Interview questions

[amethyst23]

When describing your past research experience during interviews, would it be helpful to name funding sources or does that qualify as unnecessary extraneous info?

[gliaful]

If it was funding you personally sought out/were awarded, I think you should mention at least that you obtained funding.

I don't know if you should name funding sources for the lab you worked in -- sounds kind of silly to my ears, because that funding doesn't say anything about you.

[amethyst23]

Hmm, ok. I'm trying to avoid reiterating my SOP so I thought I could briefly mention that I've competed for some sort of research funding. 

[gliaful]

Oh, yes! In that case you should mention it. When you said "funding" in general I wasn't sure if you meant your own funding or your lab's funding. Do mention funding that you have competed for. Everyone loves a blooming grant writer!

[bsharpe269]

I don't think you have to worry about reinterating your SOP. In your SOP, you probably wrote a few paragraphs max about each research experience. I think the point of the interview is to see if you actually understand the theoretical concepts behind what you did. So basically I think that in the interview you would want to turn the very condensed few paragraphs into a complete explanation. You could also relate what you did to the work the specific professors you are meeting with. For example, you did X to figure out Y but you could maybe propose to use technique X that you are already familiar with and apply to Z, the interest of this particular advisor.

 

If you understand your research well then don't worry.... just go talk about your research. You enjoy it so much that you applied to PhD programs to do if for 5 more years! If you enjoy is that much then you will be able to discuss it for 30 minutes with ease.

[peachypie]

When you are in an interview for 30 minutes with a prof you are not going to be discussing funding.  Here is how it generally goes:  "so tell me about what you have been doing?".... this is where you give your elevator speech.  Really you should have this stuff down to a science by the end of your interviews.  You'll have a quick 1 minute elevator speech that you exchange with anyone you are talking to (i.e. grad student who picks you up from airport, prof at your table for lunch) basically its a 1 minute quick summary of your interest and what you have bee doing.  You should have about a 5 minute version that goes into more depth this is the one you'll likely use in your interviews.  Now you can go into more details.  If you competed for and got funding this is the time to mention it.  You give them the meat of your summary and after they listen they'll ask you follow up questions.  Typically they want to know about what you did, about the research...they'll want to make sure you can explain what you have been doing to make sure your SOP that says you worked on xyz is supported by what you know about xyz.  If they want to know more about funding and your situation they'll ask you.  I would mention it in your little speech as "I applied for and was awarded funding from blah blah to work on this."  Use it as an introduction, make sure to say things like AWARDED and APPLIED.  these are buzz words essentially that says 'hey I applied for something and beat others out" it shows that you didn't just receive something that they give everyone but you had to compete.  Some people may want to know more, others won't.  That is why you have  a summary that gives them information to follow up more with.

[amethyst23]

Sounds good and I agree with what everyone has said.

 

I have something in mind for an elevator speech but I need to figure out how to balance the details of the projects I've worked on. I've been working in a new lab for 5 weeks so I'm certainly going to mention this but in my SOP I only discussed the projects I did before joining my current lab.

 

For these quick speeches, should I provide more details about the lab I am in now or expand on the labs I mentioned in my SOP? Also, the work of the lab I am in now doesn't really relate to my research interests so unfortunately I will not be able to make a strong connection between these two things....

[peachypie]

5 weeks is not a lot of time in the research world.  I'll say you may want to focus a bit more on the research you did prior to the new lab since this is the one you mentioned in your SOP as well as where you did, my guess, most of your research experience.  5 weeks is long enough to figure out where reagents are and get into some basic/foundation work!  i'd focus on the lab and work you did the most true research in, spent the longest time, did the most independent work.  Of course, still mention and discuss your current lab but no one is expecting a lot of research to have been completed in 5 weeks.  

again the point is, figure out if the person who says they worked on research of xyz can talk in depth about what they did.  If you can't answer what you were doing, why, the science behind what you were doing and how it applies to the subject etc...thats what they want to know.   If you say you worked on digestion of food by zebras, lets see if they can talk for 5 minutes about relevant digestion of zebras.  Do they know a zebra has a stomach?! What does a zebra eat?  Did you look at a variety of foods outside of a normal zebra's diet?  etc.  How did you control for this.