NYTimes article on MMI format

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.
sector9

sector9

Full Member
Moderator Emeritus
Verified Member
10+ Year Member
Physician
Verified Expert
Joined
Apr 27, 2011
Messages
11,139
Reaction score
163
Members do not see this ad.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/11/health/policy/11docs.html?_r=1&st=cse&adxnnl=1&scp=1&adxnnlx=1310374847-1WYtn%20Ju4/ax/xMxGo%20Skw&pagewanted=all

(BTW, parts of the article read like a front-page advertisement for Virginia Tech Carilion.)

1. So what do you think about the MMI format?

2. Do you think that schools using a traditional interview format should convert to MMI?

3. What do you think about the assertion that MMI is a better interview format to assess social skills?

4. Does the MMI format better predict scores on medical licensing exams?

5. Does the lack of communication skills between doctors, patients, and other staff lead to patient deaths?

6. Do you think MMI identifies students willing to work in a team?
 
Interesting article. Thanks for sharing.

1. So what do you think about the MMI format?

I have not personally been through the process yet, but I think that it sounds like a better way to identify those who have the interpersonal skills that are required to become a successful physician. I think that this is a good way to gauge how people can think on their toes and communicate in a wide variety of situations. This is most applicable to medicine as you will be talking to patients frequently, gathering information, making relatively quick decisions with sometimes limited information. Also, I do agree that medicine is a team-oriented and collaborative approach.

2. Do you think that schools using a traditional interview format should convert to MMI?

Meh, I don't know. From what I have heard, the MMI interview format is viewed pretty favorably from both faculty and students. I do agree that our first impressions guide/set the way the rest of the interview will go. It's pretty hard to change a first impression. At least with MMI, if you screw up or have a sour interviewer, you only have to deal with them for about ten minutes, then move on.

3. What do you think about the assertion that MMI is a better interview format to assess social skills?

I would agree, see above.

4. Does the MMI format better predict scores on medical licensing exams?

No clue. Would be curious to see some literature on this.

5. Does the lack of communication skills between doctors, patients, and other staff lead to patient deaths?

Definitely. Would I say it is the sole reason? No, of course not. There are other factors that must be considered in terms of medical errors, sentinel events, etc. However, I think that communication is key between all players on the team (doctors, nurses, techs, etc). There have been strategic pushes toward opening the lines of communication. One i can think of are "procedural time-outs" before operations and invasive procedures. This is the time to identify that you have the right patient, right procedure, right surgical site, etc. I think ANY means of opening/improving the lines of communication will lead to better patient outcomes.

6. Do you think MMI identifies students willing to work in a team?

Depends what the situation/prompt is. I think using MMI is definitely a better predictor of teamwork and collaboration than a traditional interview. From what I have heard, there is a "teamwork" station that serves to analyze applicants ability to work in a team, etc. I think you would get a lot more useful knowledge out of an MMI prompt like this than a traditional interviewer asking "So XXX, how do you work in teams?"--I mean of course you're going to say you work well in a team dynamic, but how can you really prove this true?
 
Last edited:
Personally, I think anyone can fake social skills for ten-minute intervals.
 
I did two of these during last year's cycle. Although they were pretty enjoyable and very different, I don't think the picture is as rosy as the Times article makes it out to be. For one, they are touting this as a solution to the woeful communication problem that leads to medical deaths, which makes almost no sense. I mean how can a two hour session predict any outcome ten years down the line?

Also, as someone else mentioned above, it is also easy to pretend to be sociable and ace this thing with flying colors.
That being said, I wouldn't go postal if more schools adopted this format. There's nothing wrong with it, but this article definitely exaggerates its perceived benefits.
 
The system grew out of research that found that interviewers rarely change their scores after the first five minutes, that using multiple interviewers removes random bias and that situational interviews rather than personal ones are more likely to reveal character flaws, said Dr. Harold Reiter, a professor at McMaster University in Hamilton, Ontario, who developed the system.

In fact, candidate scores on multiple mini interviews have proved highly predictive of scores on medical licensing exams three to five years later that test doctors’ decision-making, patient interactions and cultural competency, Dr. Reiter said.
Click to expand...

Interesting excerpt.

I personally am not a fan. Seems to encourage that artificial "niceness" that many can do for a short period and you can never tell if they're being honest or genuine.
 
I think it's a great idea...they need to weed out people that lack social skills and cannot even talk but are robotic 4.0's with no communication abilities...u gotta be able to talk medicine if you wanna go into medicine...just my 2 cents.
 
"Candidates who jump to improper conclusions, fail to listen or are overly opinionated fare poorly because such behavior undermines teams."

Well, I'm screwed.
 
Having gone through MMI already in Canada, I thought it was a pretty fun and unique experience...

Anyway, this part of the article made me crack up:


"A pleasant bedside manner and an attentive ear have always been desirable traits in doctors, of course, but two trends have led school administrators to make the hunt for these qualities a priority. The first is a growing catalog of studies that pin the blame for an appalling share of preventable deaths on poor communication among doctors, patients and nurses that often results because some doctors, while technically competent, are socially inept."
 
One of the major issues I have with this format is that it eliminates the ability of the applicant to ask questions about the school but instead have them jumping and dancing from station to station. It doesn't seem like a good way to determine what kind of things the school values in the applicants, how the interviewer got involved in the school, or other questions and impressions that could be valuable.

It feels gimmicky.
 
I think the MMI allows interviewers to observe the thought process and problem solving skills of an applicant better than a traditional interview.
 
During the various interviews I've been on, I would often chat with the other applicants. I have not met one applicant who seemed socially inept. In any case, bedside manner is something you gain through ten years of clinical training rather than something you already have as an applicant.

This seems like an attempt to deal with a nonexistent problem.
 
Myuu said:
Personally, I think anyone can fake social skills for ten-minute intervals.
Click to expand...

👍

Having survived the MMI last cycle, I thought it was definitely the most fun I've had at an interview, but I also feel the format strongly favors those "socially inept" applicants, as the article puts it. It's much easier to fake being normal 8x10minutes compared to an hour straight with one person. The proverbial personality applicant is definitely at a disadvantage in the MMI. But still, it was a nice change of pace compared to a typical interview.
 
dbeast said:
👍

Having survived the MMI last cycle, I thought it was definitely the most fun I've had at an interview, but I also feel the format strongly favors those "socially inept" applicants, as the article puts it. It's much easier to fake being normal 8x10minutes compared to an hour straight with one person. The proverbial personality applicant is definitely at a disadvantage in the MMI. But still, it was a nice change of pace compared to a typical interview.
Click to expand...

It also doesn't let them "fill in" anything regarding your application. If you're applying to an MMI school the only thing they're gonna know about you is on your primary and secondary. MMI was interesting but I don't think it's particularly useful. I thought some of the scenarios were just stupid.


Some of my interviewers along the trail were pretty cool and I really enjoyed talking to them. I think regular interviews also give you a better idea of what the school is like, especially if you ask interviewers specific questions about the school/hospital/their experience there/etc. I found that many interviewers (although this is school specific) will tend to be pretty upfront with you about a lot of stuff because they really don't care what you think about the place...their job isn't to recruit people. You don't get that in MMI at all. MMI gives them more "hard" data but doesn't really fill in much "soft" data about you.
 
calvnandhobbs68 said:
It also doesn't let them "fill in" anything regarding your application. If you're applying to an MMI school the only thing they're gonna know about you is on your primary and secondary. MMI was interesting but I don't think it's particularly useful. I thought some of the scenarios were just stupid.


Some of my interviewers along the trail were pretty cool and I really enjoyed talking to them. I think regular interviews also give you a better idea of what the school is like, especially if you ask interviewers specific questions about the school/hospital/their experience there/etc. I found that many interviewers (although this is school specific) will tend to be pretty upfront with you about a lot of stuff because they really don't care what you think about the place...their job isn't to recruit people. You don't get that in MMI at all. MMI gives them more "hard" data but doesn't really fill in much "soft" data about you.
Click to expand...

Some schools that do mmi have one of the stations be an opportunity for you talk about yourself, your application, or add anything else that you want the adcom to know. Not all of the do this, but it's one way that a school can do mmi and still give the applicant the chance to talk about themselves.
 
The MMI format might be fun for some applicants, but frankly, I'm glad my future career didn't depend on my interactions with a bunch of actors.
 
Myuu said:
Personally, I think anyone can fake social skills for ten-minute intervals.
Click to expand...



I agree with this,

I feel like spending a longer time with one or two interviewers would give them a better chance to see what you're actually like.

It gets pretty hard to fake positive emotion after the first hour no matter the situation, if you don't believe me go lock yourself in a room with an ex girlfriend for a few hours.
 
The biggest irony is that the MMI itself is a dehumanizing experience. You're herded like cattle from one room to the other with about 5 to 10 minutes in each room and a total of six to eight rooms. The interviewers don't care about your reasons to becoming a physician or your personal struggles. Instead they ask you inane "controversial" questions that would be better suited for the law school Debate Team and simply unanswerable in any depth within the allotted time. In the real world, a person's reasoning and opinions are rarely separable from the individual's personal experiences and his general character. But you just can't get that in satisfactorily in a span of 5 to 10 minutes while you're trying to cover the pros and cons of an issue and still appear nuanced. And after the 10 minutes is up, you have to start all over, when in a regular interview you would build upon what you had already said.

The MMI is perfect for robotically creating generic commodities out of future physicians. It also selects for sociopaths who are capable of acting out empathy in non-empathetic situations devoid of real human interaction.

You nurture humanity by displaying humanity. The MMI has as much humanity as a plastic mannequin.
 
Personally, I think the MMI is genius.

However, I agree that some of the qualities might be lost.


I think a nice balance would be to do some MMI/team work exercises and then have a one on one interview. Northwestern does an interview one on one and then a panel interview with other applicants. I'm all for this.
 
Narmerguy said:
One of the major issues I have with this format is that it eliminates the ability of the applicant to ask questions about the school but instead have them jumping and dancing from station to station. It doesn't seem like a good way to determine what kind of things the school values in the applicants, how the interviewer got involved in the school, or other questions and impressions that could be valuable.

It feels gimmicky.
Click to expand...
You can ask questions about the school after your MMI interview. At least in Canada you can. I think the MMI has many advantages over a traditional interview. I don't know how people can assume that it selects for socially inept doctors since regardless of a traditional or MMI interview, you can't "fake" niceness over such a long period of time. In fact, it may be harder with an MMI interview since you're always caught off-guard by a different person with a different interview question. You can add in your own personal experiences or things that you've heard or read in your response. There are stations evaluating your decision-making, train of thought, and ability to give directions. There are stations where the interviewers grill you to see if you start to break down. The MMI tests for a lot of qualities pertaining to becoming a good doctor and it allows you to pick yourself back up if you make a bad first impression; you begin every station with a new slate.

As someone who's been through traditional interviews and MMI interviews, I think the MMI is far superior in testing for doctor-like qualities even though it's a more stressful environment for the applicants.
 
Narmerguy said:
One of the major issues I have with this format is that it eliminates the ability of the applicant to ask questions about the school but instead have them jumping and dancing from station to station. It doesn't seem like a good way to determine what kind of things the school values in the applicants, how the interviewer got involved in the school, or other questions and impressions that could be valuable.

It feels gimmicky.
Click to expand...

From what I read, I agree with this.👍

Maybe they give you an opportunity to discuss/learn about the school during the ~18-minute "regular" interview session?
 
Suncrusher said:
The MMI format might be fun for some applicants, but frankly, I'm glad my future career didn't depend on my interactions with a bunch of actors.
Click to expand...

i thought of all the standardized patients that are apparently part of the step exams and i lol'd.
 
I fail to see how schools can't determine the social skills of an applicant from an hour long interview. In my mind, it would be harder to feign a general social compatibility for an hour one-on-one discussion rather than short, ten minute "speed dates". Furthermore, these "tough moral dilemmas" that make MMIs so unique could simply be asked in question form...during the interview.

I think the application system is more seeking a way to spice things up. There's nothing wrong with that though.
 
agreed that they are just changing things to spice it up. Also, in my experience interviewing in both MMI and traditional, the MMI seemed to be a lot easier because you do not have to concentrate an hour+ straight in the face of a hard core physicians asking tough questions. Most of these individuals are volunteers from the community who although are knowledgeable, are far less intimidating than physician interviewers and make the interview perhaps "too casual"

I think it is a good way to screen out huge introverts and potential psychos lol but besides that, as long as you don't freak out, speak coherently and are friendly with a smile, it will be your numbers that get you in.
 
I experienced the MMI format when I interviewed at U of A-Phoenix. To be honest, I found it to be awkward, forced, and fake. I do agree that by having more small interviews, it spreads the risk of running into one person that you just don't work with. However, I think an interview is about establishing a connection and flow between two parties, not 10 small interviews, some of which were 'shock' topics or stress scenarios which I personally found ridiculous, laughable (which I did...probably why out of the 6 schools I interviewed at, UA was the one I did not get into) and not useful in judging how well and applicant will perform and fit a school (ahhhhemmm UA-phx, out of respect for the process I will not reveal those ridiculous situations, you silly little school).
 
naus said:
The biggest irony is that the MMI itself is a dehumanizing experience. You're herded like cattle from one room to the other with about 5 to 10 minutes in each room and a total of six to eight rooms. The interviewers don't care about your reasons to becoming a physician or your personal struggles. Instead they ask you inane "controversial" questions that would be better suited for the law school Debate Team and simply unanswerable in any depth within the allotted time. In the real world, a person's reasoning and opinions are rarely separable from the individual's personal experiences and his general character. But you just can't get that in satisfactorily in a span of 5 to 10 minutes while you're trying to cover the pros and cons of an issue and still appear nuanced. And after the 10 minutes is up, you have to start all over, when in a regular interview you would build upon what you had already said.

The MMI is perfect for robotically creating generic commodities out of future physicians. It also selects for sociopaths who are capable of acting out empathy in non-empathetic situations devoid of real human interaction.

You nurture humanity by displaying humanity. The MMI has as much humanity as a plastic mannequin.
Click to expand...

I agree every word with whoever wrote the above.
MMI is like speed dating and it sucks.

Furthermore, the MMI may also be culturally inappropriate. I read the text below on NTY's Facebook site posted by a reservation American Indian, which I thought was very interesting:

"1) When I call an Elder on my reservation long distance and ask a question, there is sometimes silence on the phone for as long as ten minutes. Native American tribesmen are a deliberate and thoughtful people who listen and rarely ever express opinions on controversial topics. Silence is not uncomfortable to us. Such rapid, fast-paced MMI interviews where you "charge" from one room to another and express instant opinions are Eurocentric ways of behavior and we Indians are unlikely to respond well to such interviewing techniques. (I have no intention of arguing or debating with anyone or clarifying misconceptions about Indians).

2) The solution continues to be in standardized tests. The minute people make subjective decisions, you're going to have discrimination against specific groups. (Remember that students wearing yarmulkes may well be the ones discriminated against these days, so don't buy into the MMI before you understand all the consequences!) The military incorporates psychological testing in standardized tests, so the MCAT too can include psychological tests to weed out doctors with poor bedside manners.

3) Incidentally, we have heard that the highly subjective MMI interviews were conceived mainly because Ontario students were not as successful in capturing medical seats compared to students from elsewhere, despite the efforts of McMaster and other schools to give their pre-med students good grades for poor-quality work (don't look at grades because many schools have policies of liberally grading their pre-med students). That's why you need MCAT-type standardized tests. Let's also move beyond faddish MMI-type interviewing techniques and incorporate psychological testing into the MCAT that will weed out doctors with poor bedside manners."
 
mmmdddd said:
2) The solution continues to be in standardized tests. The minute people make subjective decisions, you're going to have discrimination against specific groups. (Remember that students wearing yarmulkes may well be the ones discriminated against these days, so don't buy into the MMI before you understand all the consequences!) The military incorporates psychological testing in standardized tests, so the MCAT too can include psychological tests to weed out doctors with poor bedside manners.
Click to expand...


Amen. I don't know how people can make the argument that objective criteria discriminate and not subjective ones.
 
naus said:
The biggest irony is that the MMI itself is a dehumanizing experience. You're herded like cattle from one room to the other with about 5 to 10 minutes in each room and a total of six to eight rooms. The interviewers don't care about your reasons to becoming a physician or your personal struggles. Instead they ask you inane "controversial" questions that would be better suited for the law school Debate Team and simply unanswerable in any depth within the allotted time. In the real world, a person's reasoning and opinions are rarely separable from the individual's personal experiences and his general character. But you just can't get that in satisfactorily in a span of 5 to 10 minutes while you're trying to cover the pros and cons of an issue and still appear nuanced. And after the 10 minutes is up, you have to start all over, when in a regular interview you would build upon what you had already said.

The MMI is perfect for robotically creating generic commodities out of future physicians. It also selects for sociopaths who are capable of acting out empathy in non-empathetic situations devoid of real human interaction.

You nurture humanity by displaying humanity. The MMI has as much humanity as a plastic mannequin.
Click to expand...


nice post 👍
 
naus said:
The biggest irony is that the MMI itself is a dehumanizing experience. You're herded like cattle from one room to the other with about 5 to 10 minutes in each room and a total of six to eight rooms. The interviewers don't care about your reasons to becoming a physician or your personal struggles. Instead they ask you inane "controversial" questions that would be better suited for the law school Debate Team and simply unanswerable in any depth within the allotted time. In the real world, a person's reasoning and opinions are rarely separable from the individual's personal experiences and his general character. But you just can't get that in satisfactorily in a span of 5 to 10 minutes while you're trying to cover the pros and cons of an issue and still appear nuanced. And after the 10 minutes is up, you have to start all over, when in a regular interview you would build upon what you had already said.

The MMI is perfect for robotically creating generic commodities out of future physicians. It also selects for sociopaths who are capable of acting out empathy in non-empathetic situations devoid of real human interaction.

You nurture humanity by displaying humanity. The MMI has as much humanity as a plastic mannequin.
Click to expand...

Awesome sentiments and I cannot agree more with you!!!!!!! Every adcom needs to read what you just wrote.
 
mmmdddd said:
I agree every word with whoever wrote the above.
MMI is like speed dating and it sucks.

Furthermore, the MMI may also be culturally inappropriate. I read the text below on NTY's Facebook site posted by a reservation American Indian, which I thought was very interesting:

"1) When I call an Elder on my reservation long distance and ask a question, there is sometimes silence on the phone for as long as ten minutes. Native American tribesmen are a deliberate and thoughtful people who listen and rarely ever express opinions on controversial topics. Silence is not uncomfortable to us. Such rapid, fast-paced MMI interviews where you "charge" from one room to another and express instant opinions are Eurocentric ways of behavior and we Indians are unlikely to respond well to such interviewing techniques. (I have no intention of arguing or debating with anyone or clarifying misconceptions about Indians).

2) The solution continues to be in standardized tests. The minute people make subjective decisions, you're going to have discrimination against specific groups. (Remember that students wearing yarmulkes may well be the ones discriminated against these days, so don't buy into the MMI before you understand all the consequences!) The military incorporates psychological testing in standardized tests, so the MCAT too can include psychological tests to weed out doctors with poor bedside manners.

3) Incidentally, we have heard that the highly subjective MMI interviews were conceived mainly because Ontario students were not as successful in capturing medical seats compared to students from elsewhere, despite the efforts of McMaster and other schools to give their pre-med students good grades for poor-quality work (don't look at grades because many schools have policies of liberally grading their pre-med students). That's why you need MCAT-type standardized tests. Let's also move beyond faddish MMI-type interviewing techniques and incorporate psychological testing into the MCAT that will weed out doctors with poor bedside manners."
Click to expand...

Adcoms need to read what that Native American wrote on FB.
 
mmmdddd said:
I agree every word with whoever wrote the above.
MMI is like speed dating and it sucks.

Furthermore, the MMI may also be culturally inappropriate. I read the text below on NTY's Facebook site posted by a reservation American Indian, which I thought was very interesting:

"1) When I call an Elder on my reservation long distance and ask a question, there is sometimes silence on the phone for as long as ten minutes. Native American tribesmen are a deliberate and thoughtful people who listen and rarely ever express opinions on controversial topics. Silence is not uncomfortable to us. Such rapid, fast-paced MMI interviews where you "charge" from one room to another and express instant opinions are Eurocentric ways of behavior and we Indians are unlikely to respond well to such interviewing techniques. (I have no intention of arguing or debating with anyone or clarifying misconceptions about Indians).

2) The solution continues to be in standardized tests. The minute people make subjective decisions, you're going to have discrimination against specific groups. (Remember that students wearing yarmulkes may well be the ones discriminated against these days, so don't buy into the MMI before you understand all the consequences!) The military incorporates psychological testing in standardized tests, so the MCAT too can include psychological tests to weed out doctors with poor bedside manners.

3) Incidentally, we have heard that the highly subjective MMI interviews were conceived mainly because Ontario students were not as successful in capturing medical seats compared to students from elsewhere, despite the efforts of McMaster and other schools to give their pre-med students good grades for poor-quality work (don't look at grades because many schools have policies of liberally grading their pre-med students). That's why you need MCAT-type standardized tests. Let's also move beyond faddish MMI-type interviewing techniques and incorporate psychological testing into the MCAT that will weed out doctors with poor bedside manners."
Click to expand...

I liked his first point but I'm not sure standardized testing for the latter two points will serve us that well. There will simply be a bunch of MCAT prep books describing what type of applicant medical schools want and train you to basically "think" like that applicant in the context of a multiple choice standardized test.

Interviewing isn't perfect, but it's a hell of a lot closer to what physicians will ultimately be facing (face-to-face conversations/presentations in front of nurses, fellow physicians, and patients) and I'd like our future doctor's to actually get some "face time" in front of someone before making it all the way to medical school.
 
Narmerguy said:
I liked his first point but I'm not sure standardized testing for the latter two points will serve us that well. There will simply be a bunch of MCAT prep books describing what type of applicant medical schools want and train you to basically "think" like that applicant in the context of a multiple choice standardized test.

Interviewing isn't perfect, but it's a hell of a lot closer to what physicians will ultimately be facing (face-to-face conversations/presentations in front of nurses, fellow physicians, and patients) and I'd like our future doctor's to actually get some "face time" in front of someone before making it all the way to medical school.
Click to expand...

It's interesting what happens if you get applicants talking for a while. They're golden for the first thirty minutes and then at minute thirty-one, things can go downhill rather quickly.
 
Myuu said:
It's interesting what happens if you get applicants talking for a while. They're golden for the first thirty minutes and then at minute thirty-one, things can go downhill rather quickly.
Click to expand...

narrated: "Here we see the Myuu in her natural habitat. After the Myuu has lulled her prey into a false sense of security, she quickly pounces. The clueless pre-medical student never stands a chance, and the Myuu returns home with a nourishing meal which she regurgitates into the hungry mouths of her adorable Myuulings."



j/k, but this definitely happened to me...got waaaay too comfortable halfway through the only interview that ended in an outright rejection.
 
Last edited:
The MMI does have its problems; it's not infallible by any means. However, based on comparisons of graduates between schools that use the MMI and those that don't and based on studies within schools that changed to the MMI format, there seems to be quite a discrepancy between OSCE performance and LMCC scores in Canada. Based on those studies, I personally believe that the MMI is a better performance indicator than the traditional panel.
 
Mithril said:
The MMI does have its problems; it's not infallible by any means. However, based on comparisons of graduates between schools that use the MMI and those that don't and based on studies within schools that changed to the MMI format, there seems to be quite a discrepancy between OSCE performance and LMCC scores in Canada. Based on those studies, I personally believe that the MMI is a better performance indicator than the traditional panel.
Click to expand...

Exactly: it's an indicator of the ability to perform. I don't know much about the MMI, but I do know it's far from perfect. I know students who have gotten into MMI schools who I wouldn't trust to watch my dog for an afternoon. If you talk to them for more than 20 minutes, you start to realize that that something is "off" - they lack basic empathy, responsibility, and humility. But apparently they can fake it well enough to get into that school that rhymes with Banford 😀
 
cowsgomuon said:
If you talk to them for more than 20 minutes, you start to realize that that something is "off" - they lack basic empathy, responsibility, and humility.
Click to expand...
Again, these qualities are still tested in the MMI, clinical skills tests, and in the clinical part of the curriculum.

Also, from a logistical perspective it's cheaper and easier for schools to conduct MMIs than panels.
 
I can see it now, interview prep by having people go to dating meetings.

This won't catch on, there's not enough interviewers at schools to spend this much time on incoming interviewees. Unless they make the medical students do it?
 
Eric01 said:
I can see it now, interview prep by having people go to dating meetings.

This won't catch on, there's not enough interviewers at schools to spend this much time on incoming interviewees. Unless they make the medical students do it?
Click to expand...

There will be nurses, staff (secretaries), patients, students and even lay people right off the street who will be interviewing you. They'll just pull anyone to interview you. Not all these people are trained apart from a cursory briefing and not all of them will get over their prejudices. You may have a Black person who hates Whites, an Asian who hates East Indians, a Catholic who hates Jews or anyone with semitic features, a White who hates gays, a woman who thinks anyone overweight is lazy, someone who dislikes Hispanics, and so on. They will also be primed by what TV channel they turn on and what they have just been exposed to that day or the earlier day. So you may have someone who resents rich kids, someone who watched Oprah and favors Blacks, someone who tuned on to Fox and is right wing, someone who heard a left wing talk show on his radio and decides to give all White males bad ratings, etc. Goodbye objectivity.
 
I've done both MMI and traditional one-on-one interviews. I gotta say I prefer traditional one-on-one.

MMI was interesting and fun... but I also felt the sense of "fakeness" and how are adcoms supposed to get to know you or find out you're a good fit for the school by asking you ethical scenarios? I feel that my personal experiences and qualities are my strengths and the fact I didn't get to share myself at all concerned me. There was only one 8 min station where they allowed me to talk about medicine, everything else was either pretending with an actor or answering ethical scenarios. We had a group "meet the dean" session, but since there were 5 of us, I was allowed to talk for 5 min about myself.

In the traditional interview, I had 2 one-on-one interviews for an hour each. I liked this format, since you have a chance to interview with different people to avoid bias, but each interviewer definitely got a better sense of who I am.

At least at the MMI I went to, you were expected to talk for the entire 8 min (the interviewer is only supposed to ask you follow-up questions and keep a poker face), so it's not even a conversation. How are they supposed to assess your conversational and listening skills??

Wouldn't you rather be able to have a meaningful conversation with your physician than a quick, 8-minute superficial chat?

I understand what they're trying to accomplish MMI, but I feel like it's missing the point...
 
These interviews are supposed to select for people who will most likely become successful physicians; 1-hr interactions with other physicians could potentially indicate that, but shallow debates with random people for a few minutes?! Lots of poli sci /pre-law/consulting kids would ace these interviews with flying colors with their practiced eloquence and ostensible earnestness but many, many of them would make bloodcurdlingly dreadful doctors.
 
When I did the MMI at Cincinnati, I felt that many of the interviewers were underprepared. Also, a couple of the situations were cancelled last minute because the interviewers didn't show up. The MMI is great in theory, but I don't think it's executed that well. Also the whole thing is so unnatural that most people are going to act differently than they normally do. Just a gimmick, imo, at least until it can be improved.
 
wanderer100 said:
When I did the MMI at Cincinnati, I felt that many of the interviewers were underprepared. Also, a couple of the situations were cancelled last minute because the interviewers didn't show up. The MMI is great in theory, but I don't think it's executed that well. Also the whole thing is so unnatural that most people are going to act differently than they normally do. Just a gimmick, imo, at least until it can be improved.
Click to expand...

It is also a terrible way of selecting a cohesive student body. Granted, I am assuming that they want to construct a cohesive class, which is another story to be told another time.

It's more a game than an interview.
 
I see how this interview method could be a disadvantage for some applicants. While I am no American Indian Elder, I am slow and deliberate as well. Being in a busy part of the East Coast, many people get impatient with me. While I believe that I would do fine with it I certainly would not be comfortable.

Also, they do NO personal interviewing at all? I don't get that. I don't get that in the slightest. What if they did half traditional interview with the basics and half this MMI stuff.
 
MMI is merely a regional excuse to select people from their state who would normally get rejected. Alberta students and University of Calgary students find it hard to get into their own medical schools, so the Faculty of Medicine in Calgary is inclined to using MMI interviews. This is just hanky panky done at the Deans' levels and MMI provides an excuse to sort of overlook poor performance on MCAT and GPA. Alumni of Stanford find it difficult to get into Stanford's medical school, so Stanford also made noises of using MMI. Pretty sure they use it now at Stanford.
 
axiom said:
MMI is merely a regional excuse to select people from their state who would normally get rejected. Alberta students and University of Calgary students find it hard to get into their own medical schools, so the Faculty of Medicine in Calgary is inclined to using MMI interviews. This is just hanky panky done at the Deans' levels and MMI provides an excuse to sort of overlook poor performance on MCAT and GPA. Alumni of Stanford find it difficult to get into Stanford's medical school, so Stanford also made noises of using MMI. Pretty sure they use it now at Stanford.
Click to expand...

Sounds intriguing but I think you need to provide some compelling evidence behind this before brandishing it about in public.
 
ponyo said:
These interviews are supposed to select for people who will most likely become successful physicians; 1-hr interactions with other physicians could potentially indicate that, but shallow debates with random people for a few minutes?! Lots of poli sci /pre-law/consulting kids would ace these interviews with flying colors with their practiced eloquence and ostensible earnestness but many, many of them would make bloodcurdlingly dreadful doctors.
Click to expand...

Bingo, Burnette's!
 
axiom said:
MMI is merely a regional excuse to select people from their state who would normally get rejected. Alberta students and University of Calgary students find it hard to get into their own medical schools, so the Faculty of Medicine in Calgary is inclined to using MMI interviews. This is just hanky panky done at the Deans' levels and MMI provides an excuse to sort of overlook poor performance on MCAT and GPA. Alumni of Stanford find it difficult to get into Stanford's medical school, so Stanford also made noises of using MMI. Pretty sure they use it now at Stanford.
Click to expand...

But at least at the MMI I went to (UC Davis), the interviews are closed, meaning they have no idea what university you went to, your GPA, MCAT, etc, how would MMI help the school admit more of its own students? 😕
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

R
MMI Advide
Replies
3
Views
1K
Rachapkis
Rachapkis
Butalbusaur
Advice on Approaching this MMI Scenario/Situation Q
Replies
1
Views
452
Euxox
Euxox
R
MMI Interview Help
Replies
1
Views
307
CDaFutureDocMan
C
I
Taking notes during virtual MMI prep in Kira?
Replies
9
Views
823
engenir
E
M
MMI help
Replies
10
Views
4K
Mr.Smile12
Mr.Smile12
Top