What kind of different interview formats have you seen/prefer?

[einsteinm]

---

Members don't see this ad.

So this cycle my interviews were pretty diverse. Some schools had 2 one-on-one's with faculty/committee members, some were MMI's, and one was even a panel of 10 people. Was interested in knowing what other formats people have seen and which one they prefer.

Surprisingly, I actually preferred the panel interview. It prevented some people from asking stupid questions that they would probably ask in private (one-on-one).

 

[RutgersAR]

I had MMI and One on One.

One on One just suits me more. I talk to people well. The MMI (though was performed on less than 4 hours of sleep due to last minute scheduling) was too rushed IMO. I'd love to have 7, 10-15 minute interviews that involved ethical scenarios. All the timing and specific nature of the questions just made the whole thing seem forced though. Little chance to express myself.

One on One I could just very easily express why I wanted to go into medicine, and then chat with them about what experiences really pushed me that way. I felt relaxed and like I was able to be myself.

I didn't have a panel, but I feel like that would've been interesting for sure!

 

[RedPhys]

I only had one-on-one, but I think if you know how to have a conversation, it can go super smooth.

I don't think I'd enjoy a panel interview... I imagine it would feel too cold (i.e. that I wouldn't be able to make a nice one-on-one type of conversation feeling with the interviewer(s)).

 

[einsteinm]

Ultimately, I think I'd agree with you two that one-on-one's can be the most enjoyable. It just stinks when you get one person that doesn't really click. That's why I preferred the panel interview. The panel interview was like a conservation with people asking questions that were building on other questions/answers.

Western Michigan even had an initial phone interview. Definitely hated that format.

 

[ConfusedChemist]

MMI!
I hate talking about myself , so I didn't have too 😛
If they had asked why they should pick me (like I imagine in a panel) I'd tell them to pick the next person

 

[TheLionheart]

I had pleasant interview experiences all around, and consider myself to be a strong interviewer.

That being said, I thought the MMIs were the most fun. It's almost like a game show or something. Gotta be quick on your feet and able to establish rapport quickly, which adds to the challenge--in a good way.

I think that the traditional interview has a place. It allows students to interact a little more closely with chosen representatives of the school, and is inherently more personal than an MMI.

That being said, I feel that the MMI is a more effective process for AdComs to employ relative to the traditional interview. If it were up to me, I would do both--a 1 on 1 interview and an MMI that would be 6-8 stations. Best of both worlds.

 

[amad01]

60 minute 1 on 1 was too long
20 min 1 on 1 was too short
MMI was too forced
30-40 min 1 on 1 was just right 🙂
glad it's over

 

[f4reignbeauty]

I absolutely love the MMI format! Specifically, ones that contain acting stations. I also had 1-on-1 interviews that were both closed and open as well as a group discussion interview.

I personally feel there are pros and cons to open and closed interviews. For closed, I think the pro is the interviewer has no bias or preconceived notions, but the con is they might not think to ask questions that help to address red flags in your application. For open, I've literally sat in an interview and knew my interviewer would not advocate for me, but it gave me great feedback that prepared me for subsequent interviewers.

 

[RedPhys]

60 minute 1 on 1 was too long
[...]
30-40 min 1 on 1 was just right 🙂
glad it's over

60 minute one-on-one? 😱 I was more that content with the 30-40 minute ones ... 60 minutes, I imagine, would have had at least one of those awkward silences (like on dates, where neither one knows what to say next).

 

[miamiheatfan]

I had MMI, one-on-one, and also 2-on-1. The 2-on-1 is super awk because I find myself trying to turn my head every 3 seconds to make sure I look at both people equally haha. My longest 1-on-1 was probably 40 minutes, I don't think the length made a difference for me. I only had one MMI but it would've been interesting to do a few more. Ultimately one-on-one, whether I only had to do 1 or 2 during the interview, was where I thrived!

Crazy how fast the interviewing process flew by, I feel like just yesterday I was freaking out about my first interview!

 

[Radric Davis MD]

MMI all the way! I had some one-on-one interviews as well, but I definitely prefer MMI. It's a bit nerve-racking when you start the first station, but IMO it is much more of a challenge than the traditional interview and you really get the opportunity to showcase your communication skills in a variety of situations with a variety of different people. One of the obvious downsides is that the interviewers don't get to know about you or your aspirations as well as in a traditional format. However, I think the MMI does a good job of preventing one from having fully rehearsed answers and I personally enjoyed the format of it much more so than a traditional interview.

 

[breakintheroof]

Ban all interviews. They should have no part in the admissions process.

Kidding! Mostly. I do think interviews are given more weight than they should be. I wonder if it would be a better use of everyone's resources for med schools to have to limit the number of interviews they offer, to something like 1.5x the number of acceptances they typically hand out. I suspect (admittedly without much evidence) that the interview is a less sensitive test than most interviewers think, and should primarily be used to screen out the most unsuitable applicants. With these limitations, applicants could save money by going on fewer interviews, and ideally even apply to fewer schools, knowing that receiving an interview invitation meant they stood a great chance at that school.

But anyway, to the OP's question. I had one and a half MMIs and the rest traditional interviews. MMIs I found both stressful and exhilarating--more the former, personally--but I respect the choice to use them. I imagine that clinical situations in med school will feel similar to them in some ways.

 

[hydroxyurea]

I much preferred one-on-one compared to speaking to a panel of interviewers.

Speaking to a panel seemed much more formal and like I had to actively "convince" them of something. I am fine with public speaking and generally outgoing, but this experience feels very artificial to me and I wasn't really sure how it was supposed to reflect my natural personality or future clinical demeanor. I feel like this sort of interview encourages more regurgitation of pre-planned responses to questions which is not how I function at all.

One-on-one was a natural conversation like you might have elsewhere in life. I was more able to judge the expectations of the interviewer and their institution, ask questions about what opportunities they might have that matched my interests, and have a more fluid interview which involved give-and-take from both parties.

Edit: Forgot about MMI. I thought MMI was overblown. Roleplaying scenarios with mock patients that were downright histrionic. Felt more natural than panel interviews, but IMO had a lot of "guess-work" and asking us to fill the role of a character.

 

[Benighted]

Edited.

How closely did the MMI scenarios match your predictions of how they would be?
To what extent did background knowledge help?

 

[breakintheroof]

What were the most difficult MMI scenarios you guys encountered?

MMIs are typically protected by a nondisclosure agreement, meaning that the scenarios cannot be shared.

You can find some published sample MMI scenarios through google that will give you a sense of what to expect. Though I would advise those who are preparing for MMIs to always expect the unexpected. 😉

 

[sunnysnow7]

Edited.

How closely did the MMI scenarios match your predictions of how they would be?
To what extent did background knowledge help?

YMMV, but my biggest mistake in approaching the MMI was overpreparing. I performed much better when I went in "cold" and just spoke from the heart. Spending time reading practice MMI scenarios - which may or may not have appear ed in the real MMI - just made me unnecessarily nervous.

 

[genobyte]

I liked having 30-45 minute one-on-ones, although I think my favorite (albeit long) was Quinnipiac's interviews--two 30 minute interviews, plus 1-hour 'talks' that essentially were them asking us group/discussion questions with the whole interview group (~8 people). I felt like I was able to express my thoughts and feelings towards a bunch of different issues.

I did a group interview, which I didn't really enjoy. Felt impersonal. A single 30 minute one-on-one interview felt like too little, but two 30-minute one-on-ones at Quinnipiac and USUHS worked fantastically.

I also did an hour long panel (8 interviewers) interview with my school's premed committee...luckily I've gone through multiple panel-style interviews before that but if I hadn't, that would have been rough.

 

[amad01]

I had MMI, one-on-one, and also 2-on-1. The 2-on-1 is super awk because I find myself trying to turn my head every 3 seconds to make sure I look at both people equally haha.

2-on-1? That would be the worst...

 

[CaliforniaDreamer]

2-on-1? That would be the worst...

Some people are into that I hear.

 

[sunflower18]

I liked both MMI and 1-on-1 format, though I greatly appreciated when the MMIs included a station that mimicked a traditional 1-on-1 interview so that I could talk about my app, passions for medicine, career goals, etc. But I found the MMIs to be very challenging, intellectually stimulating, and fun! I like meeting a lot of people and quickly establishing relationships with them, and really enjoyed my experiences. The problem that may arise with 1-on-1 interviews is that if you don't get along with your interviewer for whatever reason, you feel like you are deflating and sinking through the chair during the entire time. This happened to me, and it was really upsetting to feel like I spent all of this money and time flying out to the school (not to mention all of the energy I spent getting excited about and preparing for and hoping for my day to go smoothly!) only to be coincidentally paired with someone who didn't like me. Honestly none of my "negative" interviews tanked my application prospects, but feeling like they might have was not very pleasant!

I absolutely agree with @breakintheroof -- I think that the post-interview acceptance rate should definitely be higher. I interviewed at schools where that rate ranged from 10-60%, and I think ideally post-interview acceptance rates should be 75% or higher. But I don't make the rules, for better or for worse!