Traditional Interviews vs. MMIs - what is most helpful for learning about candidates

[DBC03]

---

Members don't see this ad.

I keep threatening to start a thread on this subject, so I'm finally following through. So far I have three traditional interviews lined up, but I'm interested to hear what people think of the traditional interview vs MMI format. I can see how there are benefits and drawback to both. An MMI format, especially one with teamwork exercises, might make it easier to determine how a candidate works with a team or thinks through an ethical issue. A traditional interview format enables the school to ask specific questions, which can be used to analyze responses AND behavior. I can see how it might be a benefit to have an MMI format with a few traditional stations, or half MMI, half traditional (let's admit this might be a nightmare to try to set up).

My other thought is that watching candidates throughout the day is probably one of the best ways to gauge behavior. How candidates treat others can speak volumes about what they actually believe, and moreso than a formal station or interview setting.

I'd love hear various theories on this, but I'd also love to hear from adcoms or students involved in the interview process - especially anyone who has seen students first during interviews, then as students, and even later as residents or physicians. Did you feel like the interview strategy your school used was the most beneficial?

 

[Porkloins]

Frankly I think interviewing in general is a pretty suspect process. Aside from screening out people with extreme social deficiencies, I feel like the only utility of the evaluative interview is to identify the people who are... well, good at interviews. I base this conclusion on the fact that I know of people who were incredibly difficult to interact with as peers and who engaged in rather selfish behavior but are now students at MD schools. Alas, there really is no better alternative at the moment. I suppose I'd like there to be less emphasis on the "performance" (e.g. charisma) and more on the "content" (e.g. learning details about a student's background, challenges they faced etc.) during the interview. I know interpersonal skills are incredibly important in medicine, but will the way someone interacts with an interviewer really mirror the way they interact with a patient?

As to your question, I think the MMI is at least better in that it theoretically controls for biases or personality conflicts between interviewers and interviewees by bringing multiple evaluators into the equation. Still, it suffers from the fact that one can simply be coached in the art of giving a good MMI answer without allowing one's true views or internal tendencies to the surface. One example I'll give: the "stressful" MMI interviewer. At one of my recent interviews, the person I encountered was acting incredibly bored and unresponsive, presumably in order to see how I dealt with this "stressful" situation. However, because I'd heard of this tactic before, I really wasn't fazed at all, and was able to keep calm and even crack some sarcastic comments. I highly doubt that I'd be able to remain so calm if I was, say, trying to get an unresponsive patient to understand how important it was to vaccinate her child before my 10 minutes with her was up.

My other thought is that watching candidates throughout the day is probably one of the best ways to gauge behavior. How candidates treat others can speak volumes about what they actually believe, and moreso than a formal station or interview setting.

This is an interesting thought. I was actually taken aback at how at one of my interviews at a T20, 3 separate interviewees openly admitted to me (post interview) that they didn't like this school that much, or at least not as much as they did other schools they'd applied to. I've joked before that schools should plant 1-2 undercover actors as fake interviewees to take part in all the informal interview day activities in order to get a better picture of each applicant's true thoughts, but maybe it's not such a bad idea after all...

 

[fldoctorgirl]

I have attended one MMI and one traditional interview so far. The school that used MMI also had a group interview first.

Personally, I think the traditional interview is way better than MMI. Although traditional + group might be cool, I agree with what you that watching applicants throughout the day is probably a better way to gauge their behavior. During the MMI, I felt rushed and the interviewer didn't get to ask any follow up questions that were specific to my application. I answered the "why this school?" and "why medicine?" questions and then my five minutes were up. In my traditional interview, which was 2-on-1, I got to speak at length about my interests and passions (the interview lasted at least 30 minutes, but could have been as long as 45..I don't remember exactly). I truly felt like I got to show them who I was and why I was a good fit for their school. The flow of conversation was much more natural; they asked me follow up questions and I had the chance to ask them questions as well.

Like you, I see the value in a group interview. However, I totally think traditional interview + observing how the students behave during the day trumps MMI.

 

[Pathdocmd]

Wake Forest is just starting MMI this year and I am so far pleased with the results. After doing a traditional unstructured interview for the past 10 years I have been at Wake, I can say a few things about traditional interviews. They really say more about the interviewer than the person being interviewed. There are so much personal bias, good and bad, that it makes the interview almost worthless. If you happen to "click" with the interviewer, then great! Had the same research interest... your lucky day (unless you didn't know your stuff, then oops). Went to the same undergrad or, in one case the same high school, you had lots to talk about that had little to do with why you want to be a doctor. Some interviewers loved everyone (emeritus faculty) or were much harder scorers (medical students). The standardization eliminates most of this and we can look at the data to make changes to a station or have some objective criteria when raters are scoring too high or too low.

 

[@Hazel-rah]

I've had one of each so far and I prefer MMI. It's fun and more exciting, and your average score is supposed to be more objective, thus more reliable. At the non-MMI school, I had a good connection with one interviewer but the other one was kind of blah; the guy was just very unemotional. Some other interviewees got to talk with the dean; I felt like they had an unfair advantage because of that...
Then again, for the MMI school,most of the interviewers were 4th years. That was a little awkward for me because it seems like they would be a bit biased. I would rather be judged by physicians.

But it doesn't matter to me really. I'll play whatever games the admissions reps want so I can have a chance at medical school. I feel like the admissions teams make really hard work for themselves, though...