In order of preference:
1.) 1-on-1 interview (LECOM-B; really short one, UVM)
2.) Panel interview (NSU, AZCOM, WesternU)
3.) Group interview (LECOM-B)
4.) MMI (WesternU, UCR/UCLA)
I cannot stand MMI. I've done it twice- a 12 station one last cycle for the UCR/UCLA program, and a mini 2 station one this cycle at WesternU. Although they're definitely different and seemingly more exciting (because of the stress), I think they're a poor way of interviewing and getting to know candidates. I can't say much because of nondisclosure agreements, but anyone can be fake for several minutes at a time. Since everyone is pretty much going to do fine (unless you say something completely off) in an MMI, what's the adcom really going to use to determine the final status of your file? Numbers. That's fine if you have higher stats, but for me that doesn't work too well. I want to have long discussions about my passion for medicine, my experiences, what makes me unique, why I belong at the school. Not, "You have 8 minutes to tell me what you think about the new healthcare bill. Start now." 🙄
I also really disliked the group interview at LECOM-B. I believe we were put in groups of 6 and had two faculty members facilitating our discussions. Also, it was something like 60 minutes. That's 10 minutes per person- even less since the faculty members added to our talks and some people talked more than others. < 10 minutes per person is nothing. I'm not a gunner, I like thinking of what to say before I say it, and I'm not someone whose just going to start talking once someone else finishes. I like to let other people speak before thinking of a response and speaking myself, and I think that puts you at a disadvantage at a group interview. Just my opinion.
I've got one more interview that's a traditional 1-on-1, so I'm really looking forward to that one. I'm tired of 15 minute panels/group interviews/MMI's, and feeling like there was no time for me to talk about myself.
Sorry for the long post!
/rant