Any tips for preparing for interviews?

[vnatch]

I know interviews are still about a month away, but I wanted to prep at least a little during the winter break before I get swamped with school again. I'm not sure exactly what approach to take when I'm getting ready for these, does anyone who's been through the process before have any advice? From what I've heard about interviews so far, I think I'm going to spend a lot of time reading papers and lab websites for the professors I am interested in working with, and I'll be sure to come up with plenty of questions for them. I also plan on going over my research and making sure I can explain it sufficiently to them and hopefully that I can answer any questions they have about it. Finally, I was going to go over some standard job interview questions, the stuff everyone hates about my biggest weakness, time I had to take charge, etc. Am I missing anything?

I also had some general questions about the interviews themselves. If it helps, I am interviewing at umbrella programs in cell/developmental biology, biochem, and genetics mostly. How many interviews can I expect to do over the whole weekend for these programs? Some of the invites I've already received want me to give a ranked list of 5 faculty I want to speak to, does this mean I will have to interview with all 5 of them or will I not know until the day of? Also, since I will be reading about them a lot beforehand, is it appropriate to jot down my questions for them ahead of time and bring a notepad with me so that I can continue taking notes and also so I can remember what I want to ask? Finally, am I only interviewing with faculty, or do I have to interview with other adcomm members who I am not interested in working with? If this is the case, what kinds of questions will they ask?

Thanks in advance for clearing some of this up!

[Bioenchilada]

I think you're overthinking. The amount of people you'll interview with depends on the program but they'll tell you to choose way more, however the range is from 3/5, typically. Michigan told me to choose 12 to interview with 5. You might get someone you whose research doesn't interest you, or someone you were expecting, just listen to their research and try to ask questions based on that. Grad school interviews are NOT job interviews, so don't use the same approach to prep nor the same questions. It is VERY unlikely you'll be asked what your biggest flaw is, for example. Key questions are: Why a PhD? Why your field? Why this school? Why this program? ( The last two can be combined). IT IS CRUCIAL YOU KNOW YOUR RESEARCH! They most likely WILL ask you to tell them what you've done in the past; however, try to not be TOO specific or take too long since you're wasting time for other questions. Don't bring a notepad or anything, it'll make it seem scripted. Interviews tend to be SUPER casual unless you make them not thay way, which might make you look boring. There's more to just knowing your stuff during interviews, you want to seem like you have a personality. You might interview with an adcom and not be aware that they're on the adcom. 

I suggest you dont overprepare and read papers, it's really not constructive, in my opinion. Most faculty went out of their way to talk about their research and most of the important details are in their web/labpage. I'd suggest just reading those so you have a good idea of what they do and can ask questions. Reading papers is more suitable for a journal club kind of scenario, which this is not lol

Of course, different strokes for different folks but the person that read up on the faculty the same day of the interview and was able to have an insightful and fun conversation (me) ended up in the same place as the person that read the most recent papers to prep. 

[immuno91]

Do you have published papers? If yes, know those papers inside out and upside down. If you get asked about a certain experiment that was done in the paper (say in Fig. 2) it doesn't matter if you only contributed to Fig. 3. You need to know everything you can about your own publications because any part of anything that has your name on it is fair game.

[vnatch]

I'm assuming you are only referring to publications that have been printed (i.e. that are not in press or review), right? I am an author on a publication that was just submitted for review in December, so I'm betting it won't be public access by the time my interviews happen (meaning my interviewers won't be able to ask me about specifics of the paper).

You're post made me think of a related question, though. The paper I am authored on was based on some work a grad student and I did during my first semester working in my lab. The grad student did almost all of the work, but we both (equally) contributed to one experiment in the paper that I spent six months on but which turned out to be a complete failure (in the paper, its basically explained away in a single sentence). Aside from that, my other contribution was just to do some mutagenesis on a plasmid, which took about a month total.

Basically, my work on the paper was pretty minimal compared to her's. My question is: when asked about the paper during interviews, do you think I should try to put a positive spin on the work I did, or should I be very honest and tell them that my work on it was not extensive (but if I did this i would still plan on knowing all about the project so I could explain it to them anyway). I should mention that since working on this project, the remaining 3 years spent in my lab have been on a number of completely different projects that I have pretty much been doing entirely independently (except my PI). So if they're looking to see if I can communicate effectively about projects that I'VE done, I would much rather spend my time talking about those. The only downside is that none of them are finished (even though I'm really close with one of them), so I'm not sure if that will negatively affect me in some way.

I suppose I'm really asking if I would come off as a better candidate if I talk about the finished publication I had little to do with or the incomplete number of projects that I have been the sole researcher for. If the latter is better, how do I smoothly deflect in depth questions on the publication so I can talk more about current experiments? Thanks for your input!

[Bioenchilada]

I don't know about @immuno91, but no one really asked for publications and whatnot. In fact, most of my interviewers didn't even read my SOP or my CV thoroughly. Your interview will go where you take it, but talking about research alone will not necessarily make you a better candidate. Know what you did in both publications and understand the experiments conducted in both and the premise, but don't expect any questions on the matter.

If you don't feel like talking abot any of your pubs, don't mention them. Of course, if it is something you take pride on or the prof asks, by all means be prepared to talk about it. 

Tl;dr Know your research and what you did but be aware that interviews are usually 30 minutes. 

[immuno91]

I had three publications publicly available at the time of my interviews and at a few of the programs that I interviewed at, my interviewers did take the time to look up the publications and grill me on them. I think if you have publications noted on your CV, there's always going to be a few instances where a faculty member quizzes you on those papers (especially as people start to look more and more at publication ethics and question that amount of work people did with the publication).

I think the general principle on publications is that you're not necessarily going to talk about them (and if you can steer the conversation towards your unpublished research that you may be more comfortable with - do that). However, if you list publications and are asked about them, but then mess up your response or demonstrate a lack of knowledge, that is a bad sign (this was also advice that my old PI gave me before I started interviewing).

Regarding your specific scenario, I would make sure that you understand the science and can discuss the science fluently, but then if asked what you did to contribute to the project be completely forthright. Again, a lot of interviewers will give you some latitude to direct the conversation about your research in the direction you want. However, there are always a few that will grill you on anything on your CV. One of my interviewers opened my CV on her computer and picked a research experience from my junior year of university (I was three years out of university when I applied) and started asking me very specific questions about the techniques I used. It definitely wasn't a universal thing, but I would say that out of 35ish interviewers that I met with during recruitment weekends, 4-5 definitely picked specific things from my CV to ask about.

[lilacs]

The amount of faculty I interviewed with per weekend ranged from 4-7 if i'm remembering correctly. Usually the school will send you an itinerary with the list of faculty you'll be interviewing with 2 weeks in advance. I did have some that didn't let me know until the week of.

For the first interview, I skimmed the interviewers' most recent papers. Then I just started skimming their websites (though those are usually out of date).

You can totally bring a notepad, also helps when you have to draw a diagram about your research. I had to draw some experimental designs from a paper I had in review, since a lot of the faculty were unfamiliar with my UG research area.

You're just interviewing with faculty, I did get interviewed by a grad student on the admissions committee at CU Anschutz though.

[RM17]

On 12/22/2016 at 3:33 PM, vnatch said:

I'm assuming you are only referring to publications that have been printed (i.e. that are not in press or review), right? I am an author on a publication that was just submitted for review in December, so I'm betting it won't be public access by the time my interviews happen (meaning my interviewers won't be able to ask me about specifics of the paper).

Last year, I interviewed at 2 programs, and only one person asked me about the most recent publication on my CV (which was in prep, because I was trying to pad my record a bit haha)...I don't think people will quiz you on your work, per se, but they will ask you about it in one way or another, and they want to make sure you can talk about it intelligently. I think that's what the one person was doing with the publication, but it did catch me off guard a little. I still got in, though.

[abcd1]

So for those of us who dont have publications what else can they ask about? I can talk a little about my thesis but 30 minutes seems like an eternity if you haven't done a lot of research.

[RM17]

10 minutes ago, abcd1 said:

So for those of us who dont have publications what else can they ask about? I can talk a little about my thesis but 30 minutes seems like an eternity if you haven't done a lot of research.

They will probably ask you what kind of research interests you have and why you're interested in that particular topic/field, regardless of if you have experience or not.

I think one of the more important things to think of is questions for them. In most of my interviews, both for my current full-time RA position and last year for grad schools, at least half the time of my interviews were spent asking my interviewer questions (mostly at their urging). Most of my interviews were more a conversation than anything. You can ask pretty much anything you want -- what their background is, why they like working at the university, what the composition of their lab is like (postdocs, grad students, RAs, etc.), what a typical day is like for their grad students, what a typical day is like for them, skills they think it's important for grad students to have, etc.

[Ferroportin]

My interviews were all fairly casual. Depending on the school, I interviewed with around 3-6 faculty - sometimes split across two days, sometimes in a back to back 3 hour block. I only read papers by my interviewers for my first interview and quickly realized this provided absolutely no benefit for me. For my subsequent interviews, I stopped reading papers and would only read their short research bio on the program website the night before so I knew their general field and focus. As others have mentioned, you may get faculty that you have no interest in or are in a completely different field - but for me these were usually the most fun as we just chatted broadly about research and focused on non-science topics. 

All my schools also gave me a folder to carry around that included my interview schedule and miscellaneous materials. I wrote down my questions on a piece of paper and stuck them in the folder to look at in between interviews to refresh my mind. I never once got a normal job interview question - the flow was usually some light banter at the beginning, then I talked about my most current research project while answering interjecting questions, then listened to the faculty talk about their research while answering questions, and finally asked my own questions about the program or the faculty at the end. 

As others have pointed out, the interviews are usually only 30 minutes long. This time goes by pretty fast while you're in the interview and the goal is to run out the clock while making the best impression. Above all, you want to convey that you understand the logic and scientific basis of your research and that you weren't just a tech that mindlessly did what a post doc told you to do. 

[prospectivegrad1]

Does anybody have any thoughts on using powerpoint slides, hard-copy figures etc. to explain their research? 

[RM17]

2 hours ago, prospectivegrad1 said:

Does anybody have any thoughts on using powerpoint slides, hard-copy figures etc. to explain their research? 

Hmm, I probably wouldn't, but that's not to say you can't. I found my conversations with faculty to be relatively casual -- they asked me to explain my research, but in many cases, they weren't necessarily in my area of expertise so I gave them the short version and we mostly chatted about other things... For those who were in my field of expertise, figures and such would likely have been unnecessary, since they knew what I was talking about without visual aids

I do human neuro research, though, so the utility of this may vary by field...

[vnatch]

So I've been mentally practicing describing my research the way I would in the interview, and (to my surprise) I'm actually getting worried now that 30 minutes is wayyy too short of a time, especially if I'm expected to answer other questions related to the program and to listen/ask questions about their own research areas. Does anyone have any advice on how much I should aim to talk about my own work?

I have been working in the same lab for 3 years now, and for 2 of those years I have run experiments completely independent of grad students/postdocs/etc, so I could talk about the various projects I've been working on for hours lol. How should I approach discussing my research in a way that is succinct? Like I mentioned before, I took part in (but was by no means the main researcher) a project that is under review for publication; but since then I've spent almost all additional time with projects (not yet ready for publication) in a related but different area, and these are the ones I know best having been the only one working on them. So I've thought about only talking about one of these, or alternatively I could very briefly describe both project types and then just ask my interviewer which project he/she would like to know more about?

I think it would help me in deciding which way to approach the research discussion by having a better understanding of exactly what these interviewers are looking for. I know they want to make sure I can logically explain it and know the reasoning behind the various steps, but I guess I'm not sure which project would make me sound the most impressive.

Another question I had: How exactly do these interviews result in an admissions decision? Will all of my interviewers confer later on to decide if I'm admitted, or do they write down notes and send them off to an additional adcom committee? This is out of interest more than anything else.

 

[AGradStudentHasNoName]

17 minutes ago, vnatch said:

So I've been mentally practicing describing my research the way I would in the interview, and (to my surprise) I'm actually getting worried now that 30 minutes is wayyy too short of a time, especially if I'm expected to answer other questions related to the program and to listen/ask questions about their own research areas. Does anyone have any advice on how much I should aim to talk about my own work?

I have been working in the same lab for 3 years now, and for 2 of those years I have run experiments completely independent of grad students/postdocs/etc, so I could talk about the various projects I've been working on for hours lol. How should I approach discussing my research in a way that is succinct? Like I mentioned before, I took part in (but was by no means the main researcher) a project that is under review for publication; but since then I've spent almost all additional time with projects (not yet ready for publication) in a related but different area, and these are the ones I know best having been the only one working on them. So I've thought about only talking about one of these, or alternatively I could very briefly describe both project types and then just ask my interviewer which project he/she would like to know more about?

I think it would help me in deciding which way to approach the research discussion by having a better understanding of exactly what these interviewers are looking for. I know they want to make sure I can logically explain it and know the reasoning behind the various steps, but I guess I'm not sure which project would make me sound the most impressive.

Another question I had: How exactly do these interviews result in an admissions decision? Will all of my interviewers confer later on to decide if I'm admitted, or do they write down notes and send them off to an additional adcom committee? This is out of interest more than anything else.

 

If they are not in your subsubfield they do not care much about your experiments. Tell them big picture what you are trying to work towards or what applications it might have then narrow it down to a more specific question or topic and how you are addressing that. If you are taking more than 5 minutes without follow on questions then you are going into too much detail. Think about how you explain it to your family and friends. Communicating your research to a broad audience is a key part of getting a phd and doing research in general. You constantly have to ask for funding from people who do have technical backgrounds but don't know much about your subsubfield. You have to connect it to the bigger picture, intermediate picture, small picture, and exactly how you are addressing that small picture with evidence.

[immuno91]

3 hours ago, vnatch said:

Another question I had: How exactly do these interviews result in an admissions decision? Will all of my interviewers confer later on to decide if I'm admitted, or do they write down notes and send them off to an additional adcom committee? This is out of interest more than anything else.

 

In most cases you'll interview with 1-2 members of the admissions committee and then a few members of the faculty that are not on the admissions committee. Everyone normally writes up reviews and sends them on to the committee for consideration, from what I understand. Once the committee is meeting, it's obviously up to the members of the committee that you met with to advocate for you, as those that aren't there cannot.

[biomednyc]

Seasoned interviewers: what were some of the hardest questions you got, or that maybe took you off guard? I understand that the process is fairly casual and designed to gauge the applicant's research experience/personality while confirming what's on paper, but I have 7 interviews lined up (!!!!!) and I'm trying to prepare myself for the worst. I have no idea what to expect and any help would be greatly appreciated. Thanks  

[Ferroportin]

On 1/5/2017 at 5:50 PM, biomednyc said:

Seasoned interviewers: what were some of the hardest questions you got, or that maybe took you off guard? I understand that the process is fairly casual and designed to gauge the applicant's research experience/personality while confirming what's on paper, but I have 7 interviews lined up (!!!!!) and I'm trying to prepare myself for the worst. I have no idea what to expect and any help would be greatly appreciated. Thanks  

Like you mentioned, most interviews should be fairly casual and conversational. However, this can all be based on luck and whoever ends up interviewing you. I was asked at one interview why I didn't want to pursue an MD since my CV had some clinical and public health experience on it. We literally spent over half the interview just discussing about why I should not pursue an PhD, but rather get an MD and do research without practicing medicine.

I've heard of people getting interviewers that wanted them to do a chalk talk of their research or draw out signaling pathways for them. I've also heard of interviews where the faculty member completely disregards the student's research/field as irrelevant or wrong. I had an interview where the faculty member did not want to hear about my research at all.

In one of my favorite but more stressful interviews, my interviewer started talking about his research and background info in his field and then asked me to come up with hypotheses given the information he had laid out. He was really encouraging and the interview was really engaging, but nonetheless, it was stressful at the time. 

In this end, its going to be a mixed bag with a dash of luck depending on who you get. There's only so much you can do to prepare for the interviews - just know your research well and be able to explain the logic behind the big picture. If you get any interviewer who is just hostile or disrespectful to you, it's ok to bring that up with the program coordinator. After all, if the program coordinator brushes you off or doesn't care that you brought up a genuine concern to them - then perhaps they might not provide the best student support when you're actually in the program. 

[biomednyc]

On 1/7/2017 at 4:49 PM, Ferroportin said:

Like you mentioned, most interviews should be fairly casual and conversational. However, this can all be based on luck and whoever ends up interviewing you. I was asked at one interview why I didn't want to pursue an MD since my CV had some clinical and public health experience on it. We literally spent over half the interview just discussing about why I should not pursue an PhD, but rather get an MD and do research without practicing medicine.

I've heard of people getting interviewers that wanted them to do a chalk talk of their research or draw out signaling pathways for them. I've also heard of interviews where the faculty member completely disregards the student's research/field as irrelevant or wrong. I had an interview where the faculty member did not want to hear about my research at all.

In one of my favorite but more stressful interviews, my interviewer started talking about his research and background info in his field and then asked me to come up with hypotheses given the information he had laid out. He was really encouraging and the interview was really engaging, but nonetheless, it was stressful at the time. 

In this end, its going to be a mixed bag with a dash of luck depending on who you get. There's only so much you can do to prepare for the interviews - just know your research well and be able to explain the logic behind the big picture. If you get any interviewer who is just hostile or disrespectful to you, it's ok to bring that up with the program coordinator. After all, if the program coordinator brushes you off or doesn't care that you brought up a genuine concern to them - then perhaps they might not provide the best student support when you're actually in the program. 

Thanks so much, your input is immensely helpful. I really appreciate it. On a related note, do you have any tips for good questions to ask interviewers? Regarding their work, their students, or maybe the program at large? 

[Ferroportin]

On 1/8/2017 at 6:27 PM, biomednyc said:

Thanks so much, your input is immensely helpful. I really appreciate it. On a related note, do you have any tips for good questions to ask interviewers? Regarding their work, their students, or maybe the program at large? 

The best questions to ask are ones that will help you gauge the quality and fit of the program to your interests. Remember, the opportunity to ask questions isn't to impress your interviewer but for you to have a chance to better assess whether the program matches your interests and will support you well throughout the next 5-6 years. For example, in all my interviews I asked about the career prospects of their recent graduating classes. I wanted to stay in academia but was concerned about the current status of the academic landscape. So as I was interviewing, one of the things I was looking for was a program that had a strong record of supporting students that want to pursue alternative career paths (biotech, consulting, policy, etc) to keep my options open. 

So I would say just make a list of what's important to you and form good questions around those aspects. 

[cmykrgb]

is bringing a note card with you unprofessional? like if I bring note cards on relevant papers in POI's field or POI's work and things about me that I want to make sure to mention during interview.

[jmillar]

52 minutes ago, cmykrgb said:

is bringing a note card with you unprofessional? like if I bring note cards on relevant papers in POI's field or POI's work and things about me that I want to make sure to mention during interview.

I bring a small notebook with me, one page where I've written stuff down about the POI, and a blank page for me to scribble down notes if needed.

[Bioenchilada]

1 hour ago, cmykrgb said:

is bringing a note card with you unprofessional? like if I bring note cards on relevant papers in POI's field or POI's work and things about me that I want to make sure to mention during interview.

It won't actually be unprofessional but you want your interview to be conversational rather than scripted. It will be much less stressful this way, and most likely even more enjoyable. 

Edited January 13, 2017 by Bioenchilada

[cmykrgb]

1 hour ago, jmillar said:

I bring a small notebook with me, one page where I've written stuff down about the POI, and a blank page for me to scribble down notes if needed.

 

2 minutes ago, Bioenchilada said:

It won't actually be unprofessional but you want your interview to be conversational rather than scripted. It will be much less stressful this way, and most likely even more enjoyable. 

Thanks for your replies! I guess what I meant by unprofessional was have the card present/visible during the interviews and be looking at them for references

[Bioenchilada]

32 minutes ago, cmykrgb said:

 

Thanks for your replies! I guess what I meant by unprofessional was have the card present/visible during the interviews and be looking at them for references

I would not do that, but that's up to you. Not having a card will make you look more confident, just know your stuff.