How can you tell how you've done in a MMI? How effective are MMIs at separating candidates?

[savithramma]

I had acting stations with professional actors. In one it felt like I was just giving more mechanical advice after being empathetic. In another station, I was supposed to convince someone not to do something and that person just saying "I'm going to do it anyway" and "I don't care". I was empathetic, but it just felt like I hit a dead-end. I really have no idea how I did and felt like I bombed. How can you tell how you've done in a MMI? Also, based off of what other people said, we all basically answered the same stuff for most questions. So i'm wondering how much of a difference MMIs make if most applicants answer the same stuff a similar way. It wouldn't surprise me if a lot of admission decisions after interviews went back to the MCAT and other pre-interviews. Is that accurate?

I used to think getting an interview meant I had a very solid shot at getting into a medical school, but now I'm really getting skeptical about this, especially after getting a post-interview rejection due to my MCAT score at a school. Interviews almost seem like another secondary, which is something that is more of a formality than anything, as long as you have basic social skills (most people do) and isn't given as much weight as other factors as long as you don't tank it.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[RedPhys]

What is the percentage of students invited for an interview at this particular school?

Have some faith in your application, man.

 

[ridethecliche]

I used to think getting an interview meant I had a very solid shot at getting into a medical school, but now I'm really getting skeptical about this, especially after getting a post-interview rejection due to my MCAT score at a school. Interviews almost seem like another secondary, which is something that is more of a formality than anything, as long as you have basic social skills (most people do) and isn't given as much weight as other factors as long as you don't tank it.

The bolded part doesn't make much sense. Why would a school invite you to an interview if your score wasn't high enough to make you competitive? It's possible that's the reason they gave you even though it's not the 'real' reason.

 

[savithramma]

The bolded part doesn't make much sense. Why would a school invite you to an interview if your score wasn't high enough to make you competitive? It's possible that's the reason they gave you even though it's not the 'real' reason.

That's what confused me. I had two admissions people on two separate occasions go over my file completely at that school and both said the only issue was that mcat score was low. It really makes no sense because they could have easily just put me on hold and rejected me instead of having me fly across the country to interview there.

What is the percentage of students invited for an interview at this particular school?

Have some faith in your application, man.

In this case 10%, but with MMIs schools can interview way more candidates than average more easily, so that doesn't really help me . I can easily see myself put on the chopping block right away based off of my mcat too based off of what's happened before where I got a rejection post-interview bc of my mcat.

 

[ridethecliche]

I'd be pissed if that's the answer I got...

"You made me fly across the country to reject me based on data you had before you even invited me to interview?"

 

[RedPhys]

I'd be pissed if that's the answer I got...

"You made me fly across the country to reject me based on data you had before you even invited me to interview?"

I know for some schools, at least from reading posts by people who participate in admissions at those schools, when it gets to the interview, you have to keep in mind: " If you are being interviewed, the admissions committee already views you to be qualified for admissions. However, the interview is the crucial step to make sure you will succeed and fit in at the school."

Then again, though, I'm not actually in an Admissions Committee, so for all I know, it's to make people feel better, but... I have faith in those words.

 

[savithramma]

I'd be pissed if that's the answer I got...

"You made me fly across the country to reject me based on data you had before you even invited me to interview?"

Yes, I was pretty annoyed because it's a heavy price paid. Still it was a good thing knowing I didn't screw up the interviews. I really wonder what they were trying to achieve by interviewing me if I was already in discard pile though.

I know for some schools, at least from reading posts by people who participate in admissions at those schools, when it gets to the interview, you have to keep in mind: " If you are being interviewed, the admissions committee already views you to be qualified for admissions. However, the interview is the crucial step to make sure you will succeed and fit in at the school."

Then again, though, I'm not actually in an Admissions Committee, so for all I know, it's to make people feel better, but... I have faith in those words.

That makes sense. I suppose that's why a lot of interviews are number-blind, but at the same time that makes it harder for applicants to address their weaknesses bc we aren't asked about that. The thing is also, that once your interview is done, your entire file is reviewed by the admissions committee, so they see your scores and all the stuff again. When you have a highly-competitive applicant pool filled with achievers, it's pretty easy to see why those with lower mcats or other application flaws are first on the chopping block, otherwise I have no idea how they'd eliminate people. An assumption on my part, which may or may not be right is that most people can do average on an interview, especially since there's only a limited number of possibilities, and most non-MMIs can be very conversational.

 

[ridethecliche]

I agree. I think that wasn't the 'real' reason, but just a convenient answer.

 

[savithramma]

I agree. I think that wasn't the 'real' reason, but just a convenient answer.

They seemed pretty sincere about that being the reason though. I mean I called two different adcoms (one who interviewed me) there so it was standardized and they both visibly took time reading my file with admission comments and gave me the same response. I also directly asked about my interviews, gpa, etc. Even if it is BS, what could I do about it now?

 

[Goro]

Most people are poor judges of how they do in interviews, so my answer to you is "you can't".
How can you tell how you've done in a MMI?

Your odds for acceptance go way up with an interview, compared to just applying, something like from 2% to 10-20%, depending upon the school.
I used to think getting an interview meant I had a very solid shot at getting into a medical school, but now I'm really getting skeptical about this, especially after getting a post-interview rejection due to my MCAT score at a school.

A formality? I wouldn't be so complacent, because I've seen plenty of people bomb interviews. But yes, if you can think on your feet, are articulate, can listen well, and have decent social skills, you can count on an acceptance, especially earlier in the cycle.

Interviews almost seem like another secondary, which is something that is more of a formality than anything, as long as you have basic social skills (most people do) and isn't given as much weight as other factors as long as you don't tank it.

The data suggests that they're very good at picking people who are empathic. Do a PubMed search on the subject.

How effective are MMIs at separating candidates?

 

[savithramma]

Most people are poor judges of how they do in interviews, so my answer to you is "you can't".
How can you tell how you've done in a MMI?

Your odds for acceptance go way up with an interview, compared to just applying, something like from 2% to 10-20%, depending upon the school.
I used to think getting an interview meant I had a very solid shot at getting into a medical school, but now I'm really getting skeptical about this, especially after getting a post-interview rejection due to my MCAT score at a school.

A formality? I wouldn't be so complacent, because I've seen plenty of people bomb interviews. But yes, if you can think on your feet, are articulate, can listen well, and have decent social skills, you can count on an acceptance, especially earlier in the cycle.

Interviews almost seem like another secondary, which is something that is more of a formality than anything, as long as you have basic social skills (most people do) and isn't given as much weight as other factors as long as you don't tank it.

The data suggests that they're very good at picking people who are empathic. Do a PubMed search on the subject.

How effective are MMIs at separating candidates?

Thanks for your response. I had a question for you, since you're an adcom. In your experience, how would admissions differentiate between applicants who all perform solid on interviews? Does it go back to pre-interview factors? Also it seems like the number of people who bomb interviews is higher than most would expect based off of what you're saying. Any estimate about what portion of people can do average on interviews/solid?

 

[Goro]

We accept them. It's a pre-med myth that we allocate one seat for every two interviewees. Even in springtime, when we actually do ration seats, the still-qualified interviewees, but not accepted go on to a wait list, and they get pulled off first when other people decline the acceptance.

Borderline acceptees are the ones who get their apps mulled over with a fine-tooth comb when the Adcom meets.

I had a question for you, since you're an adcom. In your experience, how would admissions differentiate between applicants who all perform solid on interviews?

People do so well that at my school we accept about 200 people (from maybe 500 who interview) for ~100 seats. LizzyM has reported that her school and other top ones accept about 3x as many interviewees for every seat. You can see the stats for all MD schools in MSAR Online.

Also it seems like the number of people who bomb interviews is higher than most would expect based off of what you're saying. Any estimate about what portion of people can do average on interviews/solid?

 

[GypsyHummus]

Question:

For those applications that are borderline and get mulled over with a fine tooth comb, what are some things that save the app vs tanking the app? Lets say the applicant has 3.4 cGPA, 3.2 science GPA and a mediocre MCAT of 24. What would push the applicant from wait list to accept? I know a lot has to do with the interviewer who interview the individual if that person would like to go to bat for the applicant, but as a general rule of thumb, what can "save" the marginal candidate, assuming all the clinical, non clinic volunteering is sufficient?

Do the adcoms ever re-read the personal or secondary statements after the interview when making final decisions? Or at that point is it all just a numbers game?

We accept them. It's a pre-med myth that we allocate one seat for every two interviewees. Even in springtime, when we actually do ration seats, the still-qualified interviewees, but not accepted go on to a wait list, and they get pulled off first when other people decline the acceptance.

Borderline acceptees are the ones who get their apps mulled over with a fine-tooth comb when the Adcom meets.

I had a question for you, since you're an adcom. In your experience, how would admissions differentiate between applicants who all perform solid on interviews?

People do so well that at my school we accept about 200 people (from maybe 500 who interview) for ~100 seats. LizzyM has reported that her school and other top ones accept about 3x as many interviewees for every seat. You can see the stats for all MD schools in MSAR Online.

Also it seems like the number of people who bomb interviews is higher than most would expect based off of what you're saying. Any estimate about what portion of people can do average on interviews/solid?

 

[Goro]

Save:
Compelling story
Great essay
Great LORs
Having a DO LOR or shadowing >1 DO, or comes and visits us prior to interviews because they're honestly interested in us. (naturally, this applies only for DO schools).
Great upward trend.
Connecting with one of the interviewers, who will make the case for applicant at Adcom meeting.

Tank:
Having IAs
Downward trend in GPA
Multiple MCATs with decline in performance
History of poor choice making
Red flag LOR or lackluster LORs (or committee letter)
Poor interview skills; failing to connect with interviewers. Interviewers will not go to bat for this one.
Less than stellar sGPA (like around 3.15 or less)

Question:

For those applications that are borderline and get mulled over with a fine tooth comb, what are some things that save the app vs tanking the app? Lets say the applicant has 3.4 cGPA, 3.2 science GPA and a mediocre MCAT of 24. What would push the applicant from wait list to accept? I know a lot has to do with the interviewer who interview the individual if that person would like to go to bat for the applicant, but as a general rule of thumb, what can "save" the marginal candidate, assuming all the clinical, non clinic volunteering is sufficient?

Do the adcoms ever re-read the personal or secondary statements after the interview when making final decisions? Or at that point is it all just a numbers game?