Traditional Interview or Multiple Mini: Thoughts and Preferences?

Started by thehoneybadger
Get help with your application

Use all the free resources available to you from SDN: articles, guides, expert advising, forums discussions, and school research.

Browse articles Compare schools My application plan Read Interview Feedback
Practice for interviews Ask an Advisor
thehoneybadger

thehoneybadger

Full Member
10+ Year Member
So now that this cycle is coming to an end with many schools using a multiple mini interview format for the first time, what are your thoughts?

1) Which interview format was harder for you to ace,

and

2) Which do you prefer?
 
While the MMI is much more stressful, I found it enjoyable. It added a little excitement to the day. The only MMI that I did was at SOMA and that did not replace the traditional interview, but went along with it. I enjoy the social aspect of a traditional interview and if I had to choose one or the other, I'd go for the traditional, but overall I prefer to have both as it makes the day a little more exciting.

This is what I would choose.
1. Traditional AND MMI.
2. Traditional only
3. MMI only


P.S. I LOVE PSYCH!
 
I work in psych and felt that the MMIs were right up my alley. I thought I was working with a client. I'd take that over a traditional interview where my application was constantly challenged or criticized.
 
I did only one MMI, at SOMA, and I was really stressed out. I felt like I did really terrible and expected a post interview rejection. I ended up getting accepted. I think it would be fun to be one of the actors/interviewers in an MMI and get to see a bunch of stressed out people put on the spot.
 
Personally, I agree with abolt. I like the combination the best. Its nice to have time to talk about yourself and address weaknesses. At the same time, the MMI is a bit fun, in that its really fast and you feel like you have a fresh start/another opportunity to shine every 10 min.
 
Bnmakr1 said:
I work in psych and felt that the MMIs were right up my alley. I thought I was working with a client. I'd take that over a traditional interview where my application was constantly challenged or criticized.
Click to expand...

Haha I don't know if your reference to psych had to do with me saying I love psych, but I was saying it because of OP's avatar and my love for the TV show psych.

hallowmann said:
Personally, I agree with abolt. I like the combination the best. Its nice to have time to talk about yourself and address weaknesses. At the same time, the MMI is a bit fun, in that its really fast and you feel like you have a fresh start/another opportunity to shine every 10 min.
Click to expand...

Well said! Honestly with all the stuff SOMA does on their interview day, I felt it was the most informative and enjoyable interview day of the 4 interviews I attended. I left really knowing what the school was all about (which eventually helped me decide against attending)
 
I did 5 interviews before canceling the rest. In order of preference...

1. OHSU MMI with one station double long for a more "traditional interview"
2. U of A Phoenix MMI. Pure MMI.
3. Western COMP-NW Traditional with a short three station MMI
4. Nova. 20-30 minute traditional
5. LECOM-B group interview (that sucked big time!)

I guess I can say that I liked the MMI better. It was an unknown and stressful feeling going into it, but each station is very focused on one thing.

I think the reason that Western's MMI was lower because it was three stations of the same "type." I can't say more because of the NDA, but it didn't give much variety. A person that has any acting experience can improvise through and fake an answer. Some of the other "types" are more difficult to do that with.

dsoz
 
thehoneybadger said:
So now that this cycle is coming to an end with many schools using a multiple mini interview format for the first time, what are your thoughts?

1) Which interview format was harder for you to ace,

and

2) Which do you prefer?
Click to expand...

MMI >>>> traditional interview. DEFINITELY.

I've done multiple traditional interviews, and while they end up being fine, I was much more stressed out about them before, during and after. I was only stressed out about the MMI beforehand. Once I started my first station I realized it was actually pretty awesome because I was able to showcase my personality a bit. Although, I do probably like the combo the most (MMI + traditional interview), because I feel like it allows someone to not only show their personality, but talk about themselves a bit too 🙂

Oh and I'm with dsoz. Group interviews are THE WORST. I hated my interview at LECOM-B because their set up was so stupid 👎
 
I had 5 interviews this past cycle (2 acceptances).

I believe the MMI and Personal Interview have strengths and weaknesses. The MMI can be more stressful, but you meet with more people and thus who you are as a person can be seen by more of those who represent the school. The Personal Interview allows more of you to really shine with one person, but others in the school miss out on getting to know you.

I enjoyed the Personal Interview more. I was not as nervous and felt that more of me was known rather then squeezing in everything under an already pressed time constraint.
 
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
 
Favorite was traditional closed file interview. The schools deemed by my application that I was competent enough to be there so I didn't have to spend 30-60 minutes retelling what they already know and discussing it. We got to have a conversation, they could tell that I was socially competent enough to be a physician, and they could decide if I had a personality that seemed a good fit for the school. I got a good feel for them, what the school was like, what the area was like, and how they go about making their students the best they can be.

Next favorite was the MMI. I only got one shot at this and thought it was great. However for some reason 3/6 stations were the same topic.... New school so I think they'll handle everything about the interview day better in the coming years, including the topics. Having multiple people to interview you is great, just like every other facet of life there were interviewers that I clicked with and some I didn't so it evened out. It was engaging and the time flew by. This school also did a closed file traditional interview so it was like best of both worlds (though it was either NOT closed filed or one of the people interviewing me knew something about me prior to the interview - a lot of things rubbed me the wrong way about this school).

Traditional interview. I felt it was boring and just a task to get out of the way. Also felt like every interviewer felt the same way. Best one went WAY off topic because one of the interviewers recognized my school and knew something unique about it.
 
DrMeows said:
MMI >>>> traditional interview. DEFINITELY.

I've done multiple traditional interviews, and while they end up being fine, I was much more stressed out about them before, during and after. I was only stressed out about the MMI beforehand. Once I started my first station I realized it was actually pretty awesome because I was able to showcase my personality a bit. Although, I do probably like the combo the most (MMI + traditional interview), because I feel like it allows someone to not only show their personality, but talk about themselves a bit too 🙂
Click to expand...

I'm pretty much exactly the opposite of Meows post...we've actually discussed this before too😉

So IMO, Traditional interview>>>>MMI ABSOLUTELY

I feel your true personality is more accurately portrayed when you spend a longer time with a single interviewer/panel of interviewers in a traditional set-up. You are able to actually establish a "real life" type of conversation rather than a forced standardized answer. If personality is what that are trying to gauge, I fail to see how the MMI is superior. I also feel as though my true self is better revealed when talking about my story/things that interest me vs. ridiculous open ended questions/bogus "what would you do" scenarios. Like someone mentioned before, it is easier to "act" your way through these types of scenarios for short bursts of time as exists in an MMI and I am sure many people do it. It really isn't hard to gauge what theme they are testing/looking for at each station.

That said, I didn't hate the MMI. If the one that I participated in (ironically at the school I'll be attending) didnt have a double long traditional interview station built into it, I probably would have cared even less for it. I do see the benefits for some folks who like the fact that they can basically start fresh after each station, and that if they don't vibe well with one interviewer their whole interview isn't compromised because of it...still, I just don't think it really promotes an honest reflection of one's self and can be easily faked.
 
Have to agree with Kenobi. I didn't have a great experience with SOMA's form of MMI (the only one I experienced) and it was was more stressful to me than anything else I've done in this mad process of med school applications. Maybe this was because the structure was different. I would discuss further but I don't want to breech any confidentiality (not sure if format matters with that or just content).

The traditional interview with open file I like since ultimately selection/admission committee's base their decision significantly off of everything. These interviews give you a chance to highlight your strengths that they've seen on paper while address the weaknesses, all head on. Sure they can be stressful, but at least the one's I had, were not grill fests and were more conversations and dialogue.

Interestingly, I read an article recently on MMI and the only correlation they have with anything (based on this study) was the degree of extroversion of the applicant's personality. I appreciated it at least 🙂
http://www.ucdmc.ucdavis.edu/publish/news/newsroom/6802
 
My stress level was way higher for the 3 MMIs I did, even though they all went well (at least I thought they did). Each school was very different. I loved one way and hated the other two.

1. Central Michigan's MMI was the best. There want any "actors" and I didn't have to play any role playing. I read the prompt, and discussed with the interviewer what I would do for the given scenario. I loved central Michigan's the best because one station asked to discuss your strengths and weaknesses, which I thought was really cool.

2. SOMAs was good because they incorporated the traditional interview as well as the MMI. While there was still "actors" and I had to play the role of "3rd year med student" it didn't seem to awkward.

3. WesternU was BY FAR the worst. The MMI scenarios put you in awkward situations with actors that weren't good. It's just hard to act things out when you know the scenario isnt real. I'm a horrible actor.

As for me, I like panel interviews the most. Idk why. I feel if schools do MMI they need to cut the actors and just have you discuss the prompt with the interviewers at each station instead. It gets the same thing done.

LECM-Erie had a group interview. I'm not the biggest fan of that either. While I did get accepted, I felt like all I did was listen to one guy talk about his research, and that I said nothing.
 
I never ended up doing an MMI. But I've gotten good at the traditional interview, even open file. I actually like open file because the interviewer can pick topics based on your application (some good points, some bad points) and I can take off from there.

Interviewing is kind of a skill/art in conversation. And as someone that grew up sucking at conversation, it's nice that I've come this far.
 
Mr Kenobi said:
I'm pretty much exactly the opposite of Meows post...we've actually discussed this before too😉

So IMO, Traditional interview>>>>MMI ABSOLUTELY

I feel your true personality is more accurately portrayed when you spend a longer time with a single interviewer/panel of interviewers in a traditional set-up. You are able to actually establish a "real life" type of conversation rather than a forced standardized answer. If personality is what that are trying to gauge, I fail to see how the MMI is superior. I also feel as though my true self is better revealed when talking about my story/things that interest me vs. ridiculous open ended questions/bogus "what would you do" scenarios. Like someone mentioned before, it is easier to "act" your way through these types of scenarios for short bursts of time as exists in an MMI and I am sure many people do it. It really isn't hard to gauge what theme they are testing/looking for at each station.

That said, I didn't hate the MMI. If the one that I participated in (ironically at the school I'll be attending) didnt have a double long traditional interview station built into it, I probably would have cared even less for it. I do see the benefits for some folks who like the fact that they can basically start fresh after each station, and that if they don't vibe well with one interviewer their whole interview isn't compromised because of it...still, I just don't think it really promotes an honest reflection of one's self and can be easily faked.
Click to expand...

Disagreeing with me. TYPICAL.

Cats >>>> Star Wars. Therefore, everything I say is right 😉
 
DrMeows said:
Disagreeing with me. TYPICAL.

Cats >>>> Star Wars. Therefore, everything I say is right 😉
Click to expand...

307396_131201797058314_390351744_n.jpg

:naughty: I think I just won.
 
Every single interview I went on this year was organized differently; I only had one MMI. To me, the MMI was more fun, because I really got to show off my skills, especially in medical ethics. However, I also love traditional interviews because you get lots of one-on-one time, so the interviewer(s) get to see more of what makes you special since you have more time with them.

The best advice I could give to anyone would be to practice, practice, practice. Go on job interviews to get used to a variety of questions that may catch you off guard. Think of questions that you would hate for an interviewer to ask you, and come up with ways to nail them. If you have something in particular you want your interviewers to know about you, make sure you know how to throw it in and nail it. I spent the hour commute to and from work each day to talk to myself in the car (weird, I know), so that I could 1) see how my answer sounded 2) make sure I didn't leave anything important out if my brain went into autopilot and 3) practiced making my answers clear and concise. These can be helpful practice no matter what type of interview you have.
 
Dyerseve30 said:
LECM-Erie had a group interview. I'm not the biggest fan of that either. While I did get accepted, I felt like all I did was listen to one guy talk about his research, and that I said nothing.
Click to expand...

I wonder if we were in the same interview group because I had the same experience. Lol
 
So I had a few interviews of every type. In chronological order:

1. LECOM-E. Group interview
2. NSU. Two member panel interview, open file.
3. LECOM-B. Group interview.
4. AZCOM. Three member panel
5. ATSU-SOMA. MMI and two (?) member panel interview.
6. DMU. Two member panel interview, open file I think.
7. WesternU Lebanon. MMI and three panel interview, open file.

I had 5 others but couldn't afford to do 12 interviews. Lol

My favorite kind of interview? I'm torn really so I think a combination MMI and panel/traditional interview is the best. There are pros and cons to both kinds of interviews. I understand that with the MMI adcoms are attempting to identify more intangibles in applicants. I will agree with those who say that sometimes the MMI can be somewhat contrived and that anybody can "act" for a few minutes and be whatever they think they should be. I will also say that I think it would be difficult to truly hide your personality in an MMI, you'd have to be a really good actor. I think the MMI is an interesting way for schools to observe applicants from another angle. However, I feel that it only makes sense to use the MMI as an evaluation tool when you also have a traditional panel interview to judge applicants from.

As for open/closed file I couldn't really care less. Again, there are pros and cons but I'm fine talking about myself and my motivations either way.
 
i preferred the MMI.

The MMI gives you a chance to showcase who you are. Traditional interviews are largely dependent on who you get as interviewers and whether you guys mesh well.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.