Rapid-fire Interview!

BU Medical Sciences
This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.
I

iggs99988

Full Member
10+ Year Member
Joined
Sep 29, 2011
Messages
48
Reaction score
0
Members do not see this ad.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/11/health/policy/11docs.html?pagewanted=all

Wow, talk about a high-octane, pressure packed situation! Rapid fire interviews, 8 minute long hypothetical scenario's... It seems that being a consummate student with fantastic extracurricular's is not enough anymore. I guess the growing number of applications schools receive with increasingly qualified students is making schools implement further separating factors.

It's honestly getting to be too much. What do these schools expect? Students slave for years to present a competitive application and effectively communicate their desire to practice medicine, and then schools make them hop through this make or break pressure-cooker? Ridiculous..there has to be a line drawn in the sand where to say enough is enough. Social skills aren't always best communicated in these pressurized "think on your feet or fail" situations. Medical schools are looking for the individual who can coordinate the proper responses as well as be an academic model and well rounded--in other words, mr. perfect. Theres a difference between "pressure" one-on-one or group interview and this; medical school admissions and the path to becoming a practicing physician is becoming a farce.
 
I would so much rather do this than a group interview.

Speaking of, in the real world, is it common for patients to call in three doctors and say "Tell me why you should get to do my surgery. Guy who went to Harvard and Africa, you go first"?
 
Situations like these interviews are more in tune with what doctors will deal with. They want to know you can adapt to different situations quickly and adequately. Sounds like a good plan to me.
 
Stanford did an MMI this year. Definitely more fun than the traditional interview in my opinion
 
Still, you have to talk for 8 minutes about a bioethics scenario you read 2 minutes prior. That sounds rough... 🙁
 
Charles Darwin said:
Still, you have to talk for 8 minutes about a bioethics scenario you read 2 minutes prior. That sounds rough... 🙁
Click to expand...

It's actually only about a minute or two talking about the initial scenario before the evaluator will ask you some clarifying questions...

It goes by MUCH faster than you would imagine.
 
Charles Darwin said:
Still, you have to talk for 8 minutes about a bioethics scenario you read 2 minutes prior. That sounds rough... 🙁
Click to expand...

When you're a doctor, you'll be discussing bioethics "scenarios" that instantaneously unfold in front of you. Get used to it 🙂
 
plumhill said:
When you're a doctor, you'll be discussing bioethics "scenarios" that instantaneously unfold in front of you. Get used to it 🙂
Click to expand...
But they won't be timed, and there won't be several occurring in short succession.
 
I remember a couple threads about this a few months ago when Virginia Tech said they would do it.

I think it's pretty cool, although I do prefer the "traditional" interviews.
 
if-you-cant-stand-the-heat-print-unframed_1.jpg
 
I did MMI at one of my interviews, and it was a lot of fun! You have two minutes to think over the scenario and come up with a response, which really is more generous than you'd find in a traditional interview setting. I mean, can you imagine taking two minutes to come up with a response in a one-on-one interview? The problem for me was that eight minutes wasn't enough time to finish talking -- I ended up getting cut off by the buzzer at nearly all of the stations.

ETA: The point of MMI is to obtain a more objective interview measure. Rather than one or two interviewers, you now have eight. Averaged out, the scores from these eight interviewers should better represent your actual performance.
 
It really isn't as bad as you make it out to be, or New York times for that matter. I recently went to a school that conducted an MMI and I was blown away at how pleasant and "fun" it was 😀. The questions presented were really not difficult. If you are able to convey yourself as a caring, compassionate, and genuine person that can articulate his/her thoughts to the person in front of you, there is nothing to be afraid out. And again, these questions are NOT difficult (Ex. euthanasia, patient refusing to take medication, and even some fun non-medically related questions)

Also, there's a misconception about the 8 minute thing. Yes you read the scenario (which is clearly stated so there's minimal room for confusion) for 2 minutes, and step into the room but they really don't expect you to talk for 8 minutes continuously. Before my interview began, the ADCOMs themselves briefed us with a presentation on MMI and suggested an opening response of 2 minutes that address the scenario question. The interviewers will then question you on your given response and ask you additional questions regarding the scenario.

And to be perfectly honest, I actually prefer the MMI than the traditional 1v1 method for a number of reasons:
1) It gives you a benefit of the doubt if you made a bad impression on one interviewer (I believe they remove your lowest score)
2) They actually use a hell lot of statistical analysis to calculate your final MMI score.
3) Less biased evaluation from interviewer (8 minutes vs 60 minutes! - also gives you time to give a good first impression without killing yourself afterward).
4) It's worth your time. I personally wouldn't want to fly to a school just to have a chat with someone who might not even be interested in me (Spent ~$500 for travel only to have my interviewer come in an hour late and ask me 5 questions!)
5) Predicts clinical communication during 3rd and 4th year. (Yes they actually showed us the correlation).
6) The stress of an MMI shows how you physically and verbally respond to stress. You're going to be a doctor, you need to get used to it!
7) Interviewers are well trained.
8) It's fun.
9) I don't like 1v1. Interviewers have a tendency to twist my words and make me feel stupid after I leave. 😀

I was also accepted.
 
Charles Darwin said:
But they won't be timed, and there won't be several occurring in short succession.
Click to expand...

But you will be essentially "timed" as a resident, having to see an immense amount of patients each day.

theseeker4 said:
And you will actually have years of training and knowledge before you will ever have to made a decision like that on your own, unlike a pre-med.
Click to expand...

These appear to be general ethics questions, not anything you can't formulate an opinion on by now.



Side note: Picture in the story reminds me of a Benny Hinn or Scooby Doo skit.
docs-popup.jpg
 
UpQuark said:
Also, there's a misconception about the 8 minute thing. Yes you read the scenario (which is clearly stated so there's minimal room for confusion) for 2 minutes, and step into the room but they really don't expect you to talk for 8 minutes continuously.
Click to expand...

I sure hope the actual questions are clearly stated, because the examples from the article were problematic. For example:
"whether giving patients unproven alternative remedies is ethical"
Now the person who wrote this may have a clear idea of what this question means, but it certainly can be interpreted in different ways. Is the question about herbal remedies, the products of homeopathic hucksters, or is it about rational drugs in clinical trials? What does "unproven" mean. Does this exclude a drug in the last stages of testing with a long data trail but has not yet been officially FDA approved? What is the state of the patient? Are we to use the first precious minutes parsing the question in order to tease out the true meaning? Could this be part of the exercise?

Another thing that troubles me are the comments about using this interview process to select for the "team players". Could the process be simultaneously weeding out leaders? My experience working on teams has convinced me that they frequently go nowhere without a clear leader.
 
plumazul said:
I sure hope the actual questions are clearly stated, because the examples from the article were problematic. For example:
"whether giving patients unproven alternative remedies is ethical"
Now the person who wrote this may have a clear idea of what this question means, but it certainly can be interpreted in different ways. Is the question about herbal remedies, the products of homeopathic hucksters, or is it about rational drugs in clinical trials? What does "unproven" mean. Does this exclude a drug in the last stages of testing with a long data trail but has not yet been officially FDA approved? What is the state of the patient? Are we to use the first precious minutes parsing the question in order to tease out the true meaning? Could this be part of the exercise?
Click to expand...

If someone doesn't know what an "unproven alternative remedy" connotes, as opposed to an "experimental treatment", that's probably a red flag. :shrug:

If you want to be an MD, you should instantly be thinking herbs or acupuncture when you hear those words.
 
During residency interviews you would see the same people interviewing with you at the same places and I thought then it would be more efficient to just have all the MS4's and residency directors come to one place and do like a speed-dating style interview and match the same day. Would make so much more sense. The current process is the same thing just long-drawn out.
 
plumazul said:
I sure hope the actual questions are clearly stated, because the examples from the article were problematic. For example:
"whether giving patients unproven alternative remedies is ethical"
Now the person who wrote this may have a clear idea of what this question means, but it certainly can be interpreted in different ways. Is the question about herbal remedies, the products of homeopathic hucksters, or is it about rational drugs in clinical trials? What does "unproven" mean. Does this exclude a drug in the last stages of testing with a long data trail but has not yet been officially FDA approved? What is the state of the patient? Are we to use the first precious minutes parsing the question in order to tease out the true meaning? Could this be part of the exercise?
Click to expand...

Nope, the scenarios are actually a couple paragraphs long with broad enough questions that leave room for interpretation however you want (as long as you address the presented issue). There really isn't a right or wrong answer and sometimes interviewers do want to see if you can add something different in your responses. Therefore, you indeed can go into FDA approval, clinical testing, and potential side effects and take that into account with the state of the patient (the prompts will give you a background on the patient - ex. 70 year old male with terminal condition).

These things are more of a casual conversation than an impromptu speech (thankfully!).
 
There's been a couple threads on this already. However, I think this interview process robs the interviewee of his/her chance to evaluate the school and ask meaningful questions. Also, this does not give you a chance to talk about your experiences, to talk about your past, to talk about weaknesses in your application, to talk about your interest in the school, or establish any kind of meaningful connection.

Not only that, but some people may be bad at this but able to become great doctors, particularly if they are given training and more exposure to these issues. Surely one's performance at something like this, as an applicant, is not a testament to their capacity to succeed in these situations as a doctor after 7-12 years of training.

I feel like this format is less interested in determining who I am and more interested in making me dance like a monkey. So I don't see this as a good replacement for 1v1 interviews. I think it would be a great complement, but it doesn't allow the applicant to talk about a lot of things that make us unique.
 
Narmerguy said:
There's been a couple threads on this already. However, I think this interview process robs the interviewee of his/her chance to evaluate the school and ask meaningful questions. Also, this does not give you a chance to talk about your experiences, to talk about your past, to talk about weaknesses in your application, to talk about your interest in the school, or establish any kind of meaningful connection.

Not only that, but some people may be bad at this but able to become great doctors, particularly if they are given training and more exposure to these issues. Surely one's performance at something like this, as an applicant, is not a testament to their capacity to succeed in these situations as a doctor after 7-12 years of training.

I feel like this format is less interested in determining who I am and more interested in making me dance like a monkey. So I don't see this as a good replacement for 1v1 interviews. I think it would be a great complement, but it doesn't allow the applicant to talk about a lot of things that make us unique.
Click to expand...

You hit the nail on the head; my sentiments exactly.
 
Narmerguy said:
There's been a couple threads on this already. However, I think this interview process robs the interviewee of his/her chance to evaluate the school and ask meaningful questions. Also, this does not give you a chance to talk about your experiences, to talk about your past, to talk about weaknesses in your application, to talk about your interest in the school, or establish any kind of meaningful connection.

Not only that, but some people may be bad at this but able to become great doctors, particularly if they are given training and more exposure to these issues. Surely one's performance at something like this, as an applicant, is not a testament to their capacity to succeed in these situations as a doctor after 7-12 years of training.
Click to expand...

I don't think it diminishes your ability to evaluate the school or ask questions. Every school that I have gone to so far asks the applicants every 5 minutes whether they have questions. I also don't see how MMI doesn't allow you to evaluate the school. That's what the tours, presentaions, chatting with students is for.

As for talking about your experiences, etc., there's a great deal of room for this on both primaries and secondaries. Further, schools with MMI, tend to have extensive secondaries where you can build yourself up to your heart's content. If you're willing to interview there you're clearly interested, and if you get waitlisted you can always send a letter of interest.

While this certainly isn't a perfect metric for future success, I would imagine it would correlate a lot more highly than just sitting down with one person for 45 minutes talking about yourself.
 
My impression of MMI has been decidedly negative. While I actually thought I did fine during the interviews, it was the feeling I got that was intrinsic to the process.

I felt like I was some sort of zoo animal exhibit or circus act where each examiner gets a little bit of time to evaluate me or see me perform some predetermined act and then we both moved on. Even though I know that this ensures a greater degree of objectivity and a more impartial evaluation of the candidates, I can't help but feel that it was more demeaning and dehumanizing, as if they are making no effort to know you as a whole, only the little pieces that they care about.

In the end, even though there are definitely opportunities to ask your questions and interact with others during the rest of the day, I can't help but feel like it's all about the med school getting what it wants without regard to the applicants. That's why I have such an ambivalent or even negative view of MMI.
 
SBR249 said:
My impression of MMI has been decidedly negative. While I actually thought I did fine during the interviews, it was the feeling I got that was intrinsic to the process.

I felt like I was some sort of zoo animal exhibit or circus act where each examiner gets a little bit of time to evaluate me or see me perform some predetermined act and then we both moved on. Even though I know that this ensures a greater degree of objectivity and a more impartial evaluation of the candidates, I can't help but feel that it was more demeaning and dehumanizing, as if they are making no effort to know you as a whole, only the little pieces that they care about.

In the end, even though there are definitely opportunities to ask your questions and interact with others during the rest of the day, I can't help but feel like it's all about the med school getting what it wants without regard to the applicants. That's why I have such an ambivalent or even negative view of MMI.
Click to expand...

I don't really get this. You're applying to them. They want to know about you to decide whether or not to accept you. They did not apply to have you come to their school.

Also, how is it any more demeaning or dehumanizing than an interviewer asking you for canned responses to the "typical" questions (or just rambling on about themselves)? MMI actually gets to the idea of the real you, ie how you think and what you would do in certain situations. It doesn't get more human that this.
 
Cannon said:
I don't really get this. You're applying to them. They want to know about you to decide whether or not to accept you. They did not apply to have you come to their school.

Also, how is it any more demeaning or dehumanizing than an interviewer asking you for canned responses to the "typical" questions (or just rambling on about themselves)? MMI actually gets to the idea of the real you, ie how you think and what you would do in certain situations. It doesn't get more human that this.
Click to expand...

Yes I'm applying to them, and yes, I understand that they have to look out for their own interests. However, when an interviewer takes the time and effort to try to put together a complete picture of who I am and allows me the opportunity to full explain it, to me it shows a respect for me as a person. However, while the MMI may be able to show the stark truth of who I am, the interviewee is treated almost as cattle along a conveyor belt. There's almost no time for anything except to do what you are told and even then there's a severe time restraint. I'm not saying that you have to get it or that you need to share my opinion. These are my impressions. If you have no qualms about jump through these hoops and doing whatever it takes to get in med school, power to you. As for me, I react negatively to schools that believe this is a good way to treat applicants and no matter what the school is, it leaves me with a bad taste in my mouth.
 
SBR249 said:
when an interviewer takes the time and effort to try to put together a complete picture of who I am and allows me the opportunity to full explain it, to me it shows a respect for me as a person
Click to expand...

How many weeks did you spend putting together your AMCAS? They have 30 pages of you.
 
iggs99988 said:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/11/health/policy/11docs.html?pagewanted=all

Wow, talk about a high-octane, pressure packed situation! Rapid fire interviews, 8 minute long hypothetical scenario's... It seems that being a consummate student with fantastic extracurricular's is not enough anymore. I guess the growing number of applications schools receive with increasingly qualified students is making schools implement further separating factors.

It's honestly getting to be too much. What do these schools expect? Students slave for years to present a competitive application and effectively communicate their desire to practice medicine, and then schools make them hop through this make or break pressure-cooker? Ridiculous..there has to be a line drawn in the sand where to say enough is enough. Social skills aren't always best communicated in these pressurized "think on your feet or fail" situations. Medical schools are looking for the individual who can coordinate the proper responses as well as be an academic model and well rounded--in other words, mr. perfect. Theres a difference between "pressure" one-on-one or group interview and this; medical school admissions and the path to becoming a practicing physician is becoming a farce.
Click to expand...
while i'm not a big fan of MMIs, you slaving for years is not particularly relevant to medical schools in discerning whether you're a complete human being or not.
 
SBR249 said:
Why have an interview at all if they can learn all about a person from their AMCAS.
Click to expand...

You spend weeks putting together your AMCAS "why I want to be a doctor" essay.

You spend weeks putting together your answer to the "why I want to be a doctor" interview question.

They just want to see what you're like when you're not proofread and rehearsed. I mean, at my traditional interview, most of it was basically rehashing stuff that I'd already written about in both the primary and secondary. Maybe they just wanted to make sure I wasn't changing details and making stuff up, but really, the boilerplate interview was tiresome to me. One interviewer went off the beaten path a bit and that was cool.
 
SBR249 said:
Yes I'm applying to them, and yes, I understand that they have to look out for their own interests. However, when an interviewer takes the time and effort to try to put together a complete picture of who I am and allows me the opportunity to full explain it, to me it shows a respect for me as a person. However, while the MMI may be able to show the stark truth of who I am, the interviewee is treated almost as cattle along a conveyor belt. There's almost no time for anything except to do what you are told and even then there's a severe time restraint. I'm not saying that you have to get it or that you need to share my opinion. These are my impressions. If you have no qualms about jump through these hoops and doing whatever it takes to get in med school, power to you. As for me, I react negatively to schools that believe this is a good way to treat applicants and no matter what the school is, it leaves me with a bad taste in my mouth.
Click to expand...

I disagree. 8 minutes (which I believe is right around standard for each interview) is plenty of time to discuss a given situation AND get some random other thoughts in. Mind you, this is dependant upon your understanding the topic and fully communicating your ideas well.

And once again, I disagree with your cattle along a conveyor belt analogy. That would make sense if you were just supposed to go in, stamp a paper, and move on, but the scenarios are supposed to be thought-provoking with multiple details that can be expanded upon as necessary. If you're just going in, stating some "standard answer" to the basics of the issue, and obstinately sticking with it, you're doing it wrong.

BUT, I guess everybody prefers different things. I really hate the 1-2 interview where I either answer all the cookie-cutter questions about me or answer a question or two then listen to the other person's spiel about gawd-knows-what; too risky, too unscientific, and too impersonal for me.
 
Narmerguy said:
I don't see this as a good replacement for 1v1 interviews. I think it would be a great complement, but it doesn't allow the applicant to talk about a lot of things that make us unique.
Click to expand...

I agree with this. I felt like I came out of my MMI's having done well, but having had a lackluster experience. Plus, at none of the schools that practiced MMI did I have the opportunity to talk with faculty members, which in my book is a huge no-no.

Whereas most schools seem to use the interview to see if the applicant is a "good fit," MMIs introduce a more quantitative screening process that I feel didn't add a terrible amount. I'm much more concerned with a med school getting to know my future classmates intimately—these aren't just future doctors, but my friends and colleagues—than evaluating their performative spurts. Besides, I can imagine many people doing just fine for 8 minutes, but not necessarily for 45. I have already noticed myself taking this into account when making the choice of where I'll end up next fall.

And okay, so we have a buffer of 8-10 "raters," as opposed to 1-3 interviewers, any one of whom can kill our chances at any given school. But this process has already led us to apply to more than 8-10 schools on average. I'm perfectly okay with having the occasional bad interview (and I have) at the expense of having some truly great ones. But if I'm having a bad interview at many of the schools I visit, it probably says more about me than about the traditional interview format...

tl;dr: Percy isn't a huge fan of MMI.
 
Cannon said:
I disagree. 8 minutes (which I believe is right around standard for each interview) is plenty of time to discuss a given situation AND get some random other thoughts in. Mind you, this is dependant upon your understanding the topic and fully communicating your ideas well.

And once again, I disagree with your cattle along a conveyor belt analogy. That would make sense if you were just supposed to go in, stamp a paper, and move on, but the scenarios are supposed to be thought-provoking with multiple details that can be expanded upon as necessary. If you're just going in, stating some "standard answer" to the basics of the issue, and obstinately sticking with it, you're doing it wrong.

BUT, I guess everybody prefers different things. I really hate the 1-2 interview where I either answer all the cookie-cutter questions about me or answer a question or two then listen to the other person's spiel about gawd-knows-what; too risky, too unscientific, and too impersonal for me.
Click to expand...

I never really felt like I as answering cookie cutter questions or giving boilerplate responses. I really just enjoyed conversing with others. As for time, if these situations can be adequately explored in 8 minutes then they aren't very thought provoking I guess I just like to take my time and think things through or at last talk it through and not feel rushed to give someone enough info to rate me.

As for the responses above ahout preparing my AMCAS, I feel that there's something to be said about actually telling someone face to face and interacting with them. Again, I will reiterating that that's how I personally feel after experiencing the MMI.
 
Well hell, the main concern I had at my interview was impressing people enough to get in. I wish I had the luxury of trying to gather information at the same time. 😕
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

M
Interview Scheduling
Replies
6
Views
729
maybefuturedoctor7
M
G
No Interview Invites, Yet
Replies
9
Views
2K
2026PreMed
2026PreMed
CWRU.Sman
Interview Advice + Tips from Admissions Officers
Replies
0
Views
240
CWRU.Sman
CWRU.Sman
W
Interview Honesty
Replies
4
Views
1K
Mr.Smile12
Mr.Smile12
P
Interview with Multiple Interviewers
Replies
1
Views
732
Goro
Goro
Top