Interviews II

Someone asked me how I would change the interview process if I were a program director some day. I think I'd have interviewers attend a training session by human resources recruitment managers. The problem is simply that doctors are not trained in interviewing and hiring people, but they often think they can do it. Management science and engineering is a budding field and I think residency programs need to harness the knowledge and resources it offers. I was just reading an article about college admissions officers, and I learned that many of them have little training in recruitment practices yet they make one of the most critical decisions in anyone's life. Since residency recruitment is akin to employee recruitment, interviewers should get some training from professional interviewers.

I would have around four interviews of half an hour each; as an interviewee, I found that two interviews felt too limited and more than five was definitely fatiguing. One or two of the interviewers would be given no information about the applicant prior to the interview; one or two would only be given the CV and personal statement; and one or two would have the entire file. The interviewers with less information go in without preconceptions and primarily assess personality and "fit." UCSF medical school interviews followed this idea with "closed file" interviews, and I really enjoyed it. The interviewers with more information primarily ask more in depth about questions or issues raised in the application. If I chose to set up interviews like this, I would let applicants know the purpose; otherwise, faculty who have not reviewed the applicant's file would simply appear unprepared.

The best interviews I've had involved conversations that go beyond easily anticipated questions. For example, a research faculty and I brainstormed further experiments I could have done with my research project and a chief of the medical service and I discussed the ongoing health care reform. During these interviews, I did not feel like I was being assessed; rather, I felt like we were actually trying to work out problems together. It was definitely more fun that way.

The last issue is that of geography. It is well known that one of the most important factors in determining where someone goes for residency is geographical location. As a result, a lot of interviewers have asked me whether I would be willing to move to the East Coast, move to Southern California, or stay in the Bay Area. This is one of the most annoying questions to me, mostly because I would not interview somewhere if I didn't have the intention to go there. This is especially true given the costs of flying to the East Coast and finding lodging. Indeed, I've canceled half a dozen interviews simply because I don't think I want to live in that geographic location. However, it is an important thing for programs to gauge, so I would propose that programs designate one interviewer to ask that question so the applicant does not get bombarded with the same thing with each person he talks to.