What is the real point of interviews

[tantacles]

---

Members don't see this ad.

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).

Up to a point. But I think you need a way to screen out people who, on a regular basis, make others uncomfortable. You need the interview.

 

[KnuxNole]

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).

Don't underestimate fit. Remember, med school is VERY dependent on interactions with others. Unless you plan on flying solo for four years, fit can play a part in it a lot. Like mentioned before, interviews aren't just streamlined into "Who makes good doctor, let's ignore everything else". There's more that people care about than how smart someone is.

 

[Dbate]

Up to a point. But I think you need a way to screen out people who, on a regular basis, make others uncomfortable. You need the interview.

I can see that. There was this one girl at an interview day who I could tell was an awful person after interacting with her for two minutes.

Then we ended up in the same group where a med student was helping us locate our interview rooms. She proceeded to be a HUGE b*tch when the med student got us lost. This wasn't an I'm nervous and don't want to be late response, but an actually mean/cruel response where she started insulting him behind his back.

The sad thing is that this girl will probably become a physician. That was about a month ago and even now when I look back on it, it makes me angry that anyone could be so rude to someone who was just trying to help us locate rooms.

 

[tantacles]

I can see that. There was this one girl at an interview day who I could tell was an awful person after interacting with her for two minutes.

Then we ended up in the same group where a med student was helping us locate our interview rooms. She proceeded to be a HUGE b*tch when the med student got us lost. This wasn't an I'm nervous and don't want to be late response, but an actually mean/cruel response where she started insulting him behind his back.

The sad thing is that this girl will probably become a physician. That was about a month ago and even now when I look back on it, it makes me angry that anyone could be so rude to someone who was just trying to help us locate rooms.

Yup. If she does get accepted, with any luck, she'll at least be able to pretend to be empathetic.

And to be fair, I don't think of myself as a particularly "good person;" I just present myself well in professional situations with a 99% success rate.

 

[ChemEngMD]

Circulus vitios, why so cynical, bruh?

 

[volcomx]

I can see that. There was this one girl at an interview day who I could tell was an awful person after interacting with her for two minutes.

Then we ended up in the same group where a med student was helping us locate our interview rooms. She proceeded to be a HUGE b*tch when the med student got us lost. This wasn't an I'm nervous and don't want to be late response, but an actually mean/cruel response where she started insulting him behind his back.

The sad thing is that this girl will probably become a physician. That was about a month ago and even now when I look back on it, it makes me angry that anyone could be so rude to someone who was just trying to help us locate rooms.

I've met the occasional b*tch, but it's quite refreshing that the majority of the fellow applicants I've met have been pretty awesome.

 

[pietachok]

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

Wrong.
1. There are patients who will love to discuss this with you. TV, movies, comics, sports, music, and the like are used to find commonality with patients all the time. Maybe it will be to keep them calm and distracted during a procedure or just to win them over so they'll trust you when you recommend something and generally be less scared of their medical experience. I have zero cred with a huge age range of younger patients who you have an in with.

2. If you will bring up zombie movies in an interview, I know you're not telling it to me because it's professionally impressive. It makes you seem genuine and less nervous. It reassures me that you will do something to decompress outside of school/work. It raises the possibility that you will have something to talk about with classmates and will be fun.

On paper (GPA, MCAT, ECs, LORs) a lot of applicants are very similar. Zombie movies aren't going to be the crux of your application's success, but given two equal applicants, this little glimpse into who you are as a person can indeed make us think you'd be a better fit in med school than the applicant who does nothing but activities geared towards work/school. A positive med school and even workplace experience is conducive to everybody getting more from their education/work and becoming better doctors. And when given equally trained doctors, I am willing to wager that the happier one who can vent his or her stress will have better focus on my care and interaction with me when I'm a patient.

 

[circulus vitios]

Circulus vitios, why so cynical, bruh?

I'm tired of this process being so unnecessarily complicated. Jumping through hoops, putting on ridiculous facades, acting interested in empty mission statements, dealing with the unbearable hypocrisy. None of it is necessary.

 

[pyrrion89]

Wrong.
1. There are patients who will love to discuss this with you. TV, movies, comics, sports, music, and the like are used to find commonality with patients all the time. Maybe it will be to keep them calm and distracted during a procedure or just to win them over so they'll trust you when you recommend something and generally be less scared of their medical experience. I have zero cred with a huge age range of younger patients who you have an in with.

2. If you will bring up zombie movies in an interview, I know you're not telling it to me because it's professionally impressive. It makes you seem genuine and less nervous. It reassures me that you will do something to decompress outside of school/work. It raises the possibility that you will have something to talk about with classmates and will be fun.

On paper (GPA, MCAT, ECs, LORs) a lot of applicants are very similar. Zombie movies aren't going to be the crux of your application's success, but given two equal applicants, this little glimpse into who you are as a person can indeed make us think you'd be a better fit in med school than the applicant who does nothing but activities geared towards work/school. A positive med school and even workplace experience is conducive to everybody getting more from their education/work and becoming better doctors. And when given equally trained doctors, I am willing to wager that the happier one who can vent his or her stress will have better focus on my care and interaction with me when I'm a patient.

Great post. Thank you for sharing.

 

[Starry]

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).

I respectfully disagree. Being a physician means more than just having a high MCAT/GPA/class ranking/board scores. If scores are all that matter, then you might end up with physicians like this: http://hospitalpatient.com/tag/arrogant-doctor

 

[KnuxNole]

I'm tired of this process being so unnecessarily complicated. Jumping through hoops, putting on ridiculous facades, acting interested in empty mission statements, dealing with the unbearable hypocrisy. None of it is necessary.

At least you got into a good allopathic med school! So, you completed your goal! Now, keep doing things you enjoy and live it up! After all, it's just med school admissions. Don't develop any ulcers or aneurysms because of it!

Cynics can be cured!!! 😎

 

[circulus vitios]

At least you got into a good allopathic med school! So, you completed your goal! Now, keep doing things you enjoy and live it up! After all, it's just med school admissions. Don't develop any ulcers or aneurysms because of it!

Cynics can be cured!!! 😎

I wish. I'm accepted to a good osteopathic school, and I'm still interviewing at allopathic schools.

 

[yehhhboiii]

Circulus vitios, why so cynical, bruh?

it's what happens when you think everyone else had everything handed to them on a silver platter but you had to work really hard doing manual labor because of course no one else ever worked hard a day in their life, especially not doctors, so people in medicine are nothing but spoiled children and need to stop complaining about their first world problem like having trouble learning anatomy because it could be worse like your own hard life of manual labor which explains why you have crappy grades and applied DO

 

[circulus vitios]

it's what happens when you think everyone else had everything handed to them on a silver platter but you had to work really hard doing manual labor because of course no one else ever worked hard a day in their life, especially not doctors, so people in medicine are nothing but spoiled children and need to stop complaining about their first world problem like having trouble learning anatomy because it could be worse like your own hard life of manual labor which explains why you have crappy grades and applied DO

im going to type in all lower case and in run on sentences and suffix everything with haha or lol or idk lmao imho to make it sounds like i dont care about anything when in reality im a super neurotic try-hard who probably cries over getting an A-

 

[sourdoughllama]

I'm tired of this process being so unnecessarily complicated. Jumping through hoops, putting on ridiculous facades, acting interested in empty mission statements, dealing with the unbearable hypocrisy. None of it is necessary.

I certainly agree there are countless hoops we're being made to jump through which are completely unnecessary, but I do think being personable is important. I've had one physician who went to a very impressive school (my own undergrad too) who was a horrible person to talk to and one who went to a no name school who was very easy to talk to. As a patient I would much rather go with the doc who (more than likely) had a lower mcat and gpa but was so much better at communicating. Besides, talking about topics that aren't pre-rehearsed can be a great way to spot people who are good at "putting on ridiculous facades." There are plenty of "mother theresas" on paper who aren't that in real life

 

[muddyduck7]

I'm tired of this process being so unnecessarily complicated. Jumping through hoops, putting on ridiculous facades, acting interested in empty mission statements, dealing with the unbearable hypocrisy. None of it is necessary.

If you are tired of the hoops during the application process, just wait until you actually get to medical school...

 

[yehhhboiii]

im going to type in all lower case and in run on sentences and suffix everything with haha or lol or idk lmao imho to make it sounds like i dont care about anything when in reality im a super neurotic try-hard who probably cries over getting an A-

it's better than a crybaby who tears up about every single aspect of the admissions process as he blames his flaws and failures on others

 

[Tatastrophy]

There most certainly is a point to interviews.
Interviews aren't just for weeding out anti-social weirdos. If that was the case, 90% of applicants would be accepted at all the places they applied. It is easy to be within the societal bounds of normal. Besides, pretty much every class has a weirdo or two so it appears at least some have found ways to circumvent the process anyway.

The real point of interview is the expressly stated point (at least at my school): finding the right fit. To that end, here are some key points:
-Just because an interview went well does not mean that you are the right fit for us.
-Just because an interview stressed you out a little does not mean that the interviewer is going to ignore the content of what you are saying.
-Just because you are at the top of your class and are perfectly nice person does not make you the right fit for our school, but another school might feel like you were born to be one of their docs.

I recently reviewed 8 applications. All had the grades and scores needed. All seemed driven, smart and generally like good people. I voted not to accept 3. They were of varied backgrounds, level of academic excellence and extracurricular interests. The only common thread is that I did not see them fitting and thriving at my school the way I see my classmates thrive. As someone who had been where you all are very recently, I have to admit that sometimes the decisions that work out for our best interests are the ones that are made for us.
Now you all relax and go have fun, it is the weekend.

 

[pyrrion89]

I recently reviewed 8 applications. All had the grades and scores needed. All seemed driven, smart and generally like good people. I voted not to accept 3. They were of varied backgrounds, level of academic excellence and extracurricular interests. The only common thread is that I did not see them fitting and thriving at my school the way I see my classmates thrive.

And how do you make a determination that one student will better fit and "thrive" when all the candidates are "driven, smart, and... good"?

 

[Starry]

There most certainly is a point to interviews.
Interviews aren't just for weeding out anti-social weirdos. If that was the case, 90% of applicants would be accepted at all the places they applied. It is easy to be within the societal bounds of normal. Besides, pretty much every class has a weirdo or two so it appears at least some have found ways to circumvent the process anyway.

The real point of interview is the expressly stated point (at least at my school): finding the right fit. To that end, here are some key points:
-Just because an interview went well does not mean that you are the right fit for us.
-Just because an interview stressed you out a little does not mean that the interviewer is going to ignore the content of what you are saying.
-Just because you are at the top of your class and are perfectly nice person does not make you the right fit for our school, but another school might feel like you were born to be one of their docs.

I recently reviewed 8 applications. All had the grades and scores needed. All seemed driven, smart and generally like good people. I voted not to accept 3. They were of varied backgrounds, level of academic excellence and extracurricular interests. The only common thread is that I did not see them fitting and thriving at my school the way I see my classmates thrive. As someone who had been where you all are very recently, I have to admit that sometimes the decisions that work out for our best interests are the ones that are made for us.
Now you all relax and go have fun, it is the weekend.

Posts like this scare the **** out of me. It's like the past 3.5 years of my life trying to get into med school, and when it comes down to it, whether I get into my dream school and or get rejected hinges on a few people's "feelings" about me.

I'm not criticizing or anything because I know that this is just how our world works, but it still terrifies me.

 

[Anathema]

What type of "qualifications" or traits are there for those deemed to be a good fit? Especially for schools where their stats favor IS applicants.

 

[volcomx]

And how do you make a determination that one student will better fit and "thrive" when all the candidates are "driven, smart, and... good"?

I'd like an explanation on "fit" as well. With 100-250 students in each class, I would think any qualified (driven, smart...good) applicant can find their place. The only tangible differences in med schools I've seen have been in the amount of weight placed on research goals.

It just seems ridiculous. The applicant applies to the school with great stats, ECs, research. The applicant selects the school out of the 150 med schools out there, pays the fees, pays to fly out to the interview, pays to stay at a hotel, pays taxi/food/etc. The applicant aces the interview. Then someone on the ADCOM says "nah, this guy won't fit in."

 

[CarlosDanger]

circulus vitios says what he wants - I respect that, as cynical as he is. I agree with some of his points, and I think those of us that have interviewed and are just waiting around are on edge and a little stressed that all the hard work we've put in over the past X years - what seems like forever - might come down to whether we made a crack about Fox News during one of our interviews (yeah, I did that and I keep wondering if it hurt me).

I personally agree that maybe we should focus more on creating competent physicians that can make the difficult decisions about treatment options when they have a patient suffering from multiple chronic conditions simultaneously. At the same time, its up to the doctor to build trust and a relationship with their patient so they can work together to make the best decision possible.

I sometimes get jaded thinking back to when I was in college and there were people who I felt just charmed their way into med school by having the right connections and fake personalities. Who knows, hopefully the hard work payed off....we'll find out soon.

 

[ChemEngMD]

What type of "qualifications" or traits are there for those deemed to be a good fit? Especially for schools where their stats favor IS applicants.

I gotta presume that it's going to be specific to each school....I've noticed that different school's have different personalities and different "types" of people at them

circulus vitios says what he wants - I respect that, as cynical as he is. I agree with some of his points, and I think those of us that have interviewed and are just waiting around are on edge and a little stressed that all the hard work we've put in over the past X years - what seems like forever - might come down to whether we made a crack about Fox News during one of our interviews (yeah, I did that and I keep wondering if it hurt me).

I personally agree that maybe we should focus more on creating competent physicians that can make the difficult decisions about treatment options when they have a patient suffering from multiple chronic conditions simultaneously. At the same time, its up to the doctor to build trust and a relationship with their patient so they can work together to make the best decision possible.

I sometimes get jaded thinking back to when I was in college and there were people who I felt just charmed their way into med school by having the right connections and fake personalities. Who knows, hopefully the hard work payed off....we'll find out soon.

But who wants some cynical a**hole to provide them with their care? I think that there are more than enough applicants each year who are "capable" of becoming scientifically competent enough to handle complex medical issues...I really feel like the bottleneck for applicants is in personality...

I believe that probably 90% of applicants are capable of doing the science of medicine when they apply....but only 45% are going to get in somewhere...gotta figure out how to determine the ones who will be the best clinicians, not just medical scientists

 

[circulus vitios]

I'd like an explanation on "fit" as well. With 100-250 students in each class, I would think any qualified (driven, smart...good) applicant can find their place. The only tangible differences in med schools I've seen have been in the amount of weight placed on research goals.

It just seems ridiculous. The applicant applies to the school with great stats, ECs, research. The applicant selects the school out of the 150 med schools out there, pays the fees, pays to fly out to the interview, pays to stay at a hotel, pays taxi/food/etc. The applicant aces the interview. Then someone on the ADCOM says "nah, this guy won't fit in."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Handwaving

 

[Ismet]

Man, this thread really blew up in the last few hours...

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

And that doesn't mean you know anything about admissions. Seriously. I went to 8 interviews when I was applying and I thought I knew what I was talking about when I gave advice, but until you are on the other side of the table, you have absolutely no clue what goes on in admissions. You can continue to be cynical and bash the system if it pleases you, but maybe you should listen to the several interviewers and adcoms who have weighed in.

I'm assuming you act differently when you're in an interview, because if you acted the way you act on SDN, you would get rejected from most schools.

 

[ChemEngMD]

man, this thread really blew up in the last few hours...




And that doesn't mean you know anything about admissions. Seriously. I went to 8 interviews when i was applying and i thought i knew what i was talking about when i gave advice, but until you are on the other side of the table, you have absolutely no clue what goes on in admissions. You can continue to be cynical and bash the system if it pleases you, but maybe you should listen to the several interviewers and adcoms who have weighed in.

I'm assuming you act differently when you're in an interview, because if you acted the way you act on sdn, you would get rejected from every school.

ftfy

 

[osprey099]

Seriously, LORs have the potential to speak VOLUMES about an applicant's personality and social skills. LORs should replace interviews because how much can an interviewer observe in 45 minutes of interaction compared to a volunteer supervisor who can speak on 3 years of experience an applicant has? Outstanding LORs -> acceptance given the stats, ECs, etc are up to par. Good/great LORs -> rejection/waitlist in my opinion.

 

[circulus vitios]

Man, this thread really blew up in the last few hours...




And that doesn't mean you know anything about admissions. Seriously. I went to 8 interviews when I was applying and I thought I knew what I was talking about when I gave advice, but until you are on the other side of the table, you have absolutely no clue what goes on in admissions. You can continue to be cynical and bash the system if it pleases you, but maybe you should listen to the several interviewers and adcoms who have weighed in.

I'm assuming you act differently when you're in an interview, because if you acted the way you act on SDN, you would get rejected from most schools.

I speak my mind, I'm just a lot more diplomatic and reserved at interviews.

If the opportunity presents itself, I want to be a student interviewer. I won't sugarcoat it with nebulous hand-waving crap. I'll lay it out exactly like it is: I have no idea who you are, this interview cannot give me an accurate idea of who you are, and you're probably lying and bsing your way through this like I was. Because interviews are required, I suppose I have to do something, so I'm going to ask you the same questions you've been asked a million times -- the answers to which you've no doubt memorized and rehearsed -- and then the admissions committee is going to roll the dice, probably literally, 6-8 weeks from now because we have too many qualified interviewers.

 

[ChemEngMD]

Seriously, LORs have the potential to speak VOLUMES about an applicant's personality and social skills. LORs should replace interviews because how much can an interviewer observe in 45 minutes of interaction compared to a volunteer supervisor who can speak on 3 years of experience an applicant has? Outstanding LORs -> acceptance given the stats, ECs, etc are up to par. Good/great LORs -> rejection/waitlist in my opinion.

But the ADCOM doesn't know your LOR writers...your LOR writer could be a sociopath who really relates to you because your a sociopath too (not saying you are lol)...they need to vet what your LOR writer said about you. Gotta see if you're the real deal or not.

 

[CarlosDanger]

I believe that probably 90% of applicants are capable of doing the science of medicine when they apply....but only 45% are going to get in somewhere...gotta figure out how to determine the ones who will be the best clinicians, not just medical scientists

Damnit, your avatar wins me over every time! I agree, but I think its probably less than 90% of applicants that are truly thoughtful, curious people that would make the best physicians. Maybe some of these people wouldn't be as good at charming at an interview...or maybe they would, what do I know.

I agree that letters should play a HUGE part.

 

[Tatastrophy]

And how do you make a determination that one student will better fit and "thrive" when all the candidates are "driven, smart, and... good"?

Well I am one person on one Ad Com so here is your grain of salt. But to keep it somewhat applicable to more than 1 school I will keep the description general.

My credentials:
I am a student here and exemplify the kinds of passions that students who enjoy their time here pursue. There are a few current students like me who were specially selected for the Ad Com,the rest is made up of very involved long standing faculty some of whom are also alumni, the Deans of the school. In other words, we are all very intimately familiar with what it means to be a successful student here.

My approach:
-I look for the kinds of activities the person pursued leadership in, usually at least one of them ends up being discussed in the interview(s). Here I trust the interviewer's bs meter as well as their general impression from the interaction.
- Usually if the GPA is above 3.5 I don't bother looking at anything on the transcript other than maybe non-science courses taken. I will read about disciplinary action, letters of rec. I will conclude by reading personal statement for any evidence of an actual personality and insight, especially if the rest of the app seemed too cookie cutter.

Our committee "votes" on a numerical scale. Any average over X will get an applicant in. The "no" votes I described in my last post are still close to this number so if the rest of the committee members who vote on it give high enough numbers on the scale, the applicant will be in but if they are hesitant or end up arriving at the same conclusion I did, then the applicant might be waitlisted or rejected.
Disagreements are rare and nobody will fight for an applicant just because of their grades/scores/objective measures of success. People will absolutely fight to accept applicants who convinced them to care about them through the contents of their application. So for god's sake: don't be a fake vanilla nondescript blob at your interviews.

 

[Ismet]

I agree that letters should play a HUGE part.

They absolutely do.

 

[SN12357]

Seriously, LORs have the potential to speak VOLUMES about an applicant's personality and social skills. LORs should replace interviews because how much can an interviewer observe in 45 minutes of interaction compared to a volunteer supervisor who can speak on 3 years of experience an applicant has? Outstanding LORs -> acceptance given the stats, ECs, etc are up to par. Good/great LORs -> rejection/waitlist in my opinion.

Pffft. LORs are no better than interviews. Might be worse. Letters of all types get written for all sorts of reason; I know of gushing letters that got written for no reason other than nepotism. Bad letters can get written for no reason other than pettiness. Plus, some people are just bad writers, and no matter how well they think of a candidate don't understand what should be in a LOR or how it would be written for maximum impact.

LORs have some value, interviews have some value, there's a reason the application doesn't rest entirely on any one piece. There is ample evidence on these forums that an interview can go 'well' and an applicant can still be rejected, and an interview can go 'poorly' and the applicant can be accepted. Multiple adcom members have pointed out that the interview is not the be all end all of the application.

 

[CarlosDanger]

We should've just gone to law school, where you don't have to interview. Just kidding, that sounds awful and soul-sucking.

 

[volcomx]

Well I am one person on one Ad Com so here is your grain of salt. But to keep it somewhat applicable to more than 1 school I will keep the description general.

Disagreements are rare and nobody will fight for an applicant just because of their grades/scores/objective measures of success. People will absolutely fight to accept applicants who convinced them to care about them through the contents of their application. So for god's sake: don't be a fake vanilla nondescript blob at your interviews.

Doesn't seem too fair at all to downplay objective measures of success. I, and many others, worked extremely hard for the mcat, gpa, pubs, abstracts, posters, honors, and awards.

 

[Ismet]

Doesn't seem too fair at all to downplay objective measures of success. I, and many others, worked extremely hard for the mcat, gpa, pubs, abstracts, posters, honors, and awards.

Until you realize just how many applicants have similar MCAT, GPA, research experience, clinical experience, etc. Gotta make decisions between hundreds of applicants somehow.

 

[KnuxNole]

I dont know how you cynics do it....it seems too much of a waste of energy. Of course, I imagine the cynical thoughts are only a tiny portion of the day, and most of the day is filled with fun. After all, there is NO reason to be cynical as a 20-something. 😀

 

[volcomx]

Until you realize just how many applicants have similar MCAT, GPA, research experience, clinical experience, etc. Gotta make decisions between hundreds of applicants somehow.

Ugh, true. When I talked to med students about how they chose schools, most respond with "felt right." Most med schools are awesome and it's incredible hard to pick between them. I imagine that happens across the table with the adcoms choosing applicants to interview and accept.

 

[KnuxNole]

Doesn't seem too fair at all to downplay objective measures of success. I, and many others, worked extremely hard for the mcat, gpa, pubs, abstracts, posters, honors, and awards.

And you should be proud of that. That + your already amazing personality should get you in without hesitation. After all, it's painfully easy to act normal, and have a conversation with someone about special interests, hobbies. Interviews are the easy part of the application cycle. You got through the tough part of Organic Chem, the MCAT and research!

 

[circulus vitios]

We should've just gone to law school, where you don't have to interview. Just kidding, that sounds awful and soul-sucking.

 

[Dbate]

I strongly agree with what circulus vitios is saying.

And to the douche who insulted him about his grades, WOW that reflects worse on you than anything he said.

 

[Status Sciaticus]

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).

The problem with this is that there are copious applicants with high MCAT/GPA scores and similar ECs. How then do you separate or select applicants if not for their ability to socially interact with other people?

The idea about having interests outside of medicine is to ensure that you are a well rounded person. Your interests, whether they are shared by your future patients or not, are tools to help you seem more relatable. It helps you build a rapport with your patient. And I dont think anyone here will refute the idea that a patient with a better relationship with his physician is a bad thing.

Personally, I love zombie movies. Dawn of the Dead and 28 weeks later are two of the better ones I like. You and I could talk about which ones are good or which are cheesy. And while that might not make us friends, it will help you be familiar with me, a potential classmate. See where this analogy is going?

 

[Ismet]

The problem with this is that there are copious applicants with high MCAT/GPA scores and similar ECs. How then do you separate or select applicants if not for their ability to socially interact with other people?

This. MCAT/GPA is definitely not what determines a good physician. You can be a genius and still have horrible bedside manner. Or you can be a pathologist 👍 😀

 

[circulus vitios]

I strongly agree with what circulus vitios is saying.

And to the douche who insulted him about his grades, WOW that reflects worse on you than anything he said.

Jokes on him, I have a high GPA in a hard major. 😎

It's just my MCAT and extracurriculars that suck.

 

[Tatastrophy]

Posts like this scare the **** out of me. Whether I get into my dream school or get rejected hinges on a few people's "feelings" about me.

Sorry. Don't be scared.
My post was not meant to scare or make it sound hopeless but to really try and convey the idea that humans need more than water and food to survive and thrive. I didn't quite understand that when I was at your stage and had my heart broken by 2 dream school rejections. Looking back I am quite literally thanking the universe that I was rejected because I would've gone to one of those places. And I would've been absolutely miserable, my natural talents would have languished and I would not be anywhere near my potential is heading after 3+ years here.

I'd like an explanation on "fit" as well. With 100-250 students in each class, I would think any qualified (driven, smart...good) applicant can find their place. The only tangible differences in med schools I've seen have been in the amount of weight placed on research goals.

Please refer to my response to Starry.
I am sorry but if you think amount of weight places on research goal is the end all be all of medical school admissions then you should heed my earlier advice and go outside, find a hobby, do something to foster your passions(that being said, research is a venerable passion and if you are genuinely interested in it, we will value you for it as well).

I gotta presume that it's going to be specific to each school....I've noticed that different school's have different personalities and different "types" of people at them
I believe that probably 90% of applicants are capable of doing the science of medicine when they apply....but only 45% are going to get in somewhere...gotta figure out how to determine the ones who will be the best clinicians, not just medical scientists

This man speaks the truth (bold section).

Seriously, LORs have the potential to speak VOLUMES about an applicant's personality and social skills. LORs should replace interviews because how much can an interviewer observe in 45 minutes of interaction compared to a volunteer supervisor who can speak on 3 years of experience an applicant has? Outstanding LORs -> acceptance given the stats, ECs, etc are up to par. Good/great LORs -> rejection/waitlist in my opinion.

Sorry, disagree for the most part. I would say 99% of LoRs are very positive. the 1% who failed to acquire such a letter, is not a smart man indeed.
Even the student members of Ad Com were not born yesterday. We all know that the proper way to ask for a letter is "would you be able to write a strong letter in support of my application?"

I speak my mind, I'm just a lot more diplomatic and reserved at interviews.

Just so you know, you may think you are "diplomatic" but fake reads fake.
Perhaps you'll fare better if you invested something of yourself into conversations rather than scripting your answers.

Doesn't seem too fair at all to downplay objective measures of success. I, and many others, worked extremely hard for the mcat, gpa, pubs, abstracts, posters, honors, and awards.

I am sorry. You said the reason yourself.
I do not mean that we completely ignore/downplay those measures but people that get to the interview stage are generally of >30, >3.5 caliber. I reviewed a 4.0 app today but his passions is the reasons I voted to accept him. He made me care about him. Do that.

 

[volcomx]

I am sorry. You said the reason yourself.
I do not mean that we completely ignore/downplay those measures but people that get to the interview stage are generally of >30, >3.5 caliber. I reviewed a 4.0 app today but his passions is the reasons I voted to accept him. He made me care about him. Do that.

Problem is, my career goal is academic surgery. I've been honest with all my interviewers that asked and a few have been put off or disinterested by that. Having surgery as a goal doesn't portray the same type of image to an interviewer as, say, rural primary care. Furthermore, I come from a well-off family from a nice city and I've never had any significant obstacles to overcome. I may (hopefully) be wrong, but I don't see myself as someone that an interviewer would "care" enough about to fight for me at the decision table.

 

[pietachok]

I don't understand those of you harping on the fact that we should take the most academically qualified. By the time interviews are done, the person has been academically/intellectually vetted. You're looking at a,pool of people whose MCATs & GPAs & research essentially showed no statistically appreciable difference. The interviews then stratify this selected group of highly qualified individuals on the basis of proxies for having good bedside manner & working well on the context of the institution to which you are applying.

And I doubly don't understand those of you arguing that the decision should be more heavily based on stats while you're sitting on weaker mcats &/or gpas.

 

[rodmichael82]

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?

It's an opportunity for both parties to see if they are compatible. The school could love your stats and you could love the reputation/name of the school but in the end of the day that doesn't really tell you much. The student needs to explore the city, the school, research etc.. Anyone can BS on paper but the school needs to see if you really are the person you say you are.

I don't understand those of you harping on the fact that we should take the most academically qualified. By the time interviews are done, the person has been academically/intellectually vetted. You're looking at a,pool of people whose MCATs & GPAs & research essentially showed no statistically appreciable difference. The interviews then stratify this selected group of highly qualified individuals on the basis of proxies for having good bedside manner & working well on the context of the institution to which you are applying.

+1 I have met some really smart kids with tremendous stats but even after having knowledge are they not able to clinically apply it. I met a 3rd year first hand who said he struggles with differential and presenting to attending's. It is scary because even though my grades are really high during preclinical years (never scored less than an A) I kind of struggle with the same thing.

 

[Goro]

In an interview setting you can see how the interviewee relates to other people, especially you (the interviewer). My school school used a group interview format, which is especially useful because it lets us know how the interviewee will act in a group setting. Most of you out there may not be aware of this, but medicine is a team sport now.

The interview lets you know how people deal with pressure. I want my students to be doctors who can remain cool with a psychotic acting out, or a spurting carotid artery.

We also can learn if someone is really serious about Medicine and our school and if they've done their homework.

OP is correct in that most people actually do well in interviews...one has to to actually work at bombing one. But plenty of people leave me on the fence, or just do not well enough that I'll wait list them. If they in, that's OK, and if they don't, that's OK too.

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?