Mmi Question

[MountainAmoeba]

Say you had a contentious topic you were asked to provide your opinion on (can't give details). Would it have been a poor approach to have outlined why this important to you (based off of a lot personal experience) state your opinion with support, but then not talk about the other side. I was asked in a follow up about why this is contentious, but I'm worried I might have come across as narrow initially, by not looking at all the broader implications, and alternate perspectives. I think my answer was well thought, and considerate.

 

Is it always the best approach to examine both sides, and then choose, at risk of only hitting the broad strokes? Or is it okay to get into specifics and more fully address one side?

 

I understand I can't change the response, but I'm curious to receive feedback for next year if I need to repeat the application.

[End Poverty]

Hi MountaianAmoeba, 

 

I know which station you are talking about.. I talked about the pros and cons -- and afterwards I shared my opinion on why I strongly support one side over the other. I based my support  on  personal experience as well. I am not sure if that was the right approach or the wrong approach ( I might have came across as whisky washy)-- Your  approach is  probably a  good approach- maybe it showed them that you are more passionate about one side... I don't think it matters  how you approach the question as long as you were able to answer the follow up questions, which were meant to challenge your point of view or opinion.

[Fresh fry]

The way I approached all MMI questions (and CaRMs interviews, guess for basically any interview questions I have been asked) was "what is the purpose of the question?". Are they asking you about a contentious topic because they want to know your opinion? Possibly but with the very limited information provided I would assume that the point of the question was to determine whether you are able to see a contentious issue from all sides. 

 

Take the trump travel ban for example. Say there is a question asking you if you support the ban, sure maybe on some level they want to know if you are a crazy right wing bigot (red flag) but more likely they are trying to see if you can identify the feelings and motivations behind those that do support it. Many of your patients will have completely unreasonable beliefs and you need to be able to identify why it is that they feel this way. Just the other day I had a woman who was convinced she wasn't able to breath well because we didn't let her go for a smoke. She felt that this was the reason why she was dyspnic. Of course that isn't the case but it doesn't help the situation to provide her with the "right" reasons why she can't breath and simply state them. You need to identify with her concerns and her beliefs in order to change them otherwise you just come off as authoritarian. 

 

From my experience MMI questions are almost never concerned with what your opinion is, they are a tool to get at your thought processes and your ability to empathize as well as identify motives that may be contrary to your own. Other times they are to assess how rigid you are in your thinking and whether you can think on your feet. 

 

For any questions involving controversial issues my approach is 1) identify the competing beliefs 2) highlight the positive motivations for both 3) highlight the possible misconceptions 4) state my opinion referring to the evidence already stated.

 

So for the made up trump question I would say something like:

 

"Because of the heightened media focus by certain outlets in the US there is a common misconception that refugees from certain countries are at higher risk and are less likely to integrate into US culture, something that is highly valued and differing from our own 'mosaic' approach we take here in Canada. I understand given this misinformation why many would be in favor of the ban. they simply feel that it is a common sense approach to what is essentially a non existent threat that has dominated the news cycle and stems from xenophobia. I feel that the right response is to oppose the band as these are the people who are fleeing the very monsters we are accusing them of being etc etc etc"    

[MountainAmoeba]

Thanks guys! I'm kicking myself a bit, because I realized after that even though my answer had integrity and was thoughtful, it wasn't complete!

 

Then, it's only one station of many, and there are always other opportunities to re-apply.

 

I appreciate the feedback.

 

I recognize now, that I was trapped by my biases in that one, and even though the answer I gave is well supported, and quite reasonable, I let my personal narrative dictate my response.