Three original MMI practice questions are written out below, each with a weak answer, a strong answer and a short account of what separates them. They cover a policy station, a personal station and an acting station, which are the three families applicants most reliably under-prepare. Everything here was written for this page; no school’s real station appears, and UBC’s own admissions site warns applicants to be very wary of services claiming otherwise. Use it in one direction: read the prompt, set the timer, speak your answer, then compare.

Station one: the policy station

Prompt. “A provincial health authority proposes that family doctors be paid a bonus for each of their patients who completes recommended cancer screening. Do you support it?”

A weak answer. “There are advantages and disadvantages to this proposal. On the positive side, it could increase screening rates and catch cancers earlier, which saves lives and money. On the negative side, it could lead to doctors pressuring patients into screening they do not want, which undermines patient autonomy. I think the health authority would need to implement it carefully with appropriate safeguards and monitor the outcomes closely.”

A strong answer. “I would not support it in that form, and the reason is specific rather than general unease. Paying per completed screen pays for an outcome the doctor does not control, because the patient decides. The predictable response to being paid for something you do not control is to lean on the person who does, and the patients easiest to lean on are the ones least able to push back: people with less English, less education, less time. So the policy would most likely widen the gap it was designed to close. What I would support instead is paying for the conversation rather than the completion: a fee for a documented discussion of screening, including the patient’s decision to decline. That pays for the thing the doctor actually controls and it counts a considered refusal as a success, which is what informed consent means. I should be honest that my version is weaker on its own metric. Screening rates would rise less, and if the authority’s goal is a rate target it will not like my answer. If someone showed me evidence that completion bonuses raised screening among under-screened groups without increasing complaints, I would have to take that seriously and I would want to see it.”

What separates them. The weak answer produces the two obvious arguments, one per side, and then asks for safeguards and monitoring, which is the policy equivalent of shrugging. The strong answer takes a position, identifies the precise mechanism of harm rather than gesturing at autonomy, predicts who gets hurt and why, proposes a concrete alternative that fixes the mechanism, and then volunteers the weakness of its own alternative and the evidence that would change its mind. It is also more interesting to talk to, which matters more than applicants think. An assessor who wants to push back has something to push against.

Station two: the personal station

Prompt. “Tell me about a time you received criticism you did not agree with.”

A weak answer. “In a group project last year, a teammate told me I was being too controlling about the timeline. I did not agree, because I was just trying to keep us on track and we had a hard deadline. But I listened to the feedback and reflected on it, and I realised that communication is really important in teams. Since then I have made an effort to be more collaborative and to make sure everyone feels heard. It taught me a lot about leadership.”

A strong answer. “In my second year I was the volunteer coordinator for a campus food bank. A shift lead told me I was making the volunteers feel checked up on, and I did not agree with her. I was messaging people the night before their shift because we had been short twice and I did not want the shelves empty. I thought she was describing a personality problem when I had a coverage problem. What changed my mind was not the criticism, it was the numbers. Two people had quietly stopped signing up, and when I asked one of them why, she said the reminders made the shift feel like a job she was failing at. So the thing I disagreed with turned out to be right for a reason the criticism had not given me: my fix for no-shows was causing no-shows. I changed it, and asked the shift leads to confirm coverage instead of messaging individuals. I still think she framed it as a flaw in me rather than a flaw in the system, and I would say that to her now, but she was right about the effect and I was wrong.”

What separates them. The weak answer has no criticism in it. There is a paraphrase of a complaint, an assertion that reflection occurred, and then a lesson about communication that does not follow from anything described. The strong answer names the setting, the person, the exact words of the criticism and the exact reason it disagreed. Then it shows the specific evidence that moved it, which is what makes the change credible. Then, and this is the part most applicants are too cautious to do, it holds onto the part it still disagrees with while conceding the substance. Conceding everything reads as performance. Conceding nothing reads as defensiveness. Conceding the substance and keeping the framing objection reads like a person.

Station three: the acting station

Prompt. “Your friend has been training for six months for a race this weekend. You have just found out that the entry she paid for was never registered, because you offered to submit the form and you forgot. She is in the room. Talk to her.”

A weak answer. “I would tell my friend that I am very sorry and that I made a mistake by forgetting to submit her registration. I would acknowledge that she has worked really hard for six months and that she must be very disappointed. I would ask if there is anything I can do to help, and I would offer to look into whether there are other races she could enter instead.”

A strong answer. Spoken to her, not about her. “I have to tell you something and it is bad. The entry never went in. I said I would submit the form in April and I did not do it, and I only found out an hour ago when I went to check your start time. I am not going to dress that up. It is my fault and you have trained for six months for a race you are not in. I do not expect you to be okay with this right now, and if you want to be angry at me I would rather have that than you being polite about it. When you want to, there are two things I can do. I can call the organisers tonight and ask if there is any late entry, and I will pay for it. If there is not, I will find out about the next one and I will drive you to it. But I am not going to pretend the next one is the same race. You wanted this one.”

What separates them. The weak answer is a description of an apology rather than an apology. Every sentence begins “I would”, which means nothing is ever said to the person in the room. It also apologises for “a mistake by forgetting”, which softens the specific thing that happened, and it pivots to a solution within two lines, which is how you get out of an uncomfortable moment rather than how you stay in one. The strong answer talks to her. It states the failure without cushioning it, names what it will cost her, explicitly invites her anger rather than managing it, offers two concrete actions with the speaker bearing the cost, and refuses the easy claim that a substitute is equivalent. In an acting station the assessor is watching whether you can be present with a person who is upset with you. Solutions are the easy part and almost everybody reaches for them too early. There is more on this in MMI acting stations: what to do.

Key numbers

  • Three original stations here: one policy, one personal, one acting.
  • No real station content, here or anywhere legitimate. UBC’s page warns about services claiming otherwise.
  • UBC publishes 10 stations in person at Point Grey; Manitoba publishes a virtual MMI for 2026-2027.
  • One assessor per station, so every station is a first impression.
  • Speak the answer against a timer before you read the strong version.

If you want stations run live with somebody telling you what they actually heard, that is interview coaching.

Related: what is an MMI and how to prepare for an MMI in two weeks.

Last reviewed 17 September 2026. Written by Arvin Ardakani, final-year medical student, 4th quartile on CASPer four times.