Yeah that will never happen. They have an inherent bias to keep applications as high as possible.
What does this mean
Webcam interviews blunt a lot of the interpersonal interactions and small body language cues.
Hiding small body language cues would benefit the applicant. If the interviewer can't see what they are doing with their hands, feet, or facial gestures then it's a lot harder to pick up on red flags. Am I missing something here?
Perhaps moreso that some applicants sit unmoving/unblinking on zoom interviews, staring a hole into the camera (or worse, their own screen) and never relax for even one second. Everyone comes across as awkward.
But at least you can choose to be a kawaii anime girl in VR.
You can see facial gestures on zoom. I’m not sure why you look at their feet though
we all have our reasons
You're missing I guess that not everyone has red flags with their body language? I'm not sure what you're doing with your hands, feet, and facial gestures, but I don't see that being a hindrance to my interviewing. If anything, I'd be at an advantage relative to people who are?
Yeah I would certainly have to take out private loans to attend the "recommended" amount of interviews next year if they were all in person. I'd much rather second-look ~3 of them.
Or a plumber from Brooklyn. The possibilities are endless.
I don't think you understood what I was saying. I never implied that everyone has red flags with their body language during interviews, but did imply that some people do and it's easy to pick up on when you're sitting directly across from them. It's subtle things that you pick up on from the moment you walk in the door to the moment you leave which show anxiety, lack of confidence, or glaring red flags. I believe it is much more difficult to pick up on these gestures during webcam interviews which was in response to surfing doc who said that webcam interviews work against applicants more and how they come across.
bubbly is the only positive trait you mentioned. The others are inferred to be negative traits. During an interview you have a finite amount of time to make an impression on someone and if what they remember you as is "quiet" and "anxious" I don't imagine you will be their first pick.
Didn't say they were good or bad, my point is that when I have met candidates both virtually and in person, I haven't had any big surprises and my read on their personality seems consistent, regardless of whether that's a positive or a negative
It seems like you have and extrapolated to the nth degree.
Well I have now and the more I think about it, this may actually be a valuable bit of selection pressure. This would be especially true in higher col areas. Selecting trainees with means and/or resourcefulness seems like a plus for the programs.
X applicants, Y spots. I'm not sure how this could work "against" applicants at all (or programs for that matter). I guess there is less opportunity for applicants and faculty to put on their best role play of eager beaver and caring mentor. Last I checked interviews have an almost negligible effect on landing highly qualified workers (effect was something like single digit % more likely to hire someone the company was satisfied with). The amount interviews help decreases substantially when there is additional information available, particularly standardized test performance and objective graded assessments. Interviews are mostly a tool to assuage the egos of managers/faculty performing a perennial autocephalic colonoscopy. Paying $5-10K to satisfy interviewers' egos has always been a bad deal for students.
The only shock I have when meeting people in person after a Zoom introduction is height and general attractiveness. It's just hard to gauge that. If anything I'd think a Zoom interview could actually eliminate some bias and create more equitable outcomes.
Rather myopic. One can argue trainees without means have adapted to living in tough circumstances and have maturity in dealing with hardships with they may encounter at the workplace.
Money has a massive impact on life and performance as you advance from living on ~$25K/yr to ~$50K/yr, which is the spread from poor med student to poor resident. However, the jump from a ~$50K/yr lifestyle (rich med student) to ~$90K/yr (rich resident) just adds a bit of comfort. (These numbers for an individual without kids, of course). However, I think med school performance is the great equalizer from a PD's perspective.
sorry camera stopped working today
Fortunately, I don’t do residency interviews except for the random PSTP interview but I am required to do fellowship interviews. The fellowship (while it used to be anyone with a pulse) is becoming more competitive. That, along with everything becoming pass/fail, means little discriminates applicants. It all comes down to interviews. So the bolded is not my experience. And since virtual interviews are by nature, impersonal… well, I have never seen it help an applicant. I also don't get paid to interview that comment literally make no sense unless you are referring to interviewees to pay to travel.
I think it would be truly unfortunate if programs thought this way, and they would miss out on a lot of talent.
This. Like many trends, early adoption of a new thing coincides with everyone enjoying the benefits. Eventually, however, the drawbacks will become more apparent (and annoying).
