Mandatory Video Interview

[Dannyboy676]

Scored in 73rd percentile. Not too bad. Hopefully it'll be a booster for some aspects of my app


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[jw3600]

I'm [briefly] jumping back onto SDN to let people know that the CORD listserve (a bunch of EM program directors and associate PD's) is blowing up with people counseling each other to pretty much ignore the MVI scores. So, if you didn't score highly, try not to let it stress you out too much!

Thanks for the notice. Hopefully that's the stance across the board.

 

[pepes1lv1a]

I scored <1%ile and I'm dumbfounded.

Haven't gotten my step 2 CK scores back yet but 254 step 1, honors in home and both away EM rotations (fairly big-name places), HP or H in all my clerkships, decent ECs, am not a serial killer/don't typically sound like one in interviews...

I guess I should know better than to ask this on SDN, but how bad is this? I had been planning on applying to a mix of places including fairly competitive programs. Do I need to go back and apply everywhere now? Do I need to apply to backup prelim programs? Do I need a margarita? Yes, yes I do

 

[runthiscity]

I scored <1%ile and I'm dumbfounded.

Haven't gotten my step 2 CK scores back yet but 254 step 1, honors in home and both away EM rotations (fairly big-name places), HP or H in all my clerkships, decent ECs, am not a serial killer/don't typically sound like one in interviews...

I guess I should know better than to ask this on SDN, but how bad is this? I had been planning on applying to a mix of places including fairly competitive programs. Do I need to go back and apply everywhere now? Do I need to apply to backup prelim programs? Do I need a margarita? Yes, yes I do

I'm guessing I'm going to echo what plenty of others have said prior to score release, but I wouldn't stress out too much over it. Obviously, we're applying to residency so that is what we do, but it sounds like you have an otherwise stellar application and this number is likely to be glossed over. Maybe it'll raise one or two eyebrows, but if you truly don't give off any serial-killer-ey vibes at interviews, and got solid SLOEs you'll be set. I'd imagine it's pretty hard for programs to really understand what these numbers mean in their infancy anyway.

Then again, I'm just a fellow MS4 and what the heck do I know? But yes, I hope you drank that margarita... or three.

Somewhat unrelated/shameless plug, I'm the creator of the EM 2017-2018 application spreadsheet, and I went ahead and added a SVI score to the applicant stats tab. Maybe people will be willing to add this to their existing data and it will hopefully make you feel better about your score. Here's a link (sorry, I still don't know how to un-embed google sheets from SDN forums)

 

[jesuit_juggernaut]

I scored <1%ile and I'm dumbfounded.

Haven't gotten my step 2 CK scores back yet but 254 step 1, honors in home and both away EM rotations (fairly big-name places), HP or H in all my clerkships, decent ECs, am not a serial killer/don't typically sound like one in interviews...

I guess I should know better than to ask this on SDN, but how bad is this? I had been planning on applying to a mix of places including fairly competitive programs. Do I need to go back and apply everywhere now? Do I need to apply to backup prelim programs? Do I need a margarita? Yes, yes I do

As others have prefaced, I'm just an MS4 like you are, so my opinion is essentially meaningless. I have talked to a number of PDs/associate PDs whose words inform my opinion, so I'll render it. A program would be absolutely foolish to not offer you an interview based solely on an unsubstantiated scoring system considering how competitive you appear to be. I cannot fathom the SVI being used as a screening tool during it's first year actually being used- i.e. I can't envision a program having a number below which they will not look at an applicant's file. After looking at your file, I can't imagine a program wouldn't interview you just because of this score. Your in-person interview would take the place of the SVI for them, because again, I can't envision that score informing match rankings anything like an interview would.

 

[surely]

You can-unembed Google Sheets on SDN by using a URL shortener, like this: Official 2017-2018 Emergency Medicine Application and Interview Sheet

Somewhat unrelated/shameless plug, I'm the creator of the EM 2017-2018 application spreadsheet, and I went ahead and added a SVI score to the applicant stats tab. Maybe people will be willing to add this to their existing data and it will hopefully make you feel better about your score. Here's a link (sorry, I still don't know how to un-embed google sheets from SDN forums)

 

[BADMD]

As mentioned above, PDs/aPD have public told each other that the SVI is going to have little weight. Personally, I actually plan to watch some of the very high and very low SVI scores and compare them to residents that I have worked with. I'm mostly curious to form my own opinion of the score.

No one in CORD thinks this is well thought out, well standardized or internally consistent.

 

[Perfect Hair Day]

What kinds of questions have been asked on this video interview?

 

[LostinLift]

What kinds of questions have been asked on this video interview?

Violation to discuss this.

 

[Perfect Hair Day]

Violation to discuss this.

Oh, oops. Disregard!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[NinerNiner999]

Sadly, I don't think anyone on this thread understands why this is being done, and it has nothing to do with your academic ability to succeed as a resident. This is completely driven by residency programs (some of whom are run by contract management groups and corporations) and their hospitals, who are driven more and more by federal reimbursement cuts and satisfaction scores. If they think you're a dick, you aren't going to be selected because you may hurt their patient satisfaction scores, and hurt the hospital's reimbursement. There is no other reason that I can possibly think of other than this.

READ - you are still in medical school applying for your first job, but expected to be seasoned and have good satisfaction scores for a job you don't even understand. I wouldn't wast your time writing to this thread. I'd instead write to your congressman.

 

[jw3600]

Sadly, I don't think anyone on this thread understands why this is being done, and it has nothing to do with your academic ability to succeed as a resident. This is completely driven by residency programs (some of whom are run by contract management groups and corporations) and their hospitals, who are driven more and more by federal reimbursement cuts and satisfaction scores. If they think you're a dick, you aren't going to be selected because you may hurt their patient satisfaction scores, and hurt the hospital's reimbursement. There is no other reason that I can possibly think of other than this.

READ - you are still in medical school applying for your first job, but expected to be seasoned and have good satisfaction scores for a job you don't even understand. I wouldn't wast your time writing to this thread. I'd instead write to your congressman.

Nah. It's about money for the AAMC. Always is.

Edit: people aren't writing in this thread to get rid of the SVI haha. That's like writing on anonymous forums hoping get tuition lowered. People are just venting my man.

 

[Perfect Hair Day]

Sadly, I don't think anyone on this thread understands why this is being done, and it has nothing to do with your academic ability to succeed as a resident. This is completely driven by residency programs (some of whom are run by contract management groups and corporations) and their hospitals, who are driven more and more by federal reimbursement cuts and satisfaction scores. If they think you're a dick, you aren't going to be selected because you may hurt their patient satisfaction scores, and hurt the hospital's reimbursement. There is no other reason that I can possibly think of other than this.

READ - you are still in medical school applying for your first job, but expected to be seasoned and have good satisfaction scores for a job you don't even understand. I wouldn't waste your time writing to this thread. I'd instead write to your congressman.

Very interesting take. I suppose it could be any one of a number of reasons. At the end of the day, I look at it as another hoop we need to jump through whether we like it or not. Agree it is nonsense and a waste of time. I'd consider the $50-$100 it may end up costing to upload the video part of the cost of admission/cost of doing business for us.

 

[EMhawkeye]

I decided to apply late after the deadline for the video interview extension. Hope i'' not screwed

 

[HopefulEMed]

[Removed]

 

[Rick&Morty]

I decided to apply late after the deadline for the video interview extension. Hope i'' not screwed

So....what's going to happen then? What did your home institute say?

 

[Fetor Hepaticus]

I also did not know about the SVI until after I paid for my token when it was beyond the deadline for SVI. I did call AAMC immediately, and the representative said I should be fine because I already have finished my IM residency and is a practicing physician. Hopefully, they are right, and I won't be screwed as well.

 

[EuroDoc2018]

As the 2018 SVI deadline approaches, I felt I should bump this topic. Although I am posting under a pseudonym at this time, I am an active member for many years. I feel that the SVI is only a method to screen applicants; and in my mind a way to ostracize individuals. Firstly, I feel that using a one sided interview is quite devious. There's no give and take that occurs in a classic interview scenario. Secondly, being given a determinant score based on those answers is even more confounding. According to the feedback and posted utilization of the SVI interview, I am under the impression that program directors can watch some/all of the interviewee's responses, which can easily be taken out of context. Additionally, if an applicant looks amazing on paper (ie. transcripts, USMLE scores, LoR's, etc) and is being considered for an in-person interview, the director can screen the video and discriminate against the individual on the basis of English proficiency, accent, race, ethnicity, or even personal character. For example, I'm not one of the individuals that uses IG, FB, Snapchat or the like for video chats as I don't feel comfortable broadcasting my life to the world and thus do not have practice or confidence in front of a camera. I chose to practice medicine not to be a Hollywood actor or news reporter. I know I do not feel comfortable in the public eye, and thus did not choose those careers.
This type of screening reminds me of a case that was an instrumental moment in my life. My mother is an foreign born IMG. When she immigrated to the US, she took an Americanized name and she trained very hard to lose her accent and to pass her Board Exams. She was contacted by phone and then given the opportunity to interview at Johns Hopkins University in the early 1980's. She was 8 months pregnant with me at the time. She drove to the interview during the winter time from Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, where she had completed her training. Upon entry to the office, she was immediately instructed by the secretary they would not be accepting immigrants to the position and she was granted the interview as she had no accent and her name was not ethnic. The audacity. She was quite upset and distraught, but took a life lesson from that experience. She decided right then and there that she would name her children Americanized names rather than ethnic names to give them more opportunity in this country. My sister and I both have Irish names, for this reason. And on some level I am quite cognizant that I have been granted opportunities in the past as I was not screened as an person of ethnicity. I attended an interview last year in the area of the Appalachian Mountains. and upon arriving at the airport was to meet the residency program's shuttle which would take me to my accommodations. I was passed over three times in the airport lobby, as I was told " they were looking for a white guy," due to my name. Currently in this country, we have returned to that mentality of limiting/granting positions based on ethnicity/race rather than the best individual for the the position, and I fear that the SVI only adds to that slippery slope.
While the scorers of the SVI might be trained on avoiding "unintentional bias" as it's called in all the AAMC literature, program directors are not required to take these types of training. I can completely understand the use of two person video/online/Skype interviews to gauge an applicant, but having a one sided video interview to prompts presented on the screen seems very malicious, with only the intent of removing applicants from a pool. I, in my right mind, can't see a program director using the interview to vet a subpar candidate for the means of elevating their status in the rank order; as their ERAS application would already have been filtered out by the respective program's established ERAS criteria. Thus an individual will make it past the first ERAS criteria (date of graduation, USMLE scores, Visa Status, etc), but can be discriminated against on the basis of the SVI responses and content. These are my thoughts. I would like to hear what other thinks. Moreover, he's an article I discovered which eloquently illustrates my thoughts.

 

[EuroDoc2018]

As the 2018 SVI deadline approaches, I felt I should bump this topic. Although I am posting under a pseudonym at this time, I am an active member for many years. I feel that the SVI is only a method to screen applicants; and in my mind a way to ostracize individuals. Firstly, I feel that using a one sided interview is quite devious. There's no give and take that occurs in a classic interview scenario. Secondly, being given a determinant score based on those answers is even more confounding. According to the feedback and posted utilization of the SVI interview, I am under the impression that program directors can watch some/all of the interviewee's responses, which can easily be taken out of context. Additionally, if an applicant looks amazing on paper (ie. transcripts, USMLE scores, LoR's, etc) and is being considered for an in-person interview, the director can screen the video and discriminate against the individual on the basis of English proficiency, accent, race, ethnicity, or even personal character. For example, I'm not one of the individuals that uses IG, FB, Snapchat or the like for video chats as I don't feel comfortable broadcasting my life to the world and thus do not have practice or confidence in front of a camera. I chose to practice medicine not to be a Hollywood actor or news reporter. I know I do not feel comfortable in the public eye, and thus did not choose those careers.
This type of screening reminds me of a case that was an instrumental moment in my life. My mother is an foreign born IMG. When she immigrated to the US, she took an Americanized name and she trained very hard to lose her accent and to pass her Board Exams. She was contacted by phone and then given the opportunity to interview at Johns Hopkins University in the late 1970's. She was 8 months pregnant with me at the time. She drove to the interview during the winter time from Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, where she had completed her training. Upon entry to the office, she was immediately instructed by the secretary they would not be accepting immigrants to the position and she was granted the interview as she had no accent and her name was not ethnic. The audacity. She was quite upset and distraught, but took a life lesson from that experience. She decided right then and there that she would name her children Americanized names rather than ethnic names to give them more opportunity in this country. My sister and I both have Irish names, for this reason. And on some level I am quite cognizant that I have been granted opportunities in the past as I was not screened as an person of ethnicity. I attended an interview last year in the area of the Appalachian Mountains. and upon arriving at the airport was to meet the residency program's shuttle which would take me to my accommodations. I was passed over three times in the airport lobby, as I was told " they were looking for a white guy," due to my name. Currently in this country, we have returned to that mentality of limiting/granting positions based on ethnicity/race rather than the best individual for the the position, and I fear that the SVI only adds to that slippery slope.
While the scorers of the SVI might be trained on avoiding "unintentional bias" as it's called in all the AAMC literature, program directors are not required to take these types of training. I can completely understand the use of two person video/online/Skype interviews to gauge an applicant, but having a one sided video interview to prompts presented on the screen seems very malicious, with only the intent of removing applicants from a pool. I, in my right mind, can't see a program director using the interview to vet a subpar candidate for the means of elevating their status in the rank order; as their ERAS application would already have been filtered out by the respective program's established ERAS criteria. Thus an individual will make it past the first ERAS criteria (date of graduation, USMLE scores, Visa Status, etc), but can be discriminated against on the basis of the SVI responses and content. These are my thoughts. I would like to hear what other thinks. Moreover, he's an article I discovered which eloquently illustrates my thoughts.

>>>As I can't post links under new member status, please search for Joshua Davis, MD. The 2017-2018 Standardized video Interview: An Ethical Concern. Also I'd be very interested to see the statistics of residents who matched in Emergency Medicine who completed and SVI vs those who matched in EM without completing and SVI. Or even one step further, a comparison of programs who used candidates' SVI during the selection process.

 

[DokterMom]

As the 2018 SVI deadline approaches, I felt I should bump this topic. Although I am posting under a pseudonym at this time, I am an active member for many years. I feel that the SVI is only a method to screen applicants; and in my mind a way to ostracize individuals. Firstly, I feel that using a one sided interview is quite devious. There's no give and take that occurs in a classic interview scenario. Secondly, being given a determinant score based on those answers is even more confounding. According to the feedback and posted utilization of the SVI interview, I am under the impression that program directors can watch some/all of the interviewee's responses, which can easily be taken out of context. Additionally, if an applicant looks amazing on paper (ie. transcripts, USMLE scores, LoR's, etc) and is being considered for an in-person interview, the director can screen the video and discriminate against the individual on the basis of English proficiency, accent, race, ethnicity, or even personal character. For example, I'm not one of the individuals that uses IG, FB, Snapchat or the like for video chats as I don't feel comfortable broadcasting my life to the world and thus do not have practice or confidence in front of a camera. I chose to practice medicine not to be a Hollywood actor or news reporter. I know I do not feel comfortable in the public eye, and thus did not choose those careers.
This type of screening reminds me of a case that was an instrumental moment in my life. My mother is an foreign born IMG. When she immigrated to the US, she took an Americanized name and she trained very hard to lose her accent and to pass her Board Exams. She was contacted by phone and then given the opportunity to interview at Johns Hopkins University in the early 1980's. She was 8 months pregnant with me at the time. She drove to the interview during the winter time from Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, where she had completed her training. Upon entry to the office, she was immediately instructed by the secretary they would not be accepting immigrants to the position and she was granted the interview as she had no accent and her name was not ethnic. The audacity. She was quite upset and distraught, but took a life lesson from that experience. She decided right then and there that she would name her children Americanized names rather than ethnic names to give them more opportunity in this country. My sister and I both have Irish names, for this reason. And on some level I am quite cognizant that I have been granted opportunities in the past as I was not screened as an person of ethnicity. I attended an interview last year in the area of the Appalachian Mountains. and upon arriving at the airport was to meet the residency program's shuttle which would take me to my accommodations. I was passed over three times in the airport lobby, as I was told " they were looking for a white guy," due to my name. Currently in this country, we have returned to that mentality of limiting/granting positions based on ethnicity/race rather than the best individual for the the position, and I fear that the SVI only adds to that slippery slope.
While the scorers of the SVI might be trained on avoiding "unintentional bias" as it's called in all the AAMC literature, program directors are not required to take these types of training. I can completely understand the use of two person video/online/Skype interviews to gauge an applicant, but having a one sided video interview to prompts presented on the screen seems very malicious, with only the intent of removing applicants from a pool. I, in my right mind, can't see a program director using the interview to vet a subpar candidate for the means of elevating their status in the rank order; as their ERAS application would already have been filtered out by the respective program's established ERAS criteria. Thus an individual will make it past the first ERAS criteria (date of graduation, USMLE scores, Visa Status, etc), but can be discriminated against on the basis of the SVI responses and content. These are my thoughts. I would like to hear what other thinks. Moreover, he's an article I discovered which eloquently illustrates my thoughts.

I share your concern. While I don't think the intent of the practice is to facilitate discrimination, I believe the result might be. A one-sided 'fake' interview is not the best indicator of how an applicant responds during a real multi-person interaction where small nuances in facial expressions and body language can be responded to. Your IG, FB, Snapchat comparisons also ring tru to me.