What is the real point of interviews

[osprey099]

---

Members don't see this ad.

In almost all school specific threads, I've seen people say stuff like "interview was really relaxed/conversational." In the interviews I've been to, I've felt the same. However, if everyone is having relaxed and conversational interviews, how do adcoms set one applicant apart from the rest? Sure, there'll be 10% of interviewers who are antisocial and bomb it; another 10% who will totally rock the interview. I feel like for the other 80%, adcoms just compare grades, scores, ECs, letters, etc. anyone else think this way?

 

[volcomx]

It's probably pretty true that for 80% of the interviewees, the interview itself has little to do with the eventual outcome. However, it's a great opportunity for us to check out the school, faculty, and students.

Also, I'd imagine it's very important for the school to weed out the crazies and recruit the stellar interviewees.

 

[jaybird117]

Agreed with the above, post-interview acceptance rates AFAIK skyrocket to 30-50%. They're really only looking to lose the ones that only sound great on paper.

 

[circulus vitios]

There is no point. My interviewers didn't "get to know me" from interviewing. I've been accepted at interviews that I've bombed, and rejected from others I've done well at. It's all a waste of time, I think.

 

[Captain Sisko]

It's another data point with which to supplement your file. What your interviewers write about you will be used in conjunction with your scores, gpa, ecs and letters to evaluate if you'll fit with their school. Just my two cents, maybe an adcom can weigh in.

 

[Barcu]

I think it's a way to make sure you're the person you claim to be on paper. There are the few exceptions where it may really matter if they rock or bomb an interview. However, for a large number of applicants, the interview is really just another part to your whole application.

It is a good opportunity for you as an applicant to see the school, talk to students, and ask questions. Take advantage of that.

 

[chillaxbro]

If interviews don't matter, then why do some people get tons of interviews but end up with no acceptances?

 

[pyrrion89]

If interviews don't matter, then why do some people get tons of interviews but end up with no acceptances?

Why would some people who flip 7 quarters get 7 heads?

But no, interviews have to matter at least somewhat. A bad interview is probably going to hurt you a bit.

The prevailing idea is that your application places your location on the ladder. The interview can move you up or down a bit.

People can bomb their interviews and still get accepted if they were placed very highly to begin with. Similarly, people can ace their interview and get WL/rejection if they were placed very lowly to begin with. The problem is people have this theory that the interview is everything, so they believe a good interview = acceptance, poor interview = rejection, so when their results are not congruent with their theory's predictions, they dismiss interviews altogether.

 

[polo123]

Why would some people who flip 7 quarters get 7 heads?

But no, interviews have to matter at least somewhat. A bad interview is probably going to hurt you a bit.

The prevailing idea is that your application places your location on the ladder. The interview can move you up or down a bit.

People can bomb their interviews and still get accepted if they were placed very highly to begin with. Similarly, people can ace their interview and get WL/rejection if they were placed very lowly to begin with. The problem is people have this theory that the interview is everything, so they believe a good interview = acceptance, poor interview = rejection, so when their results are not congruent with their theory's predictions, they dismiss interviews altogether.

Why would they waste an interview spot on someone who they're not going to accept either way. So let's say you have below avg stats and you rock the interview (10/10). You're saying that still may not be enough points on the "ladder" to be accepted?

 

[osprey099]

Why would they waste an interview spot on someone who they're not going to accept either way. So let's say you have below avg stats and you rock the interview (10/10). You're saying that still may not be enough points on the "ladder" to be accepted?

Well if they already had enough people who were in a higher position on the ladder and also did well on the interview, then the below avg stat person who rocked the interview will still end up in a lower position on the ladder and not get accepted.

 

[Dbate]

Why would they waste an interview spot on someone who they're not going to accept either way. So let's say you have below avg stats and you rock the interview (10/10). You're saying that still may not be enough points on the "ladder" to be accepted?

I think everyone who gets an interview has the opportunity to get accepted. Otherwise, it wouldn't make any sense to waste time interviewing marginal candidates.

Some interviews may be for the waitlist (as I have heard that is the case for the later interviews like December-February), but earlier than that, I would imagine that everyone has at least a decent shot of getting accepted.

 

[nemo123]

I think part of it also has to do with whether the applicant would "fit" in the with the school. On paper, fit is hard to tell unless you actually get to ask the applicant what kind of medicine they want to pursue. I've been asked where I see myself in the future and what kind of medicine I would choose in many interviews and I'm sure it's because they want to see whether I fit with the overall mission of the school. And then sometimes, my interviewers try to derail my answer.

 

[circulus vitios]

I think part of it also has to do with whether the applicant would "fit" in the with the school. On paper, fit is hard to tell unless you actually get to ask the applicant what kind of medicine they want to pursue. I've been asked where I see myself in the future and what kind of medicine I would choose in many interviews and I'm sure it's because they want to see whether I fit with the overall mission of the school. And then sometimes, my interviewers try to derail my answer.

Anyone with half a brain can bs those topics. I want to specialize, but I've mentioned my 'desire' to do primary care at every interview. It all fits together because I've done a lot of shadowing with primary care physicians.

 

[CarlosDanger]

I think people who interview early all have a pretty decent chance bc schools interview people they want the most first. I do think that someone who gets an interview with lower stats has a much more difficult shot to get in, in the end its just another data point thats part of the whole application. I never bought the crap about everyone being on an equal playing field. Schools have averages to maintain.

At the same time, someone with really high stats that doesn't convince the adcom that they would actually matriculate may have a tough time, and the lower stats person can have an advantage in that way.

 

[alpinism]

Anyone who interviews prior to Jan (for most schools) has a good shot at an acceptance.

Interviews used to weed out 3 types of applicants:
1. the crazies
2. people with nonexistent social skills
3. people who can't adequately convey in person why they want to be a doctor or why they want to come to your school

 

[obgyny]

In almost all school specific threads, I've seen people say stuff like "interview was really relaxed/conversational." In the interviews I've been to, I've felt the same. However, if everyone is having relaxed and conversational interviews, how do adcoms set one applicant apart from the rest? Sure, there'll be 10% of interviewers who are antisocial and bomb it; another 10% who will totally rock the interview. I feel like for the other 80%, adcoms just compare grades, scores, ECs, letters, etc. anyone else think this way?

I used to be an interviewer and you'd be surprised that not everyone does that well even with the relaxed/conversational interview. I've had people who look amazing and passionate on paper and turn out to be completely different and disinterested in person... The interview adds something to the complete picture, such as your personality, interpersonal skills, maturity, etc., as well as fit for the school.

Anyone who interviews prior to Jan (for most schools) has a good shot at an acceptance.

Interviews used to weed out 3 types of applicants:
1. the crazies
2. people with nonexistent social skills
3. people who can't adequately convey in person why they want to be a doctor or why they want to come to your school

^this 👍

 

[Ismet]

In almost all school specific threads, I've seen people say stuff like "interview was really relaxed/conversational." In the interviews I've been to, I've felt the same. However, if everyone is having relaxed and conversational interviews, how do adcoms set one applicant apart from the rest? Sure, there'll be 10% of interviewers who are antisocial and bomb it; another 10% who will totally rock the interview. I feel like for the other 80%, adcoms just compare grades, scores, ECs, letters, etc. anyone else think this way?

I'd say more than 10% of interviews are on the "bombing" or "meh" side, but that's a rough estimate from what I've seen so far.

There is no point. My interviewers didn't "get to know me" from interviewing. I've been accepted at interviews that I've bombed, and rejected from others I've done well at. It's all a waste of time, I think.

You really can't make those assumptions. No one can "get to know" anyone in 45 minutes, but they can get to know you enough to assess your social skills and get an impression. An interviewee also can't assess how well they did, unless they knowingly said something blatantly unprofessional or something. What you think "doing well" is might not coincide with what the interviewer thinks "doing well" is. I've interviewed a couple applicants this year who obviously were very confident and had all the "right answers" to my questions, but they were extremely difficult to talk to and they left me with a bad impression of their social skills (can't really go into specifics here).

Sometimes the applicant in person does not reflect who they are on paper, and the interview is there to catch that. I'm sorry that you think it's a waste of time, but it's not.

Interviews used to weed out 3 types of applicants:
1. the crazies
2. people with nonexistent social skills
3. people who can't adequately convey in person why they want to be a doctor or why they want to come to your school

This.

And there are many more applicants like this than you might think.

 

[volcomx]

I'd say more than 10% of interviews are on the "bombing" or "meh" side, but that's a rough estimate from what I've seen so far.



You really can't make those assumptions. No one can "get to know" anyone in 45 minutes, but they can get to know you enough to assess your social skills and get an impression. An interviewee also can't assess how well they did, unless they knowingly said something blatantly unprofessional or something. What you think "doing well" is might not coincide with what the interviewer thinks "doing well" is. I've interviewed a couple applicants this year who obviously were very confident and had all the "right answers" to my questions, but they were extremely difficult to talk to and they left me with a bad impression of their social skills (can't really go into specifics here).

Sometimes the applicant in person does not reflect who they are on paper, and the interview is there to catch that. I'm sorry that you think it's a waste of time, but it's not.



This.

And there are many more applicants like this than you might think.

One of the problems with interviewing is that it is so subjective. It's relatively easy to spot antisocials or crazies, but judging someone by how easy/difficult they are to talk to is influenced by the interviewer as well. I thought my student interview at Pitt went alright. We didn't "connect" or anything, but I didn't stumble and things didn't get awkward. Some of the fellow applicants said they had a blast and ended up talking about sports and the like. Of course, maybe my interviewer gave me high marks - who knows. But it does seem like so much comes down to luck.

 

[cookiemonsters]

I interviewed at 3 schools that had strictly 'behavioral' interviews (EG "Tell me about a time when you....") which I think are the absolute dumbest things ever. MMI's are also kinda dumb. For just about everything else be a decent, down to earth person with adequate social skills and answers for the 5 or so common interview questions, and you should be fine. Luck is a component of interviews - as a male, I definitely feel female interviewers make snap judgements much faster than men.

 

[Mr Avante]

Interviews are a tool for understanding a person's background and motivation. They reveal the applicant's true intent and maturity, and how he lives up to his words. In short, an interview is a bs detector.

 

[Ismet]

One of the problems with interviewing is that it is so subjective. It's relatively easy to spot antisocials or crazies, but judging someone by how easy/difficult they are to talk to is influenced by the interviewer as well. I thought my student interview at Pitt went alright. We didn't "connect" or anything, but I didn't stumble and things didn't get awkward. Some of the fellow applicants said they had a blast and ended up talking about sports and the like. Of course, maybe my interviewer gave me high marks - who knows. But it does seem like so much comes down to luck.

I agree. And it is definitely something I am aware of when I interview. Just because my interviewee has a different personality from my own doesn't mean I will review them poorly. The thing is that there are social issues other than antisocial or crazy. Coming off as a uber-competitive gunner and/or not letting the interviewer get a word in edgewise (aka dominating the conversation or giving 5+ minute responses to questions) is also not a good thing.

I'm sure you did fine with your interview!

 

[Instatewaiter]

In almost all school specific threads, I've seen people say stuff like "interview was really relaxed/conversational." In the interviews I've been to, I've felt the same. However, if everyone is having relaxed and conversational interviews, how do adcoms set one applicant apart from the rest? Sure, there'll be 10% of interviewers who are antisocial and bomb it; another 10% who will totally rock the interview. I feel like for the other 80%, adcoms just compare grades, scores, ECs, letters, etc. anyone else think this way?

The point is to make sure you're not a serial killer or some sort of wacko.

 

[midnight0il]

Interviews are a tool for understanding a person's background and motivation. They reveal the applicant's true intent and maturity, and how he lives up to his words. In short, an interview is a bs detector.

Except some people are very good at BSing (on paper and in person).

 

[volcomx]

I agree. And it is definitely something I am aware of when I interview. Just because my interviewee has a different personality from my own doesn't mean I will review them poorly. The thing is that there are social issues other than antisocial or crazy. Coming off as a uber-competitive gunner and/or not letting the interviewer get a word in edgewise (aka dominating the conversation or giving 5+ minute responses to questions) is also not a good thing.

I'm sure you did fine with your interview!

That's reassuring!

 

[circulus vitios]

The point is to make sure you're not a serial killer or some sort of wacko.

Boston University is real good at the former.

 

[mvenus929]

Why would they waste an interview spot on someone who they're not going to accept either way. So let's say you have below avg stats and you rock the interview (10/10). You're saying that still may not be enough points on the "ladder" to be accepted?

Historically, schools need to accept x number of people to fill y number of seats in their class (where y<x). Some people seem good on paper, but turn out to be meh, while some people seem okay on paper and do awesome. Interviews can influence where you get placed on the list, but it's really hard to set up a way to decide between two students. In a system where you get a number score, the difference of a point may be the different between acceptance and waitlist.

Anyone with half a brain can bs those topics. I want to specialize, but I've mentioned my 'desire' to do primary care at every interview. It all fits together because I've done a lot of shadowing with primary care physicians.

We have a fair number of student interviewers at my school, to the point where almost half the applicants are interviewed by a student. Different things come up when you're talking to someone who is only four years removed from your position (or less in some schools) than someone 30 years removed. It's not always about the 'mission' of the school--sometimes it's just about whether or not they think you'd be a good addition to the school as a whole, whether you'd feel 'at home' in the student body' type thing.

One of the problems with interviewing is that it is so subjective. It's relatively easy to spot antisocials or crazies, but judging someone by how easy/difficult they are to talk to is influenced by the interviewer as well. I thought my student interview at Pitt went alright. We didn't "connect" or anything, but I didn't stumble and things didn't get awkward. Some of the fellow applicants said they had a blast and ended up talking about sports and the like. Of course, maybe my interviewer gave me high marks - who knows. But it does seem like so much comes down to luck.

I hate to say this, but most of medicine is about first impressions. Through med school and residency and on into practice, you are constantly meeting new people and trying to get them to trust you, and this really isn't a skill that can easily be taught. So someone who is so nervous at an interview that they can't answer any questions, or avoids eye contact, or otherwise doesn't have good communications skills will likely have trouble with this aspect of medicine. It certainly helps when you're able to make some sort of connection, but it's certainly not the only thing that matters.

 

[Plecopotamus]

In my experience, far greater than 10% of interviewees do a bad interview.

I look for passion for something other than medicine. Casual conversation brings out a lot of: "yeah, I do this and that and this and that in my free time" so it's refreshing when someone gets super excited to tell you about something they do that you know nothing about. I don't care if we have similar interests or "mesh" as long as I think the applicant would be able to click with other people and is able to continue conversation in spite of us being different. If I make suggestions about a book or activity etc. based on what the interviewee told me, I look to see how he/she received the info -- did the applicant at least reasonably feign interest? I also try to find something that the applicant is pretty uniquely concerned about in the field of medicine -- something that differentiates him/her from the pack of applicants who like science, want to help people, want to work with their hands, etc. I want to feel like he/she didn't just hop onto a pre-med track at 18 and follow it without much thought. I also ask all the boring: why medicine, why our school, what about this ethical issue stuff. For the most part those answers are benign, but people can and do flub them.

I'm looking for people who seem like they'd be a good classmate and who I think could work with a wide variety of people (providers and patients).

At my school, we score interviews & applicants who receive a sufficient sum get admitted outright (less than 50% I believe). Those who perform really poorly get rejected. Everybody in between will be at least temporarily waitlisted.

 

[Anathema]

What exactly is bad social behavior in the interviews? Do the interviewers take into consideration it is an interview and may be nerve wracking?

Some interviewees I met did seem pretty timid while others couldn't stop talking. I'm just wondering if that was the real personality they showed during the interview though. I kind of get the point of the interviews, it just still seems subjective.

 

[circulus vitios]

I look for passion for something other than medicine. Casual conversation brings out a lot of: "yeah, I do this and that and this and that in my free time" so it's refreshing when someone gets super excited to tell you about something they do that you know nothing about. I don't care if we have similar interests or "mesh" as long as I think the applicant would be able to click with other people and is able to continue conversation in spite of us being different. If I make suggestions about a book or activity etc. based on what the interviewee told me, I look to see how he/she received the info -- did the applicant at least reasonably feign interest?

I'm sorry, but that's one of the dumbest things I've ever heard.

 

[Starry]

I'm sorry, but that's one of the dumbest things I've ever heard.

Sounds reasonable to me. Am I missing something? 😕

 

[volcomx]

In my experience, far greater than 10% of interviewees do a bad interview.

I look for passion for something other than medicine. Casual conversation brings out a lot of: "yeah, I do this and that and this and that in my free time" so it's refreshing when someone gets super excited to tell you about something they do that you know nothing about. I don't care if we have similar interests or "mesh" as long as I think the applicant would be able to click with other people and is able to continue conversation in spite of us being different. If I make suggestions about a book or activity etc. based on what the interviewee told me, I look to see how he/she received the info -- did the applicant at least reasonably feign interest? I also try to find something that the applicant is pretty uniquely concerned about in the field of medicine -- something that differentiates him/her from the pack of applicants who like science, want to help people, want to work with their hands, etc. I want to feel like he/she didn't just hop onto a pre-med track at 18 and follow it without much thought. I also ask all the boring: why medicine, why our school, what about this ethical issue stuff. For the most part those answers are benign, but people can and do flub them.

I'm looking for people who seem like they'd be a good classmate and who I think could work with a wide variety of people (providers and patients).

At my school, we score interviews & applicants who receive a sufficient sum get admitted outright (less than 50% I believe). Those who perform really poorly get rejected. Everybody in between will be at least temporarily waitlisted.

So at your school, after an applicant has been invited for an interview, all of them are on equal ground? The interview score is all that is looked at for acceptance decisions? That would be ridiculous.

A decade or two ago, you just had to be reasonably smart and show a dedication to the medical field through shadowing and volunteering. Now it's so competitive that you need to differentiate yourself even further from the crowd. A little depressing in my opinion.

 

[pietachok]

Do the interviewers take into consideration it is an interview and may be nerve wracking?

No. They judge you as if they were interviewing a spy who was chosen for his ability to stay cool as a cucumber when interrogated.

Obviously this is all contextual. You are judged relative to what is expected of medical school applicants -- on the whole a relatively young group who has never before had an interview for something so important to their future.

I'm sorry, but that's one of the dumbest things I've ever heard.

Wow. You're really rude. And as an applicant (right?), I'm wondering why you feel qualified to bash instructions that are essentially provided by adcoms. What Plecopotamus wrote is very similar to what we're told to look for when we interview.

Student interviewers are looking for people who would be a good addition to the student body and who can interact well with patients and colleagues. Do you want a class full of boring, dull individuals who you get the impression never take their heads out of their books? People who don' t find excitement in anything else in life? A lot of patient interaction is making the patient feel respected and listened to, even when the person is blabbering on about something completely irrelevant. If you can't seem interested for the miniscule amount of time of an interview that should be important to you, why should I trust you'd make a patient feel regarded for a longer period of yammering?

 

[Mt Kilimanjaro]

Most doctors refuse to admit that they are influenced by pharma reps and advertising, despite what the research clearly shows (they are).

To some extent, the interview process also suffers from this sort of mentality that ignores everything we know about the ineffectiveness of unstructured, unstandardized interviews like those used to choose most physicians.

 

[circulus vitios]

Sounds reasonable to me. Am I missing something? 😕

What does ones ability to talk "passionately" about painting or fly fishing have anything to do with being a physician? How could it POSSIBLY be a useful metric?

 

[Starry]

What does ones ability to talk "passionately" about painting or fly fishing have anything to do with being a physician? How could it POSSIBLY be a useful metric?

Being a physician doesn't mean your only interest has to be studying, medicine, or research. If you are invited to an interview, you dedication to these subjects is already clear.

But I think what the person you quoted is looking for is the ability to connect with others. If you are able to express passion in SOMETHING, and to listen or at least "feign interest" in what other people say, you become not just a flat applicant but a person with clear values, passion, and a life.

Not to say people who can't talk passionately don't have values, passion, or a life, but think of it like a dating game. If you have 45 min to talk to a girl, you want to make the most of it. She will (usually) find the guy who can express himself and stand out more attractive than someone who doesn't.

 

[circulus vitios]

Wow. You're really rude. And as an applicant (right?), I'm wondering why you feel qualified to bash instructions that are essentially provided by adcoms. What Plecopotamus wrote is very similar to what we're told to look for when we interview.

Because I've been through this inane song and dance a half dozen times with some success.

Student interviewers are looking for people who would be a good addition to the student body and who can interact well with patients and colleagues. Do you want a class full of boring, dull individuals who you get the impression never take their heads out of their books? People who don' t find excitement in anything else in life?

Do you think patients really care about this stuff? Whether or not their physician can speak 'passionately' of their hiking adventures in the Himalayas, marathon running preparation, flamenco guitar skills, etc? The average patient can't even relate to typical hoop jumping activities, and they sure as hell don't care about it. Patients want someone who can listen.

A lot of patient interaction is making the patient feel respected and listened to, even when the person is blabbering on about something completely irrelevant. If you can't seem interested for the miniscule amount of time of an interview that should be important to you, why should I trust you'd make a patient feel regarded for a longer period of yammering?

You look for applicants who are respectful and know how to listen...by asking them to talk about their hobbies and personal interests?

 

[polo123]

Not everything is about metrics.. I think he/she was just trying to point out how important it is to be able to have a conversation about things you're passionate about and to be respectful about differing opinions. Sounds like you might have some work to do on that front.

 

[Plecopotamus]

So at your school, after an applicant has been invited for an interview, all of them are on equal ground? The interview score is all that is looked at for acceptance decisions? That would be ridiculous.

I wouldn't say it is the only deciding factor or that they're on equal ground. They don't reject many and judiciously use the waitlist pile where they later review and re-review the files of applicants who weren't a shoo-in post interview. I'm sure that an applicant with stellar interviews who was suddenly realized to have a red flag in an LOR post-interview would not simply be accepted.

However, some schools, like mine, do very thorough review of applications before offering interviews. They look at your AMCAS, secondary, etc. before extending an II (or triage you into a pile for the next round of II etc.). They essentially only interview people who per application the would be willing to accept at that point in the cycle, and the interviews are completely closed-file. Ultimately they are more selective with interviews and then accept a relatively large percentage of the interviewees rather than the other way around. There are schools who do more of the review post interview. I'm not sure why this is ridiculous. The whole application gets looked at in either case.

Would you rather be invited to an interview, pay the plane fare and get interviewed, and then know you never had a chance because if they'd read your PS before the II they would never even have given you the II? I found that out after attending one state school's interview where I got stuck in a blizzard. I spent $600 to go and then almost missed the interview at the school I am currently attending (and which was by far the best school on my application list).

 

[QuantumJ]

A friend of mine interviewed at a school, did well in the interview but was not admitted. He called admissions and was told that his GPA/MCAT just wasn't competitive enough and that's what held him back. This may not be true everywhere but it really seems like the majority of people come in to the interview at the same spot on the list as when they leave.

 

[tantacles]

I'm on the social skills train.

My expectation of a good interviewee is that they'll come in, be pleasant to speak with, and be able to interface with me on a level that doesn't make me experience abject disdain or derision towards them. Even better is the fact that interviews are semi-random, meaning that your ability to interact with a wide variety of people are likely to be tested. A good interviewer should be able to meet ANYONE and instantly have a pleasant conversation with them. Knowing about health care before medical school? More of an added bonus.

 

[volcomx]

I wouldn't say it is the only deciding factor or that they're on equal ground. They don't reject many and judiciously use the waitlist pile where they later review and re-review the files of applicants who weren't a shoo-in post interview. I'm sure that an applicant with stellar interviews who was suddenly realized to have a red flag in an LOR post-interview would not simply be accepted.

However, some schools, like mine, do very thorough review of applications before offering interviews. They look at your AMCAS, secondary, etc. before extending an II (or triage you into a pile for the next round of II etc.). They essentially only interview people who per application the would be willing to accept at that point in the cycle, and the interviews are completely closed-file. Ultimately they are more selective with interviews and then accept a relatively large percentage of the interviewees rather than the other way around. There are schools who do more of the review post interview. I'm not sure why this is ridiculous. The whole application gets looked at in either case.

Would you rather be invited to an interview, pay the plane fare and get interviewed, and then know you never had a chance because if they'd read your PS before the II they would never even have given you the II? I found that out after attending one state school's interview where I got stuck in a blizzard. I spent $600 to go and then almost missed the interview at the school I am currently attending (and which was by far the best school on my application list).

I'd much prefer the "ladder" method where the interview is one piece of the puzzle rather than the only deciding factor. There is too much variability day to day and subjectivity on the part of the interviewer for it to be a reliable deciding factor.

 

[circulus vitios]

A friend of mine interviewed at a school, did well in the interview but was not admitted. He called admissions and was told that his GPA/MCAT just wasn't competitive enough and that's what held him back. This may not be true everywhere but it really seems like the majority of people come in to the interview at the same spot on the list as when they leave.

Exactly. Schools have absolutely nothing to lose by wasting interviewee's time. I have no doubt that they invite candidates who stand no chance. "Admissions, students, and faculty are so busy; they wouldn't interview hopeless candidates because they would be wasting their own time!" Students have always loved to look important at their own expense. Admissions and faculty are on salary, and admissions sole existence is to process and review applications.

 

[Plecopotamus]

Because I've been through this inane song and dance a half dozen times with some success.

I will assume you are holding numerous acceptances to top medical schools and not that you have a chip on your shoulder from an application process that has been painful for you because of your poor social skills. Well played.

Do you think patients really care about this stuff? Whether or not their physician can speak 'passionately' of their hiking adventures in the Himalayas, marathon running preparation, flamenco guitar skills, etc?

No. If you read my post, that was the component for identifying people who would be a good classmate or coworker. These 4 years are better for the whole class if there is camaraderie and individuals who are proactive, passionate, and fun-loving. We have talent shows, an annual "prom", group outdoor activities, teams running marathons for fundraising for medical causes, improvements to the curriculum, and trips to offer care in foreign countries, and random unexplained days with fun activities on campus that would not happen if it weren't for a school that valued people for who they are.

Patients want someone who can listen. You look for applicants who are respectful and know how to listen...by asking them to talk about their hobbies and personal interests?

And that was the point of seeing how the interviewee responds when I offer a suggestion of book/activity/info somewhat relevant to what they were discussing. If they can't pretend to be interested for 30 seconds when I suggest a book or a place to visit when their admission to medical school is at stake, I sure don't think they're going to make the little old lady in bed 405B feel like they're interested in hearing about her cats -- and maybe that's the difference between getting her to feel safe or not safe having a procedure she needs.

Your trolling doesn't merit further responses. Aside from your contributions, this was otherwise a useful thread for some applicants to hear from a few of us who do interviews.

 

[tantacles]

I will assume you are holding numerous acceptances to top medical schools and not that you have a chip on your shoulder from an application process that has been painful for you because of your poor social skills. Well played.



No. If you read my post, that was the component for identifying people who would be a good classmate or coworker. These 4 years are better for the whole class if there is camaraderie and individuals who are proactive, passionate, and fun-loving. We have talent shows, an annual "prom", group outdoor activities, teams running marathons for fundraising for medical causes, improvements to the curriculum, and trips to offer care in foreign countries, and random unexplained days with fun activities on campus that would not happen if it weren't for a school that valued people for who they are.

And that was the point of seeing how the interviewee responds when I offer a suggestion of book/activity/info somewhat relevant to what they were discussing. If they can't pretend to be interested for 30 seconds when I suggest a book or a place to visit when their admission to medical school is at stake, I sure don't think they're going to make the little old lady in bed 405B feel like they're interested in hearing about her cats -- and maybe that's the difference between getting her to feel safe or not safe having a procedure she needs.

This post explains the importance of interviews pretty well, particularly the bolded portion, but cameraderie is also an important quality.

 

[KnuxNole]

Because I've been through this inane song and dance a half dozen times with some success.



Do you think patients really care about this stuff? Whether or not their physician can speak 'passionately' of their hiking adventures in the Himalayas, marathon running preparation, flamenco guitar skills, etc? The average patient can't even relate to typical hoop jumping activities, and they sure as hell don't care about it. Patients want someone who can listen.



You look for applicants who are respectful and know how to listen...by asking them to talk about their hobbies and personal interests?

We can both agree that NOONE wants a class of boring dull people.

 

[Harpsx]

What does ones ability to talk "passionately" about painting or fly fishing have anything to do with being a physician? How could it POSSIBLY be a useful metric?

I think it's a judgement of personality.

I hate putting a blanket statement on people, but based on my own experiences, those who have genuine passion for the things they do--whether medicine related or not--tend to be happier, higher achievers, and more personable.

I'm just another applicant but I've done a lot of interview practice with fellow premed friends and it's quite easy to 'detect the bs' when people aren't truly passionate about something. I think a lot of people think they are great interviewees but until you've sat on the other side, you don't really realize the deficits.

 

[circulus vitios]

I will assume you are holding numerous acceptances to top medical schools and not that you have a chip on your shoulder from an application process that has been painful for you because of your poor social skills. Well played.

Cute of you to fall back on imaginary and elitist constructs like academic pedigree, as if I care about it.

No. If you read my post, that was the component for identifying people who would be a good classmate or coworker. These 4 years are better for the whole class if there is camaraderie and individuals who are proactive, passionate, and fun-loving. We have talent shows, an annual "prom", group outdoor activities, teams running marathons for fundraising for medical causes, improvements to the curriculum, and trips to offer care in foreign countries, and random unexplained days with fun activities on campus that would not happen if it weren't for a school that valued people for who they are.

My undergrad had most of that and I didn't have to go through a ridiculous litmus test to be a part of it. Regardless, medical school admissions should be able selecting qualified candidates, not vetting participants for your vision of next Koresh compound.

And that was the point of seeing how the interviewee responds when I offer a suggestion of book/activity/info somewhat relevant to what they were discussing. If they can't pretend to be interested for 30 seconds when I suggest a book or a place to visit when their admission to medical school is at stake, I sure don't think they're going to make the little old lady in bed 405B feel like they're interested in hearing about her cats -- and maybe that's the difference between getting her to feel safe or not safe having a procedure she needs.

Do you seriously use book suggestions as a way to gauge how applicants would interact with patients?

 

[Plecopotamus]

I'd much prefer the "ladder" method where the interview is one piece of the puzzle rather than the only deciding factor. There is too much variability day to day and subjectivity on the part of the interviewer for it to be a reliable deciding factor.

That's why there is a relatively liberal set of scores that are waitlisted and re-reviewed. I think you are misinterpreting who falls on the rejection list, because you think it's people with normal nerves b/c you would never fathom saying/doing the stuff some interviewees do. Remember that there is a whole segment of the applicant pool very different from those on SDN. That bottom segment is people who make it clear they haven't read anything about your school when it has a very distinct mission statement, people who say they only applied to your school b/c their parents made them, people who say they are really unsure about medicine, people who can't keep themselves from speaking about their sex life in a professional setting, people who give you a really creepy vibe, people who say this school is their back-up, people who are so nervous it is off the bell curve for applicants, etc.

People who had sort of blah interviews are not the ones who reach the end of the line with the interview.

 

[KnuxNole]

Circulus, I think you're focusing solely on candidates interactions with patients for interviews. That's all well and nice, but that's not the only thing people are judging you for. It's not like every aspect of the interview is to see how good of a doctor you'll be, that'd be a stale and lame interview

 

[Dbate]

What does ones ability to talk "passionately" about painting or fly fishing have anything to do with being a physician? How could it POSSIBLY be a useful metric?

I agree. Outside of school my passion is watching zombie movies. That means diddly when it comes down to being a good physician.

All this BS about passion and fit really obscures the bottom line that the goal ought to be to pick people who will be the best physicians (which is probably better captured by MCAT/GPA than anything else).