Why should interviews be worth more than academics?

[Guest newfoundlander06]

Just out of curiosity, why is the interview worth so much? I mean, it is impossible to determine whether somebody would be a good physician based on an hour long interview. Wouldn't somebody's academic achievements tell the admissions board so much more about a student's potential?

[Guest pappy mckeys]

Hi

 

IMHO, getting a 3.99 GPA or other academic awards only shows that you were able to work hard at your undergrad and understood the material. Although there is no feasible/economic way to get to know you "really well", at least the the interview can give some idea of other attributes, or expand on your ECs. Keep in mind that by the interview stage the majority of remaining applicants will have stellar GPAs and academic achievements. Given that most interviewees GPAs will be similar, how could it be given the most weight? Again, this is just my personal opinion.

[Guest leviathan]

I agree. Your application only tells them about who you want them to think you are. The interview either confirms or disconfirms that person you painted yourself to be.

[Guest FungManX]

Just imagine.. the biggest nerd in your highschool/university, the Stever Erkle look-alike. If it was all based on grades, that guy would get in. Just imagine him being your neurosurgeon about to take away a brain tumour...

 

I don't know about you, but I wouldn't want some 'trembling with fear' nerdy guy looking after my brain .

 

Also check out the other thread in here.. there was one that had this link to a crime library website that talked about a 'killer doctor', i'm sure he was smart enough to trick tha admissions committee but I'm also sure that the admissions comitee can weed out a lotta sociopaths that aren't as clever as he was when it came to the interview stage.

[Guest GP2B]

although physicians must have a high degree of knowledge and intellectual capability, this is only part of the puzzle! something that i believe is just as (or perhaps more) important is the ability to communicate with patients. arguably, this is also something much more difficult to teach!? part of the intent of medical school interviews is to assess this attribute, as this that cannot be expressed well on paper.

 

a doctor with excellent academic abilities may be proficient at diagnosing a terminal disease, but without good bedside manner, he/she will not be nearly as adept at guiding the patient/family through one of the most difficult experiences of their lives...

 

'tis the art of medicine

[Guest moo]

I dunno, polls have showed that patients prefer the nerd who is techinically and academically superior to the "well-rounded" doctor who shows excellent empathy but not so good grades. Personally, I would pick the technically superior nerd if I had to be operated on.

[Guest Paulchemguy]

"I don't know about you, but I wouldn't want some 'trembling with fear' nerdy guy looking after my brain"

 

hmm, why do you think nerds would tremble with fear? on the other hand, the nerds might do the job perfectly.

 

BUT, medicine is more than just completing a diagnosis, writing a prescription or performing operations, which is why we need doctors who can communicate and express themselves.

[Guest peachy]

I dunno, polls have showed that patients prefer the nerd who is techinically and academically superior to the "well-rounded" doctor who shows excellent empathy but not so good grades. Personally, I would pick the technically superior nerd if I had to be operated on.

Maybe, but the two things are not mutually exclusive. Tons of people have incredible grades combined with excellent empathy. In the hyper competitive world of medical school admissions, we don't have to pick "super grades" or "can talk to people", because there are more than enough people with both applying.

[Guest TimmyMax]

Hey,

 

I disagree- any clown can get a high GPA if they work hard enough and/or cheat. The interview is definitely the best (albeit not perfect) screening tool because it reveals so much about people and how they are (or are not) qualified to practice medicine. A personal interview reveals so much more about a person's motivations, qualifications and personal qualities than something written ever could, although, granted, it is important to be able to express yourself clearly through written means as well.

Although some may disagree, I think that there is so much more insight to be gained about someone during a personal encounter than one could ever obtain from statistics or reading an application. People can lie on their applications and butter themselves up to look like an optimal candidate pretty easily, but it's one thing to do it on paper and another to do it in real life. Especially moreso in these days with services being available to help people with their applications and others which will more or less write your applications for you!

Being able to effectively articulate your motivations and sell yourself as a suitable candidate for medicine in person is much more impressive than a sparkling paper application. I'd definitely take the person with an acceptable academic record and excellent social skills over someone with a flawless academic record and the social skills of a hermit. The former would definitely make a better clinician because a significant chunk of medicine is effective communication with your patients above everything else. Even if you can't figure out what is specifically ailing the person, being able to get a good story out of them is infinitely more powerful a diagnostic tool than any test or procedure. Even if you are stuck, you can always use your effective communication skills to pass on your patient's story to a colleague and get the diagnosis that way!

That said, I definitely agree wholeheartedly that personal interviews should be the major determinant of someone successfully gaining entry into medical school. When you get to this level (in life, not just applying to medical school), so much of your success willl depend on what others think of you and how you are able to get along with people. Remember that medicine is an art that uses science, not the other way around. If you have no people skills, do everyone else a favour and stick to something where you won't need to interact with the general public, like research or radiology. So much of your evaluation in medical school has to do with how you get along with and interact with others, so unless you want @#%$ letters of reference and like the idea of going unmatched, I'd work on my people skills above all else!

 

Best of luck!

Timmy

[Guest fromtheperimeter]

and, think about how that one class where you had a 79.4 and ended up with a b+...that puts your GPA lower than the person who got 79.6 and got an A-..despite no real difference in ability

 

now extrapolate that over the thousands of medschool applicants - if admissions were based solely on marks, then that bubble you filled incorrectly on your intro bio midterm might prevent you from becoming a doctor...

 

there are gads of people who can get a 3.6 gpa or better, but not as many who can get a 3.6 without becoming a egotistical, ignorant, competitive a-hole in the process. I think the best admissions approach is to use marks as cutoffs and set them fairly high - then have everyone who meets the cutoff have a 100% interview..or if not 100, then something close, definitely no less than 75....if a panel doesn't like you after an hour and they're going to be your peers, imagine how your patients might feel after 5 minutes

[Guest NurseNathalie]

I have known many absolutely brilliant people, who could regurgitate the most complex stuff they absorbed from the books (um.. they often seemed to LIVE in their books too, some of them! ha ha)... and not be able to think their way out of a paper bag! We all have different strengths.. and I think that a well-rounded person is a lot better than simply having top scores... or being very social.... lets face it, some ppl have great memories, or even a great understanding of the minutia, but can't apply it to save their lives!

 

conversely, GPA is not always a true reflection of the 'knowledge'/'ability to apply knowledge'/ 'judgement', or even of someone's 'critical thinking skills'. Some might have what you would call a 'low GPA', but were in a demanding program full time while working or raising a family...

 

I guess I just beleive that GPA is a tool, but not always a true reflection of how 'smart' or 'knowledgeable' someone is depending on the context ...

[Guest FungManX]

Heh, making that previous post I did just made me think back to highschool and the biggest nerd I remeber..

 

I went up to him one time and tried to start a conversation and for some reason he just started shaking... not a seizure type but just his hands started shaking in nervousness.. Seriously.. if those hands were to be working on my brain, he might have been working on my frontal lobe and accidentally cut up my medulla oblangata or something

[Guest MrNeuroscience]

I'm really not trying to be a jerk here, but I have taken the liberty of quoting the original posting, but changing it slightly, and I think many more people will agree with it:

 

Just out of curiosity, why are grades worth so much? I mean, it is impossible to determine whether somebody would be a good physician based on a GPA or MCAT score?. Wouldn't somebody's interview skills and personality tell the admissions board so much more about a student's potential?

 

In my honest opinion, any person that receives an interview at a medical school (and countless others that do not receive interviews at a medical school) are capable of completeing medical school work... and that is what the GPA is an indicator of. Becoming a physician, however, is so much more than that. Because someone can receive straight A's, does not really mean they would make a good Doctor... there are so many more variables. Simply being able to complete medical school is one thing, but coming out of medical school as a Doctor is entirely something else.

[Guest jaegwon]

With regard to Moo's reference to studies reporting that patients preferring technical skill over compassion...while this may be the case for a fully informed patient, I think the confounding factor is that the majority of patients do not have sufficient insight into the technical proficiency of their physician to pass judgement. Therefore, there primary basis for judging their doc is, in fact, his/her ability to communicate effectively.

 

:\

[Guest muchdutch]

I agree with NurseNathalie. I know people on both ends of the spectrum - booksmart and 'other'. The booksmart kid wanted to get into med because it was his dream since he was a kid and he'd just 'die' if he didn't get in. The 'other' thought that he'd apply but if after a few years he didn't get in, no big deal and he'd move on.

The booksmart kid didn't do his own laundry, had only had one job over the summer (2 months in duration) and thought that the smell of yeast (from lab) was the most disgusting thing he'd ever smelled. The 'other' had full-time school, work, and other non-volunteer committments (read: NOT a 4.0 GPA).

I would much rather have the 'other' working on me in any situation as he seemed much more willing and able to deal with any situation that was thrown at him, whereas the booksmart seemed a little skittish, and not really open to anything new.

I'd like to think that most people's true self comes out in the pressure of interviews and the interviewers can see whether this person will be able to hack it or not in med school. That's why I think it's great that the interview is heavily weighted. I want to know that when vessels in my brain are exploding that my doc can act quick with the most appropriate decision, not just name the vessels and the survival success rates from a book!

 

As an aside, funny enough, the 'other' is in med school and the booksmart is still trying.....

[Guest RoseSmurfette]

"Why should interviews be worth more than academics?"

 

Interviews AREN'T worth more than academics in the med application process. I would say that academics are worth more. If you don't have the prerequisite academics, you don't even have a CHANCE to prove yourself in an interview.

 

However, once you reach a certain standard of academics, the interview is worth more because GPA/MCAT scores no longer distinguishes whether applicants would make better/worse physicians.

[Guest canmic]

I think Rose hit the nail right on the head..

 

Academics are more important UP TO A CERTAIN POINT, and beyond that point they are pretty much meaningless.

 

Some schools don't even count your academic score or MCAT in the final selection process, but you have to be above their cut-offs to get to the final selection process in the first place. At that point, everyone who exceeds the cutoffs is considered 'equally good enough' on the academic side.

 

The purpose of the interview isn't to get an in depth view of who you are, after all, you are playing up to the interviewers and they know it. What the interview does give them a chance to determine is:

 

1) Can you communicate clearly and concisely in english (or french as the case may be).

 

2) Can you think on your feet and provide creative and intelligent answers to random questions.

 

3) Are you someone who is pleasent to have a conversation with.

 

4) Are you relaxed and outgoing enough when under extreme pressure.

 

And probably a few other things, but you get the idea. The actual questions they ask you and the answers you give don't mean much, but your ability to come up with decent answers and how you present them means a whole lot.

 

You'd be amazed at some of the things people with 4.0 GPAs actually say or do at a med school interview that gets them on the 'no way' list pretty quickly. The same thing applies for residency interviews.

[Guest Lurkergonepublic]

I agree with most comments here. I know a lot of really dumb smart people, if you catch my drift.

 

But why the hostility towards nerds? Come on, aren't we all nerds at this point in the books of most peoplle we know?

[Guest everyoneloveschem]

I agree. I think we need a blend of people in medicine. Some will make better surgeons, some better researchers, others educators, or clinicians. It takes all kinds.

[Guest sensodyne]

I know that this is missing the entire point, but not all schools weight the interview more heavily than academics. U of T for example:

 

60% academic

40% non-academic

 

As far as I know, this is pre-interview.

 

If one gets an interview it is:

60% academic

20% non-academic

20% interview

 

And as for UBC, 50% academics and 50% for interview

[Guest FungManX]

UBC is

25% Academics

25% non academics

50% interview

[Guest sensodyne]

oops..my bad

[Guest moo]

Peachy, of course there are many people who are smart and great people--the two are not mutually exclusive. People make nerds out to be uncaring, horrible people, which is not the case.

[Guest kellyl20]

Often getting a high GPA requires the ability to think and reason. Shouldn't assume that having a high GPA means no thinking involved in obtaining it, in fact it is the opposite.

 

I like my doctor to be personable too, but first and foremost he must be knowlegeable and be able to remember his medical stuff. He doesn't have to entertain me, just cure me is fine.

 

Medical schools' cut off serves the purpose to weed out those with low GPAs in their senior years. So basically anyone who gets an interview is considered academically competent, in general.

[Guest 24medgirl]

I often think that people (not all!) who have extremely high GPAs were just in the right situation to get a high GPA.

 

For example: When I was completing my undergrad degree I (and many of my friends) worked almost full-time to pay for tuition, books and life. My parents could have easily paid for my degree but they felt it was important that I learn that things don't come for free in life and that you have to work hard to be successful. Now some of my friends had parents who paid for everything - and I mean everything - tuition, books, car, gas, clothes, food, fun $ and did everything for them - drove them around, did their laundry, they lived at home etc which meant that these individuals were completely free to study and focus on academics.

 

I realize that many individuals who worked through school also got high GPAs, but I know that if I had more time to study (less time working) I would have probably done better. My 3.6 GPA could have prolly been a 3.8. I dunno. Just my opinion of what I saw as a student.