Considering my interview for my JPA scholarship application was around the corner, I think that was the reason why I sought for distraction in the form of Youtube videos last weekend. And also retail therapy. Retail therapy helps a lot. Haha.
The interview was yesterday and it was okay, easier than I expected. There were basically four parts; the first part we were to introduce ourselves, then they'll give us a question and each of us (the interview was conducted in groups of 5) had to give our opinion on it. The question was, "Condoms, needles and syringes should be given freely to drug addicts to curb HIV/AIDS". The third part we were asked about the reasons we chose our courses and the last part was where we could ask them questions about anything.
During the self-introduction, everyone else talked mostly about their achievements in school; Pengawas lah, President for this club lah, participant in that competition lah... It was all the things that the interviewers could see from their applications. It also sounded like a reading of a list. Since I was the last one to speak, I knew that I did not want to rattle on about my achievements because for one thing, there wasn't that many to speak of and I did not feel it was important to mention during those 2 minutes we are given to introduce ourselves. After all, we were supposed to talk about ourselves and show them who the person is behind the application. I also thought that whatever achievements I have can speak for themselves. Despite that, I don't really know for certain whether that was the right thing to do, in the sense of whether I gave the right impression to them. I suppose I only wanted to ensure that I came off differently than the rest.
As for the question, it was a typical-sounding motion for any debate. I didn't actually write down or structure the exact things I was going to say when my turn came around; I was never quite good at that. I'll just say whatever that comes to mind. However, I think I answered well, based on the fact that the interviewers did not try to rebuke what I said or pose more questions. I can only guess that they were satisfied.
They also asked us about the issue of the required government service after we complete our studies (if we got the scholarship). They asked our opinion on whether the required 10 years of government service (for Medicine scholars) was too long and whether we'll come back to serve. With the others, the interviewers tried to put them in a spot by raising the question about money since government servants, especially doctors, are paid nuts in contrast to the amount of hard work they have to put in. But I've heard that all before. So I just said that it was simply the matter of passion for the job. Because if you are satisfied with what you do and enjoy the work, then money will be secondary. Not that it isn't important, but you can try to make things work.
All in all, I think it went well. I just hope that God-willing, I'll get that scholarship so I can study Medicine overseas.
The interview was yesterday and it was okay, easier than I expected. There were basically four parts; the first part we were to introduce ourselves, then they'll give us a question and each of us (the interview was conducted in groups of 5) had to give our opinion on it. The question was, "Condoms, needles and syringes should be given freely to drug addicts to curb HIV/AIDS". The third part we were asked about the reasons we chose our courses and the last part was where we could ask them questions about anything.
During the self-introduction, everyone else talked mostly about their achievements in school; Pengawas lah, President for this club lah, participant in that competition lah... It was all the things that the interviewers could see from their applications. It also sounded like a reading of a list. Since I was the last one to speak, I knew that I did not want to rattle on about my achievements because for one thing, there wasn't that many to speak of and I did not feel it was important to mention during those 2 minutes we are given to introduce ourselves. After all, we were supposed to talk about ourselves and show them who the person is behind the application. I also thought that whatever achievements I have can speak for themselves. Despite that, I don't really know for certain whether that was the right thing to do, in the sense of whether I gave the right impression to them. I suppose I only wanted to ensure that I came off differently than the rest.
As for the question, it was a typical-sounding motion for any debate. I didn't actually write down or structure the exact things I was going to say when my turn came around; I was never quite good at that. I'll just say whatever that comes to mind. However, I think I answered well, based on the fact that the interviewers did not try to rebuke what I said or pose more questions. I can only guess that they were satisfied.
They also asked us about the issue of the required government service after we complete our studies (if we got the scholarship). They asked our opinion on whether the required 10 years of government service (for Medicine scholars) was too long and whether we'll come back to serve. With the others, the interviewers tried to put them in a spot by raising the question about money since government servants, especially doctors, are paid nuts in contrast to the amount of hard work they have to put in. But I've heard that all before. So I just said that it was simply the matter of passion for the job. Because if you are satisfied with what you do and enjoy the work, then money will be secondary. Not that it isn't important, but you can try to make things work.
All in all, I think it went well. I just hope that God-willing, I'll get that scholarship so I can study Medicine overseas.
i wish u well nadira.just one question?u r 2 philosophical 4 ur age.r u really interested or is it someone else's wish.be forewarned,this is the job not for the sake to please anybody,it is taxing,burdensome and swallowing ur whole life into it.there is no halfbaked passionate inthis job.patients do not expect u to be melancholically philosophical towards them.all they need is the sincerest noblest expression of a human,helping the suffering ones mechanically minus the feeling.i hope u deserve it without denying others who deserve more than u.may god fulfil ur wish,aamin
Anonymous,
first of all, thank you for your comment. About my being philosophical...well, people do often say that I come off very matured for my age. And I am a person who likes to express her opinions and philosophies so to speak, regardless of whether others will like it or not. About my interest, I've had my share of doubts before. Many echoed your views about how difficult the job will be (I've spoken to several doctors), and I've thought long and hard about it. But after following an attachment stint at HKL, I know this is what I want to do. That is where I want to be.
However, I disagree that you must be a mechanical robot devoid of feelings when treating your patients. Although it could boil down to that especially after a long day of work, that sort of attitude is last thing that is needed in doctors. Patients not only want your professional expertise, but oftentime, they also seek assurance and comfort. Because not all patients survive their diseases, whatever it may be. That was what I was told during my attachment and I saw for myself several patients who rather be talked to like a friend than treated coldly by their doctors. If it were you, as the patient, would you want to be treated coldly and without feeling by your doctor? Although, again, this may sound very idealistic, it is a good ideal to work towards.
Anyway, thanks for your wishes and reminders. I too hope that this path I've chosen is the one for me and God will guide me along the way...:)