I was rejected at a school where I had a MMI. I have never been good at this format, but I'm not terrible either. I scored middle of the pack in both Casper and PREview. But at no point during any MMI or SJT did I feel like a fully realized person making myself heard. And I am left feeling lost: what is the point of this format? It seems that it selects for those who can present an idealized version of themselves in a 5-minute hypothetical scenario. Yes, I have heard it eliminates individual bias--but is a 5 minute spiel enough to present myself? The lowest I've felt throughout this entire process has to be when I sputtered for 20 seconds during a station, and the reviewer offered me nothing but a blank stare. I could've been talking to a wall.
I fared much better in 1-on-1 interviews, with 4 legitimately good ones and 1 mediocre. The 1-hour conversation seems so much more natural to me. There is a real person with which to develop rapport. Is that not closer to the kind of engagement I'd be having with a patient or a peer? Can any adcoms weigh in?
I fared much better in 1-on-1 interviews, with 4 legitimately good ones and 1 mediocre. The 1-hour conversation seems so much more natural to me. There is a real person with which to develop rapport. Is that not closer to the kind of engagement I'd be having with a patient or a peer? Can any adcoms weigh in?