Worst/Funniest Interview Experiences

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.
Members don't see this ad.
I
whatever5 said:
Your thinking is a bit too short sighted to make sense. Interviewers aren't looking for candidates who make good med students, they are looking for candidates who make good doctors. Being level-headed under pressure is a must when you are responsible for someones life.

Also, answering one question stupidly doesn't disqualify you - look at earlier posts in this thread if you need proof of that. Being unprofessional or having poor social skills does.
Click to expand...

whatever5 said:
Your thinking is a bit too short sighted to make sense.
Also, answering one question stupidly doesn't disqualify you - look at earlier posts in this thread if you need proof of that.
Click to expand...

Sometimes it does disqualify you. It shouldnt, which is the point that I am making. But to say that they don't is nearsighted of you, friend. That's the whole point of this discussion.
 
I want to go to a school where the adcoms display grace with those in a weaker position, rather than, for instance, a history of elitism and sexism. Such adcoms may not bond with ME, but they will probably bond quite well with people like THEM, and I have no interest in being trained with or by people who look down on others for their educational opportunities, financial background, race, or gender. Nothing would sour my experience of my future career like being trained by people who can't respect those who are presently weak.

Luckily, the climate of medicine is phasing out these dinosaurs, because studies have shown time and again that doctors who are perceived as compassionate have more positive outcomes with their patients' health, and far fewer lawsuits, thus increasing quality of care for everyone. Even more luckily for me, I'm in a position where I don't have to pander to anyone who fails to appreciate that.

That said, a person can't help but make snap judgments and I don't really understand why people here are trying to fight that. Such is life.
 
I understand that. But being nervous at such a big time in one's life is human. And mistaking one for pointing out a clear flaw in your decision as attitude is a problem for someone who is bears the responsibility of being on an admissions commitee. No attitude hear, just opinions.

I have seen loads of stressed out people in medical school interviews. Not even close to everyone getting rejected. It depends on whether or not they are unfortunate enough to run into an interviewer that puts a whole bunch of emphasis on the wrong things
Goro said:
And nervous applicants tend to be rejected. Outright rejected, not wait listed. One has to work at being outright rejected.

The person I referenced in my example was also s-canned by a clinician and a med student on our interview panel.

We also outright reject people who come in with attitudes as well.

Look, med school is hard. It's also stressful. We want students who can deal with stress.
Click to expand...
 
Im76at711 said:
I




Sometimes it does disqualify you. It shouldnt, which is the point that I am making. But to say that they don't is nearsighted of you, friend. That's the whole point of this discussion.
Click to expand...

Well, sometimes a stupid answer should disqualify you - for example, here's a scenario that an interviewer told me he encountered:

Interviewer: So, can you give me an example of someone you think is a great leader?

Candidate: Hitler.

Interviewer: *shocked*

Candidate: Not because I agree with what he did! Just that he had to be a really good leader in order to accomplish what he did.


Would you accept that guy?
 
gyrfalcon said:
I hear this a lot but I don't believe it. The med school interview is not comparable to getting pimped on rounds, or getting yelled at by an attending during a time-critical procedure in the ED. Why? Because the med school interview is the critical decision point for an entire career, and many applicants realize that. Years of hard work at building up an application can be nullified by (apparently) not answering a single question to the satisfaction of an interviewer. Compare that to rounds: yes, a student might not know the answer to something and might get laughed at (or worse) but it is highly unlikely that the student is going to get kicked out of school for the wrong answer.
Click to expand...

Can someone please explain to me this usage of the word "pimped"? I keep seeing people on SDN saying it situations that don't make any sense to me. What is "getting pimped on rounds"? Does the attending treat the students and residents like a stable of prostitutes in some way? 😕
 
Cotterpin said:
Can someone please explain to me this usage of the word "pimped"? I keep seeing people on SDN saying it situations that don't make any sense to me. What is "getting pimped on rounds"? Does the attending treat the students and residents like a stable of prostitutes in some way? 😕
Click to expand...

It just means that the students are quizzed during rounds, and the questions usually get harder and harder until the student can't answer them. Students typically don't like it, but it's a way of showing them where the limit of their knowledge lies. I don't know the reason for it being named that way, though.
 
gyrfalcon said:
It just means that the students are quizzed during rounds, and the questions usually get harder and harder until the student can't answer them. Students typically don't like it, but it's a way of showing them where the limit of their knowledge lies. I don't know the reason for it being named that way, though.
Click to expand...

Thanks. I figured that's what it's supposed to mean, I just have no clue why that would be called "pimping."
 
Based off of that one answer, I am going to say maybe not. But I would look at the whole interview. But, saying stuff like that is not the issue I'm trying to condemn.

whatever5 said:
Well, sometimes a stupid answer should disqualify you - for example, here's a scenario that an interviewer told me he encountered:

Interviewer: So, can you give me an example of someone you think is a great leader?

Candidate: Hitler.

Interviewer: *shocked*

Candidate: Not because I agree with what he did! Just that he had to be a really good leader in order to accomplish what he did.


Would you accept that guy?
Click to expand...
 
Im76at711 said:
Based off of that one answer, I am going to say maybe not. But I would look at the whole interview. But, saying stuff like that is not the issue I'm trying to condemn.
Click to expand...

Eeeexactly. I guarantee you that the rest of the interviews for the two candidates described did not go well.
 
whatever5 said:
Eeeexactly. I guarantee you that the rest of the interviews for the two candidates described did not go well.
Click to expand...

Again youre arguing apples and oranges. Perhaos you missed my point. I was against the immediate judgement from one answer that they gave. Two different points
 
You ask someone a simple question at interview:

Count to 10
1 (one one thousand)
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

"I don't know"

You really want this person in your class?

Sometimes, an interviewee will completely flub a question, especially if it's a hard question. That's OK if they can handle the others. But sometimes there are responses that are just so wrong, that you as an interviewer are quite justified in keeping them out of your med school. This was one of them, and again, I note that I wasn't the only one with the same opinion. This is also why you get multiple interveners; to make sure one hardass (or softee) doesn't skew the process.

Im76at711 said:
Again youre arguing apples and oranges. Perhaos you missed my point. I was against the immediate judgement from one answer that they gave. Two different points
Click to expand...
 
Im76at711 said:
Again youre arguing apples and oranges. Perhaos you missed my point. I was against the immediate judgement from one answer that they gave. Two different points
Click to expand...

Sttaahhppp. I came here to read funny stories and lick my wounds with fellow interviewees, not argue opinions that really hold no bearing on whether someone will get in or not. It doesn't matter what you think about the interview, it only matters what the interviewer thinks. You'll get the interviewer you get and you shouldn't throw a fit (unless you're legit gonna report them and then more power to you). If you want to debate the ethics of the interviewing process, make another post.
 
RuggerMD said:
Sttaahhppp. I came here to read funny stories and lick my wounds with fellow interviewees, not argue opinions that really hold no bearing on whether someone will get in or not. It doesn't matter what you think about the interview, it only matters what the interviewer thinks. You'll get the interviewer you get and you shouldn't throw a fit (unless you're legit gonna report them and then more power to you). If you want to debate the ethics of the interviewing process, make another post.
Click to expand...
Fair point!
 
The truth is that there are hundreds of qualified candidates interviewing for maybe 100 spots (give or take depending on the school). When there are 100 with basically perfect interviews who didn't cave under the pressure, those are the 100 you take. Assuming everyone's stats are sufficient when they interview, sometimes one moment of weakness is enough to put you behind 50 other candidates who showed more strength. It's a judgemental process and we've all signed up for it knowing that we weren't going to be coddled. If you can't handle the heat, get out of the kitchen.
 
I wonder though, the first maybe 1-2 minutes as both the interviewer and interviewee become acclimated with each other, there are bound to be nervous moments. I know at one of the schools I interviewed at (accepted) I was slightly nervous the first maybe minute but as we began talking about healthcare/my story/experiences and as we both opened up about our experiences that anxiety quickly disappeared almost instantly. I can't help but think that that didn't go against me. Now I know interviewees that day that were nervous wrecks before and after interviews and I don't know how well they fared (for instance one was sweating before the interview, afterwards, he was sweating bullets and was red and short of breath). But I guess YMMV
 
I showed up late (10 mins) to one of my interview days, all sweaty because I couldn't find the building. When I went into the room where all of the other interviewee's were, they were giving a brief intro about themselves. When it was my turn, it was so evident that I was out of breath. Then during the interview, the interviewer asked me a question and I answered a completely tangential question. It was so tangential that the interviewer said that that wasn't what he was asking me, and then restated the question. Nevertheless, I was still accepted to that school as well. We're humans, just own up to your mistakes and remember, life goes on.
 
Im76at711 said:
I




Sometimes it does disqualify you. It shouldnt, which is the point that I am making. But to say that they don't is nearsighted of you, friend. That's the whole point of this discussion.
Click to expand...
It should if there are other applicants, perhaps with identical stats and ECs, who don't get nervous on the interview. They did better than you - end of story. Anyone choosing between the two would have to be certifiable to pick the nervous mess. Everyone has good and bad days - that's why you aim to get multiple interviews. So, please stop whining and turning this fun thread into your own personal effing rant. In other words, shut up.


PS ( If you believe this is a valid discussion point, just post it elsewhere)
 
LOL lm76at711 wrote a super long PM in which they:

1) Questioned my ability to read. Repeatedly.
2) Missed the point of moving to another thread. Completely.
3) Ended in the classic tween "UGH!!"

This made me laugh out loud over apple galette and almost choke in front of a waiter, haha. Hope you guys find it just as hilarious!!
 
whatever5 said:
Well, sometimes a stupid answer should disqualify you - for example, here's a scenario that an interviewer told me he encountered:

Interviewer: So, can you give me an example of someone you think is a great leader?

Candidate: Hitler.

Interviewer: *shocked*

Candidate: Not because I agree with what he did! Just that he had to be a really good leader in order to accomplish what he did.


Would you accept that guy?
Click to expand...


Shoulda picked Chuchill.

(And picking any world leader who thought Operation Barbarosa was a good idea is a sign that the interviewee doesn't know what they're talking about.)
 
whatever5 said:
Well, sometimes a stupid answer should disqualify you - for example, here's a scenario that an interviewer told me he encountered:

Interviewer: So, can you give me an example of someone you think is a great leader?

Candidate: Hitler.

Interviewer: *shocked*

Candidate: Not because I agree with what he did! Just that he had to be a really good leader in order to accomplish what he did.


Would you accept that guy?
Click to expand...
HopefulPilot said:
Luckily Hitler's POOR leadership led to a successful Normandy invasion.
Click to expand...
Spinach Dip said:
Shoulda picked Chuchill.

(And picking any world leader who thought Operation Barbarosa was a good idea is a sign that the interviewee doesn't know what they're talking about.)
Click to expand...

Emotions and patriotism aside, Hitler transformed Germany from a debt-ridden broken empire impaled by painful (and unfair) reparations from World War 1 into a military and economic superpower in few years. He made Germany powerful enough to essentially take control of much of Europe (especially by overriding France who won WW1), and was about to win WW2 had he not given up his London bombing campaign and betrayed Stalin by invading the USSR.

Would the interviewer like this answer? I mean it's factual but if he's driven by emotions, he would probably despise it.
 
RuggerMD said:
Sttaahhppp. I came here to read funny stories and lick my wounds with fellow interviewees, not argue opinions that really hold no bearing on whether someone will get in or not. It doesn't matter what you think about the interview, it only matters what the interviewer thinks. You'll get the interviewer you get and you shouldn't throw a fit (unless you're legit gonna report them and then more power to you). If you want to debate the ethics of the interviewing process, make another post.
Click to expand...
Careful, they might send you an angry PM about your inability to read haha
 
Lawper said:
Emotions and patriotism aside, Hitler transformed Germany from a debt-ridden broken empire impaled by painful (and unfair) reparations from World War 1 into a military and economic superpower in few years. He made Germany powerful enough to essentially take control of much of Europe (especially by overriding France who won WW1), and was about to win WW2 had he not given up his London bombing campaign and betrayed Stalin by invading the USSR.

Would the interviewer like this answer? I mean it's factual but if he's driven by emotions, he would probably despise it.
Click to expand...

Meh.

I don't like it because:
A. It reeks of internet-inspired "say something outrageous for attention" mindset.
B. The interviewee probably has no idea what Hitler actually did to turn Germany from the post-WWI armpit of Europe into a force which embroiled the entire world in war for 6 years.

If further followup questions show that the interviewee actually knows something of WWII history, I would be willing to re-assess my reaction to the answer. But if it turns out the interviewee is just saying "Hitler" without solid reasoning behind that answer, it is horrible.
 
Spinach Dip said:
Meh.

I don't like it because:
A. It reeks of internet-inspired "say something outrageous for attention" mindset.
B. The interviewee probably has no idea what Hitler actually did to turn Germany from the post-WWI armpit of Europe into a force which embroiled the entire world in war for 6 years.

If further followup questions show that the interviewee actually knows something of WWII history, I would be willing to re-assess my reaction to the answer. But if it turns out the interviewee is just saying "Hitler" without solid reasoning behind that answer, it is horrible.
Click to expand...

Yeah i agree with that especially with a vague or crappy justification. However, like any history topic, it really depends on how you defend and explain your stance rather than the actual answer.

Otherwise, the southern schools would be furious if i blindly said my favorite leader was Sherman without giving any support.
 
HopefulPilot said:
He led a recovering country into another ww that among other terrible things, killed over 5 million Germans. Saying he transformed the country into a super power is cutting the story short.
Click to expand...

The fact remains that he transformed Germany into a military and economic superpower. That is objectively strong leadership. Otherwise, it would be impossible for the German invasions to happen (especially destroying France who was a WW1 victor). Likewise, Britain would have zero reason to promote appeasement, and Stalin wouldn't have agreed to a neutrality pact.

Just because Hitler was in the evil side of history doesn't make him an ineffective or weak leader
 
Lawper said:
The fact remains that he transformed Germany into a military and economic superpower. That is objectively strong leadership. Otherwise, it would be impossible for the German invasions to happen (especially destroying France who was a WW1 victor). Likewise, Britain would have zero reason to promote appeasement, and Stalin wouldn't have agreed to a neutrality pact.

Just because Hitler was in the evil side of history doesn't make him an ineffective or weak leader
Click to expand...

I think it would be interesting to answer the question from the perspective that strong leadership can be used to do terrible things. Use the example of Hitler's nigh unparalleled charisma and leadership skills and the horrible things he did with them, and discuss the responsibility of those in power to behave ethically. It would leave room for a much better discussion about the high stakes and responsibilities of being a physician (and what can happen if that power is abused) than a generic answer like George Washington or Winston Churchill.
 
HopefulPilot said:
So was Ken Lay a great leader of enron? They were highly successful before their business crumbled.
Click to expand...

Yes if it is justified accordingly. It's important for people to look at things neutrally since in the end, we'll be dealing with emotional and personal topics.

RurouniKarly said:
I think it would be interesting to answer the question from the perspective that strong leadership can be used to do terrible things. Use the example of Hitler's nigh unparalleled charisma and leadership skills and the horrible things he did with them, and discuss the responsibility of those in power to behave ethically. It would leave room for a much better discussion about the high stakes and responsibilities of being a physician (and what can happen if that power is abused) than a generic answer like George Washington or Winston Churchill.
Click to expand...

Yeah that's a good alternative way to put it.
 
Cotterpin said:
Thanks. What I really want to know, though, is who decided to call it "pimping" and why.
Click to expand...
It's only published origins are described in the third paragraph of this JAMA article. Why they chose this particular phraseology is unclear.
 
gyngyn said:
It's only published origins are described in the third paragraph of this JAMA article. Why they chose this particular phraseology is unclear. Maybe a German speaker could cast some light?
Click to expand...

Lol, the article is just like, "It means 'pimp questions'." What on Earth? The only connection my brain can make between pimping and physicians is Dr. Dre.
 
HopefulPilot said:
He led a recovering country into another ww that among other terrible things, killed over 5 million Germans. Saying he transformed the country into a super power is cutting the story short.
Click to expand...
Being the greatest leader should require a little more foresight than he had, no?
 
Last edited:
Can we seriously stop ruining this thread and perhaps take the bickering somewhere else! I (and most people) follow the thread because reading the funny and sometimes cringe worthy mishaps relieve the stress and anxiety that is inherent with the process. Don't ruin it please. Let's wave a white flag and move on.
 
Getting back on track: I had an interviewee kept saying about how much she was interested in Osteopathy...except she kept on pronouncing it with a long O in the first syllable. My student interviewer and I kept looking at each other every time she did this, inwardly cringing. She actually was an OK candidate.
 
Goro said:
Getting back on track: I had an interviewee kept saying about how much she was interested in Osteopathy...except she kept on pronouncing it with a long O in the first syllable. My student interviewer and I kept looking at each other every time she did this, inwardly cringing. She actually was an OK candidate.
Click to expand...

Now that you put this into my brain, I just know it's going to slip out at an interview. 🙁
 
Goro said:
Getting back on track: I had an interviewee kept saying about how much she was interested in Osteopathy...except she kept on pronouncing it with a long O in the first syllable. My student interviewer and I kept looking at each other every time she did this, inwardly cringing. She actually was an OK candidate.
Click to expand...
But was she accepted? I'm guessing not. Also, a friend of mine is planning on DO school, and he pronounces it as path-y... shouldn't it be pa-thy?
 
Goro said:
Getting back on track: I had an interviewee kept saying about how much she was interested in Osteopathy...except she kept on pronouncing it with a long O in the first syllable. My student interviewer and I kept looking at each other every time she did this, inwardly cringing. She actually was an OK candidate.
Click to expand...

Wow. Never would have crossed my mind to pronounce it that way. Cringeworthy, indeed.
 
Spinach Dip said:
Meh.

I don't like it because:
A. It reeks of internet-inspired "say something outrageous for attention" mindset.
B. The interviewee probably has no idea what Hitler actually did to turn Germany from the post-WWI armpit of Europe into a force which embroiled the entire world in war for 6 years.

If further followup questions show that the interviewee actually knows something of WWII history, I would be willing to re-assess my reaction to the answer. But if it turns out the interviewee is just saying "Hitler" without solid reasoning behind that answer, it is horrible.
Click to expand...
It doesn't really matter why they're saying Hitler. It is horrible anyway. Any reasonable person knows that it is a terrible answer!
 
Just be a good person and be cool, regardless of which end you are on. Is that too much to ask?

Yes, I will agree with Goro that a long gap in a response would be a dubious response. OTOH, better to be wise in one's response than too quick and really stick one's foot into something.

Look at this as any other interview. That is to say, if you have a professional working background, you generally have a feel for how these things transpire. Don't be overly intimidated (or intimidating) as the case may be. If you feel that you are a good candidate for becoming a physician, that's really where your mind must be. But regardless of what anyone says, interviewing is give and take. It's a two-way street. Believe in yourself and what you are doing.
 
Last edited:
I mentioned having tropical fish in my application. The interviewer asked if I would ever think of eating them. :wtf: I think I had to make a comment about none of them being big enough for more than a bite size snack. Sure, they're fish, but he's joking about eating my pets.
 
Quizlet04 said:
I mentioned having tropical fish in my application. The interviewer asked if I would ever think of eating them. :wtf: I think I had to make a comment about none of them being big enough for more than a bite size snack. Sure, they're fish, but he's joking about eating my pets.
Click to expand...
!

START PUNCHING. NEVER STOP.
(this story made me want to hug the bejeezus out of you)
 
Quizlet04 said:
I mentioned having tropical fish in my application. The interviewer asked if I would ever think of eating them. :wtf: I think I had to make a comment about none of them being big enough for more than a bite size snack. Sure, they're fish, but he's joking about eating my pets.
Click to expand...


pageantry said:
!

START PUNCHING. NEVER STOP.
(this story made me want to hug the bejeezus out of you)
Click to expand...

Me: "It might be tempting, b/c I do like sushi. Depends on whether I have Wasabi. " 😉
(That stuff hurts so good.)
 
This is from my most recent interview - let me start off by saying that I was extremely sleep deprived as I thought it would be a good idea to save on a hotel by catching a red-eye.

Interviewer: So, you mentioned you have a good sense of humor. Can you tell me a joke?

Me: Ha sure, what's the difference between Michael Jackson and acne?

Interviewer: I don't know, what?

Me: Acne... (Stop dead when I realize I'm about to say "Acne comes on your face after puberty" at a medical school interview. At this point, way too much time has gone by.)

Interviewer: Yes? Acne?

Me: One is a singer, the other is a skin disease.

Interviewer: *crickets*

Me: I guess it's more of an inside joke.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

S
Most Meaningful Experiences
Replies
2
Views
558
Mr.Smile12
Mr.Smile12
M
Other Impactful Experiences?
Replies
4
Views
1K
maybefuturedoctor7
M
R
Types of Clinical Experiences
Replies
6
Views
412
LizzyM
LizzyM
S
Other Impactful Experiences
Replies
1
Views
604
LunaOri
LunaOri
T
Length of Nonclinical Volunteering Experiences
Replies
2
Views
401
candbgirl
C
Top