The MMI: The Future of Interviewing or a Failed Attempt at Innovation?
Recently, I participated in what can only be described as one of the most intense, crazy, stressful, and entertaining activities I have ever experienced: the MMI. It was honestly like nothing else I have ever been a part of, because there really is no other situation where a person in a suit runs around a building, and in short ten minute intervals, attempts to solve mathematical and science problems, describe diagrams, role-play with professional actors, write essays, and talk about their CV.
I found that I was very nervous at the beginning, but after a few minutes, my nerves went away, since I had to be completely focused on the task. And like I said, it was kind of fun, in a way. I am not an actor, and have never been in any plays, but it was interesting for me to try and put myself in situations that I may never really experience, and try to react the way a person in that role should. Sometimes, I would even be mid-conversation with someone, and all of a sudden the station would end. I would have to leave feeling unresolved, and move on to the next task.
So is this new style necessarily better than the standard interview? I believe it certainly has advantages. Firstly, it was originally created to overcome issues of validity and reliability. Many people complain that standard interviews do not capture the essence of who they really are, and the first impression they give off in that hour-long interview may not translate into real situations or contexts (Prideaux et al., 2011). I am in agreement with this finding, because sometimes I feel like my nerves during a standard interview affect the initial impression I give off to the interviewer. In the MMI, I found that not only are you too focused to remain nervous the entire time, but also you have multiple opportunities for first impressions, since there are different evaluators at each station, and the stations are evaluated independently. This has the effect of allowing people to make errors on certain stations, but still be able to redeem themselves later on.
Secondly, the MMI is supposedly in place to allow for more diversity in the admissions process. An astonishing statistic I came across was that in 2012, 30% of medical and dental students came from private schools (Henry, 2012), which is a direct result of the advantage these people have in the standard interview format. There are several ways to prepare for a standard interview, which allows people to perhaps expect certain questions and learn certain tricks that can help them in this process. While people try to prepare for the MMI, there really is no way to know exactly what they will ask, and it requires people to think on their feet, something that takes away the advantage from those who may have had more experience with the standard format, or more opportunities to hire a professional to train them. The idea is that it requires people to show who they truly are.
Overall, I believe the MMI is the future of interviewing. I think it is much more likely to yield candidates who can translate the skills shown into real life situations. Obviously, there are certain flaws, one of which is that the actual time spent in the CV station, where they ask about your experiences, was way too short, in my opinion. But that is something that can be easily solved, perhaps by making it two stations, or double the length of one. I believe more professional programs should begin to incorporate this system into their interviewing process, in order to hire the best fitting candidates.
References:
Henry, Julie. “Universities Drop Traditional Interviews Which Could Favour Private School Pupils.” The Telegraph. Telegraph Media Group, 14 (Oct. 2012).
Prideaux, David, Chris Roberts, Kevin Eva, Angel Centeno, Peter Mccrorie, Chris Mcmanus, Fiona Patterson, David Powis, Ara Tekian & David Wilkinson. “Assessment for selection for the health care professions and specialty training: Consensus statement and recommendations from the Ottawa 2010 Conference.” Medical Teacher 33:3 (2011).
