There seems to be a trend to have more “gangbang” interviews where you meet with 5 - 10 faculty at once, in the interest of time, of course and not because the faculty sees that as an opportunity to rip into an innocent, ‘deer-in-headlights’ applicant. (or do they?) I have personally been to two different places with such a format, and it has been somewhat malicious. What do people think about them?

You’re such a tease.  You totally got my hopes up for a completely different discussion based on your topic title.

Haha..

1/3 interviews I’ve had so far used the panel format. It wasn’t malicious but it did make me more apprehensive.

I’ve had one interview that conducted panels, it is easier than taking 20mins to talk individually with each person, but, I don’t feel like I was able to get a decent feel for any of the faculty.

I’ve found the menage-a-trois interviews (2 faculty, 1 student) interesting as well.  Is it just me or one is always “good cop” and one is “bad cop”?

I’ve had some interviews where the faculty just asks the most ridiculous questions e.g. What are your thoughts about the Obama??? And the pistol-whipping never stops.

I was asked to summarize in a few sentences why the relationship between India and Pakistan is so bad.  It was actually kind of fun to talk about something other than my application.  Plus it was a perfect chance to say one of my favorite Gandhi quotes. 

“An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth will leave the whole world blind and toothless.”

0/12 for pimping so far. Have heard rumors that in the past MGH has taken applicants from room to room where they are pimped on neuroradiology images (describe what you see; what is the differential diagnosis, etc) by a panel of unsmiling individuals. I understand pimping is also part of the BWH style. I heard a good one somewhere of an applicant being asked to sketch the interviewer and simultaneously describe sciatic nerve anatomy. Only one interview so far with 3 faculty (the NIH faculty at UVA); a few interviews with 2 faculty, and one with a faculty member and a neuropsychiatrist, whose self-confessed role was to psychoanalyze the applicant at Minnesota - this individual evidently asked some applicants to describe an occasion when they have acted unethically, though others were simply asked to describe an ethical dilmma they had encountered. Oddball questions have otherwise been minimal so far… In some places, where all faculty ask about research (syracuse comes to mind), I almost feel it would be better for the applicants to give a research presentation to all the faculty before the interviews begin!

i think interviews like this are better than shitty interviews where the attending has no clue who you are, flips through your application in front of you, and selects a line at random to ask you about

“so, how was college at _______?”

True, but at least ask about things that relate to the interview. Playing Devil’s advocate on every issue gets pointless after a while.

jason19872010 - 30 January 2010 01:23 AM

I had a weird interview where the facualty asked almost everything offtopics such as who you are dating, whats her name and many things regarding. It was really a surprise for me.

Did they ask if you could spell?

I like interviews that have 2-3 faculty members involved.  It keeps it moving, keeps the energy up, and lets me see how they interact with each other.

And I’m sure you managed to do it in a non-arrogant, respectful way.

had a couple 3-some sized interviews. none of those involved pimping in any way. columbia was in 3’s, utah in 3’s, a handful of others.

only was pimped at a few places. got asked skull base anatomy at JHU in reference to a skull which was in the office. got asked angio anatomy at BNI. got pimped on a case by griffith harsh at stanford (a case which I fucked royally), and got pimped on an angio at wash u. most (stanford excepted), were fairly benign.