How much does the interview matter? I know it matters somewhat, but is everyone that interviews at a place at the same level? I don't want to over-think this, but I am curious...
Value of the interview
- Thread starter math
- Start date
- Joined
- Aug 25, 2012
- Messages
- 43
- Reaction score
- 4
In my opinion for the majority of candidates it matters a TON. The candidates it probably matters less (the ones they just need to show they are halfway normal) are the outstanding candidates that interview at every top program without exception. For everyone else, you will be differentiated based upon the interview. Remember, these people will be working with you in an apprenticeship style model for 4 years. They are looking for people they can see themselves enjoying being around at work. If you pass that test, I'd say the interview was a success. It's all about the personality (everyone is smart).
- Joined
- Aug 25, 2012
- Messages
- 43
- Reaction score
- 4
Oh, and be sure to get along with the residents. Might not necessarily help you, but they could really hurt.
- Joined
- Mar 18, 2012
- Messages
- 55
- Reaction score
- 9
My experience that it is one of the most, if not the most important factor for most applicants. Rad-Onc usually has a lot of applicants that look very similar on paper. Programs often look very hard to find meaningful reasons to rank one applicant higher than the other. Interviews can be that reason (in either direction).
Can you really impress a program in 1-2 days? I see how you can screw your chances up easily, but impressing them seems unrealistic? I may be wrong, but it would seem that programs have an idea of their rank lists beforehand, no? Then again someone reported matching at a program she was invited to off of the wait-list, so I guess it does happen...
- Joined
- Jun 7, 2001
- Messages
- 2,362
- Reaction score
- 8
This has come up before and it always is facinating to me how often people think the interview doesnt matter; that basically the decisions are made and so long as you don't tank yourself there's not much movement. The opposite is true. While it would be overstating it to say that at the point of the interview nothing else matters, you can functionally look at it that way. Mr Radical has it right. It is probably the most important aspect of the decision. People are trying to get a feel for the person behind the CV. Sure, act like a crazy person and you'll tank yourself. But it does not follow that less dramatic things have no impact. Much conversation happens around how people "felt" about and around you.
- Joined
- Oct 29, 2013
- Messages
- 19
- Reaction score
- 1
Are there any sites that list past questions asked specific to each program? I remember for med school interviews SDN had a page like that and it was really helpful.
- Joined
- May 21, 2011
- Messages
- 1,214
- Reaction score
- 398
It just hit me a little while after reading your response. "Wait a second, was that a reply from Stephew??"
Anyway, welcome back 🙂 You are one of the people responsible for the fact that I'm now matched to Radiation Oncology, so thank you so much!
Sorry to derail...
- Joined
- Sep 20, 2004
- Messages
- 12,441
- Reaction score
- 12,947
yup. been awhile since the former mod has posted.
- Joined
- Mar 14, 2002
- Messages
- 15,128
- Reaction score
- 9,525
Agreed!
This is reassuring.
- Joined
- Jun 5, 2011
- Messages
- 6
- Reaction score
- 0
I read this and wonder, "Do people actually feel like blowing off the interview is acceptable?"
I can tell you multiple stories of phenomenal applicants on paper, who absolutely bombed the interview, and were not even ranked at our program. Also, as has been alluded to previously, the residents are a key part of the interview. If you act like a pompous jerk around the residents, that is a quick way to ensure that you won't be ranked. If you are a wallflower, that's ok. You don't have to be the next Dane Cook (in fact, please don't be) in order to impress a group of residents. They just want to see that you are normal. And I've been shocked at how many applicants have such a tough time with this.
With all that said, enjoy the ride, and when it's done, enjoy the great 4th year vacation. Good luck!
I can tell you multiple stories of phenomenal applicants on paper, who absolutely bombed the interview, and were not even ranked at our program. Also, as has been alluded to previously, the residents are a key part of the interview. If you act like a pompous jerk around the residents, that is a quick way to ensure that you won't be ranked. If you are a wallflower, that's ok. You don't have to be the next Dane Cook (in fact, please don't be) in order to impress a group of residents. They just want to see that you are normal. And I've been shocked at how many applicants have such a tough time with this.
With all that said, enjoy the ride, and when it's done, enjoy the great 4th year vacation. Good luck!
Don't underestimate the importance of the interview. While the programs can't get to know you entirely over 1 day, they can get a pretty good sense of your personality and how well you would fit into the program. In my experience, most candidates interview fine. But it's the ones that are exceptionally good/bad that I tend to remember the most when it comes to ranking.
FWIW, the 2012 Program Directors' survey gives the interview the second highest importance factor (behind performance during an away rotation) for ranking applicants. And an away rotation seems like a pretty similar concept to an interview. Given that, it seems reasonable that interview performance is pretty important either way. I would still be interested to know if it can overcome other weaknesses in the application. Either way - all of the fellow applicants I've met so far this year seem like really nice, normal people who would all interview well. I'm glad I don't have to make these decisions between us!
- Joined
- May 21, 2011
- Messages
- 1,214
- Reaction score
- 398
Overcoming weakness is kind of a difficult thing to tease out. I was told by a PD at a top 10 program that the notion of "everyone is equal" once they get an interview was completely false for their institution. However, they went on to say that of course their rank list wasn't final pre-interview and that interviews were an important part. This to me, means that the obvious is true: They take into account everything including the interview, and how much they weigh each aspect of the application will vary by program and by person.
- Joined
- Jul 8, 2010
- Messages
- 116
- Reaction score
- 212
This is going to sound crazy, but at my program the rank list basically comes down to a popularity contest. In a way everyone is "equal" when they come to interview, but what differentiates people is all sorts of what I think is nonsense. The biggest question is simply personality. Do the applicants seem personable and do the faculty "like" them?
I'm at a very academic program with several MD/PhDs, a serious research program, and Holman pathway supported. Every year I see numerous high power MD/PhDs come through to interview, some who away rotated here, and they get ranked poorly because they just weren't super outgoing. It wasn't that they were bad people or pissed someone off. It was more that the faculty liked some bubbly person much more who wasn't even as qualified. Lower step score? Less research? No problem! They seemed so nice!
The other problem the MD/PhDs run into is that they are seriously trying to evaluate the program. They ask hard, serious questions about research opportunities, research time, etc... The faculty often misinterpret that as they're going to be difficult on service or difficult personalities. Some faculty do see the potential in serious residents driving the research and the field forward, but most PDs are MDs, just like our PD. Most of the faculty here and out there are MD only. They care that they'll have a resident who will run their service with the least amount of hassle possible. They want someone who will learn on their own, work on their own, not complain about anything, and always be at their beck and call--not be trying to run to a lab or a conference. It's very selfish, but it's very prevalent.
The bubbly applicants come and ask softball questions and schmooze their interviewers. I'm amazed at how easily the faculty fall for it! Some of the people I know who are very serious about coming here get ranked fairly low, while some others have little interest in the program except as a backup and get ranked highly! It's all congeniality and salesmanship.
So last year, just like this year, we're ranking all the bubbly people very highly. Meanwhile the most serious, studious applicants are ranked in the middle or at the bottom. Some well qualified applicants last year weren't even ranked because their personalities were just too flat, though I thought they were more social than some of the faculty here. I think the program just shoots itself in the foot, because some of the residents end up being very 9-5 oriented, not really interested in learning or doing research, and most interested in taking as much from the program as they can before going to private practice. But they continue to be schmoozers, and so they get by.
I'm at a very academic program with several MD/PhDs, a serious research program, and Holman pathway supported. Every year I see numerous high power MD/PhDs come through to interview, some who away rotated here, and they get ranked poorly because they just weren't super outgoing. It wasn't that they were bad people or pissed someone off. It was more that the faculty liked some bubbly person much more who wasn't even as qualified. Lower step score? Less research? No problem! They seemed so nice!
The other problem the MD/PhDs run into is that they are seriously trying to evaluate the program. They ask hard, serious questions about research opportunities, research time, etc... The faculty often misinterpret that as they're going to be difficult on service or difficult personalities. Some faculty do see the potential in serious residents driving the research and the field forward, but most PDs are MDs, just like our PD. Most of the faculty here and out there are MD only. They care that they'll have a resident who will run their service with the least amount of hassle possible. They want someone who will learn on their own, work on their own, not complain about anything, and always be at their beck and call--not be trying to run to a lab or a conference. It's very selfish, but it's very prevalent.
The bubbly applicants come and ask softball questions and schmooze their interviewers. I'm amazed at how easily the faculty fall for it! Some of the people I know who are very serious about coming here get ranked fairly low, while some others have little interest in the program except as a backup and get ranked highly! It's all congeniality and salesmanship.
So last year, just like this year, we're ranking all the bubbly people very highly. Meanwhile the most serious, studious applicants are ranked in the middle or at the bottom. Some well qualified applicants last year weren't even ranked because their personalities were just too flat, though I thought they were more social than some of the faculty here. I think the program just shoots itself in the foot, because some of the residents end up being very 9-5 oriented, not really interested in learning or doing research, and most interested in taking as much from the program as they can before going to private practice. But they continue to be schmoozers, and so they get by.
From the few interviews I've been on, I can tell that different programs value the interview differently.
Case A: Lower-tier program, new chair from a bigger name program trying to shake things up. Asks applicants "do you know what hard work is?", wants residents to be at ASTRO every year with research, but no research = no ASTRO, none of the residents are particularly fond of chair. Impression: pre-ranked applicants probably heavy emphasis on research productivity.
Case B: Upper-mid-tier program, chair is very gung-ho, you know he's all about numbers based on his presentation during the interview day. Asks "what will you be known for in the future". 2-3 students rotate here each month during peak away rotation season, yet in asking the current residents, no one did away rotations there. Impression: we don't care if you did an away here, we just want the applicant that will bring the most prestige to the program in the future aka pre-ranked applicants and your personality matters very little.
Case C: Mid-tier program, chair is great advocate of the residents, big education fund, encourages residents to go to meetings, research no required, emphasizes work-life balance, philosophy: happy residents are productive residents, seeks "residents that will be best fit in the program", resident unity is very important and as a result that program even said the residents play a substantial role in the application process. They took a lot of applicants that did aways there or were from the home institution. Chair and program directors seemed very laid back. Impression: we don't care if you want to do academics or private practice, as long as you do what makes you happy, you are happy if you fit in with us, so the interview matters big time.
Case A: Lower-tier program, new chair from a bigger name program trying to shake things up. Asks applicants "do you know what hard work is?", wants residents to be at ASTRO every year with research, but no research = no ASTRO, none of the residents are particularly fond of chair. Impression: pre-ranked applicants probably heavy emphasis on research productivity.
Case B: Upper-mid-tier program, chair is very gung-ho, you know he's all about numbers based on his presentation during the interview day. Asks "what will you be known for in the future". 2-3 students rotate here each month during peak away rotation season, yet in asking the current residents, no one did away rotations there. Impression: we don't care if you did an away here, we just want the applicant that will bring the most prestige to the program in the future aka pre-ranked applicants and your personality matters very little.
Case C: Mid-tier program, chair is great advocate of the residents, big education fund, encourages residents to go to meetings, research no required, emphasizes work-life balance, philosophy: happy residents are productive residents, seeks "residents that will be best fit in the program", resident unity is very important and as a result that program even said the residents play a substantial role in the application process. They took a lot of applicants that did aways there or were from the home institution. Chair and program directors seemed very laid back. Impression: we don't care if you want to do academics or private practice, as long as you do what makes you happy, you are happy if you fit in with us, so the interview matters big time.
- Joined
- Apr 5, 2012
- Messages
- 2
- Reaction score
- 0
For what it's worth, as a current resident, I would also say the interview dinner is where I find I get to know candidates. If you can't make it because of travel, etc. no big deal. However, if you were expected to attend and don't show up, that may reflect badly. It's a social setting to show the residents you are normal. It is also an opportunity for you to ask questions and maybe learn things about the program in a less intense setting. I've even given candidates tips about things to talk about with certain interviewers who can sometimes be hard to impress. Of course the interview matters!
- Joined
- Oct 29, 2013
- Messages
- 19
- Reaction score
- 1
sssss
Last edited:
