Preparing for the MMI at the University of Calgary

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

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.

The scenario

This fictional exercise is ours, not a Calgary question. You're a student volunteer helping run a community event.

• Budget. The team has $400 available.
• Costs. A printed information pack costs $180; travel support for participants costs $220.
• Proposal. An organizer proposes spending $300 on online promotion instead because registrations are lower than expected.

What would you recommend?

Work through it

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.

• Transport. Have participants already asked for transport help?
• Print access. Is printed information the only accessible way for some people to take part?
• Promotion. Is there evidence that online promotion reaches people who would otherwise miss the event?

The prompt doesn't answer those questions.

A strong answer makes a conditional recommendation, says which facts would change it, and names the trade-off that remains.

Practice this kind of station in the app to see model answers.

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.

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

1. Take one minute to read a fresh prompt and separate facts from assumptions.
2. Use two minutes to explain your recommendation and the main trade-off.
3. Spend two minutes responding to a new fact and a challenge from your partner.
4. 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.

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 organizations 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 practice interview questions and AI follow-ups. You can start with a free trial.

Use the transcript and feedback to inspect your answer.

Before traveling, 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.