The "Where else are you interviewing?" question

[docmed2012]

Advertisement - Members don't see this ad

This has come up a few times during my interviews...and I am not sure if the interviewers are looking for names of exact programs or just the regions that I am looking at. How do you all handle this question?

 

[jcu]

Generally speaking, to appease their curiosity, I throw out names of programs at comparatively similar tiers. It tends to do the job. They're simply trying to size up the competition; no more, no less.

 

[mlw03]

Generally speaking, to appease their curiosity, I throw out names of programs at comparatively similar tiers. It tends to do the job. They're simply trying to size up the competition; no more, no less.

Agree. This is what I did. It may also partly be an ice-breaker. Got the same thing for fellowship interviews.

 

[2012mdc]

This has come up a few times during my interviews...and I am not sure if the interviewers are looking for names of exact programs or just the regions that I am looking at. How do you all handle this question?

It depends on the tier and the location of the program. If they are looking for specifics then I would do this.

If it's a top program but in a bad/mediocre location then I would mention a couple of programs that are similar (examples - Mayo, Hopkins, Yale etc) so they know I'm not concerned about location

If it's a top or mid tier program in a competitive location then I would mention other similar programs in that region so that they know I'm very serious about coming to the region

 

[mamagir]

This has come up a few times during my interviews...and I am not sure if the interviewers are looking for names of exact programs or just the regions that I am looking at. How do you all handle this question?

I just came back from an interview where this question was consistently asked by all four interviewers!! In fact it seemed finding out where else we had applied was the meat of the whole interview. They wanted all the nitty gritty details including how many programs overall did one apply to. plus they were studiously writing down all the info. It was quite perplexing and unusual.

 

[HumbleMD]

It depends on the tier and the location of the program. If they are looking for specifics then I would do this.

If it's a top program but in a bad/mediocre location then I would mention a couple of programs that are similar (examples - Mayo, Hopkins, Yale etc) so they know I'm not concerned about location

If it's a top or mid tier program in a competitive location then I would mention other similar programs in that region so that they know I'm very serious about coming to the region

Jeez, I'd never give this much thought to the question. I suppose I do this depending on what coast I'm in and do the latter.

It's a sort of annoying question though, given that it's explicitly illegal by NRMP rules.

 

[Law2Doc]

...
If it's a top program but in a bad/mediocre location then I would mention a couple of programs that are similar (examples - Mayo, Hopkins, Yale etc) so they know I'm not concerned about location

If it's a top or mid tier program in a competitive location then I would mention other similar programs in that region so that they know I'm very serious about coming to the region

Location is huge. a lot of times people ask this just to make sure they aren't the one, on a whim, out of state place that you are looking at. For instance if you were interviewing at a Chicago program with nothing on your CV suggesting you had any nexus or interest in living in Chicago, it would be reassuring to them to know you were applying to other Chicago programs. It would also make them lose interest fast if it seemed like you applied to them on a whim but your real goal based on your CV and where else you were looking was to end up in the SouthWest. Additionally, places tend to be more interested in folks their competitors are interested in. But they probably will regard the regional places more of their competitors than the supposedly similarly ranked academic institutions. So I think the "Mayo, Hopkins, Yale" gambit is not as wise as a more regional play. Yale looks at the Boston programs as it's more local competitors, not someplace across the country like Mayo. Hopkins likely sees it's rivals an hours' train ride away in Philly or DC.

 

[Law2Doc]

...

It's a sort of annoying question though, given that it's explicitly illegal by NRMP rules.

if they are vague about it, "what kinds of programs are you looking at?", rather than asking you to name specific programs, it probably passes muster. At any rate I don't know anyone who wasn't asked this at some point on the interview trail.

 

[HumbleMD]

Location is huge. a lot of times people ask this just to make sure they aren't the one, on a whim, out of state place that you are looking at. For instance if you were interviewing at a Chicago program with nothing on your CV suggesting you had any nexus or interest in living in Chicago, it would be reassuring to them to know you were applying to other Chicago programs. It would also make them lose interest fast if it seemed like you applied to them on a whim but your real goal based on your CV and where else you were looking was to end up in the SouthWest. Additionally, places tend to be more interested in folks their competitors are interested in. But they probably will regard the regional places more of their competitors than the supposedly similarly ranked academic institutions. So I think the "Mayo, Hopkins, Yale" gambit is not as wise as a more regional play. Yale looks at the Boston programs as it's more local competitors, not someplace across the country like Mayo. Hopkins likely sees it's rivals an hours' train ride away in Philly or DC.

****. So I'm a single guy, and literally applied everywhere - Northeast, Southeast, Midwest, Cali, Pac. Northwest. When asked, my answer is usually "all over." Am I looking like a dangerous rolling stone?

 

[Law2Doc]

****. So I'm a single guy, and literally applied everywhere - Northeast, Southeast, Midwest, Cali, Pac. Northwest. When asked, my answer is usually "all over." Am I looking like a dangerous rolling stone?

I don't know about "dangerous", but at least at certain programs you aren't going to get the same consideration as folks with similar credentials who have a more compelling story for why they are interested in the local geography.

 

[splik]

It's a sort of annoying question though, given that it's explicitly illegal by NRMP rules.

It's not illegal for them to ask, they aren't allowed to require you to answer the question. It may be a false distinction but it is a perfectly legitimate question and I personally just answer it and what usually happens is they will offer their unsolicited opinion on said program or make a comparison and try and sell why they have the edge. I have also gained some useful information about some of the other programs by answering this question and am not paranoid enough to think that suggestions that program x is a great program is a hint i won't match at program y!

 

[santigold]

Best one I had was:
"Where else are you interviewing?"
I tried to be vague, "Northeast, you know, trying to stay around family"
"Which cities?"
"Oh you know, medium-to-large cities, I am more metropolitan, you know"
"Ya, but where? New York?"
"Yes....?"
"Hmmmm, which programs?"
"A couple of them"
"Columbia?"
"perhaps....."
"Cornell?"
"yes....."

Basically, he just started listing all the good programs in the city, then he listed the programs at Boston, New Haven, Baltimore etc.


I thought to myself, "This basically was my interview.... trying to figure out where else I am interviewing..... thanks" It was awkward.

 

[eastcoaster1979]

Somewhat similar: Can an interviewer straight up ask you to rank your top 6-7 programs for her? I'm guessing no, but just wanted to get people's input.

 

[2012mdc]

Location is huge. a lot of times people ask this just to make sure they aren't the one, on a whim, out of state place that you are looking at. For instance if you were interviewing at a Chicago program with nothing on your CV suggesting you had any nexus or interest in living in Chicago, it would be reassuring to them to know you were applying to other Chicago programs. It would also make them lose interest fast if it seemed like you applied to them on a whim but your real goal based on your CV and where else you were looking was to end up in the SouthWest. Additionally, places tend to be more interested in folks their competitors are interested in. But they probably will regard the regional places more of their competitors than the supposedly similarly ranked academic institutions. So I think the "Mayo, Hopkins, Yale" gambit is not as wise as a more regional play. Yale looks at the Boston programs as it's more local competitors, not someplace across the country like Mayo. Hopkins likely sees it's rivals an hours' train ride away in Philly or DC.

I understand what you mean but I was giving an example of what I would say if a place was in a "bad" location and it was my only interview in the region. If I interviewed at Mayo and they pushed for specifics I wouldn't name programs in Cali or NYC but I would name places like Hopkins to show that training is more important than location. Figured this was a better strategy than lying.

 

[Socrates25]

If they are going to ask us where we are applying, then we should be able to ask them how many people they rank, who else are they interviewing, etc.

 

[gutonc]

If they are going to ask us where we are applying, then we should be able to ask them how many people they rank, who else are they interviewing, etc.

Just so we're clear here, except for questions about things that fall into "federally protected categories" (race, religion, disability, marriage status, sexual orientation, etc), you can both ask each other anything that you want but you can't compel them to answer.

I mean, you're not going to get kicked out of the Match for asking a PD who else they are interviewing. You're not going to get ranked by that program of course, but you're otherwise good.

Honestly, I think you all are generally making a way bigger deal of this than it needs to be. 98% of the time it's not meant to be a challenge or a way to trip you up, it's meant to be a way for an awkward conversationalist to get through the 20 minutes of your interview after you answered all their good questions with single word answers.

I generally answered this question with geographic or "program strength" generalities and most of the time everybody was cool with that. I asked a few persistent interviewers who pushed for more specific answers (including at the program I ranked #1 and matched to) why it was important to them. In general, they're just trying to get a handle on what's important to you and how they can help sell the program to you.

 

[sunset823]

****. So I'm a single guy, and literally applied everywhere - Northeast, Southeast, Midwest, Cali, Pac. Northwest. When asked, my answer is usually "all over." Am I looking like a dangerous rolling stone?

I'm going to be the same way, except I'm applying for IM, so to preclude me from applying to 200 programs, I have made two slices to the US map; one at the western Minnesota border, and one at the southern Tennessee border, where I'm not applying anywhere to the west or south of those, respectively. But everything else is fair game, and I don't have any reason to be in one place any more or less than any other place - I'm a single chick who moves a lot and has lived in a lot of places for varying periods of time.

Location is huge. a lot of times people ask this just to make sure they aren't the one, on a whim, out of state place that you are looking at. For instance if you were interviewing at a Chicago program with nothing on your CV suggesting you had any nexus or interest in living in Chicago, it would be reassuring to them to know you were applying to other Chicago programs. It would also make them lose interest fast if it seemed like you applied to them on a whim but your real goal based on your CV and where else you were looking was to end up in the SouthWest. Additionally, places tend to be more interested in folks their competitors are interested in. But they probably will regard the regional places more of their competitors than the supposedly similarly ranked academic institutions. So I think the "Mayo, Hopkins, Yale" gambit is not as wise as a more regional play. Yale looks at the Boston programs as it's more local competitors, not someplace across the country like Mayo. Hopkins likely sees it's rivals an hours' train ride away in Philly or DC.

why is this the case? It's frustrating to someone like me that my options are going to be limited cuz they don't understand the concept of living a nomadic existence. I like to move around and discover new places, why are they preventing me from doing that?

 

[mlw03]

Somewhat similar: Can an interviewer straight up ask you to rank your top 6-7 programs for her? I'm guessing no, but just wanted to get people's input.

They can, but it's rude and I wouldn't answer. I'd have said, "After I finish all my interviews I'll sit down and figure out my rank list."

Agree with the person who said this isn't that big a deal. It really is just a conversation mechanism most of the time I think. Evaluating the truly important stuff (namely work ethic and are you a d-bag) is darn near impossible in a 15-30 minute interview.

 

[Law2Doc]

...

why is this the case? It's frustrating to someone like me that my options are going to be limited cuz they don't understand the concept of living a nomadic existence. I like to move around and discover new places, why are they preventing me from doing that?

they do this because they want to rank people who are genuinely interested in their program. Most of the time a person who is from NY, applies to a dozen NY programs and throws in a handful scattered elsewhere in the country is hoping to do residency in NY. Thus the other programs won't take them as seriously as someone with more of a nexus or a better reason for why they are shooting an application someplace they've never even been before.

 

[wooster201106]

...why is this the case? It's frustrating to someone like me that my options are going to be limited cuz they don't understand the concept of living a nomadic existence. I like to move around and discover new places, why are they preventing me from doing that?

they do this because they want to rank people who are genuinely interested in their program. Most of the time a person who is from NY, applies to a dozen NY programs and throws in a handful scattered elsewhere in the country is hoping to do residency in NY. Thus the other programs won't take them as seriously as someone with more of a nexus or a better reason for why they are shooting an application someplace they've never even been before.

I understand where Law2Doc is coming from, but I agree with sunset823. I really don't understand why programs feel the freakin' need to play these games. The match algorithm is simple. If you both like each other enough, you get a match. If a program, for whatever reason, prefers one candidate over another, what difference does it make if that was the only program in that area they applied to or at which they're interviewing? To me, it would be incredibly foolish to rank one applicant over another based solely on whether you thought they were going to stay in the program for the duration of training. If the applicant likes the program enough, they'll match there. If they didn't want to be in that area, they wouldn't rank to match. End of story. Quit trying to complicate things by playing games. The process is stressful enough as is.

 

[sunset823]

I understand where Law2Doc is coming from, but I agree with sunset823. I really don't understand why programs feel the freakin' need to play these games. The match algorithm is simple. If you both like each other enough, you get a match. If a program, for whatever reason, prefers one candidate over another, what difference does it make if that was the only program in that area they applied to or at which they're interviewing? To me, it would be incredibly foolish to rank one applicant over another based solely on whether you thought they were going to stay in the program for the duration of training. If the applicant likes the program enough, they'll match there. If they didn't want to be in that area, they wouldn't rank to match. End of story. Quit trying to complicate things by playing games. The process is stressful enough as is.

👍👍 my point exactly - I'm looking at programs based on the type of training they offer and extra programs within their hospital I'm interested in (e.g., health policy stuff), with location being a tertiary consideration at best. There are a couple of programs that I'm very much interested in where I've never even seen the city, and said city may be a small one in the backwoods, but I would happily rank those highly if they interviewed me. Just because a certain percentage of applicants rank location as their #1 factor (a few of my friends are doing this, admittedly), they can't extrapolate that to the entire applicant pool. And if location is top priority, the students should rank it as such, it's not up to the programs to deduce that.

 

[Law2Doc]

I understand where Law2Doc is coming from, but I agree with sunset823. I really don't understand why programs feel the freakin' need to play these games. The match algorithm is simple. If you both like each other enough, you get a match. If a program, for whatever reason, prefers one candidate over another, what difference does it make if that was the only program in that area they applied to or at which they're interviewing? To me, it would be incredibly foolish to rank one applicant over another based solely on whether you thought they were going to stay in the program for the duration of training. If the applicant likes the program enough, they'll match there. If they didn't want to be in that area, they wouldn't rank to match. End of story. Quit trying to complicate things by playing games. The process is stressful enough as is.

Well the problem is that programs keep score and compare notes. They want to be able to say they only have to rank 20 people to fill a dozen spots. Having to go deep into their rank list is considered a failure to some places. Thus they feel the need to add a level of analysis as to who actually is serious about the program in order to decide who gets ranked highly. Partly it's a sense that a happy resident is a better resident, one who won't be whining that they didn't match elsewhere. But it's mostly that the dude from out of state who seems to be interviewing on a whim might end up putting a program very low on their match list as compared to someone born and bred down the street. Which means the program risks going much deeper into their list if they start taking a gamble on these folks. And that matters to programs.

 

[Quink]

Well the problem is that programs keep score and compare notes. They want to be able to say they only have to rank 20 people to fill a dozen spots. Having to go deep into their rank list is considered a failure to some places. Thus they feel the need to add a level of analysis as to who actually is serious about the program in order to decide who gets ranked highly. Partly it's a sense that a happy resident is a better resident, one who won't be whining that they didn't match elsewhere. But it's mostly that the dude from out of state who seems to be interviewing on a whim might end up putting a program very low on their match list as compared to someone born and bred down the street. Which means the program risks going much deeper into their list if they start taking a gamble on these folks. And that matters to programs.

This is just so inaccurate in so many ways. Most ways. Really, folks....don't say things that you really don't know. Perhaps something is true in your own program, but don't generalize like that.
Programs do not "keep score and compare notes" Really. Also, programs hope that an applicant is interested in their program and will thus be happy being trained there, even if the location isn't paradise.
Programs hope to get the residents they felt were the best fit, just like applicants hope for one of their top choices. But, whomever is matched is equally part of the program. After the match, it really no longers matters.

 

[Law2Doc]

This is just so inaccurate in so many ways. Most ways. Really, folks....don't say things that you really don't know. Perhaps something is true in your own program, but don't generalize like that.
Programs do not "keep score and compare notes" Really. Also, programs hope that an applicant is interested in their program and will thus be happy being trained there, even if the location isn't paradise.
Programs hope to get the residents they felt were the best fit, just like applicants hope for one of their top choices. But, whomever is matched is equally part of the program. After the match, it really no longers matters.

They absolutely do keep score and compare notes. Perhaps not all programs, but certainly those that consider themselves competitive. Very few PDs can't tell you how deep into their rank list they had to go last year, the year before, etc. Very few consider it a successful match if they had to go a lot deeper into their list than the year before. Yes once you match you become a part of the program and it no longer matters, but that's not really the point here. it's not accurate to suggest that PDs don't care if they fill their spots with the first dozen they rank or the last dozen they rank. They do. Which is why it's important to many to try and gauge whether someone is actually genuinely interested. It's why all these silly games are played. It's why applicants feel the need to send out letters emphasizing which place is their first choice. Its why some programs tip their hands as to who is "ranked to match". It's why some places have definite regional biases. This is all done with the goal of being able to fill the program with the top of their rank list. Why? Because it matters to them.

 

[mlw03]

They absolutely do keep score and compare notes. Perhaps not all programs, but certainly those that consider themselves competitive. Very few PDs can't tell you how deep into their rank list they had to go last year, the year before, etc. Very few consider it a successful match if they had to go a lot deeper into their list than the year before. Yes once you match you become a part of the program and it no longer matters, but that's not really the point here. it's not accurate to suggest that PDs don't care if they fill their spots with the first dozen they rank or the last dozen they rank. They do. Which is why it's important to many to try and gauge whether someone is actually genuinely interested. It's why all these silly games are played. It's why applicants feel the need to send out letters emphasizing which place is their first choice. Its why some programs tip their hands as to who is "ranked to match". It's why some places have definite regional biases. This is all done with the goal of being able to fill the program with the top of their rank list. Why? Because it matters to them.

Agree with L2D on this one. People can believe what they want, but programs and PDs get off on this stuff, and if you can't imagine the general surg PD at the bar one night at the annual conference feeling embaressed that they had to scramble (or even go to number #50 on their list for 10 spots), then you're underestimating the egos of many people in our field. Of course these games are silly, but do not delude yourself into thinking they don't exist.

 

[mlw03]

All this said, I still think the "where else are you interviewing?" question is relatively benign and without malicious intent most of the time.