Jump to content
Premed 101 Forums

Why should interviews be worth more than academics?


Guest newfoundlander06

Recommended Posts

Guest peachy
everyone has pre-prepared answers for all interview questions..
I interviewed this year and while, yes, people seem prepared for the interview in general, we easily asked tons of questions for which they were unprepared. You can ask any of a million different questions; you can't prepare for any of a million different questions.

 

Back when I interviewed for medical school, I recall being asked lots of questions I hadn't prepared for. For example, at Queen's I was asked: "Give an example of a time in your extracurricular activities where there was a policy you disagreed with, but you couldn't do anything about it. Then give an example where there was something you could do about it." ... It took me a long time to think of an answer. :-)

 

I really don't think it's true that "everyone has prepared answers for all interview questions" unless you have _really_ boring interviewers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 114
  • Created
  • Last Reply
Guest canmic

"I really don't think it's true that "everyone has prepared answers for all interview questions" unless you have _really_ boring interviewers. "

 

 

From the posts I've read over the past couple of years about interviews, apparently the vast majority of people did.

 

But seriously..

 

As I said earlier, the best interviews are those which allow the interviewers freedom to make up their own questions and be original and spontaneous, thereby removing the ability to have prepared answers. But, when this is done and a large number of interviewers are used, the interview score becomes largely a matter of luck and winding up with the right interviewer. Some schools attempt to correct for this with 'fuzzy math' on the interview scores (UBC mentions doing this on their website for example) but a quick statistical analysis of the situation clearly shows that this only makes the problem worse, not better.

 

I do NOT want to be a dean of admissions 'when I grow up'. I get headaches just thinking of all the reasons why it is impossible to choose which of the qualified students should get in.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest 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.

 

Ok you have your right to your opinion and I respect that. And I feel really bad to have to shoot you down because I have a few things that I would unfortunately need to reiterate from my previous post. I had mentioned the world is unfair. You are not cheating yourself by doing what is easy and efficient why? BECAUSE NO ONE CARES what you did in your undergrad especially once you're in medicine or dents or what not...

 

Why? Because you learn medicine from scratch.. You know for a fact that everyone comes from different backgrounds, so everyone will more or less have to get to the same level at least minimally to practice medicine. Therefore it is IRRELEVANT what you knew before because if it is relevant to medicine you learn it all over anyways, and if it is not, then you will forget it in 4 years time, I guarantee. What I did in my undergrad has no bearing on what I will do in my future, I should have done business or something, at least I would have some useful skills. But hey at least I'm in and will graduate. Tha'ts more than most pre-professionals can say (sorry to be arrogant but sometimes people need to be hit with the hard truth).

 

Secondly, you have your royal college exams (btw, if you have taken any kind of NATIONAL PROFESSIONAL licensing exam you will know that no matter how smart you are, if you study 10% you're f***ed. Canmic I understand the point you are trying to bring up, but as mentioned by another one of your peers, it is flawed and non realistic.). If you can pass the licensing exam, regardless on how you do, you are deemed competent by the country/province. Canada has pretty high standards. NO ONE slips through the cracks and if they do, rarely, they will lose their license eventually.

 

Strategy, only a certain type of person can successfully do this, and that's fine. If you look back at history, not everyone can become a good general. Not everyone can become Emperor. But those who did through their own merits, were men who had outstanding strategy. Caesar, Khan, Alexander, Qin Shih Huang Ti, Numerous British Kings, to a lesser extent Napoleon and in today's world, Gates, Walton, Rockerfeller, Buffett, Trump, ....These men built Empires. You think they cared about fairness or so called character?

 

I am sorry, I don't deal well with ideologies only what works, I study the masters and those who are successful and what it is they do.

 

Now as for interviews....put it this way...the best actors portray a role right? To portray a role you have to become the role. Once you become the role then your character is as if it was your reality. And if it becomes your reality, no matter what is thrown your way you will be able to respond in a manner that this particular character would...For example, I am an evil criminal, a crook, but I want to be a good man, so I act the way a good man would act. I do everything a good man would do, and do it consistently for a long period of time, I will then become a good man...or i can always revert to my criminal self....choice is mine.

 

if you understand my last paragraph...then you will know. You had better send me a million dollars once you make it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest TheChosenOneDDS

Canmic, i can't help but to pick on you. Your idea of the MCAT, though standardized, what if someone doesn't have a good day or had a sudden death in the family or whatever? Does that make 4 years worth of hard work go down the drain? Using your own argument of fairness that would not be fair would it? There is no objective way of judging a person...and if you do somehow find a way, you will get a bunch of people who are the same, no diversity...BORING.

 

The best way is to look at the statistics. You claim that it is a flawed system, now i don't disagree but have you ever had any serious problems with your doctor being incompetent? What about when you switched if you did? how many incompetent doctors vs. competent have you encountered? Now i ask that of everyone else and compare your results...

 

If the system is so flawed you would have a statistically significant amount of incompetent doctors, yet you and I both know that is not true. Therefore, the system although flawed still works. So does it matter who the schools select? NO. Because those that were selected would do well anyways.

 

Here are a few premises often misunderstood yet assumed:

 

1) marks are indicative of how much you studied, how hard you worked or how smart you are...not true and even if it was...guess what? unless the marks refer to clinical marks (which in the preadmission process are not), most of these marks are marks given to those who write tests on paper, and does not demonstrate how well they will act (and when someone is trained they will be better than someone who is not).

 

2) Intelligence = Clinical Experience lol....you can be einstein smart but if you don't have the training or experience you are as useless as the retard next to you.

 

Canmic I am sure you understand that you have to practical in this world? You can't focus on ideals and perfect systems because THEY JUST DO NOT EXIST and even if they did, THEY WILL CHANGE BECAUSE SOCIETY CHANGES ALONG WITH ITS EXPECTATIONS! We as humans are not perfect therefore how can we make perfect systems? So what do we do? Do what works and until the system fails miserably or is obsolete, we use it. Sure it might lead to problems but it is the best we got, that is why we constantly strive to improve ourselves. Our ancestors were tired of walking so they invented horse and buggies, that didn't work so well to adapt with the new world so we made cars, etc.

 

I apologize if i am going off into tangents but I find such topics to come up a lot in such debates so I will address them all....

 

again i am not the be all and end all of knowledge, but i do have an idea of what works and what does not, at least for myself if not anyone else. Although my ideas won't work for everyone, the people whose ideas i used to make mine were also very successful and the people who did similar things to me are also very successful.

 

And it is pretty obvious that med schools aren't objective and pick those that they like...

 

Think about it. When you buy clothes, do you buy the one that is the best material? best price? best color? sure those are factors you take into consideration but when it comes down to it, it is if you like it or not (assuming you can afford it). So how can you blame a med school for selecting students on what they like as opposed to what is "fair"?

 

If that is the system, you have a few options:

1) either beat the system- one way would be USING STRATEGY

 

2) somehow create a new system (good luck)

 

3) fall victim to it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest charmingbutterfly

yer I agree silverjelly!

I havent posted much but I am frequently browsing through this board and read alot of the stuff that this ChosenOne guy (orgirl) writes/comments - would beat me *handsdown* at any debating contest!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Lurkergonepublic

ChosenOne,

 

I'm not sure exactly what overall point you're trying to make here:

 

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).

 

sounds like the ideal purpose of an interview to me..

and,

 

Unfortunately, with enough practice and talent you can (fake in an interview). 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....

 

So are you saying the interview is the best way to judge or not? Or it is for most people, but some are talented enough to sneak through without meeting the required criteria? You've alluded to the theory that persistent practice of a persona results in its eventual incorporation into your personality. To me that's more of a self-improvement technique than it is cheating (provided you are sincerely trying to change, rather than just temporarily make yourself appear different).

 

If I understand your posts, you seem to be suggesting that the best way to get into med school is to 'work the system.' Certainly that may be true (it has been so far for avoiding paying back my student loans :D ), and probably everyone who has gotten accepted has put some carefull thought into just how to phrase their EC's for example to make them sound as good as possible. As for strategy, you say

 

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?

 

I have a few corollaries to suggest to this. This is only true assuming your entire purpose in doing an undergrad degree is to get into medicine (or something else). It ignores those who may take harder classes in something they find interesting, or because they feel rewarded by doing something that challenges them. You learn a lot more valuable life skills by finding away to do what seemed impossible to you, than just coasting through in the easiest path. Stretching yourself early (and being able to demonstrate that fact to the adcom) can be just as good a strategy as trying to glean a few extra points in your GPA. Plus if you don't get in, you've got life skills that can be used just about anywhere else.

 

As for the role models for success you have listed (Napoleon, Khan, Trump, etc), one's desire to emulate such people depends entirely on one's own definition of success. If I want to be a millionaire then maybe I'll emulate Donald Trump as much as I can, but if I value interpersonal relationships, like having a happy, united family then I'm going to steer about as far away as possible from people like him (is it 2 or 3 divorces for Donald?), and find very different role models. History is full of successful people who were probably very lonely, and didn't have a lot of tears shed at their funerals. That's one life philosophy to live by...

I happen to enjoy war games quite a bit and do pretty well by applying some of the "Art of War" as much as possible in the limits of a game. The deception, backbiting and ruthless self-interest works very well in that setting, but I'd never chose to live my life that way, because I value different things.

 

You say that those who "knew what it took to win and took it. . . should be rewarded. That is efficiency and smart in my opinion." Are you suggesting that is the way it should be or merely the way it is? I agree that is often the case, but I don't think that's the best way to pick doctors. I have not run into too many incompetent doctors - that is largely prevented, but I have run into several who are good at working the system for their own benefit. As presently constituted in most Provinces, the most 'efficent' way (from a profits standpoint) to practice medicine is to see as many patients as possible in as short a time as possible. I've seen family doctors who strictly limit patient visits to 5 minutes, 1 complaint per visit, and others who spend 15 to 20 minutes as needed. The former see a lot more patients, and make a lot more money. The latter don't make nearly as much, but I believe they provide better care on average for their patients. One may argue that they could help more people with shorter visits, but their patients are less likely to have a misdiagnosis or missed diagnosis and end up in the hospital, consuming a lot more resources. Maybe one is not a better doctor per se than the other, but which would you rather take your children to?

 

Although the system is far from perfect, I think Medicine has always tried to find people who have the right balance of academic intelligence, social acuity, self-awareness and compassionate understanding. No single test, interview or parameter is going to acurately guage all that. I agree with Canmic in that ideally an admissions committee would be able to evaluate and interview every candidate themselves to get a good comparison of all. From the school's point of view it has nothing to do with fairness - it would just be the best (still imperfect) way to find the best candidates for the school from among the applicant pool, eliminating interviewer inconsistencies. Of course that's ideal and not going to happen - it's far too impractical, which is why this question is going to continue to be debated. It's still worth talking about.

 

Yes you have to live with the status quo and learn how to succeed in it, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't consider the ideal case. It will never be perfect in a world run by human beings, but it can be improved by effort and energy, and saying that is a waste of time is a very fatalistic and defeatist attitude. Yes, it's counter productive to wine that the system's not fair and won't let you in, but that shouldn't stop discussion on how to make it better at chosing those who will be good doctors - sucessful for both themsleves and the society that paid for their training.

 

Just my thoughts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest canmic

Some replies...

 

If you have a bad MCAT it doesn't make 4 years worth of hard work go down the drain, it just means you have to re-write it next time. I do think MCATs should be given more often (similar to LSATs) though. Given the way the MCAT works, schools should only take the best one you did and from what I've seen, they do.

 

As far as the 'no diversity' argument, are you actually saying that everyone who gets high MCAT scores is 'the same' ?? Wow... that's quite the assumption.. Not to mention that a 'high score' can be achieved by many different combinations of the 3 components (or 4) of the MCAT, and therefore even has diversity of MCAT skills within it. I know one other person who got the same score on the MCAT as I did, and we are not the least bit alike, in any way apart from our MCAT scores.

 

As far as serious problems with incompetent doctors.. Yes I have and I know quite a few people who have. Also, I know of quite a few totally incompetent med school graduates who caused all sorts of problems in residency and had to remediate, or who bullied their way into not remediating. Also, look at the LMCC part I and part II failure rates, certain schools have rates 10 times that of the national average. One might argue that either their student selection process or their teaching methods are 'flawed'.

 

Of course the incompetent doctors (or med students) are a minority, but.. how many dead patients does it take before the 'minor flaw in the system' is considered worth correcting? And what about the doctors who are put on suspension or have their licences revoked by the College. There are several in each province every month, read the college quarterlies. You'd be amazed what some of them have done (GPs with no surgical training doing breast augmentations in their offices, for example).

 

Ask any resident if there's a resident that they would never want to have to depend on for their care, all the ones I asked said that there was at least one that they wouldn't trust to water their plants, much less handle their medical care.

 

Define 'statistically significant'? (Check the College exam failure rates first...) Remember that anyone writing a college exam already has the title "Doctor".

 

I have already said that it's much easier to poke holes in the admissions processes than it would be to come up with one that works. I don't pretend to have a clue how to do a fair and optimal selection.

 

Actually, here's some food for thought.

 

All (or almost all anyway) the exams that are given, starting with undergrad and ending with the exams at the end of residency mean absolutely nothing at all. They all depend on memory and the ability to remember and apply knowledge which has been memorized. However, in the real world, apart from a few specific procedures which are 'flow-charted' and perhaps some specific surgical 'techniques', this is NEVER how medicine is practiced. If it was, why would any doctor ever look in a book or on the internet or in his palm pilot or read a 'standards of care' bulliten etc...

 

Does it even make sense to 'work from memory' in the majority of situations? Depends on the specialty perhaps, but in many cases it makes sense to do a little bit of homework for those 'strange cases' because the proper treatment or diagnosis may have changed the day before based on new research or the formal adoption of a new treatment.

 

Being tested on one's ability to handle a situation with no resources which would never be handled in such a way in the real world, is pointless.

 

So, shouldn't almost all exams be 'open book' ?

 

(Notice that I said 'almost all', not all)

 

As far as 'faking an interview' with practice... well.. if the interviewers were using unique and diverse questions which could not be prepared for then I think it would be quite difficult to 'fake' the ability to think quickly and to ad-lib under pressure. I doubt that mental agility can be 'faked'.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest canmic

By the way, just to make sure that we agree on the definition of 'incompetent', let me know if you think that any of the following isn't a sign that someone shouldn't be a doctor:

 

1) Asking a patient for a date while giving them a pelvic exam.

 

2) Commenting on how beautiful a patient is during a pap-smear

 

3) Threatening the supervising attending with physical violence if they report a resident's error.

 

4) Telling a patient that eating too much doesn't make you fat because any extra calories are just excreted anyway and everyone will just end up whatever size they are meant to be

 

5) Telling a woman in labour to 'push as hard as she can' when she's only at 6cm dilation (resulting in a 45 stitch tear)

 

6) Giving a patient a huge MRSA infection by not changing gloves between patients.

 

and these are just the ones that come to mind off the top of my head..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest RoseSmurfette

Although I don't agree with all the things ChosenOne has writte, I will certainly agree with this: life isn't fair, so deal with it!

 

Sure the MCAT or other standardized tests are more objective than say an interview. (Although that's not entirely true - how can you distinguish between people who were wealthy enough to pay for prep courses?) In fact, picking names out of a hat would be the most FAIR. But the process doesn't necessarily choose the best physicians. It is increasingly clear that MCAT scores have less correlation with producing a good physician than a variety of other admissions processes. I think that is one of the main reasons why schools are choosing to use a multi-factor approach (GPA+MCAT+EC's+interviews) and are placing a greater emphasis on areas like interviews, which like it or not are inherently unfair.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest coastalslacker

I'm amazed this thread is still going....even more amazed that I just read it.

 

People are just repeating the same damn arguments over and over.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest fromtheperimeter

if there's a kaplan mcat class that people pay a fortune to attend and study religiously, you would think there would be a kaplan resident class as well....what? there's not? whyever might that be.....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest canmic

Uhh there is... Kaplan has 'classes' for the LMCC part I and part II and also for many of the resident/fellowship written exam parts. I'm not sure if they have classes for the OSCEs

 

They also have classes for just about all of the US board certification exams. I imagine they'd have them for all of the Royal College exams if it was profitable to do so. But.. when you have a specialty which has only 5-6 residents doing the exam per year in the entire country, it just isn't worth Kaplan's time to offer a course.

 

So what was your point exactly?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest TheChosenOneDDS

Canmic are you in medical school or in the medical related profession? I.e. will have a title of Dr.? or are you a premed?

Just seems like you have a lot of beef against the medical admissions systems, no offence, usually that kind of stance comes from people who were rejected, people who seek attention by being different, or people who really truly believe in change...

 

To the other guy, sorry i forgot your name. I guess, I would say interviews are good. I've said it before, and I don't wanna be accused of repeating arguments lol (coastal) not everyone can do what I said in my previous posts. And if they could, they probably won't end up to be your incompetent doctors. My system worked for me, as the many predecessors before me. In "fairness" it is a difference of opinion and it comes down to what the individual decides is best for them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest canmic

I've been rejected before and I've been accepted before, about equal numbers of each.

 

I definately believe that change is needed, but I don't presume to know what the best way to achieve the change would be.

 

I think a big influence on my ideas/attitudes comes from conversations with those who have to deal with the choices made by admissions committees (profs) and medical schools (clinical profs), and the royal college (patients). I have been often surprised, occasionally shocked and rarely (but not never) infuriated by what I have heard.

 

As I believe was implied in several previous posts, the true test of an admissions policy/method is the calibre of the worst students it produces and the true test of a medical school is the quality of its worst graduates. After all, the best of each aren't the issue. The best students will probably always stand out and will for the most part be able to teach themselves regardless.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest TheChosenOneDDS

depends what you define as worse...

 

Because in dental school they have a saying,

 

The top academic students go on to be profs and specialists, leaders of the field.

 

The middle go on to become the clinicians and your typical dentists.

 

The bottom make the most money.

 

And from real life experience I can definitely say this saying holds weight. My father was top of his class and is a a very successful oral surgeon. My uncle was the bottom of his class and is one of the wealthiest men I know, with an income tripling that of my father's.

 

Or do you mean worst clinically? as in they lose their license?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
Guest linghy

I think a big influence on my ideas/attitudes comes from conversations with those who have to deal with the choices made by admissions committees (profs) and medical schools (clinical profs), and the royal college (patients). I have been often surprised, occasionally shocked and rarely (but not never) infuriated by what I have heard.

 

What have you heard?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest linghy

Because in dental school they have a saying,

 

The top academic students go on to be profs and specialists, leaders of the field.

 

The middle go on to become the clinicians and your typical dentists.

 

The bottom make the most money.

 

LOL I love this. I can see why the top academic students become profs/specialists, but I can't seem to tell why "the bottom make the most money". Any thoughts?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Yangzie

nope. the bottom spends their time making networks and connections and such

 

realistically, it's the top book smart ppl who also has the ppl skills that ultimately make the most money.

 

the smarter you are, the more money you will make IF you are willing to just dedicate urself to making money...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest konverse

i completely agree with the DDS quote re: bottom 1/3 make the most money...

i think i just squeaked into a few US med schools (and waiting from uofa) but i can say one thing

i don't know if i have it in me or even the interest to push the "frontiers" of medicine aka the top 1/3. i am all for medicine and i am 100% committed to the profession. but. i am also committed to making a tonne of money over time and i personally don't believe it will come just by working *as* a doctor... whatever that means... but i think it's more about keeping your eyes open and your thinking open to seek out these opportunities as they come.

it's all about the business side of healthcare ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Yangzie

wats ur def of ton of money? just curious

 

as long as ur committed to medicine, wat u do outside of it is ur own business. and frankly, its good ur doing more than jus medicine--stimulates economy :hat

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest TheChosenOneDDS

yangzie there are book smarts and business smarts. They might not be correlated.

 

when it comes to undergrad, the ones with the top marks get the better jobs. But when you're in a health profession, like say Dentistry. How much you make is dependent on how many patients you have..how you get patients is NOT taught in a classroom. Not to mention, it is also NOT correlated that marks are an accurate measure of how smart you are, since those already accepted into a doctoral program are very smart already. The most academically gifted might necessarily be the smartest but the one who can memorize the most answers lol.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest canmic

By 'worst' yes I mean those who lose their licenses or wind up in jail.

 

All the rest, is arguable about who is 'better' or 'worse' (between research, academic and top earners).

 

But who could say that the doctor with his license taken away or who is sent to jail for his behaviour is not one of the 'worst' ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest linghy

I don't get it. Just because there are a few doctors who lost their licence from whatever doesn't mean the admission process is not good and need to be changed.

 

Honestly, I don't even think it means anything. There are always people like that in every profession.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...