Weird internship interview scenario

[edieb]

---

Members don't see this ad.

I was interviewing at an internship and a groups of psychologists asked the applicants a couple of differential diagnosis questions, one about psychotic spectrum disorders and about the amnestic disorders spectrum. I thought they were really, really hard questions that you would have had to know minute and esoteric details of the DSM to know. Well, everybody either got these same two questions wrong or were only slightly/partially right (including me)!!! Then this one applicant answered and it was like she knew everything about the DSM. She was then told by the director, and one other psychologist at the program, that her answers "nailed the questions" and that she must know the DSM "inside and out" and they said this in front of all the other interviewees. Even more interesting is the fact that she was the only one from what would be considered a great school (Yale) while almost everyone else was from what most would consider lower level schools like Fielding, Regents, Argosy, Xavier. This site was pretty non-competitive and most faculty were Psy.D.s Later, everyone was talking outside and were saying that these differential diagnosis questions were the most important of the bunch and that she could count on being ranked #1 unless she screwed up royally in one-on-one interviews. I was wondering,

1 - do you think this is true -- after all, aren't we applying for TRAINING?
2 - why do they ask questions like this?
3 - Do you think interviewers ignore the fact that this girl is from Yale while most of her competition is from Argosy, Fielding, etc?

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

1 - do you think this is true -- after all, aren't we applying for TRAINING?
2 - why do they ask questions like this?
3 - Do you think interviewers ignore the fact that this girl is from Yale while most of her competition is from Argosy, Fielding, etc?

1. Much like the application process, many people have similar training, so small things can make a big difference. Fit is important too. Some places have different expectations about what they are training.

2. They want to know how thorough people are in their training. It seems like nitpicking, but maybe their site requires that sub-set of knowledge.

3. Where you come from can make a difference, though ultimately it is up to the candidate once you get to the interview process.

-t

 

[deleted176373]

1 - do you think this is true -- after all, aren't we applying for TRAINING?
2 - why do they ask questions like this?
3 - Do you think interviewers ignore the fact that this girl is from Yale while most of her competition is from Argosy, Fielding, etc?

#1 Yes, expect to be asked questions that are beyond what you are "expected" to know.

#2 This is how you find the real gems regardless of their training. Those who have a real desire to be in the field regardless of the program they attended will set themselves apart from the rest of the field in some obscure and sometimes less than obvious manner. Having an incorrect answer is not always bad, provided your logic is sound. Some questions test critical thinking as opposed to rote memorization skills.

#3 - No, I don't think they would ignore it, and they certainly won't ignore the fact that she demonstrated a difference in her ability when compared to the rest of the field. Will it be enough to rank her #1, who knows... there is more to the interview process than just being able to know the minute details of the DSM. It's obvious that she was well prepared, and it's obvious that she's jumped some hurdles to get where she currently is, those two things are going to carry some serious weight and don't you think they should?


Mark

PS - I feel bad for all the other candidates... It's like sending in Tito Ortiz to compete in the special olympics. Just doesn't seem quite fair.

 

[Neuro-Dr]

I have not trained interns, but do advanced practicum and post doctoral fellows. I will ask them about test data, diagnostic choices, and have been known to bring in MMPI-2 protocols to get opinions. I would expect them to have a good working knowledge at the level of intern. I desperately want to avoid cleaning up skill deficits that should have been taught at grad school and frankly, I can only BEGIN training a student based on where they are at. So if I have to go backwards, they'll never get the depth of training I could give them if they were fully prepared.

As an aside, I begin to care less and less about where someone went to grad school unless I know faculty who trained them. I have had practicum students from ISPP who have been great and very competitive grad schools with huge gaps in training. So, it does not always matter a great deal, though we're more inclined to give interviews to the most competitive applications.

I am neuro only....just to disclose

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

Neuro-Dr....you just gave me a (future) nightmare! I'm fine with the MMPI-2, but with the Rorschach (Extner System...blah) I have heard stories of interviewers asking really specific questions in this area.

-t

 

[Neuro-Dr]

Sorry about that. I've never had cause to do a Rorschach question on interview because I don't use it.

Just to give an idea, I find that a lot of students don't understand the concepts of empirical keying, item overlap, subtle/obvious, FBS, Fp, Ds or any of the myriad uses beyond simple scale analysis. Unfortunately, when you get to applied training, those are the specific skills needed. I had a student who did not know that the MCMI-III used BR instead of T-scores.

There really needs to be a foundation of applied skills and there is no other gaurantee that a person has the basics based from their school. I've had students whose professors haven't seen a real patient in 20 years. Say what you want about the PsyD model; but I've found the average professor at those schools still works clinically and it makes a huge difference. This is as true in neuro as clinical. I've had professors from traditional PhD programs place students at our neurology center to gather data who have no real idea of the "modal" deficits measured in various forms of pathology on the instrument being studied. They know the instrument well, but can't get a hold of the variability of that instrument in clinical use (e.g. what is the typical profile for a pedophile, custody eval father, or fitness for duty cop on the MMPI-2). You can't just give an instrument and say you are practicing psychology.

I hear alot on this list about pedigree, but it is meanless if you are not trained for the site you are applying to.