Why should interviews be worth more than academics?

[Guest kupo]

kinda late on this thread. pretty interesting.

 

back to the original question and the poster. go ask a physician what they are thinking when they are interviewing someone for 15 minutes. they are analyzing your response, looking for the real reason why the patient is visiting, looking for signs of illness/disease, all while getting to know the patient.

 

to me, the interview is no different. think about what ~45 minutes of interview time can get you in terms of information about the applicant. that being said, i think that's why the interview is worth a large chunk. as for the %, that will be debatable until the end of time.

 

btw, i love scrubs. "betrayal five!"

[Guest muchdutch]

air five!!! *tsch* *tsch*

:lol :lol

[Guest Lurkergonepublic]

To the tune of the lone ranger:

 

"shiny shiny shiny shiny scalpel!

I'm gonna, I'm gonna, I'm gonna, I'm gonna cut you up!"

:rollin

[Guest TimmyMax]

Classic! :rollin

I think of that whenever I scrub into a surgery!

[Guest popcorn girl]

going back to

"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."

 

which schools dont count academics or mcat after final selection??

 

the MMI, is considered a better indicator of performance of clinical clerk/interns than academics, but marks do indicate your ability to learn the information...

[Guest TimmyMax]

Hey,

 

Unless things have changed since I interviewed there, Queen's doesn't consider anything other than interview performance in making their final decision once an applicant reaches the interview stage. The final decision/interview score counts for 100%. I'm not sure of any other schools that have this same approach/policy, though, since I didn't apply outside of Ontario.

Therefore, at Queen's, the interview is definitely worth more than academics, assuming, of course, that you make the GPA/MCAT cutoffs to begin with. If you can't interview worth $hite, it will become painfully apparent post-interview when you have a PFO waiting for you in your mailbox...

 

Best of luck!

Timmy

[Guest jaegwon]

Just to clarify: Queen's is actually 50% interview and 50% non-academic materials (sketch, ref letters, and essay questions)

[Guest leviathan]

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.

Hi Peachy,

 

I would have to disagree on this one. Just looking at the statistics from applicants with 4.0 GPAs, a much lower percentage of them are accepted versus those with 3.6-3.9 GPAs. Now this could be due to numerous things I'm not considering, but I'd suggest the possibility that it is because many of these people lack social skills and spend their undergraduate careers studying in their bedrooms.

 

Notice I said MANY of them, and not all. Obviously there are very bright people who are also very social and active people, but there seems to also be a lot of people with something wrong with them in that 4.0 pool, just by looking at the statistics.

[Guest peachy]

leviathan, to which statistics are you referring? I have not seen that.

[Guest ssc427]

I've always heard that at UBC the stats are better with a 3.7-3.8 ish rather than 3.9-4.0 (but they don't publish the exact numbers)

 

Having done quite a few this year I've noticed that the interviews vary enormously in terms of format and the types of qualities they are trying to extract from applicants. Many of them could admit 'worse' doctors IMO. I thought the best (in terms of selecting a good physician) was at UofT: A non-scripted professional discussion which really digs into everything you wrote down on your application, a few well posed ethics questions which force you to discuss both sides of the coin, and a lengthy discussion about your motivations.

 

For me the middle of the pack were schools like Queens, UofA, UofM, UofO… No strict format but still a set of standard questions from which to choose.

 

I thought the worst were at schools reading entirely from a scripted sheet (UBC, Western). If UBC had the UofT interview I would understand the 50% interview thing. At the ‘scripted’ schools people who know the questions in advance (ie interviewed last year or talked to friends who had the interview) are at an advantage because pre-prepared answers do work here. Ironically, even though I hated the UBC and Western interviews these are my top 2 favorite schools.

 

And though this could open a whole can of worms I think MMI has the potential of admitting the scariest applicants of all because the 8 minute stations test your acting skills and do not allow the interviewers to really dig into your head and see if you’re full of BS (but I only did the ‘test’ MMI at UofM so maybe the real thing is better).

[Guest TimmyMax]

Hey,

 

Just to clarify: Queen's is actually 50% interview and 50% non-academic materials (sketch, ref letters, and essay questions)

 

Thanks for clarifying! The latter part had slipped my mind!

You will notice, of course, that neither GPA nor MCAT scores factor at all into the final evaluation at Queen's.

 

Best of luck!

Timmy

[Guest leviathan]

Hi Peachy,

 

Just looking at UBC stats for 2005:

 

Number of accepted students with 90-100%: 5

Number of rejected students with 90-100%: 7

Acceptance rate for 90-100%: (5/5+7)= 42%

 

Number of accepted students with 85-89.99%: 62

Number of rejected students with 85-89.99%: 58

Acceptance rate for 85-89.99%: 52%

 

Although the sample size for the 90-100% students is small, if you look back over past years, the same trend is observed each year at UBC.

[Guest canmic]

Just for fun I asked a random sampling of 10 specialists (all are clinical profs) who graduated from med school 10 or more years ago the following questions:

 

1) Which med school did you attend?

 

2) What were your MCAT scores?

 

3) What was your undergrad GPA/Average?

 

4) What was your ranking on graduation from med?

 

Guess what?

 

Out of the 10, all of them were within the top 20 graduates of their med school class.

 

Out of the 10, not one of them would have gotten past the GPA/MCAT cut-offs of this year's application process at the school they attended.

 

So.. do grades really mean much of anything at all anymore?

 

Or, has grade inflation together with strategic course selection made them truely meaningless?

 

Maybe more schools will move towards the 'admissions test' style used by U of Sherbrooke (you write a test that they designed that's a combination mcat/ethics type exam and you write a few essays (on site) then your entire admissions score comes from the test/essays).

[Guest RoseSmurfette]

I actually posted the same statistics that leviathan showed in the Temporary BC forums.

 

But I don't think that the statistics necessarily show that 90-100% students don't have good EC's or social skills compared to students between 85-90%.

 

Here are some other possible contributing factors:

 

(1) Third-year applicants are more likely to have higher marks and less likely to get in (due to their third-year status). This is because university tends to get harder as the years pass. It's also much more likely to have things all smooth sailing for two years than three or four. Therefore, it becomes less likely that someone can maintain their high GPA as a fourth-year year (or beyond) applicant.

 

(2) Applicants who were accepted into UBC, but turned down the school (presumably for another school) were not included in the statistics. Students with 4.0 GPA's may have made other schools and declined their offer at UBC more often than those with lower GPA's. I know of several students with such marks who turned down UBC med. One went to an Ivy League school in the States. Another decided to do grad school instead. Toronto is a school that tends to accept students with good marks, so probably many others may have chosen to go there. There aren't that many people in this category, so it only takes a few people who make this choice every year (not really that unlikely) in order to skew the statistics.

[Guest RoseSmurfette]

Canmic,

 

I agree that grade inflation and strategic course selection has made marks relatively meaningless. In high school, everyone gets 98%. In university, the students with good marks are the ones that took the easy programs and electives.

 

RoseSmurfette

[Guest canmic]

Careful..

 

You can't say that anyone with good marks took easy programs and/or electives.. For example, some people get A+ in things like honours organic (which I doubt anyone would classify as an 'easy A+').

 

But..

 

You can't tell which students got high marks because they took easy courses and which students got high marks because they are really good academically.

 

That is what makes grades pretty much useless.

 

High school, on the other hand, has become a total joke to the point where some universities are now looking for over 90% average for admission to some undergrad programs which 20 years ago had a 70% average requirement.

 

That's why tests like the MCAT and SAT etc should mean more than grades.

 

I still say that a big part of the interview is intended to judge your ability to 'think on your feet'; if only they changed the questions more often so that everyone didn't have pre-prepared answers... it might actually work.

 

Some questions from the 'old days' of med school interviews:

 

"Give me an explanation for bird migration patterns based on evolution theory"

 

"Explain the difference between a spice and an herb"

 

"Why are interviews important for med school admissions?"

 

"Tell me that my <husband/wife/child> has just died"

 

"What makes you so special that we should admit you?"

 

"What do you think would be the most likely reason that you wouldn't finish med school and why?"

 

"What did you do to prepare for this interview and why did you do it?"

 

How many people would show up to an interview with a pre-prepared answer to any/all of the above?

[Guest peachy]

I'm with RoseSmurfette. One or two fewer people a year doesn't mean much, and could be skewed pretty easily. I think that the third-year applicant argument is pretty convincing. In addition, those who got interviews with higher GPA's may not have needed as strong extracurriculars to get to the interview stage. So there's some selection bias there too. That isn't a random sample of 90+'s vs 85-90's, wondering if they are equally good in other aspects.

[Guest satsumargirl]

which schools dont count academics or mcat after final selection??

 

Ottawa is one. You have to first meet the GPA cut-off then get invited for an interview based on autobio sketch, references etc. But once at the interview everyone is on equal ground and the acceptances go to those with the highest interview scores. The only time your GPA would come into play is if say there was 1 spot left and 2 people with the same interview score...they would pick the person with the higher GPA as the tie breaker in that case.

[Guest TheChosenOneDDS]

of course interviews should be more important.

 

Let me give you a simple example.

 

A person who knows everything in theory can probably get 100% in any written exam. but cannot apply what they learned...

 

Vs.

 

A person who might not know everything but is competent enough to use what they learned and still learn to a proficient level of knowledge.

 

To get an interview you need good marks, references etc. What does this mean? Anyone who gets an interview is smart enough to be a doc academically. You made the cut off point, and it doesn't matter how much smarter you are than the other guy in the interview.

 

The interview is to test whether or not you have a personality and attitude that is suitable to be a doc. THere are lots of smart people in this world but not everyone can be a doctor. Don't forget you deal with patients, so clinical competence which can be a combination of the methods by which you handle stressful situations, your ability to problem solve, and apply what you have learned, is more important than just being able to recite all the parts of the human body and their function and form. The interview also gauges how well of a "fit" is the student to the particular medical school's teaching style and environment. Which explains why some students with higher marks don't get in over someone with lower marks. They aren't a good fit. Some people are never a good fit with any school and others are good fits in all schools, but that is another discussion altogether, not to mention students that slip through the cracks (this is not what this is about).

 

The interview is important because it gives the interviewers an idea of who you are and what you can and will do, as opposed to what you have done. (Sure interviewers can also make mistakes and many have differing opinions, but again that is another topic.)

 

On a different note: I do not agree with the undermining of students who have higher GPAs because they took easier courses as being less competent or giving an unfair advantage.

 

My reasons:

1) All University courses have a certain standard and level of expectation that requires a level of effort to acheive a certain grade no matter how its difficulty level relative to that of other courses. Individuals are vary in ability and some may find certain courses easier than others. NB: I am aware of "bird courses." I was an undergrad once.

 

2) Those who decided to choose an easier elective had better strategy. They were smart about it, knew what it took to win and took it. They should be rewarded. That is efficiency and smart in my opinion. To put it in more plain terms: It's your own damned fault you chose the course you wanted to take. You are responsible for your electives. An important lesson to learn may be, is to have long term vision and the ability to anticipate problems or in plain words: PLAN AHEAD. Strategy and a plan is a very important part of success, for instance, do you see NFL football players play without a gamebook despire their talents?

 

3) This stresses the importance of an interview and supports my arguments above.

 

To close I just like to give some more advice:

 

The World is not Fair. You gotta know your limitations and strengths. You can strengthen your weaknesses, but know that you still have to focus on your strengths to get you through. The best and most successful aren't those who had the best talents per se. It is those who found a way to win despite their shortcomings and weaknesses. Those with the best talents are only as good as how much of it they can apply and can only succeed if they are able to use it.

 

Disclaimer: I am not the be all and end all of knowledge, I am just one who has experienced this whole process many times, i.e. University, dental school, and specialty...so I am just shedding some light and another opinion.

[Guest TheChosenOneDDS]

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.

 

Unfortunately, with enough practice and talent you can. Believe me, i'm sure many students can, we just never admit it because if we did, we would lose our advantage, people will start learning or looking for such methods and the purpose of an interview would be screwed because no one will be themselves anymore.... I've done it many times, i come forward now coz i'm graduating, why should I care lol.. I have been accepted to med schools, dental schools, specialties, etc. I don't like to brag but put it this way, I never been rejected by a school that I was interviewed at. It can be done, you just have to know how or may be I am just a very good communicator or practiced my way....

 

I am not going to teach people how, but my word of warning is this: Even if you are able to cheat interviews, know what you are getting yourself into. Do not cheat yourself, please make sure you know what you are doing and that you will enjoy it. Do not get in for the sake of getting in, coz I can tell you, dental school and probably med school is HELL and you will get OWNED, but if you have some passion for it, the raping won't be as bad lol...

[Guest canmic]

I think one of the interesting points that is coming out of this discussion is this question:

 

What sort of interviews are the most useful in determining med school admission/rejection of candidates?

 

Of course it's easy to say that badly done interviews shouldn't count for as much or more than academics because nothing is really learned by them.

 

Many med school interviews have become the equivalent of a take home quiz. Everyone knows exactly which questions will be asked and the interviewers are scoring the candidates based on their answers to these questions. In these cases, who's to say that the answers given are even the candidate's own efforts? There are a great many professional 'interview tutors' etc.. for med school interviews who will coach and rehearse scripted answers and their delivery for an hourly fee.

 

Unfortunately it seems that the number of schools conducting such interviews is increasing rather than decreasing. Interviews with challenging and original questions made up on the spot by interviewers to get an insight into the candidate's thought processes and reasoning ability seem to be a thing of the past and considered 'archaic'.

 

But, how could a properly conducted interview, in the proper form, be anything but vital in determining a person's suitability to a particular school and to the practice of medicine itself?

[Guest juicyprunes]

TheChosenOneDDS,

 

I'm sorry, but I have to disagree with your comments on "strategy".

 

You are right that people who have specific goals should have a sensible plan for achieving those goals. However, I definitely do not believe in strategically choosing courses to either boost one's GPA or to give a specific impression. Not everyone in undergrad knows exactly what they want to do and even for those that do, I think it is much better for one's character and overall experience to select courses (or ECCs or whatever) that are interesting and challenging. I would argue that those who choose "efficiency" and what is easy are cheating themselves and being unfair to those have had to work hard for their marks/degree.

 

Having said that, I do agree with you that people should know and deal with their limitations.

 

[Guest canmic]

As far as the whole 'strategy' thing goes...

 

Would you rather have a doc who scored 95% on his royal college exams because he studied ONLY the 10% of the material that would be on the exam and didn't 'waste time' learning anything that wasn't going to specifically be tested (the other 90%)

 

or

 

Would you rather have a doc who scored 90% because he knew 90% of all the material, including what was on the exam?

 

If you choose the first guy, you better hope that what is wrong with you was part of that 10% that was on the exam and not part of the rest. And, keep in mind that all the docs of that type studied for the SAME exam so you can't say you'll just find the guy who learned the 10% that includes what is wrong with you.

 

And, yes, both types of docs DO exist.

[Guest riDer]

the scenario described above is not practical. first of all there is no way of knowing what will beon the royal colledge exams and there are no doctors out there who know 10% of the info because they had to pass their respective exams at school to get tothat. not tomention that its practically impossible to get 90% on that test with 10% of the info not even if you are a genuis. i find all this comparissons rather idealistic and not real.

 

now to the original question. interviews shold not be worth more than academics. there both just as important and every school takes both into considerationat some point in the process. and due to the many number of applicants there enough of students who excell in both to fill the spots.

[Guest canmic]

And there's no way to know what questions are going to be asked in an interview...

 

And there's no way to know what's going to be on provincial high-school exams...

 

But.. somehow... teachers manage to teach to the provincial exams and everyone has pre-prepared answers for all interview questions..

 

Keep in mind that the Royal College exams are prepared by the clinical professors teaching the residents, so saying that they can't also 'teach to the exams' is a bit of a stretch. Of course, they shouldn't do so and on can hope that they wouldn't but they certainly could if they wanted to.

 

And if you think you're going to learn more than about 10% of what you learn in a 5 or more year specialist residency while still in med school (and have to know that much to pass the med school exams) well... talk to a senior resident about it. You learn different things in med school and residency, just as you learn different things in undergrad and med school. One prepares you to learn what you will learn in the next.

 

As far as scoring highly but only knowing a fraction of the info, do you seriously think that they test more than about a 5 or 10% sampling of the actual material? I think there's a lot more material than you think.. Have you never written a test where most of the marks were on the 'one thing' that you didn't totally memorize or whatever?

 

Anyway, my POINT was that the previous statements that those who used a better mark-getting strategy (like taking easier courses or courses with higher class averages or whatever) would somehow be better doctors or should be rewarded for their use of 'strategy' was a pretty bizarre (and untrue) idea.

 

Unfortunately, this idea is pretty prevalent in our society. After all, we choose our highest leaders in government based not on their ability to govern, but instead on their ability to garner votes, which is actually a completely different skill.

 

As far as the whole interviews vs academics thing, the basic facts of the matter are that even if marks were somehow a universal measure of academic ability which could be freely compared from one student to another (which they totally aren't), academics don't tell the whole story.

 

The same thing can be said for interview performance. Again, perhaps back in the old days when interviews were free-format grilling by an experienced interviewer who was also a medical school graduate and professor and who interviewed ALL candidates and therefore was able to compare each one to all of the others on the same subjective scale, perhaps then the interviews were a fair and unbiased way to judge candidates against each other.

 

But, for many practical reasons, interviews are no longer conducted the way they used to be and have fallen victim of many of the same problems plaguing academic grades.

 

About the only 'fair' and even-handed evaluations still done of med school candidates where all candidates are judged on the same scale and compared to each other objectively, are the MCAT exams.

 

Interestingly, most (with a few exceptions, like Manitoba) Canadian med schools either no longer require the MCATs at all or figure them in as a very small part of the application score.

 

What does this tell us? Well, for one thing it tells us that the med schools aren't interested in objectively comparing candidates on a quantitative basis. They have more of a 'type' or 'types' of students that they are looking for and those who fit this type or types will get in and those who don't, won't. Perhaps with some schools they are looking for those who are particularly 'lucky', after all, luck often figures into patient outcomes to some degree or another in many situations.

 

(those of you who think the above paragraph is debate-fodder are really taking things WAY too seriously and need to chill out and stop stressing so much).

 

By the way, it's always easy to point out the flaws in a selection method, but after having talked to many of the people who have come up with the methods currently in use, rest assured that they are usually aware of the flaws. Fixing the flaws, without creating worse problems, however, seems to be the difficult part, especially with the huge growth in the number of applicants in the past few years.