Why should interviews be worth more than academics?

[Guest heho]

Or, even just course selection. Someone may have been unlucky enough to choose a subjective course with a professor who "just doesn't believe" in giving out As.

 

I understand that there needs to be a cut off of sorts, but why can't it be just that? At Nippising Teacher's college, they have a cut off system like this: say the "cut off" is 80%. People with much higher than 80% get in, people with much lower get rejected, and those around 80% have their supplementary taken into consideration. That could be ammended a bit for interview selection in meds, but it's not a terrible idea.

 

I think that the final selection for meds should be 100% interview. Grades can get you the interview, but once you make that cut... a 3.9 student is not likely any "smarter" or more competent than the 3.7 student.

[Guest Jochi1543]

I think certain types of people would make terrible doctors, even though they may be academically successful. For a real-life example, I have an acquaintance who is pre-med, and the girl has to be right about EVERYTHING. I mean, it goes to the extent of the absurd - I remember once mentioning some US visa issues, and she started counseling me on immigration, and she doesn't even know anyone with a visa except me. When I pointed out to her that she was wrong with most of her advice, she got all up in arms even though it's pretty clear that I already know way more than she does simply due to my 5 years of personal experience with immigration, including many conversations with immigration lawyers, etc. And her insistence that she is ALWAYS right comes up in basically any discussion. Some people would rather hurt someone with wrong advice than publicly admit their incompetence in some area, no matter how insignificant it is. Do I want her as my doctor one day? Hell no, because she will reject any opinion that disagrees with that of her own, even if her opinion is blatantly false. In reality, this may result in my receiving inferior or outdated treatment, or having my concerns dismissed.

[Guest peachy]

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.

Yeah. Somehow all these discussions seem to end up with, "I know this guy who got 100 on every course he ever took but can't hold a 30 second conversation!" The idea that people who do really well at school automatically have some fatal personality flaw is really attractive, but, sadly, it's just not true.

 

Lots of people who have 4.0 GPA's are hard to talk to. Lots of other people with 4.0 GPA's are brilliant conversationalists who are involved in meaningful activities and shine in an interview as well as anybody else. And, believe it or not, there are lots of people with 3.7 (or even 3.3! or 2.0! or 0.0!) GPA's who obsessive, unfriendly, and not the kind of people you want as doctors. Obviously someone's stellar grades don't automatically imply good things about their personality, but, come on, it doesn't imply bad things about their personality either. Just like someone's crummy or mediocre grades don't tell you anything about their interpersonal skills.

 

Also, I'm sure that at any medical school, whether the interview is worth 100% or 10%, if someone really bombs it they're not going to get in. That is, that person with perfect grades and an incredibly application who really doesn't know why they want to be a doctor, can't consider an ethical situation, and is so nervous they can barely speak isn't going to get in even at the school where the interviews are worth 10%, because all the interviewers are going to write in big letters on the evaluation sheet "DON'T LET THIS PERSON IN!" I don't think it makes much of a difference what the interview is worth as long as it allows for really bad applicants to be eliminated. After all, for most people, you really can't distinguish them that well in a 45-minute interview.

[Guest NurseNathalie]

well said peachy... and point well taken...

 

ideally... an applicant should have both a high GPA AND give a strong interview!

[Guest canmic]

By the time UBC finishes 'averaging' out the interview scores, the interview basically becomes pass/fail anyway...

 

but that's a whole other topic..

[Guest treehuggingbiologist]

an applicant should have both a high GPA AND give a strong interview!

 

And given the sheer number of applicants, there are enough of those to fill all the vacant spots and then some.

[Guest mesoderm]

Lots of people who have 4.0 GPA's are hard to talk to. Lots of other people with 4.0 GPA's are brilliant conversationalists who are involved in meaningful activities and shine in an interview as well as anybody else

 

You don't even have to be a good conversationalist to do well in an interview.

 

Having been to quite a few med-school interviews in US & Canada, I think the most important thing is preparation.

 

If you prepare and have good answers for the important questions, you will do well. Honestly, you can pretty much anticipate 95% of the questions that are going to be asked in a medical school interview.

 

Of course, if you just don't "click" with your interviewers, you probably won't get in - but hey that's life - and that's why people apply to more than 1 medical school.

[Guest mesoderm]

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

 

To Tim: Would you take the person with perfect academics but average social skills over one with average academics but very good social skills?

 

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

 

What kind of statement is this??

 

I think people skills, just like any other skill - can be learned and worked on.

[Guest silverjelly86]

Just my bit - I would take the person with excellent academics and average social skills. I want a doctor, not a date! So, I don't think grades are anything to scoff at, but of course they don't make the person.

[Guest treehuggingbiologist]

You can't say grades are more important than personal skills. And you can't say the opposite either. But the fact is, even with very high cutoffs medical schools can still select a group of applicants who have very good skills in both.

 

I would like to disagree with the previous poster though - i don't think interpersonal skills can be "worked on" to the same degree as perhaps stats/organic chemistry skills. I concede that you can develop better skills by interacting with people, but unless you truly want to interact with others, your efforts will seem shallow and forced (which they would be).

 

Most people would like a doctor who inspires confidence - be that through their bedside manner, or sheer brilliance and i think that is the most important aspect here.

[Guest kellyl20]

In this day and age, everything can be "worked on"; there seems to be coaches for everything. Interacting with others, copying other people's personal skills can work. Also, maturity often comes with age and that is why the British med students, who become docs eventually, are ok; a lot can happen in 8-10 years time. Not everyone has the same academic ability either, some people just don't get it or remember the information no matter how hard they tried.

 

I have worked with some doctors in hospitals and some are very personable but you would always go to the smart ones, personable or not, to ask the medical questions. You know that their information is reliable or correct, and that is what is going to help the patients.

[Guest moo]

I think interpersonal skills CAN be worked on. Heck, I'm taking this stupid little exam on Monday called the USMLE Step 2 CS (Clinical Skills) where interactions with (fake) patients, including showing empathy, compassion, being able to communicate test results, answering patients' "challenging questions" etc. are tested. If you fail once, I believe that you can work on these skills until you pass it. It's not that hard to show empathy and compassion when the situation warrants.

[Guest JewelLeigh]

I think that patients ASSUME that doctors are intelligent and know their stuff. So from the patient's perspective, there aren't a range of doctors from the "smart but not as patient-friendly" to the "sorta smart but really nice." There is only "smart and doesn't take time with me or explain things" and "smart and great bedside manner." It's easy to say that as a patient, you'd pick the smarter one, even if he/she wasn't as nice, but I think that most patients just assume all docs are incredibly smart, and thus the spectrum exists only for bedside manner. And in reality, (as mentioned a few times in this thread) with the high gpas required for consideration, this way of thinking is pretty much right on. All med applicants are already tops with respect to intelligence (as far as gpa goes) so something is needed (the interview hopefully) to sort out those who can communicate and show empathy with those who cannot.

 

Also, I don't agree that doing well on an interview is a matter of preparation. As someone who has participated as an interviewer in several situations, to me preparation may help, but the underlying personality seems to always show through. You can't fake empathy or the ability to be a good communicator - you can prepare answers to all possible questions but that is exactly how it comes across - scripted.

[Guest marbledust]

Quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

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

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

 

 

What kind of statement is this??

 

I think people skills, just like any other skill - can be learned and worked on.

 

I agree--with both parts of the reply. Out of curiousity, is anesthesiology one of the areas people with problematic social skills should "stick to"?

[Guest moo]

Anesthesia requires great interpersonal skills. If I were undergoing major surgery, I would want an anesthesiologist who will tell me that I will be safe under his/her care. If my relative was in the ICU, I would want the anesthesiologist to carefully and compassionately explain to me what the prognosis is. If I went to an anesthesiologist because of chronic back pain, I wouldn't want him/her to tell me that it's all in my head but to show compassion for my pain. If I were a surgeon operating I would want the anesthesiologist to be able to communicate to me if something is not right.

 

Same can be said of pathology and radiology. You need great interpersonal skills in these specialties too as you need to be able to communicate with clinicians about the results. And if you're in IR, you WILL need to talk to patients and explain to them what is going on.

[Guest mesoderm]

Also, I don't agree that doing well on an interview is a matter of preparation. As someone who has participated as an interviewer in several situations, to me preparation may help, but the underlying personality seems to always show through. You can't fake empathy or the ability to be a good communicator - you can prepare answers to all possible questions but that is exactly how it comes across - scripted.

 

So if one sucks at interviews one will always suck at interviews?

 

Is that your way of telling people who aren't as "great communicators" not to apply to med-school?

[Guest TimmyMax]

Hey,

 

Well said, moo, I definitely agree with all of your points- you do need strong communication skills in anaesthesia if you are going to quickly gain the confidence of a patient who you have never met in a 5-10 minute pre-operative encounter!

As for the other specialties I mentioned, I mentioned them for the plain and simple reason that they can and often do require minimal patient interaction/contact, depending on how much/little you like interacting with patients in your field.

 

Best of luck!

Timmy

[Guest TimmyMax]

Hey,

 

Is that your way of telling people who aren't as "great communicators" not to apply to med-school?

 

Considering that being an effective communicator is one of the EFPO/CANMEDS roles, which were determined by asking the public (of Ontario, but I'm sure it extrapolates to include all of Canada) what they expected of their physician, I'd say that it's prety important!

 

Best of luck!

Timmy

[Guest TimmyMax]

Hey,

 

I think that we've now established that anyone who meets the posted GPA cutoff has the academic ability to succeed in medical school.

 

To Tim: Would you take the person with perfect academics but average social skills over one with average academics but very good social skills?

 

For the record, I would be much more impressed by the person with a 3.6 GPA (or a 3.7, 3.8, 3.9, or 4.0 GPA) who can effectively articulate to me why they want to be a physician and the skills/experience they have that would make them an effective physician than someone with a 4.0 GPA who can't put together a coherent answer to either of the above (for starters).

 

Best of luck!

Timmy

[Guest JewelLeigh]

So if one sucks at interviews one will always suck at interviews?

 

Mesoderm - this is an incorrect assumption based on what I said.

 

"Interview preparation" to me is practicing specific questions and preparing answers for them, as I think was said in an earlier post. I do not equate this with learning or improving upon communication or empathy-type skills. Nor did I say that I didn't think that communication and other soft skills could be learned (I believe they can be).

 

As TimmyMax pointed out - being a good communicator is a requirement for a physician. Obviously an interview is the way medical schools have chosen to evaluate this and other skills, and I simply pointed out that in my experience, if someone has these skills at the time of their interview, it shows, and if they are not so hot at these skills, but prepared well, it simply seems scripted.

 

While preparation will improve the interview of any applicant, regardless of their base soft skills, in my experience, having prepared answers for all anticipated questions does not result in a stellar interview unless the basic skills are already in place. It's like studying for an exam - the students who study the hardest don't always get the best marks. One could study as hard and as efficiently as possible, but without the background intellectual capacity to understand the material, it is unlikely that someone would get 100%.

[Guest Lactic Folly]

I think of interview preparation not in the sense of prepared answers, but rather taking the time to reflect on one's personal qualities and experiences, and think critically about a number of issues. If someone does this, they will come across as more articulate and a better communicator than someone who has never pondered what their strengths are.

[Guest marbledust]

Well said, moo, I definitely agree with all of your points- you do need strong communication skills in anaesthesia if you are going to quickly gain the confidence of a patient who you have never met in a 5-10 minute pre-operative encounter!

 

Apparently my sarcasim went over both your and moo's heads. :smokin

 

As far as "doing everybody a favor", I think you will find that most radiologists and pathologists actually have better people skills than many other doctors--judging from my own experience.

 

Regardless, I think that social inhibitions or shyness or whatever you want to call it shouldn't be a deterent to any applicant. Most people emerge from their medical training much more mature and confident than when they began. There is a big difference in how a person interacts with the world at 21 or 22 than at 28 or 30.

[Guest canmic]

Something that you have to keep in mind as well...

 

It's not just about what sort of a doctor you will wind up being, it's also about what sort of a med student you will be, what sort of a clerk you will be and what sort of a resident you will be.

 

After all, even if someone might make a really super doctor, what med school is going to want them if they are the most annoying med student imaginable (or clerk or resident)?

 

No matter which specialty you eventually end up in, you have to spend a long time interacting with people to get there, and, more likely than not, once you are there as well (even if you never speak to a single patient).

 

Who wants to hire the doctor who is constantly having nurses file union grievences against them? (Life is not like 'House' on TV, being good, or even great, doesn't get you a free pass)

 

Also, a big part of the interview is examining your ability to think on your feet. I have spoken to many people who do med school (and CaRMS) interviews and they all said that they want to see how the candidate reacts when thrown a 'curve ball'. Some of them told me they deliberately ask one or two irrelevant questions for which they hope the candidate doesn't have a clue of the answer, just to see what they do when they don't know something.

[Guest openarmed]

I want the best surgeon avaliable to operate on me if

I need a surgery.

[Guest treehuggingbiologist]

best surgeon = THE TODD!!

 

/scrubs anyone?