A perspective from Edinburgh: When it comes to student selection, does the interview do what we think and what we want?

The veterinary profession is rapidly changing and our veterinary curricula evolve and change to keep pace with the demands on and of the profession. At the same time there is a need to ensure that the students we select demonstrate the desired attributes and have the potential, to not only succeed within the veterinary curricula, but to flourish and thrive within the veterinary profession.
As the final step on which we base our offer decisions, the interview performance is critical, but is perhaps the part of the selection process most vulnerable to subjectivity, bias and assumption. One of the main drivers for the increasing use of the multiple mini interview (MMI) in university admissions has been the perceived reliability and robustness that this should offer. During this workshop we want to share our experiences over three admissions cycles following the adoption of the MMI, which replaced a traditional panel interview and which is employed for all of our applicants (national and international). In particular we will discuss any evidence of bias in the MMIs and discuss the utility of the MMIs as predictors of academic performance and practical aptitude. We will also discuss if any attribute scores enable early identification of at risk students (those who may face academic or non-academic challenges within the early years of the course). In other words, is the MMI doing what we need and want, is it offering any additional benefits and are there any unwanted and unintended consequences or biases?
In addition to presenting our own findings this workshop will provide a forum for colleagues to share and discuss their own institutional experiences. Ultimately it will also provide an opportunity to work collaboratively generating a large evidence base, which could inform and support all of our admissions practices.