very confused by "conversational" interviews

[thegreenlight]

I am still very confused by "conversational" interviews. Am I allowed to ask questions back at the interviewer (before he/she asks, "Do you have any questions for me?")? Or, is it a one-way conversation where the interviewer asks all of the questions? Also, how long should me responses be? For most conversations, I don't talk for more than a 30 seconds at a time, but I don't think that this is really sufficient for me to describe my activities or goals/plans in much detail. Any suggestions? 😕

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[TheElement]

Of course you can ask questions. Just don't go too far off topic.

 

[URHere]

Just so you know, the term "conversational interview", usually refers to interviews that are particularly low-stress and unstructured. Any given interview may or may not be a "conversational interview".

Some interviewers will come in with a list of questions for you. Obviously, these go something like this: they ask a question, you answer it, they ask a follow-up question, again you answer it...This would generally not be called a conversational interview.

Other interviewers will either not have a question list at all, or will veer away from theirs. For example, you may answer a question by talking about an EC and your interviewer may chime in to say that they play the same sport/instrument/whatever. At this point, questions are forgotten and you just have a normal conversation about this topic...hence, the conversational interview is born.

You are always free to ask questions to your interviewer, just use your own common sense to determine when to ask. If an interviewer says something you want to know more about, by all means ask. Just realize that if you are asked a question, answering that questions is almost more important than asking your own.

As for how long you should talk - talk until you have answered the question or said what you needed to say. If you don't answer a question completely, many interviewers will ask you more about the topic, but some won't (aka. you are out of luck). If you don't think you can answer questions well, then practice before you interview.

 

[enjoydrywax]

The thing I hate most about conversational/low-stress interviews is that (maybe this isn't true for the OP) they always go "well."

I mean if you can converse well with most people you should have no trouble doing "well" in these types of interviews. For a lot of them it was just a constant back and forth diatribe, just as you'd have with maybe a professor you know really well, or in the case of a student interviewer, a casual acquaintance. My problem with them is that you walk away feeling like you rocked your interview only to find out a few weeks (months) later that you were rejected. I feel like there is no way to guage your performance until your decision is dealt.

I guess I am just bitter.

 

[BeardedRunner]

During conversational interviewers you should feel free to tell the interviewer something about yourself even if they didn't specifically ask you about it.

For example, at my last interview we were talking about the great diversity in large cities like NYC and Miami. So I took the opportunity to tell the researcher about a recent trip to China town and how I ate an authentic Chinese restaurant. It seemed to reflect positively on him.

 

[qtrlifecrisis]

I am still very confused by "conversational" interviews. Am I allowed to ask questions back at the interviewer (before he/she asks, "Do you have any questions for me?")? Or, is it a one-way conversation where the interviewer asks all of the questions? Also, how long should me responses be? For most conversations, I don't talk for more than a 30 seconds at a time, but I don't think that this is really sufficient for me to describe my activities or goals/plans in much detail. Any suggestions? 😕

A conversational interview, by virtue of it being just that: a conversation, implies that you need not worry about such things. Just weave in mentions of things you've done as they become relevant in the conversation -- if the interviewers want to learn more, they will ask.

The goal of relaxed interviews is to get a snapshot of your personality in a natural (but professional) situation, and worrying about these things will not help you be "you".

My advice would be to just know yourself and your application. Get a good night of sleep. Try to find a ritual that prepares you to be "you" in the best way possible. I like to talk to myself in the mirror in my interview gear before the interview, and I keep talking till I look and sound like "myself" - like I would look and sound chatting with my favorite professor at my most conversational and most engaging level.

Remember, the interview is only a data point on your application. It's not like a job interview where once you get an interview, the interview is the deciding factor for whether you get the job. The adcom has your activities and PS, and they're going to consider that at the same time as they consider your interviewer's feedback ...so you don't have to worry about describing everything you did during your interview.

 

[TRN1983]

Remember, the interview is only a data point on your application. It's not like a job interview where once you get an interview, the interview is the deciding factor for whether you get the job. The adcom has your activities and PS, and they're going to consider that at the same time as they consider your interviewer's feedback ...so you don't have to worry about describing everything you did during your interview.

As long as the school has reason to believe you're seriously interested in attending the school, from what I've been reading, its a HUGE deciding factor.

 

[pianola]

its a HUGE deciding factor.

I think it's school-dependent.

 

[TRN1983]

I think it's school-dependent.

Yeah... there are other schools who may put more weight on stats, but those are the big schools. Maybe it would have been more appropriate to say "in general" before making my statement, but I still think the point stands 🙂

 

[qtrlifecrisis]

As long as the school has reason to believe you're seriously interested in attending the school, from what I've been reading, its a HUGE deciding factor.

well, it's a big deal considering it's the only factor applicants can control during the applicant cycle, but in general, based on the Pritzker podcast, my school's career center and anecdotal evidence (friends with bad interviews getting in, friends with great interviews getting rejected, same from MDApps)... I am more inclined to believe it is just another data point to be considered along with the rest of your credentials.

Of course, it differs from school to school and applicant to applicant... for example, interviews are more important for applicants a school considers "on-the-fence" rather than those considered stellar...at least for Pritzker, which is my source here.

While I'm qualifying my thoughts, I'll go ahead and add that I think bad interviews hurt more than good interviews help.

Also, from the reactions of my interviewers, I've come away concluding that the "success" of a med school interview is better gauged by the quality of the interaction (flow, humor and other intangibles) than by the actual content of the answers. So I've stopped memorizing tomes on my research or health policy, and I'm only focusing on being the best "me" I can be...and it's working so far.

Just my 2 cents, hope it helps someone out there who's reading.

 

[TRN1983]

well, it's a big deal considering it's the only factor applicants can control during the applicant cycle, but in general, based on the Pritzker podcast, my school's career center and anecdotal evidence (friends with bad interviews getting in, friends with great interviews getting rejected, same from MDApps)... I am more inclined to believe it is just another data point to be considered along with the rest of your credentials.

Well, "bad interview" and "good interview", IMHO, are misunderstood. A person who feels as if he/she got grilled may have had a good interview. I.e. the interviewer wanted to see how they'd deal with pressure, if they could think on their toes, and if they were thoughtful and did so by grilling.

Someone may have had a very nice, enjoyable conversation with an interviewer that was very substanceless and, although their personalities may have clicked, the interviewee may not have done a good job conveying "future Dr." in the eyes of the interviewer.

By accident, I found Vanderbilt's interview guide ppt online. They had very discrete ranking systems for their applicants that ran from a scale of 1-5, where 1 is immediate admit and 5 is immediate reject. I'm sure the admissions committee still considers everything as a whole, but I think my findings were pretty telling (yes, I know n=1 school).

Of course, it differs from school to school and applicant to applicant... for example, interviews are more important for applicants a school considers "on-the-fence" rather than those considered stellar...at least for Pritzker, which is my source here.

While I'm qualifying my thoughts, I'll go ahead and add that I think bad interviews hurt more than good interviews help.

I agree with this.

 

[qtrlifecrisis]

Well, "bad interview" and "good interview", IMHO, are misunderstood. A person who feels as if he/she got grilled may have had a good interview. I.e. the interviewer wanted to see how they'd deal with pressure, if they could think on their toes, and if they were thoughtful and did so by grilling.

Someone may have had a very nice, enjoyable conversation with an interviewer that was very substanceless and, although their personalities may have clicked, the interviewee may not have done a good job conveying "future Dr." in the eyes of the interviewer.

By accident, I found Vanderbilt's interview guide ppt online. They had very discrete ranking systems for their applicants that ran from a scale of 1-5, where 1 is immediate admit and 5 is immediate reject. I'm sure the admissions committee still considers everything as a whole, but I think my findings were pretty telling (yes, I know n=1 school).

Hmmm, points well taken. Damn, I wish I'd heard of this powerpoint before my Vandy interview...!

 

[pianola]

I think bad interviews hurt more than good interviews help.

Yeah, I'd absolutely agree with that.

 

[TheElement]

Some schools like Baylor give you a rubric on what they're looking for. So even though it's a conversational interview, you can always steer it the way you want so it touches on all those topics.

 

[Law2Doc]

Yeah... there are other schools who may put more weight on stats, but those are the big schools. Maybe it would have been more appropriate to say "in general" before making my statement, but I still think the point stands 🙂

No way this is true. Most of the biggest name schools still put huge weight on interviews. I'd say that the VAST majority of med schools treat the interview as the single most important part of the application if you make it that far. Many schools have already reviewed the rest of your app and used it to decide who gets the interview, and some won't revisit these numbers in any significant way again. Others treat everyone who makes it to the interview stage as "adequately admissible" and thus lets the interview decide who amongst these admittable applicants is a better "fit" personality-wise, and even tell applicants that everyone is deemed equal at this stage. Other places assign various parts of the application process a numerical score and revisit everything, but the interview is simply more heavily weighted than everything else -- a lackluster performance on that is equivalent to bombing a final exam. Of course the places that interview everyone from within the state, or anyone who has above an X MCAT score are the kinds of schools that will have to revisit the entire application -- but this represents a very very small minority of schools.

So don't kid yourself -- your interview really does matter, a LOT. It is not a formality, or just to weed out the crazies, and don't kid yourself that eveyone ends of having a middle of the road interview that is impossible to distinguish. I've heard from quite a few adcoms that even within that middle grouping there's a range of interview scores which adcoms don't have too much difficulty distinguishing. So no, it's not that a bad interview will help more than a good one. Anyone in med school knows a handful of people who vaulted into med school above others with higher stats, due to their personality and ability to sell themselves. And at EVERY school there will be people with higher stats than the school's mean who don't get offers. About a third of folks who interview at a school get in, and it's very frequently not the third you would assume based purely on MCAT/GPA. The subjective components of the application loom large, and well they should since as you will learn during the clinical years, this is really how students/physicians are judged down the road.

Interviewing is a learnable skill, and practicing tends to help a lot. At any rate, it does you no good to put less effort toward the interview as you did toward other aspects of your application -- it is at least as important, probably more, and yet more people send themselves to the waitlist at this juncture in the application process than any other.

 

[pianola]

^It would be really interesting to have some actual data on how much the interview is weighted in the decision.

FWIW, personal experience has shown me that some of my great interviews have ended up in holds/waitlists and some of my mediocre interviews have ended up in acceptances. Heck, one of my interviews went so well that the interviewer made it clear that she would strongly advocate for me: result: waitlist.

Take it or leave it. I still have to believe that a terrible interview is going to sink you far faster than a great interview can help.

 

[atl27]

I'd say that the VAST majority of med schools treat the interview as the single most important part of the application if you make it that far.

No way this is true, this whole myth about how once someone makes it to an interview they are all on an even playing field is just not true. The numbers and EC's always matter, at every school. I'm not saying the interview isn't important, its just not really that important, unless the interview goes really badly, in which case it does make a difference. The fact of the matter is people with the higher stats will always have an advantage, even if their interview is just mediocre.

 

[TRN1983]

No way this is true. Most of the biggest name schools still put huge weight on interviews. I'd say that the VAST majority of med schools treat the interview as the single most important part of the application if you make it that far.

That's exactly what I said. 🙂 I said the interview is a HUGE deciding factor for most schools.... I just made the exception that maybe at some of the bigger schools stats may play a larger role.

As long as the school has reason to believe you're seriously interested in attending the school, from what I've been reading, its [the interview] a HUGE deciding factor.

 

[MossPoh]

I agree with law2doc and have meant plenty of people in school now that solidify that belief. I've had multiple interviews so far with significantly lower stats than the vast majority on SDN. They have multiple chances to reject you before wasting their time. There is SOMETHING they want to see in you. They have no use/need in inviting someone they know they'll reject. If you are invited for an interview then you offer something that the school wants. You just have to prove it.

Don't ever try to gauge how successful your interview was...you'll fail quite a few times. I tend to rate certain things I do during an interview such as eye contact, hand mannerisms, keeping that smile, not bumbling too much and knowing when to cut myself off...other than that, my answers could be way off base no matter how nice they sound to my ears.

 

[Jolie South]

Some schools like Baylor give you a rubric on what they're looking for. So even though it's a conversational interview, you can always steer it the way you want so it touches on all those topics.

oh yea, i forgot about that. it's pretty useful though to take a look at before the interview.

i'm sure a lot of the qualities apply for other schools as well.

 

[Fibroblastman]

I am still very confused by "conversational" interviews. Am I allowed to ask questions back at the interviewer (before he/she asks, "Do you have any questions for me?")? Or, is it a one-way conversation where the interviewer asks all of the questions? Also, how long should me responses be? For most conversations, I don't talk for more than a 30 seconds at a time, but I don't think that this is really sufficient for me to describe my activities or goals/plans in much detail. Any suggestions? 😕

Have a normal conversation, with an agenda.

Agenda: insert bits and pieces (positive) of yourself at every chance... this isn't just a lovely chat. You need to get in.

Normal conversation means:

• Eye contact
• Physical gestures (use of hands, nodding, leaning forward at times)
• NO interruptions, until the person has completed their thought
• Relaxed voice (no sudden crescendos, or whispers)

This still is a medical school interview... so... no drinking stories, etc. Even after the interview, you're still "on."

 

[Docere]

No way this is true, this whole myth about how once someone makes it to an interview they are all on an even playing field is just not true. The numbers and EC's always matter, at every school. I'm not saying the interview isn't important, its just not really that important, unless the interview goes really badly, in which case it does make a difference. The fact of the matter is people with the higher stats will always have an advantage, even if their interview is just mediocre.

Actually, I'd agree with Law2Doc about that. I think what he means is when you get far enough up the list that you're actually offered an interview, you can pretty much assume you're on par with everyone else you're interviewing. You and everyone else waiting for their interviewers obviously have the grades, the community service, and the personal statements that they're looking for. All that's missing now is the human element.

Some schools like Baylor give you a rubric on what they're looking for. So even though it's a conversational interview, you can always steer it the way you want so it touches on all those topics.

Ah yes, I remember that rubric, but I'm pretty sure you don't actually have the rubric right in front of you when you're interviewing. Even then, you don't want to be glancing down at that sheet during the actual interview. Basically what all schools are looking for from you are:

• Motivation to become a physician
• Leadership and Confidence
• Ability to communicate effectively and efficiently
• Interest in helping people

Make sure you communicate all the above during your interview. And like Fibroblastman pointed out, don't forget your body language or other subtle non-spoken communication methods.

I would definitely ask questions during the interview. It shows that you did your research about the school and that you're highly interested in becoming a part of their community. For example, if you're going to a research-based school, ask if med students are allowed to partake in research studies. Or if the school is known for a special program, ask about that. And definitely ask about things you need answered if they're going to affect your decision about whether you'll want to go to the school in the end.