Are 2023 interviews virtual?

At this point it seems like the 2023-2024 cycle will most likely be virtual given how bad the winter spike in COVID cases was earlier this year and it may be that way again for the upcoming winter.

For the long term however, are programs in favor of virtual interviews?

Based on what I've heard, we should expect virtual interviews for the foreseeable future, even if COVID cases drop back down. It's just too convenient, and much cheaper, for everyone involved.

I believe It will disproportionately affect your lower tiered candidates. Sure, you will save money and the AMA is in favor of doing so in the interest of equity, because, as they note, it will eliminate a "substantial portion of the cost of application" and while that is true, it will be a disadvantage to certain people who would have otherwise shined and connected during the in-person interview than they would virtually.

An in-person interview has so many advantages, again, IMHO. Also, in your specialities, people will hold onto way more interviews then they would have if they were traveling, so less will be offered in round 2.

​

I believe It will disproportionately affect your lower tiered candidates. Sure, you will save money and the AMA is in favor of doing so in the interest of equity, because, as they note, it will eliminate a "substantial portion of the cost of application" and while that is true, it will be a disadvantage to certain people who would have otherwise shined and connected during the in-person interview than they would virtually.

An in-person interview has so many advantages, again, IMHO. Also, in your specialities, people will hold onto way more interviews then they would have if they were traveling, so less will be offered in round 2.

​

Yeah I remember a letter from AAMC stating that that top applicants were disproportionately holding onto more interviews but it would risk programs going unmatched. But now we’ve had 2 full cycles with virtual interviews only and I can only hope that programs have adapted and are adjusting their interviewing process accordingly.

Regarding your first point about how some applicants “shine during in-person interviews”, I’m not sure how to feel about that. Residency selection is dependent on 4 years of hard work, clerkship evaluations, research, board scores, etc. Anyone can fake a good personality for a 20 minute interview. And there are plenty of other opportunities (LORs, auditions, clerkship evals, personal statement, etc) for applicants to prove that they have strong communication skills and ability to work on a team. If someone’s residency chances are dependent on interviews being in person as opposed to virtual, then I would argue that there is a problem.

In person != virtual.

I have met numerous people who are very charismatic in real life but not over zoom. These tend to be tall and or big framed people. They will be hurt the most for sure, by losing an additional way to stand out

I would imagine that depending on how long/how much they give you access to in the interview it will hurt applicants as well. If I’m going to spend the next 4 years somewhere, I want to see the culture, what the residents say about the place, how the staff interact with each other, etc.

To me being at a place where the doctors and hospital take care of their residents matters more than the prestige of the place, and that’ll be extremely hard to gauge without the in person element I imagine.

I would imagine that depending on how long/how much they give you access to in the interview it will hurt applicants as well. If I’m going to spend the next 4 years somewhere, I want to see the culture, what the residents say about the place, how the staff interact with each other, etc.

To me being at a place where the doctors and hospital take care of their residents matters more than the prestige of the place, and that’ll be extremely hard to gauge without the in person element I imagine.

I mean…. some of the residents on doximity are brutally honest on there lol

I see pros and cons on both sides. I think letting individual programs decide makes a lot more sense overall.

I think there’s a big difference between a big IM program interviewing 200 people for a bunch of slots, compared to a small ENT program interviewing 30-40 people for <5 slots. A large program may find minimal difference between virtual and in person while a smaller program that takes one resident per year may really want to spend some quality time with prospective residents to see if they’re a good fit.

I’ll be interested to see the data that emerge from all of this. I know in ent we’ve seen unprecedented attrition of PGY1 residents this past year, even from some great highly regarded programs. Maybe just a fluke, and certainly more than just interview formats at play, but I wonder if my spidey sense that has been uncannily good at picking out problem applicants would be as effective over zoom. Often the things that gave away the problem people were how they interacted socially outside the formal process.

So thats why virtual may work great for certain fields and programs while others may benefit more from having live interaction before committing to a 4-7 year relationship with someone.

I see pros and cons on both sides. I think letting individual programs decide makes a lot more sense overall.

I think there’s a big difference between a big IM program interviewing 200 people for a bunch of slots, compared to a small ENT program interviewing 30-40 people for <5 slots. A large program may find minimal difference between virtual and in person while a smaller program that takes one resident per year may really want to spend some quality time with prospective residents to see if they’re a good fit.

I’ll be interested to see the data that emerge from all of this. I know in ent we’ve seen unprecedented attrition of PGY1 residents this past year, even from some great highly regarded programs. Maybe just a fluke, and certainly more than just interview formats at play, but I wonder if my spidey sense that has been uncannily good at picking out problem applicants would be as effective over zoom. Often the things that gave away the problem people were how they interacted socially outside the formal process.

So thats why virtual may work great for certain fields and programs while others may benefit more from having live interaction before committing to a 4-7 year relationship with someone.

How much would you say that charisma comes into play? Are you taking somebody who may be awkward with a 265 10 publications or the class President type with a 250 5 publications?

Interactions with applicants, including things like fit and personality, plays a big role. A 10 point difference in Step score is less meaningful than the personality and fit of someone you'll be spending 10,000+ hours working with over the next few years.

Anyone can fake a good personality for a 20 minute interview.

This is categorically untrue, and while you might assume medical students are self-aware enough to prepare for interviews, every year (in-person or zoom) we see the occasional person or two who are unable to conceal their arrogance, weirdness, or disinterest for even a few minutes of conversation.

Most indications suggest virtual interviews are here to stay. The challenge of getting all your clinical faculty together physically in one location for training, interviews, or deliberations when meeting applicants was greatly mitigated with virtual interviews (something that the rest of the business sector has long known). I would expect that some effort will be made to get interviewed applicants who get offers to visit the training location because I do think that is very important, but I don't know if there is a way to do this before Match in the same way second-look weekends are scheduled before critical decision dates for enrolling medical students.

Most indications suggest virtual interviews are here to stay. The challenge of getting all your clinical faculty together physically in one location for training, interviews, or deliberations when meeting applicants was greatly mitigated with virtual interviews (something that the rest of the business sector has long known). I would expect that some effort will be made to get interviewed applicants who get offers to visit the training location because I do think that is very important, but I don't know if there is a way to do this before Match in the same way second-look weekends are scheduled before critical decision dates for enrolling medical students.

But then you’d get med students feeling compelled to shell out hundreds of dollars to visit several programs for fear of being ranked lower if they don’t take up the offer.

How much would you say that charisma comes into play? Are you taking somebody who may be awkward with a 265 10 publications or the class President type with a 250 5 publications?

That’s tough to say. Both sound like strong applicants. I’d personally lean more toward the latter but I know a number of academics who prize publications over all else. The step scores are identical in my mind given how close they are.

I think charisma definitely helps. But it’s something more than that - someone that also fits in well with the existing group and general culture. Someone who seems like they’d be fun to train.

I personally find zoom to be a challenging medium for teasing out those things. Primarily this is because of the slight lag that ruins the cadence of normal flowing conversation. It’s less of a conversation and more a question and response, and thus makes it harder to gauge who would be able to interact well in a live environment.

My favorite interviews I ever did were for fellowship. They were usually 2 days or more and you’d basically just hang with your future mentors all day in clinic and the OR and then go out to dinner, get to know each other. As an applicant I picked my fellowship as much on those intangible interactions as I did on the objectively great things about the program.

But then you’d get med students feeling compelled to shell out hundreds of dollars to visit several programs for fear of being ranked lower if they don’t take up the offer.

Oh most definitely. I don’t think that’s a bad thing though. And they’d probably be right!

How much would you say that charisma comes into play? Are you taking somebody who may be awkward with a 265 10 publications or the class President type with a 250 5 publications?

This is a bizarre comparison because a 250 and 5 papers are not really worse than a 265 and 10 papers

Both sound like strong applicants. I’d personally lean more toward the latter but I know a number of academics who prize publications over all else.

I’m guessing the academics will pay attention to publication quality right?

I’m guessing the academics will pay attention to publication quality right?

Oh most definitely. They love to get deep in the weeds on that stuff. I don’t really gaf. Just so long as they’ve gotten a few projects from A to Z, I think they have the potential to be productive in training.

But then you’d get med students feeling compelled to shell out hundreds of dollars to visit several programs for fear of being ranked lower if they don’t take up the offer.

Rank lists are formulated well before second looks are offered and attendance has no bearing on ranking. Besides, it's kind of wild to think a med student wouldn't be willing to spend a couple hundred dollars each to visit their top few choices to help make their own decision.

Rank lists are formulated well before second looks are offered and attendance has no bearing on ranking. Besides, it's kind of wild to think a med student wouldn't be willing to spend a couple hundred dollars each to visit their top few choices to help make their own decision.

I think there are definitely programs that would adjust rank lists based on second look attendance. That adjustment could be in either direction though!

I see little reason to boost ranks simply for attending, but people who really seemed to fit in may be worth a boost. And catching the crazy ones earlier would save everyone a lot of hassle too!

Yeah I remember a letter from AAMC stating that that top applicants were disproportionately holding onto more interviews but it would risk programs going unmatched. But now we’ve had 2 full cycles with virtual interviews only and I can only hope that programs have adapted and are adjusting their interviewing process accordingly.

Regarding your first point about how some applicants “shine during in-person interviews”, I’m not sure how to feel about that. Residency selection is dependent on 4 years of hard work, clerkship evaluations, research, board scores, etc. Anyone can fake a good personality for a 20 minute interview. And there are plenty of other opportunities (LORs, auditions, clerkship evals, personal statement, etc) for applicants to prove that they have strong communication skills and ability to work on a team. If someone’s residency chances are dependent on interviews being in person as opposed to virtual, then I would argue that there is a problem.

Yea, I just think when you are in-person with people, you establish more of a deeper connection then behind a computer screen. Although somewhat different, look at job interviews. Most job applicants that are offered an interview all come qualified, but it is the sit-down interview that gets them hired.

In person != virtual.

I have met numerous people who are very charismatic in real life but not over zoom. These tend to be tall and or big framed people. They will be hurt the most for sure, by losing an additional way to stand out

Exactly...

Something we did in my past life was multiple rounds of interviews, with the first few being virtual/telephone and then narrowing down a list for in person, sometimes multi-day interviews especially for senior positions. Of course, the company also paid for travel, lodging, per diem, etc.

Anyone think this might be a possible result? Are there AAMC/NRMP/ACGME rules against multi-round interviews?

How is everyone here so confident about picking out problem applicants when they have no way of fact-checking whether they were correct? “Great job, good thing we DNRed all those weirdos,” meanwhile for all they know these applicants end up being chiefs at their respective programs.

Edit: example, had a medical student rotate at my program who all the residents thought was rude and incompetent. Ended up matching at Mayo. Either the residents were wrong or Mayo is in for some trouble

How is everyone here so confident about picking out problem applicants when they have no way of fact-checking whether they were correct? “Great job, good thing we DNRed all those weirdos,” meanwhile for all they know these applicants end up being chiefs at their respective programs.

Edit: example, had a medical student rotate at my program who all the residents thought was rude and incompetent. Ended up matching at Mayo. Either the residents were wrong or Mayo is in for some trouble

For the ones I can think of, I know of two over the last few years that were fired by their programs that ultimately got stuck with them. A few others were very troubled residents at their programs but hadn’t been bad enough to fire yet.

I think where our DNI have sometimes missed the mark were with away rotators. In these cases, it was sometimes fairly small things that got them dinged. Everyone has bad days or doesn’t quite vibe with everyone, but on an away it can be magnified and penalized out of proportion. I definitely know a couple DNIs who I’ve seen become strong residents elsewhere. Of course there were others who didn’t match at all. And there were rotators who were universally beloved who became superstar residents at our program. I think our quest for the stars may have led to dropping some people who didn’t deserve it.

How is everyone here so confident about picking out problem applicants when they have no way of fact-checking whether they were correct? “Great job, good thing we DNRed all those weirdos,” meanwhile for all they know these applicants end up being chiefs at their respective programs.

Edit: example, had a medical student rotate at my program who all the residents thought was rude and incompetent. Ended up matching at Mayo. Either the residents were wrong or Mayo is in for some trouble

Yep, and Tom Brady was a sixth round pick in the NFL draft. No system is perfect, but it doesn't matter because programs are picking based on fit. E.g. applicant X has an amazing CV with high scores and tons of research, but during pre-interview dinner he gets drunk and loudly brags about himself, interrupts other applicants when they're speaking, hits on a clearly-uninterested female resident, and is overall intolerable; the arrogance continues to the actual interviews. This person is strong on paper, but we're not going to take him because no one here wants to work with someone like that. Some other program may overlook it, and he might be successful there, but that doesn't matter to us. You can't predict who is going to play well with others vs. who can hide it for a day or two - and some people definitely can - but we're trying to avoid the disasters.

It's like a first date, in a way. The person across from you might be hot, but might also have a bad personality. If they're hot enough, you might be willing to keep dating them because of that and hope things change. Or, you might cut it off despite their good looks because their personality sucks.

I think where our DNI have sometimes missed the mark were with away rotators. In these cases, it was sometimes fairly small things that got them dinged. Everyone has bad days or doesn’t quite vibe with everyone, but on an away it can be magnified and penalized out of proportion.

Also agree with this in that aways can be a two-edged sword. For example, we recently had an away rotator who was late literally every day. This wouldn't have shown up on any interview or metric on their application, but this (along with other performance issues) did not help their cause.

E.g. applicant X has an amazing CV with high scores and tons of research, but during pre-interview dinner he gets drunk and loudly brags about himself, interrupts other applicants when they're speaking, hits on a clearly-uninterested female resident, and is overall intolerable; the arrogance continues to the actual interviews.

Serious question: do residency programs provide alcohol just to bring out the true colors of the applicants? And do residents hedge bets on which dumba$$ applicant is gonna get drunk and make a fool of himself?

applicant X has an amazing CV with high scores and tons of research, but during pre-interview dinner he gets drunk and loudly brags about himself, interrupts other applicants when they're speaking, hits on a clearly-uninterested female resident, and is overall intolerable

Does this actually happen? Because I find it hard to believe MS4s on the interview trail are socially inept

Serious question: do residency programs provide alcohol just to bring out the true colors of the applicants? And do residents hedge bets on which dumba$$ applicant is gonna get drunk and make a fool of himself?

That’s another reason why I don’t drink. Nice try PDs

Serious question: do residency programs provide alcohol just to bring out the true colors of the applicants? And do residents hedge bets on which dumba$$ applicant is gonna get drunk and make a fool of himself?

Absolutely not. The purpose of in-person pre-interview meet and greets is for the applicants to get to meet the residents and get the vibe of the program - it's not a "trap" or "test" in any way. It's supposed to be a fun social gathering. No one's going to care if you drink one drink too many and share something embarrassing or whatever - this is a gathering of friends, and almost universally, the residents generally outdrink the applicants anyway. Besides, of the few people I've seen put their feet in their mouth during one of these, almost all were completely sober.

Does this actually happen? Because I find it hard to believe MS4s on the interview trail are socially inept

Absolutely. Think about it - in what situation could a socially-inept, sheltered young adult better thrive than medical school? A college student with zero social skills but a 4.0 GPA and a 95th percentile MCAT is still getting into medical school and probably at least surviving clinicals. It's certainly rare, but I see it every year. In addition to the example you quoted (which I personally witnessed), here are a few more:
-During pre-interview zoom introductions, one applicant made a racially-insensitive joke about another applicant, which every single applicant and resident heard.
-During zoom interviews, one applicant had a TV program on, unmuted, on another monitor that was partially visible from the zoom camera, and was clearly half-watching it while being interviewed.
-In-person pre-interview: one applicant asked many questions about the program and city, and then negatively compared the program/city to other places at which they'd been offered interviews. They then asked other applicants where they got interviews and said things like "oh, I'd never even apply there. Really? I feel like (program X) is kind of beneath me". About half the residents/applicants heard this.
-During interviews, one applicant discussed their ideas for race-based care which were based in the presumption that members of certain ethnic groups are significantly less intelligent than those of others.
--During interviews, another applicant discussed their idea for dealing with healthcare-related violence, which was having hospitals provide firearms and training to physicians, presumptively so that they could shoot violent patients.

These weren't all at my institution, but almost all of them were at T20 program interviews.

Absolutely not. The purpose of in-person pre-interview meet and greets is for the applicants to get to meet the residents and get the vibe of the program - it's not a "trap" or "test" in any way. It's supposed to be a fun social gathering. No one's going to care if you drink one drink too many and share something embarrassing or whatever - this is a gathering of friends, and almost universally, the residents generally outdrink the applicants anyway. Besides, of the few people I've seen put their feet in their mouth during one of these, almost all were completely sober.

How weird is it to not drink during these events? Should one order a drink anyway and pretend to drink it. I can imagine the people ranking would automatically assume that sober people are boring and what not.

Does this actually happen? Because I find it hard to believe MS4s on the interview trail are socially inept

You have to remember that residency interviews are job interviews, and for tons of medical students, they've never, ever had a job before.

How weird is it to not drink during these events? Should one order a drink anyway and pretend to drink it. I can imagine the people ranking would automatically assume that sober people are boring and what not.

It's not weird at all. Many medical students don't drink for various reasons (religion, health, family history, just don't wanna) and everyone knows this. Nobody in these social events have the time or interest to sit around and deeply analyze your choice of beverage.

How is everyone here so confident about picking out problem applicants when they have no way of fact-checking whether they were correct? “Great job, good thing we DNRed all those weirdos,” meanwhile for all they know these applicants end up being chiefs at their respective programs.

Edit: example, had a medical student rotate at my program who all the residents thought was rude and incompetent. Ended up matching at Mayo. Either the residents were wrong or Mayo is in for some trouble

I bet Mayo is in for some trouble!

Serious question: do residency programs provide alcohol just to bring out the true colors of the applicants? And do residents hedge bets on which dumba$$ applicant is gonna get drunk and make a fool of himself?

Oh most definitely. It’s not intentional, but sometimes you do spot someone who clearly has a problem. And you sometimes discover someone’s inner douche. Most of the true weirdos let their weirdo flags fly even before they started drinking.

Mostly it’s just a chance for normal casual social interaction. I drank on my interview trail and felt these events helped me get to know the program and the residents much better than the formal interviews.

How weird is it to not drink during these events? Should one order a drink anyway and pretend to drink it. I can imagine the people ranking would automatically assume that sober people are boring and what not.

Not weird at all, and not even uncommon. No one's going to judge you, and anyway it's not like pre-interview events play a major role in ranking - typically residents are just asked if they had any strong impressions (good/bad) of anyone at the end of interview season.

You should approach pre-interview events as a chance to get to know the residents, not as an event where you're going to get judged. You want the right culture/community for you. If you feel pressured to behave in a way you wouldn't normally for a simple event like this, do you really want to go to that program for 4-5 years?

tl;dr just be yourself.

How is everyone here so confident about picking out problem applicants when they have no way of fact-checking whether they were correct? “Great job, good thing we DNRed all those weirdos,” meanwhile for all they know these applicants end up being chiefs at their respective programs.

It's also worth stating that some people would not do well in certain programs. Someone who has difficulty with multi-tasking and time management would not do well in a high acuity, busy hospital, but may do fine in a community hospital where volumes are reasonable. They may even thrive there and end up as a chief resident.

This certainly isn't true of everyone who is DNRed, but may be for some.

Serious question: do residency programs provide alcohol just to bring out the true colors of the applicants? And do residents hedge bets on which dumba$$ applicant is gonna get drunk and make a fool of himself?

No, but if someone stands out above the rest of the applicants (for good or bad), the program leadership is very likely going to hear about it. We asked all our residents who attended pre-interview dinner and lunch about their impressions of the applicants. Most of the time it was 'oh, they're all fine', but every once and a while someone clicked really well, or made an awful impression.

In person != virtual.

I have met numerous people who are very charismatic in real life but not over zoom. These tend to be tall and or big framed people. They will be hurt the most for sure, by losing an additional way to stand out

Yes…YES…*evil laugh* the SHORTIES SHALL RISE!

It's also worth stating that some people would not do well in certain programs. Someone who has difficulty with multi-tasking and time management would not do well in a high acuity, busy hospital, but may do fine in a community hospital where volumes are reasonable. They may even thrive there and end up as a chief resident.

This certainly isn't true of everyone who is DNRed, but may be for some.

No, but if someone stands out above the rest of the applicants (for good or bad), the program leadership is very likely going to hear about it. We asked all our residents who attended pre-interview dinner and lunch about their impressions of the applicants. Most of the time it was 'oh, they're all fine', but every once and a while someone clicked really well, or made an awful impression.

Your point about not every program being right for every applicant is spot on and woefully under-discussed.

My program was ridiculously busy, especially for the junior residents. We had one resident get into trouble because they simply couldn’t keep up with the demands - managing endless consults while simultaneously being present for busy clinics and ORs. This resident got themselves under the increased scrutiny and got close to being fired. Thankfully they never lied or cut corners so they weren’t canned, but they struggled and had to extend their training though did ultimately do well and are thriving in practice now. Another resident had similar struggles and chose the lying and corner cutting and didn’t make it past pgy2.

I often wonder if both would have fared much better in a more laid back slower paced program that didn’t have such an insane junior experience. I don’t know how a program can figure that kind of thing out ahead of time, but I wish we could. Hopefully applicants do a little self selection on that front.

Your point about not every program being right for every applicant is spot on and woefully under-discussed.

I often wonder if both would have fared much better in a more laid back slower paced program that didn’t have such an insane junior experience. I don’t know how a program can figure that kind of thing out ahead of time, but I wish we could. Hopefully applicants do a little self selection on that front.

How does one identify the type of program best suited for them? How do you find out which are the fast-paced, high intensity residencies and which are the more laid back, slower-paced programs?

How does one identify the type of program best suited for them? How do you find out which are the fast-paced, high intensity residencies and which are the more laid back, slower-paced programs?

Yeah that’s a tough one. Hopefully the residents are pretty up front about things. If I were interviewing now, I’d make sure I really understood the call schedule in terms of frequency, type, and experience. I’d ask the typical number of consults per call, whether you also cover floor pages, daytime consult requirements, simultaneous clinic/OR duties, etc. I’d pay attention to how many residents were present for interview and social events - you can expect the call resident(s) to be absent, but if more are then that may mean they’re just exhausted and getting crushed.

I would probably ask the program coordinator for official department-wide numbers for how many outpatient visits, surgical procedures, and inpatient consults the entire department sees per year. They definitely have these data available since that’s how the department generates revenue. You can divide the number of consults by number of junior residents and then number of calls and get a sense of how many you might end up seeing. Nice way to compare programs. Beware of VA and Public hospitals in that math because the department may not track those visits as closely so make sure to get clarity. Some programs are up front with this info but I think all would be willing to share them.

Yeah that’s a tough one. Hopefully the residents are pretty up front about things. If I were interviewing now, I’d make sure I really understood the call schedule in terms of frequency, type, and experience. I’d ask the typical number of consults per call, whether you also cover floor pages, daytime consult requirements, simultaneous clinic/OR duties, etc. I’d pay attention to how many residents were present for interview and social events - you can expect the call resident(s) to be absent, but if more are then that may mean they’re just exhausted and getting crushed.

I would probably ask the program coordinator for official department-wide numbers for how many outpatient visits, surgical procedures, and inpatient consults the entire department sees per year. They definitely have these data available since that’s how the department generates revenue. You can divide the number of consults by number of junior residents and then number of calls and get a sense of how many you might end up seeing. Nice way to compare programs. Beware of VA and Public hospitals in that math because the department may not track those visits as closely so make sure to get clarity. Some programs are up front with this info but I think all would be willing to share them.

Due to lack of in person interviews, are programs putting more consideration on students who rotate at their facility and do a good job?

How does one identify the type of program best suited for them? How do you find out which are the fast-paced, high intensity residencies and which are the more laid back, slower-paced programs?

Depends on the specialty, but this is why you talk to the current residents. We were very up front that we were more of a service-based residency, where you were on service a lot and carried a relatively large load of patients. The applicants asked a lot about patient caps and we didn't have them. For someone like me, who learns and retains information by seeing patients more than reading theory from a book, that was exactly what I needed. My med school's program was definitely lower volume and more of a book learning program. Asking about autonomy is also a good way to get at this--you're probably doing more if your attendings are comfortable letting you make decisions earlier in training.

Depends on the specialty, but this is why you talk to the current residents. We were very up front that we were more of a service-based residency, where you were on service a lot and carried a relatively large load of patients. The applicants asked a lot about patient caps and we didn't have them. For someone like me, who learns and retains information by seeing patients more than reading theory from a book, that was exactly what I needed. My med school's program was definitely lower volume and more of a book learning program. Asking about autonomy is also a good way to get at this--you're probably doing more if your attendings are comfortable letting you make decisions earlier in training.

Would you look unfavorably upon an applicant who asked about lifestyle, finance, or work-life balance questions such as policies on time-off, moonlighting, daycare, etc? I know that a lot of these are available on the program website but often times the reality is different than official policy (e.g. the website says that moonlighting is ok but in reality the PD will almost never allow it).

Due to lack of in person interviews, are programs putting more consideration on students who rotate at their facility and do a good job?

Oh definitely, but this has been the case even with in person interviews. Strong home students and rotators definitely have an advantage. Thankfully for outside applicants, most students are not that strong and often the strongest home students want to go elsewhere for residency.

Would you look unfavorably upon an applicant who asked about lifestyle, finance, or work-life balance questions such as policies on time-off, moonlighting, daycare, etc? I know that a lot of these are available on the program website but often times the reality is different than official policy (e.g. the website says that moonlighting is ok but in reality the PD will almost never allow it).

Those are the type of questions residents are expecting. You'll hear all about the program structure itself from the leadership, but the residents are there to tell you about the day-to-day life in the program.

Now, this does come down to tact a little. If you ask "Do you lie on your work hour reports?" you'll probably get some eyebrow raises. Rather, asking things like "what sort of things do you do outside of work?" and "does the schedule allow for regularly scheduled activities--such as a fitness class, etc?" would go over better.

We spoke about how much it cost to live in the area and how well the salary covered typical expenses. We tried to have a variety of residents that were single, married, had kids, and lived in different parts of the city to offer some variety of experiences to applicants. The residents aren't allowed to ask applicants about their families--could lead to questions about discrimination--but if you ask the questions, it's fair game to talk about.

Those are the type of questions residents are expecting. You'll hear all about the program structure itself from the leadership, but the residents are there to tell you about the day-to-day life in the program.

Now, this does come down to tact a little. If you ask "Do you lie on your work hour reports?" you'll probably get some eyebrow raises. Rather, asking things like "what sort of things do you do outside of work?" and "does the schedule allow for regularly scheduled activities--such as a fitness class, etc?" would go over better.

We spoke about how much it cost to live in the area and how well the salary covered typical expenses. We tried to have a variety of residents that were single, married, had kids, and lived in different parts of the city to offer some variety of experiences to applicants. The residents aren't allowed to ask applicants about their families--could lead to questions about discrimination--but if you ask the questions, it's fair game to talk about.

Thank you so much for the thoughtful and thorough response!!

Oh definitely, but this has been the case even with in person interviews. Strong home students and rotators definitely have an advantage. Thankfully for outside applicants, most students are not that strong and often the strongest home students want to go elsewhere for residency.

This might be true at lower tier schools, but doesn't the converse apply at the higher tier programs (i.e., most students are "that strong," and they either want to stay or move on to another top program, thereby creating a game of musical chairs at the top programs and leaving relatively few spots for everyone else)?

This might be true at lower tier schools, but doesn't the converse apply at the higher tier programs (i.e., most students are "that strong," and they either want to stay or move on to another top program, thereby creating a game of musical chairs at the top programs and leaving relatively few spots for everyone else)?

Actually my experience has been that there’s little correlation with school rank and rotating student quality. There’s certainly some- the T10 students seemed ahead of the schools with no home program, but they were often indistinguishable from students from other lesser known schools with decent home programs. And by that I mean comfortably mediocre with a few rockstars sprinkled among them. And there were plenty of T10 rotators who earned themselves a blackball form being objectively terrible.

We were a top program so we got a lot of strong applicants and rotators. Even among our home students, it was rare to have one we actually liked a lot AND who wanted to stay. Over my 5 years there, I can think of 3 strong home students out of 20 or so, and 2 stayed to train with us. The third went to another great program and still bums me out she didn’t stay with us. I ran into her in clinic when interviewing for fellowship at her program and she was still an absolute superstar.

I think there is probably a selection bias at work. Applicants in my field tend to be scoring 95th+ percentile nationally so it probably obscured some of the school effect. The step going pf may alter things a bit and create more of what you’re suggesting where there’s less opportunity to jump from a low tier Med school to a top residency.

Am I the only one who thinks doing virtual interviews is insanity? With virtual interviews, we're about to spend 3-7 years of long and hard training somewhere we've never stepped foot in or spoken to any of our future co-workers or bosses face-to-face? I wouldn't even interview for a job virtually, and at least with a job I can walk away if it's not a good fit.

Am I the only one who thinks doing virtual interviews is insanity? With virtual interviews, we're about to spend 3-7 years of long and hard training somewhere we've never stepped foot in or spoken to any of our future co-workers or bosses face-to-face? I wouldn't even interview for a job virtually, and at least with a job I can walk away if it's not a good fit.

You are absolutely correct, as I have previously mentioned...In-person interviews offer so much more of an opportunity for someone to shine than behind a computer screen, where some feel very awkward. The argument being made is it is now in the interest of equity to keep the interviews virtual, however, I say it will do more harm to the same set of people it is trying to help. Sure, you may save money and travel time, but think what it would do for the person that may not have the big name school behind them or big test scores....they were able to get an interview and had it been in-person, may have really connected with those interviewing and as we all know, those connections can sometimes trump all what's on paper.

Again, imho, keeping them all virtual is a mistake.