What are the five hardest residency interview questions and how might experts respond to some
of them that's what I'm going to do today I'll give you a sample of five different
questions and provide an expert answer to one explaining my rationale behind it. First, hi my
name is Dr. Sarah Kleeb and I'm an admissions expert with BeMo. So there are any number
of different kinds of questions that you can get in a residency interview and I've talked
about some of these kinds of questions in a slightly different context which is largely
in the MMI. The kinds of scenario type questions that we tend to associate with MMI absolutely
can come up in a residency interview so you want to make sure that you prepare
for those but today I want to talk about some questions that are a bit different than that
since we do have quite a lot of information on those already. So do check out our blog and our
videos on YouTube so that you can see a lot more about those scenario type questions. So
one of the first questions that you're likely to get which isn't really a question so much is just
a request is tell us about yourself or tell me about yourself if it's a one-on-one tell us if
it's a panel. That is such a vague statement tell us about yourself. You could fill in the gaps with
just about anything which is what makes it so difficult it's just like when you have to write
a personal statement and they don't send you a prompt. It's just write a personal statement of
this many words you're going oh my god what do I need to say, what do you want from me! Same thing
will tell us about yourself. So a lot of people make the mistake of answering this question as
just sort of a biography in terms of basically just reciting the things that are on the CV and
that's not what you want to do. They've seen the CV they know you know what your scores are what
your quantitative data is in terms of your grades and things like that, they've seen the
work experience that you've had and all of that so this is the time to draw on some of that of
course but prioritize the points that you think are most important and use these to demonstrate
the kinds of qualities that you have that make you suitable to enter this residency program.
Right, so you know certainly concrete skills that you've developed so far but also your
ability to work with others, to work as a team, your reliability, your resilience, the
way that you interact with peers and superiors, what kinds of values you see and the patient
position relationship, those sorts of things. So you don't just want to give a chronological list of
stuff you've done and places you've gone. You want to use this to focus on those personal qualities
that you want to emphasize and if you're not sure which qualities you want to look into there are
a few places that you can look. If you're in the United States then of course there's the AAMC core
competencies that list the competencies that are sought in future medical professionals.
If you're in Canada you can look at the CanMEDS framework which gives a number of different roles
for future physicians or physicians in general. And you can also look at the mission statement
of the school and I've talked about this before but just for the sake of reiterating, looking into
the mission, vision, and values of the school or program that you are trying to get
into is a great way of identifying what they're also looking for in candidates because they
want to see that their candidates and residents, future graduates, etc maintain the mission, vision,
and values of the school. So a second difficult question: why should we choose you among all of
our other highly qualified candidates. So this is a question about your characteristics at
a personal level and at a professional level but also a question implicitly trying to see what kind
of approach you take in terms of comparatively evaluating yourself against others. Which is to say
do you come off as sort of bragging about yourself or are you more humble and reflective. So you know
you want to talk again about your own personal characteristics, those things that you think
you do better than anyone else even if it's just one thing that you have particularly excelled at
that your professors have commented on that your letter writers have emphasized in their letters
if they're open to discussing that with you, those are the kinds of things that you can articulate
but be really careful because you don't want to elevate yourself by putting others down. That
is not professional it's not mature and it will reflect very badly on you so you know acknowledge
the strengths of others rather than trying to negate them and just focus on what you do best.
Number three: questions about your work experience particularly in regard to your relationship with
superiors. So an example would be who was your best boss? Who was your worst boss? And what qualities
did they possess that made them the best or worst in your opinion? So similar to comparing yourself
to your peers, this question wants to see how you relate to your superiors and what you articulate
as best and worst qualities or characteristics. So again you want to be careful here, you want
to be diplomatic and specific with your language. When you talk about your worst boss
that language and the question itself is sort of prompting something quite negative however
you don't want to go super negative, you don't want to attack someone to be able to demonstrate
what qualities you want to work against. So you could say something like "Well you know while I
understand these particular procedures from that boss's perspective and I understand why in this
context those could be priorities, I had some other priorities that I thought needed to be
advanced as well and those were the following. Right, so there I've said you know "Look the the
the position that this boss took it was valid, I understand it contextually, but we just didn't
have the same priorities" and then by discussing what those priorities are you can then transition
into talking about what qualities you think made your best boss the better boss assuming that they
upheld those things that you identify as as ideals within yourself. At the very end of the interview
you are very likely to be asked whether you have any questions for the interviewer or
the panel and if you're not ready for this it can really throw you off. This is meant to see
what your own level of inquisitiveness is, it's also meant to see what knowledge of the
school or program you already have. So asking specific questions about the curriculum will
demonstrate that you've actually looked into what's taking place, if you want to get some
clarification about something that wasn't on the website or other materials, if you
are new to the area and just want to you know ask whether the campus tends to be more insulated
or where students tend to go out particularly residents in this case and what's you know some
of the favorite places of residence to blow off some steam in the area, you could also ask more
sort of I don't want to say quirky but just general type questions. One that we see a lot is asking
the interviewer or one of the interviewers what do you love most about your program here or what
do you think is the most important development in this program over the past five years. Things like
that are really useful so come up with a few questions in advance of your interview because
you're very likely to be asked this and you really don't want to say no when they ask you if you have
any questions. That of course just demonstrates that you haven't looked - well they
might think that you haven't looked into things effectively or that you lack that curiosity even
if you have it you're not able to display it if you say no, so don't say no. And then finally
policy type questions with regard to contentious or controversial issues can be tricky. So for
example what are your thoughts on the recent legalization of physician assisted dying in
Canada. This was something that was ruled on by the Supreme Court. If something made it to the Supreme
Court, you know it's going to be contentious. And the fact that these are sort of hot-button issues
about which people feel very very strongly one way or the other you need to be careful with how
you address it while still being able to defend your own perspective. So you know keep an eye on
the headlines for hot topics, know the ins and outs of some of the more common contentious issues in
health care, physician assisted dying is a big one, medicinal and/or recreational cannabis is a big
one, alternative medicine, things like that. So what you want to do is be able to show balance. Be able
to acknowledge the validity of concerns of those on the other side those with whom you disagree or
demonstrating what you prioritize differently by framing your response in that way, acknowledging
that validity, demonstrating what your own priorities are, you demonstrate maturity
and professionalism. People on both sides of these arguments have reasons for their position
and they're often valid reasons, sure there are some invalid reasons maybe but we don't want to
focus on that. We want to focus on the fact that there are valid concerns regardless of which side
you're on and that we don't just want to brush off those concerns as inconsequential. We want
to address them and demonstrate why we think our perspective addresses them more effectively. So
if I'm having a model answer to this I would start off by saying "Yes you know physician
assisted dying or physician assisted suicide is a topic that caused has caused a lot of controversy
around the world. It was made legal in Canada just a few years ago but it remains a divisive
issue both within the medical community and in the larger public sphere. Those who are opposed
to physician assisted dying often do so from the matter the perspective of principle, which
is to say that a physician has a duty to heal not to harm and death is the ultimate harm in
that perspective. The physician may have personal convictions, values, or religious beliefs that need
to be addressed in this context, they can't be forced to go against those. Those against would
also say "Well we do have palliative care for people who are going to enter a period
or who have entered a period of irreversible decline and that will give them comfort until
they pass on in terms of having a natural death. As well medical advances can happen but when we
aren't even necessarily looking for them which is to say researchers are constantly working on things
and taking next steps and we can keep up with the literature and the scholarship, but still sometimes
a breakthrough happens when it's least expected. So we don't want to make any hasty decisions. If
someone commits physician assisted dying and then three weeks later a unintentional or a surprise
medical breakthrough takes place, well then we would have been able to maybe address that. So
that they didn't have to take that particular route and even if it's something that is you know
in development but might take six months or so if we can estimate that that person has approximately
six months left in then we can give them that comfort giving palliative care in case they do
pass on but we can try to get them into the this new procedure or treatment as soon as possible.
And lastly there is a concern that when legalized, insurance companies could get involved in terms of
putting undue pressure on physicians to avoid more expensive procedures. Now that's more relevant in
places with for-profit health care but it's still something worth keeping sort of broadly in mind
that this could be a possibility if even universal health care was ever privatized here in Canada." So
those in support tend to say that you know agree "Yes the duty of the physician is to heal not to
harm, but in this case harm is considered as allowing such intense suffering to continue
when there's no reasonable hope of curing that individual. They say also in principle that people
have a right to die with dignity and in a humane way and that patients have the right to choose
the treatment that they want. It would also allow doctors who have already been sort of covertly
practicing physician assisted dying assistance without criminal charges, it would provide them
the opportunity to continue doing what they see is helping without the threat of violating the
law. And as long as we have strict standards and procedures and protocols in place that can ensure
that only those with intense suffering who are in a state of reversible decline and who will die in
a reasonably foreseeable amount of time, then we are again from this perspective able
to offer physician assisted dying as an option and one that addresses a lot of the ethical concerns
of those who are opposed. So in terms of my own position, I absolutely understand the importance of
the positions on both sides here, especially those on the basis of principle. That said ultimately the
principle of patient autonomy requires us to give the patient the final decision in such matters as
long as they're able to give informed consent and that they meet those necessary standards
and protocols and for the procedure. We would need to ensure that we are staying up-to-date
and following models and protocols that already exist to make sure those standards are maintained.
We would need to give sort of routine public education campaigns so that the public is
thoroughly educated about what this actually means, what the criteria are, that this isn't
something that's just taken lightly. And we need to give physicians the opportunity to opt out if
this conflicts with their beliefs or convictions. We don't want to make people go against those
beliefs and again on principle those are valid concerns and so addressing that by offering the
opportunity to opt out is one way to resolve that particular issue." So there we go I've gone through,
gave both sides continuously acknowledged the validity of both sides and demonstrated what
my position is and why I hold it. And you can do that with any of these controversial topics so
start thinking through where you fall in terms of those and construct your own policy questions
and responses to them because they can be really difficult especially when you're put on the spot
the inclination is to just start with your own opinion and again that's not necessarily the most
professional way to deal with it. Give both sides first and then demonstrate where you fall. So I
hope that you enjoyed this video and that it was helpful. If so please do go ahead like it, share it
with a friend who might benefit from it, be sure to subscribe to our channel on YouTube, follow
us on Facebook and look for us on a variety of other social media platforms. Feel free to
comment with any questions you have. If you'd like us to help you with your residency prep or any
other aspect of the admissions and application process, please click the link that should
appear either above or below this video to see our programs and schedule a free initial consultation.
We'll set you up with one of our admissions experts to answer any questions you might
have and get you started on your preparations. We have programs to suit any of your needs and
we're happy to work with you to determine which plan will help you most effectively.
As ever, thank you so very much for your time, take good care, and I'll see you next time!