Jump to content
Premed 101 Forums

Tell me this isn't true - Traditional interviews vs MMI


Recommended Posts

Just talking to a few people, and apparently there was this conference on traditional intervews vs MMI, and apparently with traditional interviews the interviewers have made their decision about you within the first few seconds to few minutes. Please tell me this isn't true. Is it really that unreliable?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's the thing about first impressions... you only get to make one. Upon first entering the room, or even when walking to the room with your interviews (a la MUN style), you already set the tone, and in fact can bring a lot to the table. If you know things are important to the school, you can even work those into the conversation right at the get go.

 

Unfortunately, if you mess it up, the next 40 minutes will be an uphill struggle.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i don't know how this could be true. how can you really differentiate between candidates based on the way they say "nice to meet you". they make their decision after speaking with you for ~45 minutes and listening to the quality of your answers.

 

however - i have heard that in a panel interview, the interviewers have to come up with a ranking of the candidates (possibly based on everyone they've seen that day). does anyone else know this to be true? do they have to come to a consensus on the evaluation of each interviewee, or do they give marks individually?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i don't know how this could be true. how can you really differentiate between candidates based on the way they say "nice to meet you". they make their decision after speaking with you for ~45 minutes and listening to the quality of your answers.

 

however - i have heard that in a panel interview, the interviewers have to come up with a ranking of the candidates (possibly based on everyone they've seen that day). does anyone else know this to be true? do they have to come to a consensus on the evaluation of each interviewee, or do they give marks individually?

 

Although it doesn't make sense that you'd be directly graded on you say "nice to meet you", that is an extremely important part of your interview, just like it's an integral component of any conversation. I really do think that a lot of indirect weight gets placed in the first impression since that's what sets the whole tone for your shot.

 

As far as grading candidates goes, I expect that each candidate is graded individually. If it was based off of everyone that day, how would they grade the first person? Also, you'd run into some serious problems if interviewers chance upon 2 awesome candidates who are on the same level as each other. This would mean they'd be interpreted as average when compared against each other, so that means of evaluating a person isn't really valid.

 

My bet is each interviewer is trained on how to recognize a 1 from a 2 from a 5, and then each interviewee is graded the points they earned in each component. This method removes any bias, and still provides a great mechanism to compare/rank all the applicants.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

so does this mean they don't discuss each candidate after the interview? and why do they spend so much time writing - i thought it was so they could come back at the end of the day and assign interviewees marks based on everyone they've seen. the scale on perhaps a 1 - 5 or 1 - 4 sounds like reasonable too

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They discuss you right at the end of your interview and give you your marks then. It happens like this even in the MMI. When you're waiting outside your station, the person you just finished speaking with at the station you just finished is grading you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They discuss you right at the end of your interview and give you your marks then. It happens like this even in the MMI. When you're waiting outside your station, the person you just finished speaking with at the station you just finished is grading you.

 

this makes sense. i guess it is at this time that they refer to whatever they've written about you. in the panel though, would you get 1 mark based on all 3 (or 2) interviewers coming to a consensus, or 3 separate ratings?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As someone who was on the other side of the interview, first impressions most definitely do count, but candidates have either endeared me after not doing so hot at the start or gone downhill after a great first impression.

 

How I feel about someone at the beginning of the interview sets the tone, certainly, but it's not like you stop listening after a great (or less-than-great) answer to the first question.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just talking to a few people, and apparently there was this conference on traditional intervews vs MMI, and apparently with traditional interviews the interviewers have made their decision about you within the first few seconds to few minutes. Please tell me this isn't true. Is it really that unreliable?

 

Unless they presented some scientific data at said conference, I wouldn't put much weight in such a claim. This sounds like something they say at one of those shady premed society events, along with other generic advice.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Unless they presented some scientific data at said conference, I wouldn't put much weight in such a claim. This sounds like something they say at one of those shady premed society events, along with other generic advice.

 

Well, while the original post may be a bit absolute, the primacy and recency effects are well-proven psychological principles. The first and last information you receive about a topic/person/issue tend to be disproportionately incorporated into your overall perception of that topic/person/issue.

 

The research behind the MMI and the reason why more and more schools are going that way is said to be because 6-10 first impressions give you a much more accurate representation of a candidate than one does. There's a White Coat Black Art Episode where the former dean of McGill explains why they chose to incorporate the MMI into their interview model.

 

But again, it's not absolute. Take kaymckee's post as he has been a student interviewer. A bad first impression can be overcome, it's just tough. So likely when someone says an interviewer can tell within minutes of meeting you whether you'll get in or not, that more often than not their initial perception matches up with their overall perception of you.

 

The book Blink by Malcolm Gladwell although not the most scientific piece of literature still provides a lot of examples to the power of our initial perceptions with certain situations and people. It's a fun read.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just talking to a few people, and apparently there was this conference on traditional intervews vs MMI, and apparently with traditional interviews the interviewers have made their decision about you within the first few seconds to few minutes. Please tell me this isn't true. Is it really that unreliable?
1. You seem like a personable, articulate, and confident person. Your signature is cute. Your name is unique. Don't worry!! :)

 

2. If the conference was biased towards promoting MMIs, it could very well be that the presenters purposefully over-emphasized the extent of that "first impression moment," in order to claim that MMIs are better than traditional interviews.

 

3. I actually think that first impressions do count a lot, in that confidence and personability go a long way in setting the tone and atmosphere. But most interviewers now try to get a handle on all aspects of your personality (failures, weaknesses, role-playing questions, ethics, etc). I think being confident and personable can only get you so far: if you give crappy answers to ethics questions, or are careless, or are over-confident, probably that great first impression vanishes!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As an interviewer this year, first impressions do count. If you are off to a bad start, you really have to step it up for the rest of the interview to get a good evaluation.

 

Another reason why people are choosing MMI over traditional apart from the objectiveness is that it simulates the OSCEs (clinical skills exam) that you'll have to do in medical school. And the theory says that MMI would be a better indicator of OSCE performance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

it is definitely true that first impressions are important. in this case though, does anyone know where the "first impression" starts/ends? is it just the introduction or also the first question or two? and if it the first impression is really based on initially meeting the interviewers, what kinds of things are important in order to make a good one?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just got back from U of S, had a conversation with the high ups in admissions there for 10 mins or so about MMI versus panel. They are MMI by the way.

 

He said that the stats indicate about 50% of your score at a panel interview can be correlated directly with the panel. The other 50% in the interviewee. Can't say that sounded good. He was quite convincing and was certainly in a position to know about these sorts of things.

 

I don't think decisions are made in the first 5 secs, but I do think first impressions are very important none the less.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

does anyone know where the "first impression" starts/ends?

 

It's the same as any other conversation, so that impression gets made pretty quick. Even just based of how a person introduces themselves and shakes a hand, you can form a pretty strong opinion of them (even the subtle difference betwen arrogance and confidencee bcomes evident pretty early on. I'm sure you've seen this).

 

I expect that if your interview is run like MUN's, where the interviewers come and meet you in the waiting room and then walk to an interview room with you, the first impression will be made in the 30 second walk, long before the first question even gets asked.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i guess i'm so confused because i figure the only way to screw that part up would be to do something really socially awkward (look at the ceiling, unenthusiastic, etc.). and i would say most people in an interview situation wouldn't do that. maybe that's a wrong assumption, but i don't see much variation between most people in terms of their handshake and the way they say "nice to meet you"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...