What do you think of the new interview style that Stanford has implemented?

[ILikeDrugs]

---

Members do not see this ad.

A new article that just came out 2 days ago, which is also featured on the front page of Stanford's med school website, states that a new style of interview is being tried out. It consists of 10 mini-interviews, in 10 different rooms, and each mini lasts 8 minutes. One of the rooms involves you standing back-to-back with another interviewee. One tells the other how to solve a puzzle and the other solves it. Sounds kind of fun. I like it better than being grilled by just one person. The lessens the chance of the interview turning sour if the person happens to not like your personality. You start fresh with each mini. 👍

http://med.stanford.edu/ism/2011/january/interview-0110.html

BTW: What's up with the CSI:SDN thread emoticon? I picked it cause it was so strange.

 

[LoveTheRunner]

MMI isn't new?

 

[ILikeDrugs]

MMI isn't new?

So this isn't new?! I assumed it was since it was a featured article on their front page. 😳 I thought the only interview styles out there were 1 on 1, panel style, or group.

I guess I should've searched for "MMI". There's already one here made only 2 months ago. I don't remember coming across it. http://forums.studentdoctor.net/showthread.php?t=760114

 

[wanderer]

Cincinnati, NJMS, UCSD (I think) and most Canadian schools have the MMI.

 

[FutureDoc4]

RWJMS performs it as well.... its just becoming more popular

 

[dbeast]

I've done an MMI and I like it better because it's more about personality rather than describing the activities that the committee will have written down in front of them in your application anyways. I guess it could hurt someone who has a lot of updates to share since their primary because it's less focused on your activities, but besides that, I think it's a good process.

My favorite interviewers have been the ones who ask more unusual questions and an MMI is all unusual questions start to finish.

 

[MilkmanAl]

I think it's crap. It isn't an interview, so it's a whole lot less likely to screen out the people who suck. Yes, it'll test how you think on your feet, but you can do that easily without introducing a gimmick this extreme and eliminating the main purpose of the interview process.

Canadian schools have been doing this sort of thing for quite some time, I believe.

 

[Danlee07]

if anything, it tests how you deal with stress under pressure. that's pretty big.

 

[curlytop]

Virginia Tech also does the MMI.

 

[panasonic52]

I like it because I think an interviewer can learn more about a person by the way they react to unusual questions. You know everyone is going to prepare some "amazing" response for the typical questions about ECs and such in normal interviews. That's just not effective to me.

 

[MilkmanAl]

if anything, it tests how you deal with stress under pressure. that's pretty big.

So do normal interviews and the MCAT.

You know everyone is going to prepare some "amazing" response for the typical questions about ECs and such in normal interviews. That's just not effective to me.

...So don't ask those typical questions. It's not rocket science. Again, you don't need to parade people around through crazy situations to see their stress responses.

 

[CoolWhipp]

Great. After all the work we had to do to apply to medical school, this is BS. Why are the making us dance around like monkeys doing tricks? Talk to us like normal people do, the context would be more relevant.

Anyone have any articles suggesting the effectiveness of this crap?

 

[wanderer]

I think it's crap. It isn't an interview, so it's a whole lot less likely to screen out the people who suck. Yes, it'll test how you think on your feet, but you can do that easily without introducing a gimmick this extreme and eliminating the main purpose of the interview process.

Canadian schools have been doing this sort of thing for quite some time, I believe.

Another thing people who praise the MMI nonstop don't realize is that a significant portion of the interviewers in the MMI system are undertrained. I had one tester that hardly spoke English and likely didn't understand the nuances of what I was saying (and no it wasn't taped or observed by a 3rd party), and other testers who gave away varying degrees of help. Having a different order of stations could also affect how you do.
I think regular interviews are even more full of BS though. The places I've had good interviews at seemed random, and was based more on whether or not I clicked with the random person assigned to interview me.

So I think the MMI, if done right, is a lot more useful than the standard interview, but the school where I did the MMI could improve it a lot (and they've been doing it for a few years, so they don't have much of an excuse).

Anyone have any articles suggesting the effectiveness of this crap?

The school with the MMI gave a pretty good case for its effectiveness relative to standard interviews that involved a bunch of different reasons. They cited a medical education journal but I don't remember which. If you look through the main ones you should find some articles about it.

 

[Musclemass]

Trendy and pseudo-cool, that's Stanford in many respects. They keep trying lots of things because they just don't understand why the rest of the world doesn't find the place and its people to be as cool as they think they are. Great place, yes. Cool, no more or less than anywhere else.

 

[panasonic52]

So do normal interviews and the MCAT.

...So don't ask those typical questions. It's not rocket science. Again, you don't need to parade people around through crazy situations to see their stress responses.

Obviously it's not rocket science. But how many times do we get asked the same questions over and over again that can be prepared for? Yes, they didn't need to go to this extreme, but they could at least try to come up with questions that don't come straight from the application. They just need to find a happy medium.

 

[ElChamaco]

Great. After all the work we had to do to apply to medical school, this is BS. Why are the making us dance around like monkeys doing tricks? Talk to us like normal people do, the context would be more relevant.

Anyone have any articles suggesting the effectiveness of this crap?

I agree 100%. This is absolutely insane. Med schools already take themselves way more seriously than any other grad/professional school by making the application process last nearly a year and making us fly all over the country for interviews costing us thousands of dollars. Now they want us to juggle too? What next, spinning plates on our heads?

Compare to law for example. From the Yale law school website:

"We accept applications from October 1 through February 15, and most applicants will receive a final response by the end of April." http://www.law.yale.edu/admissions/howweevaluateapplications.htm

No interviews. No "secondaries." No 9 month wait (june primary to march notification).

I bet med schools expend more time, money and energy on admissions than all other graduate and professional programs combined.

 

[rjmn]

I feel mixed about MMI. It felt a lot like speed-dating.

Although it captures (somewhat) how you interact with other people, it doesn't allow you to express multidimensionality the way a lengthy interview might. Not only is it closed-file, but the stations are so short that there's no opportunity for anyone to find out what motivates me, what experiences have been formative, etc. I can't give a narrative or express complex feelings, because it's so damned quick.

8 minutes is too short to form a considered impression of somebody.

It also is weird how taking an acting class was what prepared me the best for this stuff.

It's got lots of strengths and lots of shortcomings. I would like to see interview days boast a mix.

 

[panasonic52]

I agree 100%. This is absolutely insane. Med schools already take themselves way more seriously than any other grad/professional school by making the application process last nearly a year and making us fly all over the country for interviews costing us thousands of dollars. Now they want us to juggle too? What next, spinning plates on our heads?

Compare to law for example. From the Yale law school website:

"We accept applications from October 1 through February 15, and most applicants will receive a final response by the end of April." http://www.law.yale.edu/admissions/howweevaluateapplications.htm

No interviews. No "secondaries." No 9 month wait (june primary to march notification).

I bet med schools expend more time, money and energy on admissions than all other graduate and professional programs combined.

Yeah it is a bit annoying how much more med schools ask for. But I guess a trade-off is that apart from the top med schools, it doesn't matter much where you go to. With law it does

 

[rjmn]

.

 

[Wermz]

I'm kind of flabbergasted as to why people are showing such negative reactions to MMI. If you think MMI is "insane" or makes us "monkeys dancing around doing tricks" or whatever, that just sounds like fear and overreaction. If MMI is such a stressful thing for you, maybe you're the type MMI is designed to weed out.

The article OP posted made some solid points about MMI's advantages: diluting the effect of one bad interview or one particular interviewer, etc. I personally have not done MMI, but I have two coming up, and I'm very excited to try it.

 

[WeAreNotRobots]

Great. After all the work we had to do to apply to medical school, this is BS. Why are the making us dance around like monkeys doing tricks? Talk to us like normal people do, the context would be more relevant.

Anyone have any articles suggesting the effectiveness of this crap?

Sure. Just do a google scholar search. This all started with mcmaster university in Canada, and one of the most prominent authors on this topic is someone named KW Eva.

as I understand it, there is a set of mmi scenarios and questions "out there" that have been tested and studied over the course of students' careers (from undergrad to med student and beyond), and those are what's currently being used. I think they have even shown correlations between mmi performance and performance on licensing exams, among other things... I got tired of reading and just went with it. From my experience, Davis executed the process really well.

 

[Danlee07]

So do normal interviews and the MCAT.

...So don't ask those typical questions. It's not rocket science. Again, you don't need to parade people around through crazy situations to see their stress responses.

The MCAT is more so just a question of preparation. If you're truly prepared, then you won't be so pressured.

I don't really think standard interviews give you that much pressure..i'm not in med school applications, but I've only had 1 weird interview out of 3 for my other jobs. being quick on your feet under pressure is a big feat.

 

[ElChamaco]

I'm kind of flabbergasted as to why people are showing such negative reactions to MMI. If you think MMI is "insane" or makes us "monkeys dancing around doing tricks" or whatever, that just sounds like fear and overreaction. If MMI is such a stressful thing for you, maybe you're the type MMI is designed to weed out.

🙄

It's not a question of stress, it's a question of erecting more unnecessary and absurd hoops. Or rather in this case its replacing one hoop for a stranger, novel hoop. Why is it that no other graduate or professional program deems that it needs to spend countless man-hours and money on such an intricate application process? Are telephone interviews not enough for example, if you must have interviews. Do you really need to make students spend hundreds of dollars flying to your school

 

[cocoa butter]

I'm not opposed to it.

 

[rjmn]

Sure. Just do a google scholar search. This all started with mcmaster university in Canada, and one of the most prominent authors on this topic is someone named KW Eva.

as I understand it, there is a set of mmi scenarios and questions "out there" that have been tested and studied over the course of students' careers (from undergrad to med student and beyond), and those are what's currently being used. I think they have even shown correlations between mmi performance and performance on licensing exams, among other things... I got tired of reading and just went with it. From my experience, Davis executed the process really well.

I've looked at the studies, and the methodology strikes me as sloppy.

It is not a random-controlled trial, because Mcmaster is not the most competitive Canadian med school and it does not randomly select its applicants from the applicant pool.

Think of it this way. Assume that other, more competitive Canadian schools have snapped up all of the good doctors who are good at interviewing. Mcmaster's applicant pool would consist of two groups:
1. bad doctors who are good at interviewing
2. good doctors who are bad at interviewing but good at MMI

Therefore, Mcmaster's analysis would show that MMI is better at picking out better doctors at their school, given that other med schools do conventional interviews.

It can't be generalized beyond that, but all of these medical schools think it constitutes proof of MMI's effectiveness.

 

[MilkmanAl]

The MCAT is more so just a question of preparation. If you're truly prepared, then you won't be so pressured.

I'm not buying that for a second. Plenty of people study like fiends and still do poorly. It's a critical thinking thing, and it's definitely a huge stressor for the vast majority of people, regardless of how ready they are. That's the whole point of presenting you with passages about stuff there's no way you'd ever studied. You're supposed to be able to bring your knowledge to bear when faced with a seemingly foreign problem.

I don't really think standard interviews give you that much pressure..i'm not in med school applications, but I've only had 1 weird interview out of 3 for my other jobs. being quick on your feet under pressure is a big feat.

I don't freak out during interviews, either, but that doesn't mean other people don't. For the third time, you can ask questions that get people on their toes without herding them from room to room. Hell, if you really wanted to, you could just run through all these pseudo-standardized scenarios during a regular old interview.

 

[Danlee07]

You prepare in such a way that you can apply. Maybe if I relate it to math I can explain more clearly. You can't practice every single math question problem possible. But they can combine 2-3 concepts together for a 10-15 point question. You prepare by understanding the concept in such a way that you can manipulate to whatever you need to fit the problem. The MCAT is set up that way. Those that have studied for years, can you ask them what they did wrong? Most don't realize they studied wrong. They don't understand the concept. They memorized it.

I didn't see that you replied about the interview questions, but random questions are more for just testing stress. I think the new style also has a few teamwork based items and puzzles that will exploit you if you're not able to quickly adapt.

 

[mmmcdowe]

Canada is not impressed.

 

[FlowRate]

I think I would seriously thrive at a MMI. Too bad they've just about given out all their interviews, I would love to drive over to Palo.

 

[NickNaylor]

I agree with those above regarding the short length. I much prefer longer interviews because interviewers can get to "know" me - at least as much as possible during an interview. I prefer one, one hour interview over two or three 30-45 minute interviews. I definitely wouldn't like 9-10 "interviews" less than ten minutes each, but that's just me.

I also agree that it seems gimmicky, but then again I wouldn't mind going through it if it yielded an acceptance to Stanford.

 

[BigEast55]

I've been through an MMI and while I have signed an NDA for the questions, I really thought it was a positive experience. I felt like it got to expose more of my personality to the interviewers rather than just one interview that is based so much on how much you click with the interviewer and then even more what their standards are for you. Another huge benefit to me is that not all of the interviewers were in medicine, which means you get judged by essentially potential patients, the people who really need to think that you aren't some sort of social deviant.

Its not a gimmick, a lot of research has been put into it and it has shown to be more effective than a traditional interview. Yeah its tiring, but its not the worst in the world. I think the whole process ended up taking close to 2 hours when I did it. It is kind of fun actually.

 

[Danlee07]

which schools did it, bigeast?

 

[bigballer27]

I think it would be even more beneficial to have 4-5 interviews, each lasting 20 minutes than 9-10, each lasting 8-10 minutes. Thinking on your feet is important, but connecting with others is just as important, I think.

 

[chiapet874]

I feel mixed about MMI. It felt a lot like speed-dating.

Although it captures (somewhat) how you interact with other people, it doesn't allow you to express multidimensionality the way a lengthy interview might. Not only is it closed-file, but the stations are so short that there's no opportunity for anyone to find out what motivates me, what experiences have been formative, etc. I can't give a narrative or express complex feelings, because it's so damned quick.

8 minutes is too short to form a considered impression of somebody.

It also is weird how taking an acting class was what prepared me the best for this stuff.

It's got lots of strengths and lots of shortcomings. I would like to see interview days boast a mix.

👍 Interviewers have a hard enough time remembering/assessing applicants after a traditional interview, much less after a 10 minute drive-by.

Several posts mentioned that it would be harder to prepare and do an "act" through MMIs. I find that unlikely, it is much harder to play a facade for longer periods of scrutinization.

 

[ILikeDrugs]

I like the idea of quick, short interactions. I guess that's what is drawing me to ER (or no interactions for rads. and path.). I'm perfectly ok with short non-developed relationships. I'm confident in expressing what I feel in a short time frame and think that I can do that very well. I guess it comes from being more of a good listener and not a very long drawn-out talker type of person. I'm also not big on smiling for no good reason, and people in this country seem to be obsessed with smiling, and wanting others to smile, ALL the time. It really is annoying because I'm not big on fake smiling nor am I big on receiving them. I'm pretty good at detecting them to. (I've received ~90/100 correct on tests that test for one's ability to detect true/faked smile. I studied non-verbal behavior for about 6 years now.) So I don't smile a lot and this tends to bother people as they think that I'm being stand offish. I can hold up the feigned smile during short interactions but for a longer interview it can be a challenge. I can do it, but I'd rather not. 😀

 

[rjmn]

I've been through an MMI and while I have signed an NDA for the questions, I really thought it was a positive experience. I felt like it got to expose more of my personality to the interviewers rather than just one interview that is based so much on how much you click with the interviewer and then even more what their standards are for you. Another huge benefit to me is that not all of the interviewers were in medicine, which means you get judged by essentially potential patients, the people who really need to think that you aren't some sort of social deviant.

Its not a gimmick, a lot of research has been put into it and it has shown to be more effective than a traditional interview. Yeah its tiring, but its not the worst in the world. I think the whole process ended up taking close to 2 hours when I did it. It is kind of fun actually.

No. In limited contexts, two schools have found that among some of their applicants, performance on MMI correlates to better evaluations on clinical rotations. This is far from proof.

This could easily mean that the schools don't do a good job of picking out their interviewers, or that the interviewers are given poor criteria for judging applicants, or that the MMI preceptors were biased towards finding the people who are best at clinical rotations. Or that there was some effect specific to the school. Or that students who do well on MMI are more likely to enroll at the schools. There are tons of confounders here. If this was a drug, a doctor would not prescribe it to a patient based on that flimsy evidence.

These are not well-researched. They are slopped-together studies, and Mcmaster has a huge profit incentive to write up positive results because they sell their question bank to other schools at high cost.

Also, as applicants leak the MMI questions (or obtain them lawfully), perhaps they can be coached.

 

[Charles_Carmichael]

Yea, I never really saw the draw of MMI either. In my personal opinion, it's much easier to fake your way through a short, 8-minute encounter compared to a 45 min to 1 hr long interview with one interviewer.

A quick search on PubMed didn't reveal "extensive research" either and several of the studies I quickly glanced at seem to be based primarily on qualitative data rather than quantitative data. I wouldn't be so quick to say that MMI is more effective than a traditional interview, especially if many of these studies are drawing their conclusions based on opinions of interviewers and interviewees.

 

[Charles_Carmichael]

No. In limited contexts, two schools have found that among some of their applicants, performance on MMI correlates to better evaluations on clinical rotations. This is far from proof.

This could easily mean that the schools don't do a good job of picking out their interviewers, or that the interviewers are given poor criteria for judging applicants, or that the MMI preceptors were biased towards finding the people who are best at clinical rotations. Or that there was some effect specific to the school. Or that students who do well on MMI are more likely to enroll at the schools. There are tons of confounders here. If this was a drug, a doctor would not prescribe it to a patient based on that flimsy evidence.

These are not well-researched. They are slopped-together studies, and Mcmaster has a huge profit incentive to write up positive results because they sell their question bank to other schools at high cost.

Also, as applicants leak the MMI questions (or obtain them lawfully), perhaps they can be coached.

The McMaster University study also looks like it only had a sample size of 45 students (from just glancing at the abstract...I could be wrong but I'm too lazy to log onto VPN right now to try and read the entire study). Not exactly very powerful...It also seems to look at OSCEs, not actual patient encounters on the wards.

Again, like I said, I could be wrong because I'm basing that off the abstract on PubMed rather than reading the entire study. Feel free to correct me if that's the case.

 

[WeAreNotRobots]

No. In limited contexts, two schools have found that among some of their applicants, performance on MMI correlates to better evaluations on clinical rotations. This is far from proof.

This could easily mean that the schools don't do a good job of picking out their interviewers, or that the interviewers are given poor criteria for judging applicants, or that the MMI preceptors were biased towards finding the people who are best at clinical rotations. Or that there was some effect specific to the school. Or that students who do well on MMI are more likely to enroll at the schools. There are tons of confounders here. If this was a drug, a doctor would not prescribe it to a patient based on that flimsy evidence.

I'm sure many researchers have come up with better criticisms than yours, yet this research is being published in peer-reviewed journals. Additionally, schools are investing a lot of money, time, and effort in order to switch to the mmi format. These things wouldn't happen useless there were good reasons.

I agree that people will learn and be coached in the new format, but that's the case with most other steps of this process as well (SAT prep, tutoring in classes, mcat prep, traditional interview prep, usmle prep).

 

[Charles_Carmichael]

I'm sure many researchers have come up with better criticisms than yours, yet this research is being published in peer-reviewed journals. Additionally, schools are investing a lot of money, time, and effort in order to switch to the mmi format. These things wouldn't happen useless there were good reasons.

I agree that people will learn and be coached in the new format, but that's the case with most other steps of this process as well (SAT prep, tutoring in classes, mcat prep, traditional interview prep, usmle prep).

Eh, lots of things happen for no good reason. Every school wants to say that they're on the "cutting edge" or something along those lines. When applicants hear that a school is doing their interviews drastically different than the majority of other schools, they're drawn towards applying to that school. It reminds me of hospitals advertising that they have the latest robotic surgery equipment or whatever even if they rarely use it in order to attract patients.

I hope I'm wrong though. And that long-term research shows that MMI is at least as effective as the traditional style. At this current time though, I would be hesitant to say whether it's more effective than traditional interview formats or not.

 

[rjmn]

I'm sure many researchers have come up with better criticisms than yours, yet this research is being published in peer-reviewed journals. Additionally, schools are investing a lot of money, time, and effort in order to switch to the mmi format. These things wouldn't happen useless there were good reasons.

I agree that people will learn and be coached in the new format, but that's the case with most other steps of this process as well (SAT prep, tutoring in classes, mcat prep, traditional interview prep, usmle prep).

1. I think these studies have sound methodology and have no problem with them being published. However, I do not believe their results are generalizable to the degree you do. Just because MMI worked for School A does not mean it works for School B, for reasons I laid out earlier.

If every school used MMI, then a low-tier school that began using traditional interviews would probably find that interviews had better predictive power than MMIs. It's entirely possible that MMI picked up good applicants that fell through the cracks, more than MMI being good at selecting candidates.

2. Lots of modern medical practice is not made on sound evidence. Ever heard of Vioxx? DES? There is plenty of stuff in peer-reviewed journals that falls short of "proof".

Interesting article in the Atlantic about a med school professor trying to combat issues with the peer-review system overstating the significance of medical research: http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2010/11/lies-damned-lies-and-medical-science/8269/

 

[rjmn]

I'll put it another way. Let's say that a med school published a study finding that offering its applicants full-tuition scholarships helped them bring in better students. Every school then jumps on the bandwagon and offers full-tuition scholarships.

The effect would be negated. The key is when one school is offering a scholarship while others are not.

 

[chiapet874]

I'm sure many researchers have come up with better criticisms than yours, yet this research is being published in peer-reviewed journals. Additionally, schools are investing a lot of money, time, and effort in order to switch to the mmi format. These things wouldn't happen useless there were good reasons.

I agree that people will learn and be coached in the new format, but that's the case with most other steps of this process as well (SAT prep, tutoring in classes, mcat prep, traditional interview prep, usmle prep).

Remember the "peer-reviewed" medical paper about vaccines causing autism?

No, there doesn't necessarily have to be good reasons. From what I hear, schools may be switching, but aren't investing LOTS of time and money training interviewers for this new style. The same questions are basically asked, just you have less time to answer. It all depends though, I do believe that MMIs have the potential to add an interesting mix, but right now, its not implemented effectively.

 

[WeAreNotRobots]

Remember the "peer-reviewed" medical paper about vaccines causing autism?

No, there doesn't necessarily have to be good reasons. From what I hear, schools may be switching, but aren't investing LOTS of time and money training interviewers for this new style. The same questions are basically asked, just you have less time to answer. It all depends though, I do believe that MMIs have the potential to add an interesting mix, but right now, its not implemented effectively.

Just let me be clear in my position. I have heard many arguments for and against both traditional and mmi interview format, and in considering everything, I do not think the mmi format is unreasonable. It has it's advantages and disadvantages, and schools may choose to do it to achieve a certain purpose, like better select certain personal characteristics in it's applicants. Will it be widely adopted? Maybe not. The new standard? Don't think so. But I think that, among other things, the mmi's ability to mitigate bias merits some trial runs, and I am not against innovation. So to sum in a phrase, i think the mmi is more than a gimmick but not the new standard.

 

[copon]

I am a big fan of quickies, so the fact there are ten in a row, is a dream to me.

 

[underscore]

It sounds exciting.

 

[Mithril]

.

 

[BrainBuff]

I thought it was rather "weird" when we were told "Now turn around and face the wall", so that we would not see the next prompts..

And yea, the comment "dancing like a monkey doing tricks" seems like a good description... That is how i felt a couple of times..

 

[Etzio]

I think that this is point-blank ridiculous. A large part of being a physician is to be able to connect with patients on both a physical and an emotional level. You can never assess an individual's ability to do that if you only give them 8 minutes. Furthermore, while it is agreeable that doctors may have to deal with rather stressful scenarios, asking candidates to solve puzzles in a set amount of time has no correlation to how they would respond in a medical emergency.

Its like asking me to solve a rubiks cube in 30 seconds and then telling me to go save the patient in cardiac arrest. Those kinds of puzzles test a different way of critical thinking, someone does not necessarily need to be good at solving puzzles to be a good doctor, or to be good in medical emergencies.

 

[deleted366342]

Cincinnati, NJMS, UCSD (I think) and most Canadian schools have the MMI.

NJMS does not do the MMI. I kinda wish they had cause I got a not so great interviewer. But yea they do 1 on 1 at NJMS. RWJMS is the one that has switched.