What in the world was this interviewer getting at?

[AZFutureDoc]

So I'm in the middle of an interview, and it's pretty conversational. I bring up the topic of preventative medicine and the interviewer says "let me ask you a question. Do you think people who smoke, who don't exercise, or are obese add an extra burden to the health care field?" I say "well since in a perfect world where nobody did these things, the health conditions associated with these lifestyle choices would not need to be treated, so yes." He gives me a stone cold confirmation that he heard what I said, seeming to be either in opposition of my answer, or trying desperately to not give me approval. He proceeds to ask "So do you think it is right that these people pay more for insurance?" I say "Well because people make their own choices on these matters, and since on average, they will require more care and therefore money to be treated, yes." He asks me "well why do people do these things when we all know the risks that are involved?" I say "Based on my experiences, people tend to be optimistic and unrealistic, and think that they will be in the statistic that does not suffer from any problems. Not all 100% of people who smoke get life threatening diseases, and I would say that most of them tend to see themselves in this minority, thinking that bad things will never happen to them." Now I get kicked you-know-where when he says "So let me get this straight. These people should pay more for insurance when they don't even understand the dangers of what they are doing?" in an are-you-serious kind of tone. Now I have to start back tracking on myself and say "I wouldn't say that, just that people tend to be very optimistic. Everybody knows the dangers, some people just refuse to believe that those dangers will happen to them." He asks "How would you fix this problem and really let people know that they could easily get cancer form smoking, for example?" I say "Well, better education. I could create some kind of program involving stories of people who never thought that these health problems would happen to them. Lung cancer patients who smoked and proceeded to compromise their health could say that they also thought smoking would never kill them." He asks "Who would you target?" I reply "Well I don't really know about educating children on these issues and how successful it is, I would have to find out. But from my experience, people age 20-40 are at risk of picking up these habits because of college, new freedom, depression, or a number of things that happen to young adults. These years are times of change for a lot of people and when that change seems to be for the worse, they're likely to pick up habits to cope with it." He comes back and says "Well, this is actually a topic I'm very interested in, and studies show that the best population to target is from 10-16 years old, because they are likely to emulate what their parents do at this stage." Now I have to give in a little more and say "Oh, well knowing that, I would obviously target this demographic. Like I said, I didn't know the specifics of educating children." He gives a smile and kinda goes yaaa... in a you're-wrong-kind-of-tone. I try and get in another punch and say "From my volunteering and friends, I think preventative medicine can be very useful, both to patients for their health, and the healthcare system by improving public health." We move on...

Except for this excerpt, the interview went exceptionally. I got everything I wanted to say in. But this portion really has confused me! Does anyone else out there hold the view that these people should not have to pay more for insurance? Did I succeed in sticking to my guns when he questioned me? Did he want to hear me admit that I didn't know the answer? Did I think/reason in an appropriate way? I realize that you guys don't know the interviewer, but based on what was said and how I said it, did I perform well in this scenario? Sorry for the long post, but this was one of my top choices and I've been freaking out on whether or not I did well in this rough patch. Thanks for the input!!!

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[lord_jeebus]

I think you handled it well

 

[mterp45]

So I'm in the middle of an interview, and it's pretty conversational. I bring up the topic of preventative medicine and the interviewer says "let me ask you a question. Do you think people who smoke, who don't exercise, or are obese add an extra burden to the health care field?" I say "well since in a perfect world where nobody did these things, the health conditions associated with these lifestyle choices would not need to be treated, so yes." He gives me a stone cold confirmation that he heard what I said, seeming to be either in opposition of my answer, or trying desperately to not give me approval. He proceeds to ask "So do you think it is right that these people pay more for insurance?" I say "Well because people make their own choices on these matters, and since on average, they will require more care and therefore money to be treated, yes." He asks me "well why do people do these things when we all know the risks that are involved?" I say "Based on my experiences, people tend to be optimistic and unrealistic, and think that they will be in the statistic that does not suffer from any problems. Not all 100% of people who smoke get life threatening diseases, and I would say that most of them tend to see themselves in this minority, thinking that bad things will never happen to them." Now I get kicked you-know-where when he says "So let me get this straight. These people should pay more for insurance when they don't even understand the dangers of what they are doing?" in an are-you-serious kind of tone. Now I have to start back tracking on myself and say "I wouldn't say that, just that people tend to be very optimistic. Everybody knows the dangers, some people just refuse to believe that those dangers will happen to them." He asks "How would you fix this problem and really let people know that they could easily get cancer form smoking, for example?" I say "Well, better education. I could create some kind of program involving stories of people who never thought that these health problems would happen to them. Lung cancer patients who smoked and proceeded to compromise their health could say that they also thought smoking would never kill them." He asks "Who would you target?" I reply "Well I don't really know about educating children on these issues and how successful it is, I would have to find out. But from my experience, people age 20-40 are at risk of picking up these habits because of college, new freedom, depression, or a number of things that happen to young adults. These years are times of change for a lot of people and when that change seems to be for the worse, they're likely to pick up habits to cope with it." He comes back and says "Well, this is actually a topic I'm very interested in, and studies show that the best population to target is from 10-16 years old, because they are likely to emulate what their parents do at this stage." Now I have to give in a little more and say "Oh, well knowing that, I would obviously target this demographic. Like I said, I didn't know the specifics of educating children." He gives a smile and kinda goes yaaa... in a you're-wrong-kind-of-tone. I try and get in another punch and say "From my volunteering and friends, I think preventative medicine can be very useful, both to patients for their health, and the healthcare system by improving public health." We move on...

Except for this excerpt, the interview went exceptionally. I got everything I wanted to say in. But this portion really has confused me! Does anyone else out there hold the view that these people should not have to pay more for insurance? Did I succeed in sticking to my guns when he questioned me? Did he want to hear me admit that I didn't know the answer? Did I think/reason in an appropriate way? I realize that you guys don't know the interviewer, but based on what was said and how I said it, did I perform well in this scenario? Sorry for the long post, but this was one of my top choices and I've been freaking out on whether or not I did well in this rough patch. Thanks for the input!!!

I got a 9 on verbal. I cant read all that writting and make sense out of it. split it all into bullet points .

 

[ar2388]

i think you handled that brilliantly actually... and i agree with your ideas and thoughts on this issue

 

[AZFutureDoc]

I got a 9 on verbal. I cant read all that writting and make sense out of it. split it all into bullet points .

DONE!

So I'm in the middle of an interview, and it's pretty conversational. I bring up the topic of preventative medicine and the interviewer says "let me ask you a question. Do you think people who smoke, who don't exercise, or are obese add an extra burden to the health care field?" I say "well since in a perfect world where nobody did these things, the health conditions associated with these lifestyle choices would not need to be treated, so yes."

He gives me a stone cold confirmation that he heard what I said, seeming to be either in opposition of my answer, or trying desperately to not give me approval. He proceeds to ask "So do you think it is right that these people pay more for insurance?" I say "Well because people make their own choices on these matters, and since on average, they will require more care and therefore money to be treated, yes." He asks me "well why do people do these things when we all know the risks that are involved?" I say "Based on my experiences, people tend to be optimistic and unrealistic, and think that they will be in the statistic that does not suffer from any problems. Not all 100% of people who smoke get life threatening diseases, and I would say that most of them tend to see themselves in this minority, thinking that bad things will never happen to them."

Now I get kicked you-know-where when he says "So let me get this straight. These people should pay more for insurance when they don't even understand the dangers of what they are doing?" in an are-you-serious kind of tone. Now I have to start back tracking on myself and say "I wouldn't say that, just that people tend to be very optimistic. Everybody knows the dangers, some people just refuse to believe that those dangers will happen to them." He asks "How would you fix this problem and really let people know that they could easily get cancer form smoking, for example?" I say "Well, better education. I could create some kind of program involving stories of people who never thought that these health problems would happen to them. Lung cancer patients who smoked and proceeded to compromise their health could say that they also thought smoking would never kill them." He asks "Who would you target?" I reply "Well I don't really know about educating children on these issues and how successful it is, I would have to find out. But from my experience, people age 20-40 are at risk of picking up these habits because of college, new freedom, depression, or a number of things that happen to young adults. These years are times of change for a lot of people and when that change seems to be for the worse, they're likely to pick up habits to cope with it."

He comes back and says "Well, this is actually a topic I'm very interested in, and studies show that the best population to target is from 10-16 years old, because they are likely to emulate what their parents do at this stage." Now I have to give in a little more and say "Oh, well knowing that, I would obviously target this demographic. Like I said, I didn't know the specifics of educating children." He gives a smile and kinda goes yaaa... in a you're-wrong-kind-of-tone. I try and get in another punch and say "From my volunteering and friends, I think preventative medicine can be very useful, both to patients for their health, and the healthcare system by improving public health." We move on...

Except for this excerpt, the interview went exceptionally. I got everything I wanted to say in. But this portion really has confused me! Does anyone else out there hold the view that these people should not have to pay more for insurance? Did I succeed in sticking to my guns when he questioned me? Did he want to hear me admit that I didn't know the answer? Did I think/reason in an appropriate way?

I realize that you guys don't know the interviewer, but based on what was said and how I said it, did I perform well in this scenario? Sorry for the long post, but this was one of my top choices and I've been freaking out on whether or not I did well in this rough patch. Thanks for the input!!!

 

[tatchle1]

I'd say you handled it well too

 

[tianac2]

This strikes me as a "lets see if he/she can make an argument and stick to it" kind of question, which was made more sticky by the fact that this particular interviewer had knowledge of the topic, and so could better twist the scenario so as to trap you. It seems like you handled it reasonably well though.

 

[mterp45]

DONE!

So I'm in the middle of an interview, and it's pretty conversational. I bring up the topic of preventative medicine and the interviewer says "let me ask you a question. Do you think people who smoke, who don't exercise, or are obese add an extra burden to the health care field?" I say "well since in a perfect world where nobody did these things, the health conditions associated with these lifestyle choices would not need to be treated, so yes."

He gives me a stone cold confirmation that he heard what I said, seeming to be either in opposition of my answer, or trying desperately to not give me approval. He proceeds to ask "So do you think it is right that these people pay more for insurance?" I say "Well because people make their own choices on these matters, and since on average, they will require more care and therefore money to be treated, yes." He asks me "well why do people do these things when we all know the risks that are involved?" I say "Based on my experiences, people tend to be optimistic and unrealistic, and think that they will be in the statistic that does not suffer from any problems. Not all 100% of people who smoke get life threatening diseases, and I would say that most of them tend to see themselves in this minority, thinking that bad things will never happen to them."

Now I get kicked you-know-where when he says "So let me get this straight. These people should pay more for insurance when they don't even understand the dangers of what they are doing?" in an are-you-serious kind of tone. Now I have to start back tracking on myself and say "I wouldn't say that, just that people tend to be very optimistic. Everybody knows the dangers, some people just refuse to believe that those dangers will happen to them." He asks "How would you fix this problem and really let people know that they could easily get cancer form smoking, for example?" I say "Well, better education. I could create some kind of program involving stories of people who never thought that these health problems would happen to them. Lung cancer patients who smoked and proceeded to compromise their health could say that they also thought smoking would never kill them." He asks "Who would you target?" I reply "Well I don't really know about educating children on these issues and how successful it is, I would have to find out. But from my experience, people age 20-40 are at risk of picking up these habits because of college, new freedom, depression, or a number of things that happen to young adults. These years are times of change for a lot of people and when that change seems to be for the worse, they're likely to pick up habits to cope with it."

He comes back and says "Well, this is actually a topic I'm very interested in, and studies show that the best population to target is from 10-16 years old, because they are likely to emulate what their parents do at this stage." Now I have to give in a little more and say "Oh, well knowing that, I would obviously target this demographic. Like I said, I didn't know the specifics of educating children." He gives a smile and kinda goes yaaa... in a you're-wrong-kind-of-tone. I try and get in another punch and say "From my volunteering and friends, I think preventative medicine can be very useful, both to patients for their health, and the healthcare system by improving public health." We move on...

Except for this excerpt, the interview went exceptionally. I got everything I wanted to say in. But this portion really has confused me! Does anyone else out there hold the view that these people should not have to pay more for insurance? Did I succeed in sticking to my guns when he questioned me? Did he want to hear me admit that I didn't know the answer? Did I think/reason in an appropriate way?

I realize that you guys don't know the interviewer, but based on what was said and how I said it, did I perform well in this scenario? Sorry for the long post, but this was one of my top choices and I've been freaking out on whether or not I did well in this rough patch. Thanks for the input!!!

Cool. Thanks for paragraphing it helps. I don't know whether or not you handled it well, but it seems to me that your interviewer was testing your ability to reason and express yourself logically. I don't think there was a right or wrong answer to that question. Whether or not you passed the test is a bit of a subjective matter.

 

[chessknt]

Yea, I think a lot of people are very aware of the risks but are either unmotivated or happy with them, one of which can be fixed via education while the other cant. That being said, it seemed like you steered a fair course, if it was a little opinionated then so be it as long as you truly hold to them.

 

[AZFutureDoc]

Cool, thanks for the input guys. Anyone else have any commentary?

 

[JLC]

I think you did really well! There's really no point to what they're asking IMO. Don't sweat it.

 

[chessodoc]

Must agree here, super answer!

 

[Bacchus]

Great answer. The interviewer either wanted to see your thought process or was having a bad day. You win, though.

 

[packofneurons]

Agreed that you did well and that the interviewer wanted to see your thought process.
From what I've read, interviewers also like it when you stick to your argument, so maybe he was trying to get you to say something that contradicted your argument.

 

[gujuDoc]

i think you handled that brilliantly actually... and i agree with your ideas and thoughts on this issue

Agreed.

And to the OP:

Next time, please for the love of god don't make it all a run on paragraph when you talk about an interview. Its blinding but I did manage to read it all and say I agree with ar2388 and lord jeebus. You are fine.

 

[AZFutureDoc]

Haha sweet. Sorry about that paragraph. I just kinda got typing and didn't think about how long it ended up being!

 

[bcat85]

I'll tell you what. I thikn you did a great job of not shutting down and standing your ground, while expressing an opinion that is not traditionally considered the "save-the-world-screw-the-responsibility" answer that a lot of pre-meds would give just to play it safe... I'll confess I probably would have even played the game a bit. Good job OP.

 

[Vido]

DONE!

So I'm in the middle of an interview, and it's pretty conversational. I bring up the topic of preventative medicine and the interviewer says "let me ask you a question. Do you think people who smoke, who don't exercise, or are obese add an extra burden to the health care field?" I say "well since in a perfect world where nobody did these things, the health conditions associated with these lifestyle choices would not need to be treated, so yes."

He gives me a stone cold confirmation that he heard what I said, seeming to be either in opposition of my answer, or trying desperately to not give me approval. He proceeds to ask "So do you think it is right that these people pay more for insurance?" I say "Well because people make their own choices on these matters, and since on average, they will require more care and therefore money to be treated, yes." He asks me "well why do people do these things when we all know the risks that are involved?" I say "Based on my experiences, people tend to be optimistic and unrealistic, and think that they will be in the statistic that does not suffer from any problems. Not all 100% of people who smoke get life threatening diseases, and I would say that most of them tend to see themselves in this minority, thinking that bad things will never happen to them."

Now I get kicked you-know-where when he says "So let me get this straight. These people should pay more for insurance when they don't even understand the dangers of what they are doing?" in an are-you-serious kind of tone. Now I have to start back tracking on myself and say "I wouldn't say that, just that people tend to be very optimistic. Everybody knows the dangers, some people just refuse to believe that those dangers will happen to them." He asks "How would you fix this problem and really let people know that they could easily get cancer form smoking, for example?" I say "Well, better education. I could create some kind of program involving stories of people who never thought that these health problems would happen to them. Lung cancer patients who smoked and proceeded to compromise their health could say that they also thought smoking would never kill them." He asks "Who would you target?" I reply "Well I don't really know about educating children on these issues and how successful it is, I would have to find out. But from my experience, people age 20-40 are at risk of picking up these habits because of college, new freedom, depression, or a number of things that happen to young adults. These years are times of change for a lot of people and when that change seems to be for the worse, they're likely to pick up habits to cope with it."

He comes back and says "Well, this is actually a topic I'm very interested in, and studies show that the best population to target is from 10-16 years old, because they are likely to emulate what their parents do at this stage." Now I have to give in a little more and say "Oh, well knowing that, I would obviously target this demographic. Like I said, I didn't know the specifics of educating children." He gives a smile and kinda goes yaaa... in a you're-wrong-kind-of-tone. I try and get in another punch and say "From my volunteering and friends, I think preventative medicine can be very useful, both to patients for their health, and the healthcare system by improving public health." We move on...

Except for this excerpt, the interview went exceptionally. I got everything I wanted to say in. But this portion really has confused me! Does anyone else out there hold the view that these people should not have to pay more for insurance? Did I succeed in sticking to my guns when he questioned me? Did he want to hear me admit that I didn't know the answer? Did I think/reason in an appropriate way?

I realize that you guys don't know the interviewer, but based on what was said and how I said it, did I perform well in this scenario? Sorry for the long post, but this was one of my top choices and I've been freaking out on whether or not I did well in this rough patch. Thanks for the input!!!

I got 6 In verbal, can you split that one more time!!

No, seriosly i think you did well and i think that he only wanted to see how far you'd go supporting your own openions.

 

[AZFutureDoc]

I got a 7, so I'm not much better!

Anyways, thanks for the reassurance guys. I can rest a little more easily knowing that I handled that part well.

 

[phospho]

awesome job... i think you did well...


also, thanks for splitting up your paragraph...

 

[AZFutureDoc]

No problem. Let's just hope my response was good enough!

 

[TRN1983]

Sounds great to me. He was obviously testing you because it appears he intentionally twisted your words. I.e. you never said people didn't know what they were doing when they smoked, you simply said that they like to think (unrealistically) optimistically and that none of the bad effects their aware of will happen to them. I think you made him dig b/c you were handling the discussion so well.

 

[paramedtech]

I also agree with the above posters that you answered the question well.

 

[Law2Doc]

I also agree with the above posters that you answered the question well.

Decent answers, although once you do a bit more clinical stuff in med school, you would know that folks tend to pick up smoking in grade school, not college, and that childhood obesity/inactivity is a HUGE problem these days. But I wouldn't sweat it.

 

[Kaustikos]

While I completely disagree, you did handle it well. It's one thing to have an opinion, it's an entirely different thing to have one and to be able to handle your own with it in an interview.

 

[Sylar]

I would've totally went the "SAVE THE WORLD!!! SCREW RESPONSIBILITY" route as well even though I completely agree with you. Better safe than sorry but you seemed to handle yourself.

 

[Trismegistus4]

Does anyone else out there hold the view that these people should not have to pay more for insurance? Did I succeed in sticking to my guns when he questioned me?

I think you did well in sticking to your guns, but yes, there are plenty of people out there who think no one should have to pay anything for insurance, that the only reason people smoke or get fat is that they are hapless victims of greedy capitalists, in fact, that not only must the government provide everyone with free health insurance, it must take positive steps to maximize everyone's health by preventing people from smoking and eating fatty foods. You will meet these people in medical school--depending on what school you go to, they will be a majority of your classmates. And of course some, if not most, of the school's administrators and faculty will hold these views, and I would not be at all surprised to learn that your interviewer was part of this group, and docked you points for being an oppressive right-wing radical for expressing your liberal view that public health must be improved by mass education.

 

[AZFutureDoc]

Well I don't think this was really on free insurance/socialized medicine. We were talking about the way things work right now in America, not somewhere else in the future.