What's important in an interview?

[fizzle]

---

Members do not see this ad.

There are two distinct elements in an interview:

1. The overall feel of the interview (Did you connect with your interviewer and get a good vibe?)

2. What you actually said during the interview (Did you give good answers?)

I know that both are very important for a successful interview and are partially related to each other, but I have a question for any interviewers that might be here: Which is more important? What's actually conveyed to the admissions committee through the reports?

Intuitively, it seems as if the overall feel should be more important since the interview is largely based on the subjective feel of the applicant. However, it seems that when the interviewer translates that interview onto a paper report, most of the notes in the report are from things that the applicant spoke. Considering that there is usually a significant time between the interview and the day that the admissions committee votes on the applicant, it seems that these written notes of the applicant's words become increasingly important, with their significance amplified over the more subjective elements of the interview that can't really be written down on paper.

For example, say that you have two interviewees: One is very personable and charismatic, but he occasionally gives some ridiculous answers. The other is somewhat reserved and slightly awkward, but his answers are concise and well-reasoned. Who would be seen more favorably by the admissions committee, taking into account the fact that most (if not all) of the committee only sees a description of the interview on paper?

Sorry for the long post, but I feel that it's a topic that has surprisingly little discussion on these forums.

 

[dw2158]

i think it depends how "ridiculous" the comments are. if the charismatic interviewee says something incriminating, inappropriate or offensive enough to stick out in the interviewer's mind, s/he would likely flag that person's app. but if it's only borderline crazy and/or corrected easily, then i think charisma wins 🙂

 

[THH]

My guess is that this sort of thing would vary widely between interviewers.

 

[Spiker]

I think it is ok to be slightly awakard since it is very common to get a little nervous during such a important interview. So I dont think they are going to count it against you at all especially if you demonstrated that you can still reason well under pressure.

 

[Law2Doc]

There are two distinct elements in an interview:

1. The overall feel of the interview (Did you connect with your interviewer and get a good vibe?)...

Intuitively, it seems as if the overall feel should be more important since the interview is largely based on the subjective feel of the applicant. ... Considering that there is usually a significant time between the interview and the day that the admissions committee votes on the applicant, it seems that these written notes of the applicant's words become increasingly important, with their significance amplified over the more subjective elements of the interview that can't really be written down on paper. ....

First, the vibe as judged by the interviewee is meaningless. The typical applicant isn't experienced enough of an interviewee to have a good sense of whether they have done well or poorly. There are many many many threads on SDN where people came out of interviews, thought they went well, and ended up quickly on the waitlist. So you can't always know based on your own vibe.

I would say however that the goal of the interview is to make it conversational. The interviewer is really trying to figure out whether you are someone who would be a "good fit" for their school, and someone they would enjoy working with during rounding/long procedures etc. So if you hit it off on an interpersonal level that's ideal. But you also have to sell yourself, because that's your last shot to impress. So they really need to come out of that interview thinking -- "Gee, that interviewee has done a lot of impressive things and also a very good fit for our team."

As for the "significant time" between interview and applicant review meeting, I'd say it's less than you think. Many places do this on a weekly or every other week basis, and it's common that folks will meet you on a Mon or Tues and talk about you on a Thurs or Fri. So yes, they will remember you. But only adcom members are in those meetings, so if you are interviewed by an interviewer who is not part of the committee, then yes, his/her report will likely be distilled into a piece of paper rather than a strong memory. Either way, if you hit it off with that person you get a lot of points and if you come off lukewarm, you don't end up as good a fit, even if every answer you gave was absolutely perfect. The answers themselves don't mean anything (so long as you aren't lying), except perhaps the "why medicine?" question.

The interview isn't about gathering answers for the school -- it's about deciding, once the school has determined that you are adequate on paper, whether after meeting you you are a "good fit" for the school. So you can have an interview talking about nothing academic and come off like a star, and you can have a very straightforward interview where you give every answer better than you can imagine and come off boring as heck and end up right in the waitlist pile. They are mainly trying to find out about you as a person, not trying to collect information at this stage. That includes trying to see if you are well thought out on this path, whether you can hold a conversation, whether you come off having maturity. But they don't really care so much about having "the" answer.

 

[riceman04]

First, the vibe as judged by the interviewee is meaningless. The typical applicant isn't experienced enough of an interviewee to have a good sense of whether they have done well or poorly. There are many many many threads on SDN where people came out of interviews, thought they went well, and ended up quickly on the waitlist. So you can't always know based on your own vibe.

I would say however that the goal of the interview is to make it conversational. The interviewer is really trying to figure out whether you are someone who would be a "good fit" for their school, and someone they would enjoy working with during rounding/long procedures etc. So if you hit it off on an interpersonal level that's ideal. But you also have to sell yourself, because that's your last shot to impress. So they really need to come out of that interview thinking -- "Gee, that interviewee has done a lot of impressive things and also a very good fit for our team."

As for the "significant time" between interview and applicant review meeting, I'd say it's less than you think. Many places do this on a weekly or every other week basis, and it's common that folks will meet you on a Mon or Tues and talk about you on a Thurs or Fri. So yes, they will remember you. But only adcom members are in those meetings, so if you are interviewed by an interviewer who is not part of the committee, then yes, his/her report will likely be distilled into a piece of paper rather than a strong memory. Either way, if you hit it off with that person you get a lot of points and if you come off lukewarm, you don't end up as good a fit, even if every answer you gave was absolutely perfect. The answers themselves don't mean anything (so long as you aren't lying), except perhaps the "why medicine?" question.

The interview isn't about gathering answers for the school -- it's about deciding, once the school has determined that you are adequate on paper, whether after meeting you you are a "good fit" for the school. So you can have an interview talking about nothing academic and come off like a star, and you can have a very straightforward interview where you give every answer better than you can imagine and come off boring as heck and end up right in the waitlist pile. They are mainly trying to find out about you as a person, not trying to collect information at this stage. That includes trying to see if you are well thought out on this path, whether you can hold a conversation, whether you come off having maturity. But they don't really care so much about having "the" answer.

awesome post....but I was wondering can you judge by length? One of my interviews lasted for almost 2 hours...and we had a blast. My interview was very conversational...and I would like to assume my interview went well b/c it lasted so much longer than the "allocated time (my interview was supposed to last from 4 - 5pm....but it lasted from 4:35 - 6:15)."

 

[Spiker]

Speaking from experience for serious scholarship interviews. Too short is not good for sure, but too long does not mean better (than average).

 

[DrYoda]

Speaking from experience for serious scholarship interviews. Too short is not good for sure, but too long does not mean better (than average).

Depends on the interviewer, some are busy and want to keep it short.

 

[fizzle]

Thanks for your posts! I just have a few comments:

First, the vibe as judged by the interviewee is meaningless. The typical applicant isn't experienced enough of an interviewee to have a good sense of whether they have done well or poorly. There are many many many threads on SDN where people came out of interviews, thought they went well, and ended up quickly on the waitlist. So you can't always know based on your own vibe.

Three responses to this:

1. I agree that interviewee perception isn't the same thing as the interviewer's perception, but my point of two distinct elements in the interview is in regards to the interviewer's perception, since that's all that really matters. So we don't have to consider the applicant's perception here.

2. The two distinct elements in the interview that I mentioned could play a role in the disparity between interview perception and actual interview performance. Maybe the interviewees that you've mentioned had good vibes, but their answers, objectively speaking, weren't all that great?

3. The ultimate outcome of the application isn't necessarily dependent on the interview. I just got waitlisted from an interview where my interviewer explicitly told me that I had a great interview and would be a great fit for the school. Of course, you could say that maybe he says that to everyone, or every subsequent applicant he sees gets better and better, but this seems like it could only go so far... I realize that this is just one anecdotal piece of evidence, but it is somewhat telling about the process being a holistic one as opposed to mostly based just on the interview alone.

 

[fizzle]

My guess is that this sort of thing would vary widely between interviewers.

I guess it could be that way somewhat, but wouldn't there be some sort of objective standard for evaluation interviewees? Otherwise it would be total chaos in trying to compare the evaluation of one interviewer versus another.

 

[fizzle]

Sorry for the triple post, but I wanted to emphasize one thing that I mentioned before in case the purpose of this thread is misconstrued:

I'm not interested in discussing applicant perception versus interviewer perception! That's a whole different animal there, and it's not the reason that I made this thread.

 

[DrYoda]

I guess it could be that way somewhat, but wouldn't there be some sort of objective standard for evaluation interviewees? Otherwise it would be total chaos in trying to compare the evaluation of one interviewer versus another.

I know some schools have checklists of sort for the interviewer to fill out. Although, that still doesn't completely eliminate the differences in perception and opinion between different interviewers.

 

[riceman04]

Sorry for the triple post, but I wanted to emphasize one thing that I mentioned before in case the purpose of this thread is misconstrued:

I'm not interested in discussing applicant perception versus interviewer perception! That's a whole different animal there, and it's not the reason that I made this thread.

I think maybe then you should either seek answers from students or faculty members (like LizzyM) who are involved with the admissions process in some capacity. And even then you could potentially get a vast array of answers. I suspect Law2doc has some experience with this process (on the other side of course)

 

[fizzle]

I think maybe then you should either seek answers from students or faculty members (like LizzyM) who are involved with the admissions process in some capacity. And even then you could potentially get a vast array of answers. I suspect Law2doc has some experience with this process (on the other side of course)

Yep, I'm interested in answers from those who've conducted interviews for med school, but unfortunately, I don't have a big Batman-esque spotlight to bring them here 🙁

 

[Bahadur]

3. The ultimate outcome of the application isn't necessarily dependent on the interview. I just got waitlisted from an interview where my interviewer explicitly told me that I had a great interview and would be a great fit for the school. Of course, you could say that maybe he says that to everyone, or every subsequent applicant he sees gets better and better, but this seems like it could only go so far... I realize that this is just one anecdotal piece of evidence, but it is somewhat telling about the process being a holistic one as opposed to mostly based just on the interview alone.

Haha that's my life story. In the span of 2 application cycles, 4 interviewers have said that to me with varying strong words used ("perfect fit", etc). I've learned to take those comments with a large grain/block of salt.

Sometimes I think that your interviewers perception of you and how they present you to the committee isn't guaranteed to sway the adcom significantly one way or the other very much. Maybe i've just become cynical.

Or perhaps there are so many subtle pieces to this machine/game that we will never really be able to grasp how it all works (or matters).

 

[WannaBePreMed]

Where's LizzyM when you need her ...

 

[LizzyM]

Here I am.
😀


Interviewers generally look at both what the applicant says and how it is said. That is to say, the applicant's affect (body language, expressiveness, speech speed) as well as the applicant's talking points are evaluated.

While there can be applicants who have one or the other, there are usually enough applicants to choose from that we can often select just those who are good at both.

 

[ised187]

In terms of speech speed? What is optimal? Unfortunately, I speak very fast, and have been trying to slow down. But does speaking fast work against an interviewee?

 

[fizzle]

Here I am.
😀


Interviewers generally look at both what the applicant says and how it is said. That is to say, the applicant's affect (body language, expressiveness, speech speed) as well as the applicant's talking points are evaluated.

While there can be applicants who have one or the other, there are usually enough applicants to choose from that we can often select just those who are good at both.

Yes, but I find it hard to imagine that both the subjective element and the spoken word are equally transferable onto a paper report that goes to the admissions committee since they are so different from each other. Taking notes from what an applicant says is far easier than trying to describe an applicant's overall demeanor in a way that distinguishes him/her from the other applicants (i.e. "This applicant was very friendly, energetic, empathetic, and I can see him/her being very popular with patients," while a very telling statement, is still a somewhat vague one that could still apply to a variety of people with different but equally attractive personalities, while "This applicant said, 'blahblahblah' and describes how his family is disadvantaged" would be definitely more specific and identifiable with a specific applicant).

It's similar to one of those qualifier high school debate tournaments where the judges are composed of mostly parents and others who have little experience with debates. They're told to judge the debate on its merits and speaking style of the debators, but personally, as a former judge myself, I find it difficult to decide whether the side with the best oratory skills or the side with the best arguments should win (I'm talking about the Lincoln-Douglas debating format, where the speaking, "persuasive" style of oratory is just as important as the actual facts debated).

 

[LizzyM]

Generally, the interviewer tries to capture on paper both the verbal and non-verbal communications. That can include both personality traits as well as specific topics of converstion (very enthusiastic about his research, explained research concepts well and has a good grasp of the techniques being used...)


In terms of speech, it should be slow enough to be easily understood but not so slow that it seems like the speaker is having difficulty with word finding or fluidity. There is also in psychiatry something called pressured speech which is all over the place, rapid, loud and difficult to interupt. That would be a particular red flag.

 

[fizzle]

Generally, the interviewer tries to capture on paper both the verbal and non-verbal communications. That can include both personality traits as well as specific topics of converstion (very enthusiastic about his research, explained research concepts well and has a good grasp of the techniques being used...)


In terms of speech, it should be slow enough to be easily understood but not so slow that it seems like the speaker is having difficulty with word finding or fluidity. There is also in psychiatry something called pressured speech which is all over the place, rapid, loud and difficult to interupt. That would be a particular red flag.

That part was what I was wondering about. Thanks for your answer!

 

[ised187]

Can anyone offer tips on how to improve speech style?

 

[Tiare208]

Can anyone offer tips on how to improve speech style?

I actually did a videotaped practice interview with my undergraduate career advisor. While this isn't a "magic fix," it REALLY helped to see and hear my nervous tics. I've noticed that I've been more aware of myself (posture, demeanor, etc.) in interviews, and I have to assume that I'm not a terrible interviewee as a result, since I've been accepted. Practice makes perfect. If you don't have access to those resources, talking to a mirror or practicing with a friend and a video camera can still help.