MMI questions

[kayayteeyeee]

I have an MMI coming up soon, and I'm not very familiar with them.

Is it appropriate to bring a notepad and a pen to jot down notes that I want to make sure I say when I'm in the station? Or am I just expected to read the prompt and go into the station and start speaking?

Should I attempt to speak for the full time or am I supposed to leave a minute at the end for the interviewer to ask questions?


Thanks for any input. I know most people have to sign NDAs but I'm not looking for exact prompt scenarios.

 

[samsunimomo]

1) Whether you're allowed to use a notepad or not depends on the school. Overall, learn to organize ideas in your head.
2) You have 2 minutes to read the prompt. After that, everyone enters the room simultaneously and talks for 6-8 minutes.
3) You can definitely leave time for the interviewer. In fact, this is probably advisable. You can usually answer the questions in 2-4 minutes, and the interviewer will come up with follow-up questions.

 

[jmpatt29]

Are we able to ask the interviewer questions about the school at all?

 

[BurghMed]

Are we able to ask the interviewer questions about the school at all?

no, unless there's a specific station to do so. In my opinion at schools that only do MMI, this can potentially be a downside if you don't get too much of a chance to speak with students. A tour or lunch will be your best bet (with students) or an information session (faculty/admissions rep)

 

[jmpatt29]

any idea on how to tackle this question?

Due to the shortage of physicians in rural communities, such as Northern Ontario, it has been suggested that medical programs preferentially admit students who are willing to commit to a two- or three-year tenure in an under-serviced area upon graduation.
Consider the broad implications of this policy for health care costs. For example, do you think the approach will be effective? At what expense?

 

[NewHorizons]

any idea on how to tackle this question?

Due to the shortage of physicians in rural communities, such as Northern Ontario, it has been suggested that medical programs preferentially admit students who are willing to commit to a two- or three-year tenure in an under-serviced area upon graduation.
Consider the broad implications of this policy for health care costs. For example, do you think the approach will be effective? At what expense?

NOTE: I feel that I could have done much better but my experience is limited and I'm out of practice (I've worked on improving my critical thinking and broadening my perspectives for many years, but stopped for a while). I'd also recommend doing some additional reading on the topic so you can form more informed opinions in the future on topics like this.

• I feel that this issue is significant as it significantly affects the distribution of health care in an attempt to uphold accessibility in the Canada Health Act. The question becomes whether or not medical programs should value equality of access enough to affect the demographic of future physicians, and whether this solution addresses the issue of accessibility.
  
• On one hand, there are significant benefits to the solution presented in the question:

1. It helps to reduce the health care burden from people in outlier communities that may have less access to health care services. The influx of physicians can reduce miscellaneous health care costs, both direct (transportation, service costs) and indirect (wait times, anxiety etc)
2. It promotes a shift in the medical student demographic, which may affect the distribution of physicians as a resource in the long-term
3. It allows future physicians to gain increased exposure to rural communities, thereby opening the possibility for more rural health advocacy (public health focus)

• On the other hand, this tenure may not address the actual issue that it's intended to

1. It is subject to potential abuse, which in the worst case scenario may lead to poorer care in rural communities (students may see this as an obligation to just get over)
   
2. It is a band-aid solution, as after the 2/3 years there will be a revolving door of future physicians... which can compromise care, and most importantly doesn't guarantee that they stay
   
3. Having an increased physician count doesn't address other resource elements in medicine (less beds, MRIs etc)

• Overall, when we consider the problem of physician shortage, perhaps there are alternatives to help address these problems

1. Allowing incentives to medical students (not just financial, but increase motivations to pursue novel issues)
   
2. Allow bridging programs (physicians that can serve rural and urban communities depending on the time of year)
   
3. Revisit this policy after a few years and see it's impact ... if it is effective then we can look to improve upon the policy. If it's not effective we can look to start an alternative policy.

• Regardless of the student demographic recruited, the importance is to maintain + improve upon patient care... these policies are only a means to an end. We may have to try multiple things, and continue to advertise + promote rural medicine to students. Solving this issue in the long-term requires a multi-pronged approach.

 

[jmpatt29]

NOTE: I feel that I could have done much better but my experience is limited and I'm out of practice (I've worked on improving my critical thinking and broadening my perspectives for many years, but stopped for a while). I'd also recommend doing some additional reading on the topic so you can form more informed opinions in the future on topics like this.

• I feel that this issue is significant as it significantly affects the distribution of health care in an attempt to uphold accessibility in the Canada Health Act. The question becomes whether or not medical programs should value equality of access enough to affect the demographic of future physicians, and whether this solution addresses the issue of accessibility.
  
• On one hand, there are significant benefits to the solution presented in the question:

1. It helps to reduce the health care burden from people in outlier communities that may have less access to health care services. The influx of physicians can reduce miscellaneous health care costs, both direct (transportation, service costs) and indirect (wait times, anxiety etc)
2. It promotes a shift in the medical student demographic, which may affect the distribution of physicians as a resource in the long-term
3. It allows future physicians to gain increased exposure to rural communities, thereby opening the possibility for more rural health advocacy (public health focus)

• On the other hand, this tenure may not address the actual issue that it's intended to

1. It is subject to potential abuse, which in the worst case scenario may lead to poorer care in rural communities (students may see this as an obligation to just get over)
   
2. It is a band-aid solution, as after the 2/3 years there will be a revolving door of future physicians... which can compromise care, and most importantly doesn't guarantee that they stay
   
3. Having an increased physician count doesn't address other resource elements in medicine (less beds, MRIs etc)

• Overall, when we consider the problem of physician shortage, perhaps there are alternatives to help address these problems

1. Allowing incentives to medical students (not just financial, but increase motivations to pursue novel issues)
   
2. Allow bridging programs (physicians that can serve rural and urban communities depending on the time of year)
   
3. Revisit this policy after a few years and see it's impact ... if it is effective then we can look to improve upon the policy. If it's not effective we can look to start an alternative policy.

• Regardless of the student demographic recruited, the importance is to maintain + improve upon patient care... these policies are only a means to an end. We may have to try multiple things, and continue to advertise + promote rural medicine to students. Solving this issue in the long-term requires a multi-pronged approach.

This was really helpful, thank you!!

 

[el_duderino]

A lot seems to depend on the school, but notes seem to generally be not allowed. The format doesn't really lend itself to asking questions about the school, either. You have no idea whether your interviewer will be able to answer your questions, and you won't really have time for anything substantive anyway. Stick to the topic.

There's usually a student panel or Q&A session or that kind of thing. That's the time to ask your questions about the school.

 

[NewHorizons]

A lot seems to depend on the school, but notes seem to generally be not allowed. The format doesn't really lend itself to asking questions about the school, either. You have no idea whether your interviewer will be able to answer your questions, and you won't really have time for anything substantive anyway. Stick to the topic.

There's usually a student panel or Q&A session or that kind of thing. That's the time to ask your questions about the school.

You usually cannot bring anything with you.... they will have note paper if you are allowed to take notes during the 2 min read+brainstorm

You are expected to just go in and speak... the interviewer will generally not say nor do anything (unless they are instructed to tilt you, or you finish and they can give a prompt)

3) You can definitely leave time for the interviewer. In fact, this is probably advisable. You can usually answer the questions in 2-4 minutes, and the interviewer will come up with follow-up questions.

I'm going to have to respectfully disagree... many of the questions have more complexities that can be drawn out. An answer that's <4 minutes demonstrates that you haven't really thought it through. Unless you are dependent on prompts, you should aim to speak at least 6 min of good content (this does not mean you can be repetitive... a long rambling answer is worse than a shorter one).

For some perspective, my answers all were ~ 7 min with 1 min to briefly touch on one question.

Best wishes

 

[el_duderino]

Speaking on a single question for 7-8 minutes solid after only 1-2 minutes of preparation is.... probably not the best strategy, unless you are an extraordinarily gifted speaker.

 

[WedgeDawg]

Speaking on a single question for 7-8 minutes solid after only 1-2 minutes of preparation is.... probably not the best strategy, unless you are an extraordinarily gifted speaker.

Depends on the question, but it's generally better to make it more of a conversation than a monologue (unless of course the question calls for that).

 

[NewHorizons]

Speaking on a single question for 7-8 minutes solid after only 1-2 minutes of preparation is.... probably not the best strategy, unless you are an extraordinarily gifted speaker.

I do agree it's not a good strategy if you aren't a good speaker, but you don't have to be gifted to come up with a strong, well-reasoned answer that shows your ability to think. That said, there's no one formula to succeed in these... I also did a lot of speech + debate and large presentations for years so maybe it's more natural for me.

I would never risk speaking 8 minutes, since it's almost always more preferable to let the interviewer have a word in (one prompt at least). Most MMI stations have a 1 min warning, so I tend to stop by that point or slightly before.

 

[mrspecialist]

Always have plenty of time for interviewers to ask you questions and hone in your answer. If the MMI is 8 minutes, spend 2 minutes talking, 6 minutes followup. Don't ramble on; your answer will most likely be pretty standard anyways (helping other people, caring for their background, etc.)

 

[Lannister]

The MMI is actually pretty fun, especially the acting scenarios. Just be yourself, and talk through your thought process. The thought process is more important than the answer, I think. And you should definitely leave time for the interviewer to speak. For my MMI, it was definitely more of a dialogue between the interviewer and myself rather than me just presenting a 6 minute monologue.