So I've been trained by the head of admissions at the school I rate MMIs for, so I can tell you what the official party line is, and how I do things.
No, you do not need to perform well at every station. They are looking at patterns and also take into account why you may not have done well.
If you do amazing on every station, but you blow a station because you used used a racial slur or something really egregious, and I give that as a reason for giving you a low score, you are finished.
If you do above average but not amazing, other aspects of your app can make up for that (you can't suck, obviously, but even people who are not "the very best" consistently on the MMIs can get in).
If you do consistently well overall in all the stations, yet there emerges a pattern of criticism, depending on that pattern, it may or may not matter hugely, eg "talks too fast" "seems nervous" vs "seems arrogant" "resistant to feedback."
It really depends.
In the vein of patterns, for any one station I am comparing multiple applicants relative
to one another. This means that some everyone does sorta well. Others, everyone actually kinda sucks and I'm mostly picking out who sucked least.
Also in the vein of patterns, I consider where in the MMI cycle we are. Being the most nervous applicant of the day by the very end of the day, has some meaning. So context.
Also, to address
@Gurby &
@Matthew9Thirtyfive , at least for what I was specifically told by the admissions head and what I personally apply, you are not to take issue with or focus so much on a specific opinion, but rather are instructed to assess the reasoning someone uses.
Basically, it's ridiculous to say something like "Give me your opinion on high incomes for CEOs" if there is only one right answer. That would have no utility from the standpoint of how MMIs are designed and what they are meant to assess.
The point is to pose a question where one could give an answer that is either superficially "correct" OR "incorrect." It is a trap not because there is a right answer, but because there is an easy one. "No some people having more money than other people is wrong go communism" vs "Yes people who make more money deserve it because money yay." What is harder to do is to support either opinion, it is a controversial QUESTION because of the fact that you
can meaningfully support more than one answer depending on how you go about answering. (you can also do a shytty job of it too), It was explained to us that there might seem like a "right" or "obvious" answer, but we were urged to consider the
reasoning supporting the view, even if uncommon or unorthodox.
So I never consider whether or not I agree with an applicant. In fact, if I do agree, I ask myself if I like the reasoning or just the answer. If I don't agree, I ask myself if I think the reasoning is sound. I think this may actually bias me towards those with less "PC" answers if done well. It is easier to impress me in that case, because I am likely thinking more critically about their thinking.
I don't think it's high yield to purposefully go against the grain here, though. You should use your best reasoning and support your opinions the best you can, that is what the MMI is designed to assess, and trying to game that supporting something you don't really believe seems like a potentially counterproductive use of your reasoning skills.
