Why do 3.8+/514+ applicants sometimes not get into medical school?

[Med Ed]

---

Members do not see this ad.

The act of bringing a resume/CV is standard and shows foresight at nearly any other post-collegiate interview

I don't think this is true. Also, medical school admissions has AMCAS, which transmits far more information than is contained in most collegiate-level CV's.

And even so, what an incredibly trivial thing to base an admissions decision on. Someone should study whether CV-bringers have worse outcomes post-residency compared to non-bringers.

You are wrong in assuming that a decision would be "based on" such a thing. We sift through a great deal of data on each applicant, and committees are composed of many different viewpoints. The basic question is whether it is worth it to the individual to risk being an outlier with regard to typical interview behavior.

 

[OneTwoThreeFour]

The act of bringing a resume/CV is standard and shows foresight at nearly any other post-collegiate interview - yet it is seen as "silly", "self-aggrandizing" and an "error in judgment" for medical school admissions? Interesting - not sure I agree.

For me, that says more about the admissions counselor than the applicant - did they work in any other field before entering medical school?

Perhaps my interviews were more research-focused, given that research was a strong part of my application, but my experience has been different. And even so, what an incredibly trivial thing to base an admissions decision on. Someone should study whether CV-bringers have worse outcomes post-residency compared to non-bringers.

Regardless, we will probably not change each others' minds - agree to disagree.

Short of MD/PhD applications I don't entirely see how a specific research project is relevant to medical school admission. The act of engaging in research is certainly important, and I appreciate that research is being done, but when I am looking at an applicant, 95% of the time I don't actually care what the research was in. I care about whether the person was working independently, had true responsibilities, and can communicate their work and how it prepares them to be a physician.
I would also say that prior to the interview we have already received the applicant's CV, full app, and any updates on new publications. Why do I need a sheet of paper with information I've already read?
If anything, I give a little more leeway to people who are coming to medicine from other professions because they actually were expected to bring their info with them to interviews.
This is not what I base an ultimate decision on, rather it is a minor contributing factor (but, as @Med Ed says, when there are many excellent applicants being less than excellent in some way can definitely be enough to hurt you)

 

[TresselforPresident]

I don't think this is true. Also, medical school admissions has AMCAS, which transmits far more information than is contained in most collegiate-level CV's.

I would also say that prior to the interview we have already received the applicant's CV, full app, and any updates on new publications. Why do I need a sheet of paper with information I've already read?
If anything, I give a little more leeway to people who are coming to medicine from other professions because they actually were expected to bring their info with them to interviews.

Most people applying for jobs or graduate positions also submit their resume through some electronic means - but it is usually recommended they bring an additional copy with them to the interview.

You are wrong in assuming that a decision would be "based on" such a thing. We sift through a great deal of data on each applicant, and committees are composed of many different viewpoints. The basic question is whether it is worth it to the individual to risk being an outlier with regard to typical interview behavior.

This is not what I base an ultimate decision on, rather it is a minor contributing factor (but, as @Med Ed says, when there are many excellent applicants being less than excellent in some way can definitely be enough to hurt you)

Then we are arguing for no reason, and are in fact possibly in agreement. My biggest issue was that Goro wrote that bringing a CV is, to him/her, worthy of "immediate rejection."

I find that a ridiculously trivial reason to **immediately** reject someone.

 

[MCATISEZ]

To be fair, you can (and I did) bring a CV and any relevant publications.

But, at even interviews I had (which isn’t a ton) prior to med school, I wouldn’t offer those materials to my interviewer unless they were asked for... or unless it seemed like a totally appropriate time to pull them out (interviewer seemed very interested in my research project and he/she did not have any information about it prior).

I can see how pushing information in their face can turn them off. I think Goro is more referring to those overly enthusiastic students (those their peers may call “gunners”) who just do not do it in the right way.

But I can hardly think a “Hi Dr.___ nice to meet you. I have a copy of my CV incase anything is missing” should hurt much. I wouldn’t recommend it because the interviewer SHOULD have read and been familiar with your application (but in my experiences it’s not always the case)

I proudly had printed my AMCAS application/updates/publications and brought them to my interview. I only once pulled it out, when an interviewer had a question about an update I had not yet submitted to the school (it was literally a couple days prior to my interview). It was appreciated from what I saw and I was accepted to that school.

In any interview you do not want to stand out negatively. It’s really better to blend in. Almost all the applicants are amazing. Do not come across as a gunner. The interview is usually there to see how you handle yourself in a social (perhaps high stress) situation. Ultimately, common sense prevails.


Sent from my iPhone using SDN mobile

 

[RNthenDoc]

My 2 cents is this: I interviewed six times last year, and not a single interviewer asked about my research.

My research was not high-level stuff, but it was super, super interesting in a conversational way.

My supposition was that these interviewers truly care a lot less about the content of the research as they do checking off boxes on some list, be it imaginary or tangible. This is important to note because while my research was not groundbreaking, I feel like it was counted almost equally as if it were. In other words, I’m glad I don’t kill myself for pubs in undergrad.

 

[TresselforPresident]

It seems like I am being misinterpreted.

I was making no fundamental statement regarding the value of discussing one's research in depth during a medical school interview.

I was merely pointing out that I find it laughable to discriminate against (well, "immediately" reject) an applicant merely for *bringing* his CV and papers to the interview. I personally find that a sign of being prepared, not a transgression. I brought my papers to most of my interviews; many times, I left the interview with them untouched and still in my portfolio. However, there were a few times (usually at bigger name research institutions) that an interviewer asked me in depth about my research - these interviewers were generally pleased that I had the papers with me, and might take that opportunity to glance over the abstract.


Cheers