The University of Calgary's 2026–2027 applicant manual describes in-person medicine interviews that include the MMI, with tentative dates of February 27–28 and March 13–14, 2027. It says the number and type of stations vary by year.

Prepare to explain what you'd do with the information in a prompt, then respond to follow-ups. Don't build your practice plan around last year's station count or a list of supposed Calgary policy questions.

The current Calgary interview instructions

Section 7.1 of the 2026–2027 Applicant Manual says interviews will occur in person and include a variety of formats, including the Multiple Mini-Interview. It lists the February and March dates as likely; the timeline calls them tentative.

Invited applicants schedule online through UCAN. Check the admissions page, the current MMI information page and your invitation closer to the interview for confirmed logistics.

A station count or schedule labelled 2025–2026 describes that cycle. The current manual explicitly says station number and type can change, so carry forward the practice skill rather than assuming the same setup.

Practise reasoning instead of policy recitation

Calgary's MMI FAQ says familiarity with the format helps, but there is no specific knowledge that will help you. It emphasises how you think and warns against forcing prepared personal speeches into scenarios.

That suggests a practical rehearsal method: answer the question you're given, identify missing information and explain a defensible next step. If past experience is relevant, use it briefly to support that reasoning. Don't spend the whole answer redirecting the interviewer to a story you wanted to tell.

An original allocation problem with a worked response

This fictional exercise is ours, not a Calgary question. You're a student volunteer helping run a community event. The team has $400 available. A printed information pack costs $180; travel support for participants costs $220. An organiser proposes spending $300 on online promotion instead because registrations are lower than expected. What would you recommend?

Start with the arithmetic. Printed information plus travel support uses the entire $400: $180 + $220 = $400. Spending $300 on promotion leaves $100. You can't promise all three within the budget.

Then check what those spending options are meant to accomplish. Have participants already asked for transport help? Is printed information the only accessible way for some people to take part? Is there evidence that online promotion reaches people who would otherwise miss the event? The prompt doesn't answer those questions.

A worked opening could be: “I'd check whether the travel support and printed materials address barriers for people already planning to attend. If they do, I'd protect those commitments before adding promotion. I'd ask whether we can reduce printing without excluding participants and use any saving for a small promotion test. I wouldn't assume more registrations means more people can actually attend.”

This is a conditional recommendation, not the only acceptable answer. It states what information would change the choice. You could support a different allocation if you explain which need it addresses and what trade-off remains.

Add a fact and revise the choice

Your partner now tells you that the information pack is also available as a free downloadable file, but two participants requested print copies because they don't have a suitable device.

Don't announce that printing is unnecessary. Ask whether a smaller print run could meet the stated need and what that run would cost. Until you know the revised cost, you can't calculate a new promotion budget. Explain who would need to authorise a spending change; your volunteer role doesn't give you unlimited purchasing authority.

Review whether you kept the original facts straight, acknowledged the constraint and made an actual recommendation. These are self-review questions, not Calgary's private marking criteria.

A follow-up drill for a short discussion

Use this six-minute exercise with a partner. These timings are our rehearsal choice, not the school's station timing.

Take one minute to read a fresh prompt and separate facts from assumptions.
Use two minutes to explain your recommendation and the main trade-off.
Spend two minutes responding to a new fact and a challenge from your partner.
Use one minute to write down the sentence you'd change next time.

Ask your partner to challenge your actual reasoning: “Why does that need take priority?” or “What if the cheaper option excludes someone?” A follow-up should make you think, rather than invite you to repeat a rehearsed conclusion.

Use Alberta context only when it helps the answer

If you read about a local issue, use the original source to check the date and what it actually establishes. Separate the reported fact from your interpretation. A headline doesn't show that a policy works or that an interview will ask about it.

For example, in a discussion about access, explain which person faces a barrier in the prompt and which action is available to you. Avoid naming health-system organisations or quoting old provincial statistics merely to make the answer sound local. The fictional budget exercise above can be reasoned through without those claims.

For extra spoken rehearsal, Confetto lets you practise interview questions and AI follow-ups. You can start with a free trial. Use the transcript and feedback to inspect your answer. Confetto doesn't provide Calgary's actual questions, private rubric or an admission prediction.

Before travelling, confirm your assigned UCAN slot and the current arrival instructions. In your next practice session, test the change you wrote down on a new problem with a different constraint.

Preparing for the MMI at the University of Calgary

University of Calgary interview, 2026-27 at a glance