University of Washington School of Medicine

Already covered in previous posts

"If someone you respect, say your high school principal, was slightly ill and had swollen glands, etc. for a few weeks and you ran a test for HIV, just in case, and the test came back positive, how would you negotiate the situation?"

Same

I stayed up on current events, read about health care policy, and tried to be a good all-around citizen :)

My interview mate (at the same time slot, not in the same room) was very friendly and intelligent. Tina, if you don't get in, I don't know who will. They'd certainly be making a mistake.

I've since heard that I was rejected to UW med. However, my decision letter was misplaced somewhere along the line. I went to the admissions office to inquire (I'm a UW undergrad), and they wouldn't tell me there. Instead they said they'd mail a copy. Then I saw Dr. Sampson go by on his way to sign my rejection letter (really, it was signed and dated within an hour of when I went to the office). He interrupted me to grab a chocolate off the front desk, and say something about how much he liked chocolates. I wonder if the medical school promotes telling patients of newfound illnesses by mail rather than in person. That would save a lot of confrontation. A medical school isn't defined by their admissions policies, but one would think they'd try and follow a similar moral code. In the future, I would ask for a little more respect for my time.

Nothing terribly new. I thought that at least one of my interviewers would have a medical background (or at least a science background--two of them did not; be prepared to explain research etc. in very lay language).

Most of the questions you'll be asked are offered in other posts. What I can offer is my impressions of the interview as well as the tone, mood, etc. Interviewers: Ms. (Katherine?) Golding, Mr. Timothy Menza, and Dr. Carol Ware. When I first walked in, the head interviewer tried her best to make me feel comfortable and gave me a glass of water and introduced the interview panel. The interview started with more personal questions regarding reasons for getting into medicine, and personal views on the field (ie. opinions on the current state of healthcare). The questions generally will rotate from interviewer to interviewer, with each member asking two or three questions. The interviewers often let your answers dictate the direction of their questions. Talk about what you know. Later in the interview come the more strange and unexpected questions (if you don't read this website), such as "What do you read?", "What's the most important thing to happen in the last year?" My best advice is to practice with distractors. Have a couple people interview you while clicking their pen, or constantly checking the clock (they will, especially if you're right before lunch), or put a Picasso print in the middle of the table as a centerpiece (for some reason during my interview I found myself being distracted by a curious arrangement of the cookies on the tray in the middle of the table). Have your interviewers give strange reactions to your answers (during my interview Ms. Golding laughed at my answer to "what do you read?" I didn't find my answer to be a joke or even funny) Have them stare at you when you ask a question, like they thought it was rhetorical (it happens). Above all, realize that it is not a natural conversational environment and don't be distracted by it. The interviewers are all very subdued, and hold back from giving out information or sometimes even clarification of the questions. There was only one time during the entire 50 minutes when I felt that one of the interviewers "contributed" something new to the conversation. If you're very chatty, then this might not bother you, but if you're used to two-way conversations, be prepared. The interviewers also are quite emotionally subdued. They probably won't laugh at your jokes, and they probably will seem unaffected by any sad or emotional parts of the interview. I got the impression that although they promote a conversational feel in the interview, for many questions they are looking for concrete responses--possibly even a binary right/wrong system to score your answers. In light of this, my advice is to choose one argument, and explain it clearly. It may be a good idea to explain the assumptions that you made, but don't let that reveal any waiver in your response. Also, take the time to make sure your answers are very clear. If you are going into too much detail I'm sure they will try and hurry you up. It's better than realizing afterward that you didnt fully explain yourself. My interviewers: Ms K(atherine?) Golding: Head interviewer was fairly warm and the most talkative. Did not have any science background. Mr. Timothy Menza: I was surprised by how young he was. An MD/Ph.D. candidate. It may be a little awkward being asked personal questions from a peer, and I think he felt a little awkward asking them as well. Dr. Carol Ware (comparative medicine): She seemed like a nice woman, but was quite stone-faced during the interview. She only spoke when it was her turn to ask a question. She is involved in stem-cell research at the UW.