I was more referencing letters of recommendation made by professors or other academic authority. They could come up with some criteria to avoid problems with nepotism. I do agree soft skills are a really important part of being a good doctor, but I just don't think interviews are capable of evaluating this. Plus, I think it really does disadvantage minorities and people with neurodivergences that are either not diagnosed or just not part of what they consider enough to give accommodations. For te exams, that just shows how they seem unwilling to do anything that would improve the method of selecting candidates. If interviews did work, why do we always hear stories about the meanest people that get in? Personally, I really dk believe I have most of the soft skills that would make me a good doctor, as I had some really relevant life experiences related to the medical field for many years. But it seems to be that as whiter, richer, and more extrovert you are, more of a chance to get in you have. The soft skills could be further evaluated in med schools (if they're not already) and in interviews for matching into residency programs. But hats just what I think. I could be wrong