short, good doctors are good students. Bad people make bad doctors.

 

[bamagirlie789]

.

 

[mimelim]

Like @Lannister , I would also like some clarification. I may have fudged one of my student interviews: I have a bad habit of saying "dude," which is strange in itself but I'm also a girl who uses the word far too frequently, even when speaking with other girls. One of my student interviewers was a very friendly M4. She laughed at my jokes (I'm a nervous joke-teller also...eek) and made a couple of her own, we discussed everything pertinent that we should have, and I left feeling she got an accurate sense of who I REALLY am (we even discussed our music/band preferences!). It felt an awful lot like hanging out with a friend, and we both used some slang here and there. But on impulse, I slipped out a "dude" near the end, right as the admissions dean entered the room to warn her that time was up. She heard it, he heard it...it felt like an icky note to end on. Is this considered unprofessional?

It is less than professional to use 'dude' in conversation. But, it does happen and it will not be what keeps someone out of medical school. It is a convenient excuse if there are other things going on in a less than stellar applicant, but student interviewers are generally not going to care a whole ton about something like that. I will not speak for @NickNaylor but for me personally, when I am talking with applicants, I certainly don't mind people having a normal conversation with me as if we are colleagues. But, the key is, colleagues in a professional environment. No kicking off shoes, putting shoes up on the desk, checking their phone/watch repeatedly, interrupting constantly. People always say, "Well, I would never do those things, nobody would." But it happens and not terribly infrequently.

 

[Terry Toma]

Mcat is designated as important strictly because it correlates with step 1, which in turn I would imagined residencies feel correlates with physician quality. Are either of these incorrect?

If we can attach step 1 to physician quality, we certainly can attach mcat to step 1. If we can't, everyone needs to stop taking the mcat asap.

Do you have any evidence to support the claim that the MCAT correlates with STEP 1? A quick Google search provides a number of studies showing weak to moderate correlation. Certainly, nothing I've seen shows sufficient correlation to suggest that I should expect to score better on STEP 1 than another student simply because I scored a few points higher on the MCAT.

Again, the MCAT is supposed to show that a student is capable of handling the type of tests that they will see in med school. The correlation is sufficient to conclude that a student who does well on the MCAT can probably also do well on the STEPs. But I don't see that there is sufficient correlation to conclude that someone with a score of 40 will definitely earn a better STEP 1 score than someone with a score of 37, or any such thing. If that was the case, we could forget about USMLE and just use MCAT for residency applications.

 

[mimelim]

Do you have any evidence to support the claim that the MCAT correlates with STEP 1? A quick Google search provides a number of studies showing weak to moderate correlation. Certainly, nothing I've seen shows sufficient correlation to suggest that I should expect to score better on STEP 1 than another student simply because I scored a few points higher on the MCAT.

Again, the MCAT is supposed to show that a student is capable of handling the type of tests that they will see in med school. The correlation is sufficient to conclude that a student who does well on the MCAT can probably also do well on the STEPs. But I don't see that there is sufficient correlation to conclude that someone with a score of 40 will definitely earn a better STEP 1 score than someone with a score of 37, or any such thing. If that was the case, we could forget about USMLE and just use MCAT for residency applications.

It is generally accepted that the MCAT correlates with Step 1 and that the biological sciences correlates the most and medical schools treat it as such.

A meta analysis can be found here: http://www.researchgate.net/publica...ons_A_Meta-Analysis_of_the_Published_Research

 

[Terry Toma]

It is generally accepted that the MCAT correlates with Step 1 and that the biological sciences correlates the most and medical schools treat it as such.

A meta analysis can be found here: http://www.researchgate.net/publica...ons_A_Meta-Analysis_of_the_Published_Research

Sure there is some correlation, but not to such an extent that MCAT score could simply be used as a proxy for STEP 1 score, which is what wasteofspace seems to want to do. That study basically says the same thing that I said: there is small to medium correlation. This doesn't mean that you can present a patient with a resident's MCAT score and expect them to make much use of the number.

 

[Ismet]

I'd be very interested in a study showing that patients, given knowledge of test scores and interview scores, would actively choose a physician they know perform better in a "test of bedside manner".

I wish I could do a study like this. Give patients at a teaching hospital information about resident they'll be working with and see what patients really want. This is just my hypothesis, but I suspect it would strongly favor higher test scoring applicants.

Although there would probably be a large hump in favor of low Stat high interviewers (cough, drug seekers, cough)

"It's not what you say, it's how you say it." Something a patient told a physician who, despite not saying anything factually wrong, conducted himself in a way that alienated the patient and made her feel uncomfortable. Not sure how many patients you've actually interacted with or watched physicians interact with, but bedside manner is highly valued. Give patients a list of residents and their credentials and scores, and sure, the patients will probably pick whoever looks the best by whatever means they judge that. The real test is in the actual interaction.

There is plenty of research on this topic. If you have access to PubMed, do a quick search on bedside manner or patient satisfaction or quality improvement. Look up what Press Ganey is.

From the BMJ ("US doctors are judged more on bedside manner than effectiveness of care, survey finds"): "Most of those surveyed agreed that healthcare quality would improve if the effectiveness of physicians’ care had to be reported; however, when asked what they thought was the most important factor in a “high quality doctor,” most people cited factors related to the doctor’s personality and the quality of the doctor-patient relationship, such as whether a doctor is attentive or caring or has a good bedside manner.

Overall, 59% thought that factors involving the doctor-patient relationship and the doctor’s personality were the most important in a high quality doctor. Education, training, experience, and medical values and philosophy were cited much less often."

As, I see. You definitely have a much broader scope than I do. I hadn't considered the failure to identify and diagnose issues which are, at the time, not capable of being diagnosed. I do wonder what we would find if we perhaps focused specifically on failure to diagnose issues which could have been successfully diagnosed (particularly the relationship of this event to physician knowledge). However this is a somewhat obscure situation I'm describing.

Also plenty of research being done....there are still a lot of things in medicine that are unknown and being researched. Things like cancer are difficult to diagnose in early stages because many cancers don't have screening tests that are sensitive enough, and either have nonspecific symptoms or don't present with symptoms until the cancer is already at a later stage (ovarian cancer is a prime example of both of these things). If you're interested in biostats, learning about screening and how certain guidelines have come about is pretty interesting.

 

[AirplaneFruit]

Why is yield protection a thing for medical schools? Does it factor into their rankings or something?


Was really annoying for undergrad apps

 

[piii]

Why is yield protection a thing for medical schools? Does it factor into their rankings or something?


Was really annoying for undergrad apps

Medical schools know their history, the typical stats and students who end up matriculating. if less than (hypothetically) 5% of admitted applicants with a 4.0 and a 36 end up matriculating, then why waste the time and resources, and precious interview spots to a traditionally overqualified applicant who won't matriculate?

 

[NickNaylor]

Like @Lannister , I would also like some clarification. I may have fudged one of my student interviews: I have a bad habit of saying "dude," which is strange in itself but I'm also a girl who uses the word far too frequently, even when speaking with other girls. One of my student interviewers was a very friendly M4. She laughed at my jokes and made a couple of her own, we discussed everything pertinent that we should have, and I left feeling she got an accurate sense of who I REALLY am (we even discussed our music/band preferences!). It felt an awful lot like hanging out with a friend, and we both used some slang here and there. But on impulse, I slipped out a "dude" near the end, right as the admissions dean entered the room to warn her that time was up. She heard it, he heard it...it felt like an icky note to end on. Is this considered unprofessional?

I agree with @mimelim. I personally do not look to analyze every choice of word in an interview. I just don't care that much. I take more of a gestalt approach. Saying "dude" once in and of itself would not even warrant a mention in an interview evaluation if I were the one interviewing. Again, it's more of a general impression of how the interview went from my perspective.

However, interviewers can sometimes have very different approaches and expectations. While I think many would do something similar to my approach, there might be interviewers that are, for lack of a better word, more "sticklers" for things like that.

 

[LizzyM]

This also seems like very narrow population of people...to be somehow above a mid/low school's 90th percentiles while somehow also being slightly lower than median at top-tier schools? Of course there are a 150+ schools where this may or may not be the case for each applicant, but the current system seems to be just fine...there is a school out there for (nearly) everyone

At many combinations of GPA and MCAT, less than 20% of applicants are admitted and, overall, <50% of applicants are admitted to a medical school.

 

[gyngyn]

I feel like while this system makes sense for medical schools to do, it can leave certain populations of rather qualified applicants with fewer options than others.

For instance, applicants whose files aren't strong enough for the top tier schools (stats slightly lower, ECs weaker), but whose stats are above the medians of most mid-tier and above the 90th % for most lower tier schools may not get much attention. Lower tier schools and some mid-tier schools consider them to be low yield. Top tier schools don't consider them to be competitive enough. This seems to leave them with a rather narrow range of schools that would actually consider interviewing them, thus limiting their options.

As long as applicants can apply to an unlimited number of schools, there isn't much alternative.

 

[Azete]

A close friend of mine took 9 interviews across 2 cycles to be accepted to 1 school (a DO school). On paper he was great (hence the interviews). In person he had a lisp, a stutter, and was a 5'2 male.

The feedback he received from one school is he would "have a difficult time earning respect from patients." The frustrating part is he actually communicates exceptionally well, far better than I do. Biases do exist in this process and at times it can be incredibly subjective.

 

[medic86]

I'm perfect and I've been rejected. Pre-interview, even! I didn't even get the chance to tell them how awesome I am!

 

[jl lin]

But he is better than everyone else applying, so any other attitude would be inaccurate or a misrepresentation. Isn't that the case?

Dear Lord. Indeed he is not so, and in fact is quiet imperfect, as it seems his character reveals such a glaring and insipid imperfection.

 

[jl lin]

I'd be very interested in a study showing that patients, given knowledge of test scores and interview scores, would actively choose a physician they know perform better in a "test of bedside manner".

I wish I could do a study like this. Give patients at a teaching hospital information about resident they'll be working with and see what patients really want. This is just my hypothesis, but I suspect it would strongly favor higher test scoring applicants.

Although there would probably be a large hump in favor of low Stat high interviewers (cough, drug seekers, cough)

Do you have any solid experience with patients, illness, and healthcare at all wasteofspace? Of course patients want physicians to be highly competent--as well as caring. The two are NOT mutually exclusive, and in this field it is good when they are not.

 

[Stagg737]

Gonna be honest, people complain casually about a dick doctor but in my experience most people who've experienced significant missed diagnoses or a failed hip replacement would trade just about any amount of bedside manner for even what they perceive as a 1% improvement in diagnostic or surgical skill. People are much more apt to complain about casual annoyances than major concerns they feel they have little control over. I think this would be rather heavily demonstrated if a study were performed.

I think you also have to take the amount of doctor-patient interaction into account to a certain extent. For situations like surgery where the doctor will likely only interact with the patient 2-3 times and then never see them again, I think bedside manner would likely hold less weight. Same could be said for a field like anesthesiology. However, in many fields where you actually develop somewhat of a long-term relationship with a patient bedside manner becomes one of the most important, if not the most important, factor that a patient will value. I'll pose this question:

If you had to see a physician once a month or even just a few times a year, would you want it to be someone that you felt actually cared about you and treated you like a person, or someone that just treated you like you're just part of the daily grind they can't wait to end and doesn't seem to care about what you say or your general well-being?

Personally, I'd rather have someone slightly less knowledgable/skilled that's my advocate and who cares about what happens to me than someone that just looks at me as a case and doesn't really care about me as a person. I'm also guessing that this is a fairly common view among most patients.

 

[jl lin]

If he had a 39/4.0 he was not better than everyone else applying. Sometimes these applicants come in and want to be told that they are great and want to interview us as to why the applicant should choose our school. That sends some people's teeth on edge.

LizzyM, I am not fundamentally against a two-way nature to an interview. The issue is in how it is done. The general demeanor and character of the person should be such that s/he is not expecting any entitlement from the school or committee. At the same time, yes. Applicants are interviewing and trying to find out also if the particular school is the best fit for them. It's no different when interviewing for a job--at least in that regard. Of course one shouldn't be an arrogant jerk about it. A wise interviewee would have gotten some background on the program, and rather than catechizing the interviewers with "What's in it here for me?" he/she would instead ask questions that surround points of interest, so that s/he could assess fit.

 

[jl lin]

Wow, It seems almost unbelievable that the knowledge of the physician plays no role in the likelihood of such an event. Life sure is crazier than fiction.

It is why students/residents must work through the various lists of differential diagnoses. Medicine by no means is a precise science.

 

[jl lin]

.

In addition to having sound academics, you have to be able to learn to be a physician. Residency is more apprenticeship than it is schooling. If you are less capable of functioning on a team, working with superiors, colleagues and minions, you are not going to be trained as well. It doesn't matter if you have a 260+ Step 1 score. You are not as good as that candidate with a 230 who can actually be taught. I have been on the wards for 6 years now. I have seen far more errors and patient safety issues secondary to hubris than lack of knowledge. There is a reason that nurses sometimes develop the attitude of "We are protecting patients from doctors."

We are getting ready to interview for our residency program. We had well over 100 applications for 2 spots. We didn't consider anyone with a Step 1 score below a 230 because, well we only have 2 spots and we have dozens of people with 250+ applying to our program. But, now that that initial screen is complete, we care very little about if you have a higher Step 1 score. It is all about fit. These are residents that will be with us for 5-7 years. They will have to function as an intern, junior resident and then as a chief. They will have to interact with attendings, co-residents above and below them, residents on other services, NPs, PAs, RNs, social workers, case managers, hospital administrators, etc. Hubris is pathological. And, vascular surgery is sobering.

In short, good doctors are good students. Bad people make bad doctors.

Honestly, I would that the words above in bold were not true. These errors are more discouraging to all the healthcare staff. Actually, I have found them to be overwhelmingly demoralizing. To be sure, I have gone home angry, in tears, and never wanting to return b/c of such "errors." Luckily, I am a lightweight w/ alcohol. These kinds of things do cause a person to lose sleep. If I have busted my ass, and worked well with others, and we were able to get an optimal outcome, as exhausted and stressed as I could be, I can still sleep in peace. I can take humiliation from some, make an idea someone else's, run my ass off, and do whatever is right and legal to advocate for the patient and strive for an optimal outcome. But when you have done all of this, and someone's stupid ego wrecks havoc on a patient or God forbid patients, it cuts you down to the soul, b/c it was all for nothing and it could have been avoided.

I left an open heart recovery unit b/c of this kind of thing. I couldn't stand being a part of substandard approaches to post-operative care and putting nurses in positions to handle problems that they are not equipped to handle--i.e., severe bleeding, for hours, unfixable by all other treatments. I can't take the patient back into the OR and open him up and find the bleeders. Hubris and indifference make for inhumane medicine.

 

[WingedOx]

Mcat is designated as important strictly because it correlates with step 1, which in turn I would imagined residencies feel correlates with physician quality. Are either of these incorrect?

If we can attach step 1 to physician quality, we certainly can attach mcat to step 1. If we can't, everyone needs to stop taking the mcat asap.

This is basically your ultimate example of undergraduate concrete thinking. The typical undergraduate taking the MCAT is closer in age to when their balls dropped than to when they'll be a board-certified physician. A couple points here or there really has jack **** to do with how quality they'll be as a physician 8 years down the line.

/It's also why the faux outrage over AA policies that "discriminate against objectively better applicants" are eye-roll worthy.

 

[Spector1]

Not sure if there is such thing as a "perfect candidate" per se. Sure there are perfect candidates with respect to stats and research xc's but I think that there is a lot more to med apps than that.

 

[LizzyM]

LizzyM, I am not fundamentally against a two-way nature to an interview. The issue is in how it is done. The general demeanor and character of the person should be such that s/he is not expecting any entitlement from the school or committee. At the same time, yes. Applicants are interviewing and trying to find out also if the particular schools is the best fit for them. It's no different when interviewing for a job--at least in that regard. Of course one shouldn't be an arrogant jerk about it. A wise interviewee would have gotten some background on the program, and rather than catechizing the interviewers with "What's in it here for me?" he/she would instead ask questions that surround points of interest, so that s/he could assess fit.

Could not agree more. It is the ones that come in with an attitude of, "why should I grace you with my presence next year? " I suspect that some of these students have been admitted to more highly ranked schools in less desirable areas and they come to us with the attitude that they are a slam dunk for admission because they have already been admitted and now it is "so tell me why I should come here".

 

[Goro]

Moderators, PLEASE sticky!!!!!

Incorrect? No. Wildly incomplete? Yes.

To be a good physician, you have to be academically sound. You have to be able to take in a relatively large amount of information and apply it. Nobody questions that. This is why we prefer our applicants for medical school to have strong MCAT scores and for residency to have strong Step 1 scores. But, does a better step 1 score mean that you are of higher quality than someone with a lower score? After a certain point, this is definitely not the case.

In addition to having sound academics, you have to be able to learn to be a physician. Residency is more apprenticeship than it is schooling. If you are less capable of functioning on a team, working with superiors, colleagues and minions, you are not going to be trained as well. It doesn't matter if you have a 260+ Step 1 score. You are not as good as that candidate with a 230 who can actually be taught. I have been on the wards for 6 years now. I have seen far more errors and patient safety issues secondary to hubris than lack of knowledge. There is a reason that nurses sometimes develop the attitude of "We are protecting patients from doctors."

We are getting ready to interview for our residency program. We had well over 100 applications for 2 spots. We didn't consider anyone with a Step 1 score below a 230 because, well we only have 2 spots and we have dozens of people with 250+ applying to our program. But, now that that initial screen is complete, we care very little about if you have a higher Step 1 score. It is all about fit. These are residents that will be with us for 5-7 years. They will have to function as an intern, junior resident and then as a chief. They will have to interact with attendings, co-residents above and below them, residents on other services, NPs, PAs, RNs, social workers, case managers, hospital administrators, etc. Hubris is pathological. And, vascular surgery is sobering.

In short, good doctors are good students. Bad people make bad doctors.

 

[Goro]

Do a PubMed search instead. You'll find plenty of data.

Do you have any evidence to support the claim that the MCAT correlates with STEP 1? A quick Google search provides a number of studies showing weak to moderate correlation. Certainly, nothing I've seen shows sufficient correlation to suggest that I should expect to score better on STEP 1 than another student simply because I scored a few points higher on the MCAT.

Again, the MCAT is supposed to show that a student is capable of handling the type of tests that they will see in med school. The correlation is sufficient to conclude that a student who does well on the MCAT can probably also do well on the STEPs. But I don't see that there is sufficient correlation to conclude that someone with a score of 40 will definitely earn a better STEP 1 score than someone with a score of 37, or any such thing. If that was the case, we could forget about USMLE and just use MCAT for residency applications.

 

[TooMuchPressure]

Allow me to share two stories of "perfect candidates" who were outright rejected at my school, which actually takes some work to do.

One woman was such the overachiever that she she wanted to ask questions aksed of a another candidate. Imagine Hermione Granger, but on steroids.

The other was a fellow who never made eye contact, and in fact, looked at the ground for the entire interview. His answers were flat, and the only time he displayed a pulse was when we asked about his research.

Both of these interviewees had LizzyM scores close to 80.

Just curious do you think that person who looked down at the ground the entire time got in that cycle? Do some people not mind the fact that his social skills aren't on par with the average person?

 

[wasteofspace323]

logging into ~40 alerts

This must be what if feels like to be Donald Trump. I'm not cut out for this level of notoriety. I'm a bit too nervous about tomorrow to get down and dirty. Maybe i'll entertain you guys with my presence some other time!

 

[Goro]

Haven't a clue. Keep in mind that Adcoms want people who will be good doctors, not merely good medical students.

Just curious do you think that person who looked down at the ground the entire time got in that cycle? Do some people not mind the fact that his social skills aren't on par with the average person?

 

[ImmunoLove]

"It's not what you say, it's how you say it." Something a patient told a physician who, despite not saying anything factually wrong, conducted himself in a way that alienated the patient and made her feel uncomfortable. Not sure how many patients you've actually interacted with or watched physicians interact with, but bedside manner is highly valued. Give patients a list of residents and their credentials and scores, and sure, the patients will probably pick whoever looks the best by whatever means they judge that. The real test is in the actual interaction.

There is plenty of research on this topic. If you have access to PubMed, do a quick search on bedside manner or patient satisfaction or quality improvement. Look up what Press Ganey is.

From the BMJ ("US doctors are judged more on bedside manner than effectiveness of care, survey finds"): "Most of those surveyed agreed that healthcare quality would improve if the effectiveness of physicians’ care had to be reported; however, when asked what they thought was the most important factor in a “high quality doctor,” most people cited factors related to the doctor’s personality and the quality of the doctor-patient relationship, such as whether a doctor is attentive or caring or has a good bedside manner.

Overall, 59% thought that factors involving the doctor-patient relationship and the doctor’s personality were the most important in a high quality doctor. Education, training, experience, and medical values and philosophy were cited much less often."



Also plenty of research being done....there are still a lot of things in medicine that are unknown and being researched. Things like cancer are difficult to diagnose in early stages because many cancers don't have screening tests that are sensitive enough, and either have nonspecific symptoms or don't present with symptoms until the cancer is already at a later stage (ovarian cancer is a prime example of both of these things). If you're interested in biostats, learning about screening and how certain guidelines have come about is pretty interesting.

Side-stepping the obvious, which has been well addressed (and, well, I find an internal aversion to this mentality of entitlement and I rather say nothing provided the options during times I feel a strong emotional current to my response).

The bolded is quite apropos of a lovely lady I hang out with at the dog park (we're the two odd balls with the "evil" pit bulls-- me, short, crazy hair, and forever sporting scrubs and she, a big beautiful tall black mtf princess, and I mean that literally. She's stunning, and when we hang out, a more odd pairing is difficult to find, and that in SF).

She says "Honey, speak your mind-- but watch your mouth".

Amen.

It is more in the delivery than anything, and in many ways, that is the art in medicine. Most of the time, you're not treating patients in the scientific sense as much as you are treating them in the humanistic sense. You give crappy news to people on what often is the crappiest day of their lives (can you tell I do cancer research?), and at that point in time it has so much less to do with what you say ("you're dying," or "the operation was a success, but the patient died") than how you say it and what you do (hold their hand, answer their questions, tell them its ok to yell and scream or cry, whatever they want is ok with you). Right diagnoses are important, but there's just so much more to it. So much more.

Speaking of dogs, better take mine out before the carpet becomes the new potty...oh yeah.

 

[Psai]

Right, I agree with you. Again, this is just something I have heard before from some other pre-meds. It doesn't make a lot of statistical sense to accept a bunch of 4.0's when your school median is 3.55. I was just wondering.

The median is 3.55 because you have people with low gpas and high gpas. It would make no sense to reject the high stats people for having high stats. What do you think the rationale would be? Oh no this kid might do much too well in medical school, we don't want any successful doctors in our class! Absurd

 

[SnakeDoc9497]

The median is 3.55 because you have people with low gpas and high gpas. It would make no sense to reject the high stats people for having high stats. What do you think the rationale would be? Oh no this kid might do much too well in medical school, we don't want any successful doctors in our class! Absurd

Again, I don't fully understand this line of thinking, but this is simply speculation I have overheard from a few anxiety-filled seniors at my school. I never claimed to follow such logic, but I was looking for insights on it, which LizzyM kindly gave

 

[LoveBeingHuman:)]

Thanks for all the information guys

I really don't know much about the process except for what I know over the internet. One thing strikes my curiosity though, and that is if so many people on this thread are talking about well-qualified (in terms of numbers) applicants being arrogant during an interview, is this actually a really common problem then? You would expect an intelligent person to behave appropriately. Really, anyone with the least bit of common sense knows that arrogance can cost you the position in ANY interview.

 

[avgn]

Thanks for all the information guys

I really don't know much about the process except for what I know over the internet. One thing strikes my curiosity though, and that is if so many people on this thread are talking about well-qualified (in terms of numbers) applicants being arrogant during an interview, is this actually a really common problem then? You would expect an intelligent person to behave appropriately. Really, anyone with the least bit of common sense knows that arrogance can cost you the position in ANY interview.

1) Some people can't help themselves.
2) Most people are not good at self-introspection/evaluation.
3) Never undestimate the vast mediocrity of people in any aspect. We are all mediocre in many ways.

 

[Goro]

One can be very intelligent, but not be smart.

Thanks for all the information guys

I really don't know much about the process except for what I know over the internet. One thing strikes my curiosity though, and that is if so many people on this thread are talking about well-qualified (in terms of numbers) applicants being arrogant during an interview, is this actually a really common problem then? You would expect an intelligent person to behave appropriately. Really, anyone with the least bit of common sense knows that arrogance can cost you the position in ANY interview.

 

[Ismet]

Again, I don't fully understand this line of thinking, but this is simply speculation I have overheard from a few anxiety-filled seniors at my school. I never claimed to follow such logic, but I was looking for insights on it, which LizzyM kindly gave

A lot of wrong assumptions are made by pre-meds who somehow think they know what goes on in the applicant review process. If you ever get the chance to participate in admissions in med school, you'll see most of your preconceptions disproven.

 

[WingedOx]

A lot of wrong assumptions are made by pre-meds who somehow think they know what goes on in the applicant review process. If you ever get the chance to participate in admissions in med school, you'll see most of your preconceptions disproven.

and then even then, the perspective of involved faculty is something else entirely.

 

[TheZaLord]

As, I see. You definitely have a much broader scope than I do. I hadn't considered the failure to identify and diagnose issues which are, at the time, not capable of being diagnosed. I do wonder what we would find if we perhaps focused specifically on failure to diagnose issues which could have been successfully diagnosed (particularly the relationship of this event to physician knowledge). However this is a somewhat obscure situation I'm describing.

I am not trying to derail here, just offer another perspective.
Not that doctors don't make mistakes, but working in SNF for several years-
There were a lot of people failing to follow precautions or participate in rehab, but liked to blame their physician or therapist for lack of progress, healing, or even for decline.
It's that poor self-assessment thing.

I've also heard people in my family blaming my aunt's death on a doctor's inattention. She was diagnosed with stage 4 breast cancer, and did not survive for long after that.
They say "he said she had cat scratch fever!"
Which is false. She kept telling everyone that is what SHE herself thought she had. Until it broke through her skin. THEN she went to a doctor.
Despite an unfortunately large presence of cancer in out family, she was just in denial.
It cost her her life, and our family her love and presence.
But it wasn't at all her doctor's fault. Sometimes people just want someone to blame.

A close friend of mine took 9 interviews across 2 cycles to be accepted to 1 school (a DO school). On paper he was great (hence the interviews). In person he had a lisp...

*GULP*

 

[NotWayneBrady]

One can be very intelligent, but not be smart.

This pretty much describes my entire life.

 

[Lost in Translation]

"Yield protection" happens before the interview.
There is no reason to interview an excellent candidate only to waitlist or reject them!

This really makes me happier and more confident because I'm sitting on an interview I personally don't think I deserve but the school obviously sees something in me that they like and I really hope I can live up to their expectations.

 

[bc65]

I think you also have to take the amount of doctor-patient interaction into account to a certain extent. For situations like surgery where the doctor will likely only interact with the patient 2-3 times and then never see them again, I think bedside manner would likely hold less weight.

Actually, I think that the opposite is true. Bedside manner is probably more crucial in surgery, where patients need to trust the surgeon after spending only a few minutes with them. If there are complications, you need to have them trust you and be on your side.

I have interviewed many candidates for med school, residency, and post-residency jobs. I'm looking for someone intelligent, and pleasant, someone who will get along with colleagues, staff, and patients, and most importantly, someone I will enjoy having around all day, every day, in those capacities.

 

[Stagg737]

Actually, I think that the opposite is true. Bedside manner is probably more crucial in surgery, where patients need to trust the surgeon after spending only a few minutes with them. If there are complications, you need to have them trust you and be on your side.

I have interviewed many candidates for med school, residency, and post-residency jobs. I'm looking for someone intelligent, and pleasant, someone who will get along with colleagues, staff, and patients, and most importantly, someone I will enjoy having around all day, every day, in those capacities.

Fair enough. I was just making the point that bedside manner actually does matter though, especially for fields where a patient will be interacting with a doc for months or years. The second paragraph is pretty much true for any residency position/job though, right?

 

[Doug Underhill]

A close friend of mine took 9 interviews across 2 cycles to be accepted to 1 school (a DO school). On paper he was great (hence the interviews). In person he had a lisp, a stutter, and was a 5'2 male.

This is surprising to me, as one M1 I work with who is currently attending a T20 med school meets this description.

 

[bc65]

Fair enough. I was just making the point that bedside manner actually does matter though, especially for fields where a patient will be interacting with a doc for months or years. The second paragraph is pretty much true for any residency position/job though, right?

I know, I was just clarifying. I realize it was somewhat tangential to the point you were trying to make.

Yes, it's true for all those positions. It's more crucial as you move up the ladder, since your interviewer isn't likely to be spending a lot of time with any particular med student, so they will be more likely to take a chance on the applicant, but an attending will be stuck with a resident, maybe in close quarters in the OR, for 3 to 7 years, and have them actually care for their private patients. For someone who will be joining your practice as a partner , the stakes are of course even higher.

Where I wrote that I'm "looking for someone that I will enjoy having around", perhaps that was a bit optimistic. I should have written, "someone I will be able to tolerate having around".

Sometimes, after spending 5 minutes talking to a patient, I will suggest that a patient have one of my partners do their surgery due to scheduling conflicts, but they will refuse and insist that I do their surgery, because, they will say " I bonded with you". Of course, probably an equal number hate me on sight and ask my scheduler to find them another surgeon. Either way, those first few minutes can be quite important. That's why MMI interviews can work really well, as does speed dating.