<p>Now that it seems that the old admissions decisions thread is winding down, I thought we could start up a new thread to specifically discuss interviews, oddball questions you get, schools or PI's that you really like, etc.</p>
<p>I've been asking around, trying to figure out what questions I should prepare for, besides the obvious "what sort of research have you done." I've heard that sometimes you'll be asked, "describe a paper that you've read recently that's outside your immediate field of research." I was also told that professors aren't just looking to weed out people who seem smarter on paper than in person, but they're also looking to weed out the jerks, i.e. the people who they don't think they could work well with. That noted, I'll be keeping my views on the 2008 presidential race to myself at these events...</p>
<p>My advice is to realize that they're not trying to pin you to the wall. An interview is more like a discussion between colleagues than a grilling, and most faculty members are not looking to actively disqualify people, they're looking for the people who disqualify themselves.</p>
<p>Some miscellaneous talking-with-faculty-members tips, mostly similar to the advice my PI gave me for my qualifying exam:
1. If you have one bad interview out of five, it's not the end of the world.
2. Take credit for the things you've done as an undergraduate -- when you did something, say "I" rather than "we." (When you didn't do something, say "we." ;))
3. If you don't know the answer to a question, say "I don't know." Don't start BSing. You can try to offer a tidbit of information you do know -- "I don't know a great deal about topic x, but I do know that it's quite analogous to topic y, and blah blah blah," but if you don't know, you don't know. That's okay.
4. Don't assume the faculty member is an expert in your undergraduate research. Tailor your use of jargon and acronyms to what you might expect them to know, and when in doubt, explain a little more than you think you need to.<br>
5. Be able to clearly explain the techniques you used in your undergrad research, and the rationale behind them.
6. Don't feel you need to answer a question right away. If you need a second to think, bring a bottle of water and take a sip to give yourself a little bit of time.</p>
<p>Most of all, relax! You're talking about research with really smart people -- this is supposed to be fun.</p>
<p>I heard that last year Stanford accepted 50-70% of the applicants they interviewed. If it really is mostly a "disqualify-yourself" system, then the applicant pool that year must have been very biased toward social outcasts! Since I'm pretty sure this was not the case, what other factors do you think gave led the faculty to choose one applicant over another? I know that you were accepted to Stanford during your year, but do you recall anyone in your group who weren't accepted, and are you able to deduce why this was so?</p>
<p>I'm not sure, because I don't know of anyone who wasn't admitted -- as you can imagine, nobody wants to ask anybody else if he or she was denied at a school, so the people who don't get in after interviews largely don't talk about it.</p>
<p>I was interviewed and then rejected at UCSF, and I can confidently say that I disqualified myself. I first managed to offend the PI by forgetting that he'd been second author on the paper describing the protein I was talking about, then felt uncomfortable and awkward and talked my way into saying some stupid things about my background. The lesson learned there was that it's the interviewer's responsibility to drive the conversation, and if there's a lag, you don't need to start babbling to fill the silence! :)</p>
<p>So I don't mean that people disqualify themselves by being psycho or eating kittens or anything -- most people disqualify themselves by either showing a lack of understanding of their previous research (if it's clear that they were doing the grunt work on a project with little understanding), or, like me, by giving the interviewer unnecessary information.</p>
<p>Hi l3monkid and others,
I finished my PhD at Stanford (in the neuroscience program) a little over a year ago, and I was a student member of the admissions committee for a year and I was involved in admissions most of my time there. </p>
<p>I think it's probably true that we admitted 50-70% of the applicants we interviewed (probably 50% at first, and more off the wait list). I would say that most years there is at most one or maybe two who disqualifies themselves for being a "social outcast" (more likely being extremely arrogant or saying several really offensive things). </p>
<p>Most of the rest of the people who don't get in fall into a couple of categories. There are the people for whom the committee feels we aren't a good fit. These are mostly people whose real interest seems to be in a related field (and we sometimes refer those to other programs) or people who are extremely set on working with one particular professor (who may or may not have room in their lab) and are unwilling to consider other labs. </p>
<p>Then there are some people who are unable to talk intelligently about their prior research, and we worry that they did not take an active role in the research. The lesson there is to take credit for what you did, and be sure that you can summarize your research in a few minutes. It's most impressive when candidates can say here is the question we were interested in, here is what we did, here is what we found, and here are the implications of our results. Even if your experiment didn't work too well, be able to say what you learned. The committee is much less interested in the results themselves than in your ability to speak about what you were after and why you did what you did.</p>
<p>The other category of people that had a hard time are those that seemed completely unenthusiastic. There are a few candidates each year who just seem blah and aren't engaged in conversations in their interviews or throughout the weekend. It's often hard for us to tell what the problem is - some people are shy, and some are (understandably!) exhausted by the interview process. We tried to be understanding, but it's hard to advocate for someone whose heart doesn't seem to be in it.</p>
<p>One last bit of advice is to try to enjoy yourself! You have the opportunity to talk to a bunch of great people in your field (professors, current students, and applicants) which, if grad school is right for you, should be fun! Best of luck.</p>
<p>There is some really great advice here about interviews! Can this become a separate new thread and "stickied" on the Grad. school forum?? </p>
<p>My d is a senior in neuroscience at Barnard and is currently developing her "list" for grad schools and will be (hopefully) seeking just this sort of info about a year from now and I am pretty sure it will be difficult to search out if it remains "burried" in this huge (yet helpful) thread!</p>
<p>molliebatmit and splenium, great advice! I always find myself worrying about the interview process and not knowing how to prepare for it, but your collective advice is very helpful! Thanks!</p>
<p>Wow, molliebatmit and splenium, thanks! I think everyone I've asked so far has been trying to tell me or say the same things, but your advice has been very well put and communicative! It really does help a lot in terms of helping me prepare and also helping me relax. Thanks! :)</p>
<p>I've been asked my opinion on the previous day's primaries, what the four forces of the universe are, and to explain Schrodinger's Cat. At neuroscience interviews (well, all at one interview). So be prepared for questions out of left field, and try not to get too flustered. My dad has heard of students being asked to open a window that had been nailed shut (admittedly at MD inerviews, not PhD), to see if the student would get angry and frustrated. So watch out for people trying to anger you.</p>
<p>Caveats aside, I'm interviewing with James Watson at the Cold Spring Harbor program.. any advice for that!?</p>
<p>I thought so too, but they sent me the interview schedule last week (there are 12 interviews in 3 days, 10 of them all in one day), and there he is.</p>
<p>Oh gosh, all controversies aside, if I got the chance (and probably one of the last ones for an undergrad) to meet James Watson, I'd just appreciate the opportunity to shake James Watson's hand and maybe ask him a few questions on his life lessons learned in science or something. Maybe you should read his latest book.</p>
<p>You can talk about how Watson got his personalized genome sequenced and maybe what he thinks the future holds in store for personalized and preventive medicine based off sequences, with a few of your own opinions thrown in there.</p>
<p>I just got back from an interview at Baylor College of Medicine, and I must say that I am very impressed by the faculty research, students, and facilities that both Baylor and the Texas Med Center has to offer.</p>
<p>what if you're very engaging in interviews and one-one-one talks with professors, but didn't say **** during one of the dinners since you're shy in group settings or tired?</p>
<p>This is a stupid question, but does one have to major in bio/do bio research in order to go onto a biomedical Ph.D or just have great interest in the subject with accomplishments in other undergrad areas</p>
<p>You don't have to have majored in biology or have done biology-related research, but it's a tougher row to hoe if you haven't. Graduate school is about the deep exploration of a very narrow topic, and you have to be able to convince admissions committees that you really want to complete a PhD program in the biomedical sciences, and that you really have the knowledge and skill set to get through the PhD.</p>
<p>Not having done biology-related research is more of a handicap than not having majored in biology, I think.</p>