Interview Structure 2016

[Ank]

I understand that the specifics of the interview cannot be discussed, but I was hoping someone could tell me if they thought the interview this year was similar to last year's? If not, how was it different? Also, did you truly feel that there was an evolution in the interview process since last year?

[nick]

I know the anxiety and anticipation of waiting for an interview very well, and 2 days ago the questions that you're asking were also on my mind, so I totally get where you're coming from. Despite that, I'm not sure it's fair to provide PM101 members with extra info on the MMI that other people don't get. But I think I can confirm the info that was in Dr. Ian Walker's e-mail last week...

 

Yes, the MMI has appreciably changed since last year and there are fewer traditional "analyse a scenario, what would you do" stations and one station was replaced with a group station (1 ~15 minute group station, 9 circuit stations). I think they said we got one extra minute for discussion in the circuit stations compared to the past couple years (8 instead of 7).

 

I know from multiple attempts at the MMI how stressful the days leading up to it are; I think the healthiest attitude is to accept that it's unknown (and you'll still have plenty of questions and doubts after the MMI!) and that everyone is in the same situation as you, to get a good sleep, be really honest with the interviewer and with yourself, and to make the best of a difficult (and interesting! and fun!) situation.

[daftjustice]

So there are still "analyse a scenario" stations.

Given the ambiguity and lack of ability to prepare for the "new" stations, I wonder if an excellent performance on the traditional analytical stations will be even MORE important, in the way that maximizing GPA and CARS is critical pre-interview.

[CalgStudent]

All stations carry the same weight, and since none of us can predict how well/poorly each type of station differentiates between applicants, it's probably best to avoid thinking that some types of stations are more important than others.

[gottawannit]

I think I can put some minds at ease. I interviewed a couple years ago and then 2 days ago. As nick mentioned, definitely less traditional situations, but Dr. Walker already told y'all this.

 

 

So there are still "analyse a scenario" stations.

Given the ambiguity and lack of ability to prepare for the "new" stations, I wonder if an excellent performance on the traditional analytical stations will be even MORE important, in the way that maximizing GPA and CARS is critical pre-interview.

 

This is ridiculous. That's like saying that since you're pursuing a Biosci degree you should focus all your attention on your 1 biosci class instead of the other 4 arts classes this term.

 

DIW has mentioned numerous times (and will again post-MMI) that they are trying extra hard to eliminate a situation in which an algorithm can solve an ethical/logical dilemma. Trying to do so anyways in hopes of crushing 2 or 3 stations of 9 is futile and a poor use of time.

 

I think everyone that interviewed this past weekend will agree with me when I say that you will all start the interview, read your first prompt, go "wtf...", have a chuckle and then its downhill from there. Whenever I got a traditional prompt I got super disappointed because the others were tons of fun.

 

My best advice: if you insist on "practicing", only do so to become familiar with how to talk for 4-5 minutes straight in a coherent, hopefully eloquent manner. The rest of the traditional advice of appreciating both sides, analyzing stakeholders, reciting various statutes and other nonsense may help at a more traditional or conservative school like UofA, but having just interviewed at UofC I can tell you it really wouldn't fit with the scenarios.

 

Long-winded way of saying of go in there, get ready to chuckle at some of the prompts, and do you, boo-boo.

[Borborygmi]

 

My best advice: if you insist on "practicing", only do so to become familiar with how to talk for 4-5 minutes straight in a coherent, hopefully eloquent manner. The rest of the traditional advice of appreciating both sides, analyzing stakeholders, reciting various statutes and other nonsense may help at a more traditional or conservative school like UofA, but having just interviewed at UofC I can tell you it really wouldn't fit with the scenarios.

 

 

I think this is excellent advice and how I prepared last year for interviews. Not much prep and almost solely to get a sense of timing. It is often less about what you say and more about how you say it and how you deal with the stress of the interview process. That said, everyone is different. Do what works best for you. The interview this year does seem like a ton of fun! I'm a little bit jealous. Just let go and try to be in the moment. I hope those of you that I met @ 9:30 on Sunday felt that it was a good experience. Best of luck! I'll see more of you on the 27th .

[UCpls<3]

I think I can put some minds at ease. I interviewed a couple years ago and then 2 days ago. As nick mentioned, definitely less traditional situations, but Dr. Walker already told y'all this.

 

 

 

This is ridiculous. That's like saying that since you're pursuing a Biosci degree you should focus all your attention on your 1 biosci class instead of the other 4 arts classes this term.

 

DIW has mentioned numerous times (and will again post-MMI) that they are trying extra hard to eliminate a situation in which an algorithm can solve an ethical/logical dilemma. Trying to do so anyways in hopes of crushing 2 or 3 stations of 9 is futile and a poor use of time.

 

I think everyone that interviewed this past weekend will agree with me when I say that you will all start the interview, read your first prompt, go "wtf...", have a chuckle and then its downhill from there. Whenever I got a traditional prompt I got super disappointed because the others were tons of fun.

 

My best advice: if you insist on "practicing", only do so to become familiar with how to talk for 4-5 minutes straight in a coherent, hopefully eloquent manner. The rest of the traditional advice of appreciating both sides, analyzing stakeholders, reciting various statutes and other nonsense may help at a more traditional or conservative school like UofA, but having just interviewed at UofC I can tell you it really wouldn't fit with the scenarios.

 

Long-winded way of saying of go in there, get ready to chuckle at some of the prompts, and do you, boo-boo.

 

 

Could not have agreed more.

The non-traditional stations made this year's interview the funnest one I've ever done.   (not that I've done many...)

[sjc2]

I also completely agree! I truly enjoyed my day and even though I "practiced" (I did some sample MMI questions with strangers), the only thing that really helped me was just have a bit of experience looking at a question for 2 minutes and talking. When it came to the real interview day though, I didn't write notes, I just went in and said what was on my mind. Some stations were very comfortable for me while others were a bit more challenging, but that is how it should be. Trust that being yourself is the best approach to this whole process. 

[daftjustice]

I think I can put some minds at ease. I interviewed a couple years ago and then 2 days ago. As nick mentioned, definitely less traditional situations, but Dr. Walker already told y'all this.

 

 

 

This is ridiculous. That's like saying that since you're pursuing a Biosci degree you should focus all your attention on your 1 biosci class instead of the other 4 arts classes this term.

 

DIW has mentioned numerous times (and will again post-MMI) that they are trying extra hard to eliminate a situation in which an algorithm can solve an ethical/logical dilemma. Trying to do so anyways in hopes of crushing 2 or 3 stations of 9 is futile and a poor use of time.

 

I think everyone that interviewed this past weekend will agree with me when I say that you will all start the interview, read your first prompt, go "wtf...", have a chuckle and then its downhill from there. Whenever I got a traditional prompt I got super disappointed because the others were tons of fun.

 

My best advice: if you insist on "practicing", only do so to become familiar with how to talk for 4-5 minutes straight in a coherent, hopefully eloquent manner. The rest of the traditional advice of appreciating both sides, analyzing stakeholders, reciting various statutes and other nonsense may help at a more traditional or conservative school like UofA, but having just interviewed at UofC I can tell you it really wouldn't fit with the scenarios.

 

Long-winded way of saying of go in there, get ready to chuckle at some of the prompts, and do you, boo-boo.

DIW <-- That's awesome, I had no idea he had been initialed.

 

 I agree with you that the MMI seeks to eliminate algorithmic cookie cutter answer. I've said as much in another thread here.

But the operative word is 'seeks'. I'm assuming that they are trying to switch things up this year a little bit in order to prevent what I call 'MMI-specific coachable gains'. Because really, the MMI has a lot of coachable things to it, the simplest of which is the format/structure. By switching it up, they unsettle people a bit.

 

I guess my point is that in the face of the unknown, applicants should maximize what they can. If U of C still uses any "classic" MMI scenarios at all, an applicant should ensure that they can knock those out of the park to the best of their ability. They changed the MMI this year, not the attributes the MMI is designed to assess. I think that it is always worthwhile for applicants to reflect on how to convey the desirable attributes they possess.

The analogy of focusing ALL of your attention on one biosci class to the exclusion of 4 arts ones does not really fit. I am not advocating focusing on some MMI stations to the exclusion of others (which you can't really 'focus' on anyways, I agree). What I'm suggesting is control what you can. (Because really, the classic MMI stations were about things you can learn: body language, presentation, and clear & logical oration, which are all things you mention.)

 

My reference to CARS and GPA is that their contributions to your file score are subject to much less variability in comparison to your ECs. Even if GPA, CARS and EC's/Academic rigour were weighted evenly, you have more control over the file score your GPA and CARS get you at the end of the day. The phrase "GPA is king" has some nuance here.

 

Similarly, if there are any MMI stations that are like the ones from previous iterations, applicants should make sure that they are prepared for them as best as they can be. Control what you can and do your best on everything.

 

My earlier comment was lazily made. my b. And sorry if anything is unclear in this post, I'm typing this at 1am

 

edited for an attempted stab at clarity.