Psycho-Babble Social | for general support | Framed
This thread | Show all | Post follow-up | Start new thread | List of forums | Search | FAQ

med admissions

Posted by alexandra_k on June 14, 2018, at 21:16:00

In reply to gaming and politics, posted by alexandra_k on June 14, 2018, at 21:08:04

So this might be incorrect - but I think I learned that I ranked really badly in my last interview.

So, when she asked me how I thought I did and I said (genuinely) 'I'm really not quite sure' and she looked me in the eyes and gave me what appeared to be a genuine smile and said 'you did *really well*' she was lying.

The kind of way you lie when you find out that someone has something terminal and you choose to tell them they are going to be just fine.

Only worse, in a way, because I never asked her whether or not I was going to be just fine. I never asked her whether or not she thought I was doing just fine.

And I guess that's the point. What they want from the interview is a suck up. The person who will do anything / say anything to get to do it. They wanted silly head 'omg I'm so nervous becuase this is so important to me. And I want you to like me more than anything but I'm nervous that you won't'.

Apparently (NZMJ) doing well in the interview is negatively correlated with grades and UMAT entry exam.

Apparently (NZMJ) doing well in the interview is not correlated with doing well in medical school down the track.

Apparently (NZMJ) some people are ruled 'definate no' on the grounds that the interviewers (not medical doctors) determine that there is serious mental illness / characater pathology *on the basis of the interview*. Wow, what special powers these interviewers have, I didn't think psychiatrists had the ability to make such determinations on the basis of the limited amount of infromation that the interviewrs have access to.

Apparently (NZMJ) there is no follow up of thse people who were ruled to be grossly unsuitable. To find if they actually had history. To find if they develop issues going into the future. To see if they go on to successful things (proving that part of the interview to be nothing other than discrimination on grounds of 'we don't like your face'.

And who is the 'we'? Who are the people who do the interviews? Are they people who use the public health system, are they? Are they representative of users of the public health system, are they?

Or perhaps they are deciding the places of the applicants who are self funding their places. Rather than the government funded places to select a workforce for the good of people in our country?

Things are so unbelivably awfully f*ck*d up, here. Getting out... I don't know that there is another way.




Post a new follow-up

Your message only Include above post

Notify the administrators

They will then review this post with the posting guidelines in mind.

To contact them about something other than this post, please use this form instead.


Start a new thread

Google www
Search options and examples
[amazon] for

This thread | Show all | Post follow-up | Start new thread | FAQ
Psycho-Babble Social | Framed

poster:alexandra_k thread:1099084