Mixed experience; organization and communication appear average with varied impressions and occasional stress.
Based on 13 responses
Score Reference:
9โ10 Exceptional8โ8.9 Very Good7โ7.9 Good6โ6.9 Mixed< 6 Needs Improvement
The SDN Interview Experience Score (SIES) is a composite metric that represents applicants overall impressions of their interview experience, based on multiple factors such as professionalism, facilities, responsiveness, and stress levels.
How do you rank the facilities?
Most respondents rank the facilities as average.
How do you rank this school among ALL other schools?
Most respondents rank this school as average compared to other schools.
How do you rank this school among other schools to which you've applied?
Most respondents rank this school above other schools they applied to.
0 = Below, 10 = Above
What is your ranking of this school's location?
Most respondents rate the school location as good.
0 = Bad, 10 = Great
How is the friendliness of the admissions office?
Most respondents said the admissions office was friendly.
What is your ranking of this area's cultural life?
Most respondents rate the areaโs cultural life as good.
0 = Bad, 10 = Great
How is the responsiveness of the admissions office?
Most respondents said the admissions office was responsive.
๐ฌ Interview Questions โผ
What is one of the specific questions they asked you?
The most commonly asked questions at medical schools include inquiring about preferred theoretical orientation and asking how someone close would describe the interviewee. These questions provide insight into the candidate's approach to patient care and personal qualities.
Students said most interesting question asked at University of Hartford College of Arts and Sciences discussed the best and worst aspects of human nature.
What is the best of human nature and what is the worst of human nature?
Students said most difficult question asked at University of Hartford College of Arts and Sciences discussed various inquiries, including ethical scenarios, personal challenges, and conflict resolution situations. The interview format may have been an MMI (Multiple Mini Interview) with potential nondisclosure agreements in place based on the responses mentioning 'nondisclosure' or 'non-disclosure'.
Most respondents had an interview of more than 50 minutes.
How did the interview impress you?
Most respondents were neutral about their interview.
How many people interviewed you?
Most respondents were interviewed by 5 or more people.
What was the stress level of the interview?
Most respondents rated their interview as average stress.
How you think you did?
Most respondents thought they performed well at the interview.
What was the style of the interview?
Most respondents had a in a group interview.
What type of interview was it?
Most respondents had a closed file interview.
Was this interview in-person or virtual?
Most respondents had a virtual interview.
Data includes both pre- and post-COVID interviews.
No responses
Where did the interview take place?
Most respondents were interviewed at the school.
How did you prepare for the interview?
Applicants commonly prepared for the interview by revisiting their application materials, researching the program or organization, and reviewing their personal statements. Many also mentioned refreshing their understanding of the program or position they were applying for.
Re-read my application, researched the website, checked sdn.net :)
Applicants were impressed by the friendly and supportive faculty, as well as the enthusiasm of current students, which positively influenced their perception of the program. This led to an overall positive experience and an increased ranking of the school among the applicants.
I LOVED everything about the interview. The faculty were all in attendance to meet us and were all friendly and laid-back.
The faculty seemed very supportive and the current students were enthusiastic about the program. The overall experience was positive and the school moved up significantly in my ranking of programs.
Applicants commonly expressed disappointment with the lack of financial support available and inconsistency in the interactions with faculty and students during the interview process, which made it difficult to gauge the program's overall environment and culture. Additionally, some applicants found group interviews to be ineffective and suggested improvements to provide a better understanding of the program.
grad students did not seem to know that much about the program, some faculty seemed sort of cold while others were very helpful (no uniformity in the experience and could not get a good feel for the program's ''personality''), group interviews were not a great idea
Many applicants expressed a desire for more information on faculty resources and clinical placements, noting limited access to certain populations. They recommended researching these aspects thoroughly to ensure alignment with their academic and career goals.
the faculty seems to have very limited access resources and placements with specific clinical populations
Overall, applicants provided feedback on a half-day interview process consisting of group and individual interviews with faculty and current students. Some found the program more clinically-focused, while others felt unsure about pursuing it after the interview experience.
It was a half day interview (1pm - 5pm) which consisted of an introduction with all faculty, some current students, and all applicants. Then, applicants had two small group interviews (3 or 4 applicants) with a faculty member and a current student (they each lasted approx. 45 minutes) After that, each applicant met with either a faculty member or a current student for fifteen minutes (don't know about others but for me it was an opportunity to just ask questions about the program). There was also time to talk informally with current students about their experiences with the program. If research is your thing, then the program in not for you, but if you are interested in great clinical training definitely check the program out!
it did help in that it showed me that I actually did not want to go there, but it was bad because you left without the feeling that the program was really what you would want to pursue