Very true! Here are my experiences:
First Interview Weekend (Top 20 Program):
I read 2-4 papers for each of the 5 interviewers. I We barely touched on current science, let alone their work. We spent the majority of the 30min talking about my past research (very general except for 1-2 detailed questions) and getting horribly sidetracked. I ended up talking with one interviewer about the morality and game theory (totally not either of our fields) but a mutual interest. Overall, I was not asked a single expected question like, "why a PhD?" or "why University of XXX?" I was accepted about a week later
Second Interview Weekend (Top 10 Program):
My second interview experience was very similar, i.e. I read 2-4 papers per interviewer. However, this school only gave you the faculty list when you arrived on campus. I only got 2/8 chosen faculty so reading the majority of those papers was a waste of time. A few more pointed questions about my current research but nothing difficult or unfair. I was asked a few common interview questions like: "Why a PhD?" "Why immunology" "How do you feel about industry or academia?" Please note that all of these questions were asked by one interviewer. 4/5 did not ask me any related questions. Again, one interview was spent talking about history & linguistics for 90% of the 30min. Acceptance pending for this school.
Third Interview Weekend (Top 15 Program):
I'm interviewing again on Friday and will prepare as usual just in case this school is different. One of the interviewers is a friend of and colleague in the same field as my PI. That means he will either 1) question me intensely to see if I know my stuff or 2) assume I know my field and spend the 30min talking about baseball or restaurants I'm still going to read the papers as usual but not as in-depth as my first time.
Based on my experiences so far I recommend the following:
1 - Know a little about each interviewer if you are given the list in advance. Don't go crazy with this as it rarely comes up.
2 - Read 1-2 papers and/or abstracts just in case questions arise, which is highly doubtful in my experience. If not, you can possibly toss out a reference during your discussion for brownie points.
3 - Know the answers to common interview questions just in case you are asked. You can find good questions by searching "biomedical grad school interview questions" etc. or asking your PIs/professors.
4 - If you don't know an answer, don't bluff or panic! Just say that you aren't sure, resort to 1st principles and come up with an answer or quenswer (a quenswer is a word I thought I just invented but I'm wrong). Quenswers are gold in all aspects of life. Showing you can do that under pressure will go a long way. This happened when a very intimidating (on paper he was really warm/friendly in person) PI asked me a question about one of my current projects. I didn't know the answer because it's not something I work on directly (our core facility does this aspect). Take a 3-5 second pause and think through the unknown out loud. Even if you are wrong, coming up with a reasonable answer under pressure is a good sign. I was also asked if I had any experience with a certain technique. I don't but spoke about how I'm familiar with it in theory and can learn it quickly in my current position by working with a post-doc for a day or two. It's OK to be wrong/ignorant if you are proactive and intelligent in your answer. There is some recent psychology work out there discussing the importance of vulnerability during 1st impressions/interviews. Regardless of your views on psychology studies, I tend to agree with this idea and think showing some vulnerability is a good thing.
5 - Adjust to the interview based on your gut instinct. For example, the interview where I discussed history for 90% of the time was awesome but I regretted not learning more about the PI. He is very famous for some pioneering work but I wasn't able to ask any of the questions I had prepared for him. However, it didn't feel natural to try and shift the conversation back to science so I just went with it. I asked my current PIs if it's "bad" to not talk about science during an interview. They both said it was a good sign. According to their viewpoints, this shows that the PI/school is not worried about vetting you further and just want to focus on learning more about you. I'm still worried that my lack of scientific discourse could hurt me but I think this is unfounded. Who knows? Maybe these PIs are happier discussing irrelevant topics? Who wants to spend an entire day fielding the same questions from fawning applicants? I know I certainly wouldn't enjoy answering the same stock questions 5x/day for multiple interview weekends
6 - If you are really nervous etc. I find it helps to remember this: you are interviewing them as well. During the interview, pretend that you are the PI and the interviewer is the applicant. Trust me that it helps.
7 - Relax! This isn't an oral exam (so far let's hope it stays that way for me ha ha ha!). Be yourself and believe in the stars.
8 - HAVE QUESTIONS ABOUT THE PROGRAM/SCHOOL IF ASKED!!! This is very important to show you care and are inquisitive. I tend to ask challenging questions like "what is the biggest weakness of the program?" or "what do you like most and least about the research environment here?" I made up another question that I'll try out on Friday.
