West Virgina's EDP (Is it unethical?)

i wouldn't go so far as to say it's unethical. it's probably not ideal, but my hunch is that the interview would be more of a formality than anything else for people with high numbers. also, as they explained to me, they do review your file, including your personal statement, to determine whether or not to make an offer of admission, so it's not like everyone with a 28 and 3.5 gets admitted (well, theoretically anyway).

i also don't see why it's unfair to other applicants. schools favor applicants with higher numbers and rightfully so because higher number generally indicate putting more work and effort into the process. if your numbers are closer to the borderline, it's reasonable that they'd want to meet you and assess your personality more closely. i also doubt you wind up with more psychos because the psychos are probably on their best behavior during the interview. have you ever met a sociopath? they're usually pretty [email protected] charming and probably interview well.

 

I respectfully disagree. One of the things that purportedly separates Osteopathic school admissions from allopathic is their focus on more than just test scores and grades. Obviously all med schools will say that they look at more than MCAT score and GPA... but do they all? I would be willing to bet that someone with a less than average MCAT score/GPA for allopathic schools will have a much harder time gaining acceptance at those schools than someone with a less than average MCAT score/GPA for osteopathic schools gaining acceptance.

From AACOM:
"Osteopathic schools are more geared towards identifying other variables besides grades and test scores, a process intended to produce more empathic physicians."

To offer automatic acceptances based solely on test scores, in my opinion, could harm this mission to "train more empathic physicians."

On a slightly different note, doesn't WVSOM want $3k to secure a spot if you are automatically accepted!? It only costs $1000 at many other schools like DMU, and even that payment is spread out...

Seems like WVSOM wants to hook people fast: offer them an automatic acceptance (without the stresses of an interview and waiting for a decision), and all it will cost them is $3k... sounds sketchy to me.

If WVSOM truly has a great campus and program and people are drawn to that school for those or other legitimate reasons, then that's great. But if people choose WVSOM because they were accepted and chose to matriculate out of convenience, that is wrong IMO.

 

They're just trying to find ways to fill their doubled class size without jeopardizing their current standards.

 

this is actually my biggest problem with the thing. i got one of these early admissions offers where i was required to pay $3k by 10/3 to secure a seat. i hope this is not their intent, but i sort of felt like they were playing on my insecurities and hoping to profit by getting $3k from me even though i might not attend the school.

as for looking at the whole person, i honestly think you can do a pretty good job at that without interviewing a person. i think you can learn more about someone by reading their personal statement and resume than by talking to them for 30 minutes. i'm hoping that wvsom actually does this before giving an edp offer.

in all, wvsom is a great school with many selling points, but they probably have to work a little harder to recruit people because of the remoteness of their location and high out of state tuition. i'm sure the admissions office is having a pretty stressful year this year, too, because of the whole doubling their class size thing. if adopting the edp thing saves them some time, i think it's reasonable provided they look at a person's whole file instead of just looking at numbers.

 

STRONGLY, yet respectfully, disagree!! Although I understand the obvious intent of WVSOM is to grab the qualified students before they get snagged somewhere else, I DO NOT think that a PS can say more about a person than a 30 minute interview...

People can write whatever, WHATEVER, they want on there Personal Statement. Have it checked by 10 other writing professors, and it comes back nothing like the person themselves... At an interview, it is the person alone in the room, without anyone else to speak for them. To say that the PS and resume say more about a person than an interview is ludacris.

- A guy has on his resume "I had an amazing, life changing experience with Alex, a young boy with severe depression and muscular dystrophy. I helped him with physical activities every week and feel I truely made a difference." Then... At the interview he is actually asked about this experience, and does a horrid job portraying it to the interviewers... It was obviously either a "fake" experience, or wasn't "life changing." These are the things you learn in an interview, and not in a PS or resume...

Just my 2 cents! Not meant to tick anyone off

 

Or he was really nervous and fumbled through his words.

 

Which would show that he is not good at interacting with people in difficult situations, something that comes up ALL THE TIME as a phsyician... yet another thing you find in interviews and not PS and essays...

"I am a very personable person" means nothing on paper...

 

Not even an interview can tell if a person is going to be a good physician.

Only when you are on your own as a practicing physician with no backup will it be clear if you are a good physician. When no one is watching.

Obviously they think that if you have the stats you can handle learning medicine which is what they are in business for.

 

This is ridiculous. You can't expect someone at an interview to not be nervous and screw up, especially when they have little experience. The coolheadedness of physicians comes from experience and training, not from some intrinsic characteristics. Ask how many interns or residents were scared ****less on their first day.

 

I've come to realize that med school interviews really dont mean as much as people would like to think.
Most other professional degrees, like law and graduate degrees, dont necessarily interview future canidates and it all seems to work out.

Additionally, the carribean med schools dont all interview their canidates and the ones that do dont with any sort of regularity. Certainly someone with a 27 and 3.5 would get in automatically to any of the top three carib schools and become doctors.

While ultimately I dont like the idea that people can just get accepted based on numbers it really isn't all that different that what other schools do. This is just being a little more honest about the process. It does save an applicant some money though (in the short run) and some time in that horrible suit.

 

I like suits.

The interview usually serves one of two purposes: (a) a formality for those whom the committee wishes to accept, and (b) a chance for an applicant to explain any concerns the adcom may have and, if sufficient, offer an acceptance. WVSOM just decided to forget the formality.

Although, the interview must mean something since WV deferred me. It certainly can't be a numbers issue. It can't be an anything issue really, since my interview wasn't much of an interview.

Another thing that always irritated me is the requisite financial aid info session during interviews, which prolongs the day. I think it's a waste of time during an interview, as the students aren't even accepted yet.

 

I guess they can do whatever they want. They'll find out for themselves if this policy was good or bad in few years.

 

Med schools are in the business of producing doctors. I doubt most really care or can tell if you will be a "money hungry" or "moral" doctor. Personally I wish every school had this mentality, it sure would save applicants a lot of time and money.

 

I don't know about that. There are specialties where the (verbal) interaction is next to nothing, e.g. the guy is dead (PATH) or you're just working on that monitor tan (RAD).

There are other (specialties) where the interaction is minimal. So I wouldn't say there is interaction all the time - just my 2cents.

 

The interview says nothing about how you react under stress with other people because of the type of stress that it is.
I actually get more nervous before I do patient interviews than I did for my med school interviews. At least the med school interviews are predicable and the answers you give are pretty standard.

There are people who dont interview well but would make excellent doctors and people who do interview well who end up not being as good as a doctor.

 

i so agree. the interview basically shows how well you do in medical school interviews, which isn't necessarily applicable to anything else you do as a doctor. well, i guess if you're good at med school interviews, you'll probably also do well at residency interviews, but that's it. from my understanding, interviews have been shown through studies to be pretty limited in determining whether or not a person is a good fit for a position. also, people are better able to judge truthfulness through written statements than through verbal statements, so i'm not sure an interview would destroy a liar's app.

maybe i'm biased because i've interviewed people and found it to be a mostly worthless measure of how good they would be. also, i've been on tons of interivews and rocked some and totally sucked at others. i'm still me, and my merits are the same regardless of how well that particular interview went. plus, a big part of an interview hinges on the interviewer's mood, preferences, personality, etc., so there's just too much subjectivity for it to be a truly reliable measure.

 

I agree with this. I do think the interview (in general) does give a general idea of how open and personable you are. If you are able to relate to people you don't know and have a meaningful conversation about who you are and why you're going where you're going, I think there would be a better chance that you'd be more open and personable meeting new people (like your patients). Obviously the situation is completely different, but...

Anyways, people who are more personable by nature probably have jobs and ECs that highlight this quality as well-- I think it's about consitency. They want an applicant that consistently does well (like on the MCAT and in classes) as well as an applicant consistently involved in other ECs like volunteering, ect. It shows that you might be consistent in... passing your super-hard classes and graduating med school!

 

okay, i'm not being a hater here, but i don't think we're agreeing. you seem to think the interview does have some possibly fairly significant value in determining how good of a doctor you will be. i don't. imo, a med school interviews show how well you do in med school interviews and nothing more. of all the possible criteria you could use to select good applicants, i would rate an interview as pretty much at the bottom.

 

Well, maybe I'm not agreeing completely with everything that you're saying... but I guess what I'm trying to get at is the fact that your personability would probably (generally) be presented in an interview, but would also be seen in other areas of your applications as well...

 

I would disagree because the interview is still necessary to weed those out who aren't socially functional human beings.

 

Are you saying that med schools don't work like the rest of the world does? In my previous career I spent 15 years interviewing job candidates. I read over 30,000 resumes and interviewed over 3000 candidates. The way the real world works is that the resume gets you the interview. Then, the interview gets you the job. I've read hundreds of incredible sounding resumes, only to find out that the people behind them in no way resemble the people depicted on paper. In most of those cases, I doubt that those people wrote the resumes themselves. In some cases the applicants had no idea what was even it their own resume. In that same light, I'm sure that quite a few essays on med school applications have input from more than just the applicant him/herself. I can't imagine any business on Earth offering employment to someone thay haven't interviewed. For a medical school to do it is even worse; it is ridiculous.

 

Oh they still get it. In higher numbers than one would like to admit.

 

I'd say yes. Med schools aren't quite the rest of the world... well or they more are like the rest of the world. There is no rhyme or reason to their logic and it seems there are times when politics plays a suprising role in things.

 

A bad interview doesn't equal being a bad physician.

You never know how someone will act around a pt until third year. Anyone can "fake" it for 30-60 minute interview. That isn't enough time to judge a character with whats at stake.

The best interviewee can be the worst diagnostic doc and hence a bad physician. Sure they might but the pt at ease but if they can't figure out what's wrong they are a bad physician.

 

this is so true, and i've met physicians like that. they're very personable and friendly, but they're not on top of latest medical information.

 

I agree that interviews can't necessarily weed out bad doctors, but I do think they can weed out people who are either so arrogant or such jerks that they can't even behave themselves properly for an interview. If you can't come off as a halfway decent human being at a med school interview, why should we think you can do it for the thousands of patients you'll see? There are people like that and we don't want them as doctors. I also think they can weed out people who were exaggerating their EC's on their applications (unless they are also great liars in person). Interviews also show if someone is good at making someone they don't know feel comfortable talking to them. Surely this is something that you could work on as a med student, but if you already have that skill, I think that's a plus that should make up for other minuses in an application (which, I know, wasn't the point here since it's the people without the minuses they're skipping the interview for).

 

I agree with this, and I think the politics at DO schools tend to be worse than at allo schools, if only because they have their professional interests and identity to protect.

My undergrad advisor's wife was on the adcom of one of my state MD schools. I got to know him pretty well, and he recounted a story of how the dean overruled the recommendation of both his wife and the adcom to not admit a student because the applicant's parents were beneficiaries of the university. The dean admitted the person against the adcom's wishes. The guy made it through basic sciences, but was dismissed during clinicals because, well, he didn't need to interact with another human being.

 

i think interviews make a difference rarely ... the adcom does what it will based on stats and your paper file.. just because one or two people recommend you prolly wont be so significant

 

Your interviewers will have some knowledge the adcom won't, such as why a certain grade was so low. They can offer any explanations to concerns the adcom may have, however I doubt it makes that much of a difference.

I was told by an interviewer, who I think was rooting for me, that he's only one member of the adcom so nothing can be guaranteed.

 

I wouldnt' be all that sure about that. There was a specific allo school that came to my mind when I wrote that.

 

There are probably just as many, if not more people who do actually interview that dont deserve a seat.

There are a number of DO, as well as MD schools, that have early decision programs that allow a student to enter automatically without an interview. This idea is not unique to WVSOM. TCOM, a top DO school, has one.

 

Nobody deserves a seat.

 

28 MCAT and 3.5 GPA gets you in automatically. That does not bother me. LORs, PS, ECs, interview etc and they really know who you are? I've dated women for over a year and got some surpises.

 

Disagree. Why does nobody deserve a seat?

 

I'm sure that he's referring to the unwarranted sense of entitlement that some people possess.

 

That should be understood. I am simply refering to the people who have worked extremely hard, have the stats, love medicine, and want to dedicate the majority of their lives to helping others.

I am an advocate of having all people read Atlas Shrugged, so that should tell you how I feel about "unwarranted sense of entitlement."

 

You still have to interview at those places that offer early decision programs.

 

i don't think it's wrong for a person who a very solid application to feel like he/she deserves a seat. if you've been working hard making good grades, doing well on the mcat, volunteering, researching, etc., then, yeah, i think you deserve a seat. if you don't get it, it indicates that something is out of whack with the system. it's not an unwarranted sense of entitlement to expect your hard work to pay off.

 

Completely agree, see above post. Thanks for further explanation.

 

yeah, i think we were posting at the same time.

 

I've read the book and dislike it.

And I know what you are saying but I'm just gonna have to count my blessings on this one.