<p>I have my first interview tomorrow and I am looking for some general advice. I will be posting some of my thoughts when I get back this weekend but til then, does anyone have some helpful thoughts?</p>
<p>relax, the interviews aren't really a big deal, they are a chance to talk really interesting science with professors. Know your own research really well, as they will definitely ask you about it, and it need to seem like you were the one who knew what was going on, and that you didn't just follow directions. They probably don't want the minutia, but rather big picture questions and implications.</p>
<p>ec1234 - I have several interviews coming up over the next few weeks (genetics/molecular biology at respected schools). I just wanted to know how important they are. I've been told by several people that although they're not quite a formality, if you get an interview you really have to screw up to not get an offer (someone told me over 90% of interviewees get offers). Is this the case?</p>
<p>Are they just looking for someone who's motivated, knowledgeable, excited about the work and who isn't a sociopath?</p>
<p>it depends on the school, and on your background. If you were on the edge of the people that they gave interviews to, then they are probably more important. As long as you can talk coherently about your own research, and how your project fits into the larger project that's going on in the lab, then you should be okay. The acceptance rate post interview is probably closer to 80% than 90%, but it's still quite high (domestic in particular, internationals might be harder hit this year because of the economy and the state of endowments)</p>
<p>My problem is that as much as I understand my own aspect of the bigger picture (of the entire system(s) that the lab is studying), my knowledge of the system itself as well as the mass of facts about the field is ALWAYS limited. </p>
<p>For example, I studied a particular binding site on a specific target of a particular kinase, and I know what experiments were done, and the results, etc... but there are a lot of things about the kinase, the target itself, or even the kinase family that I can't possibly learn on the fly. All I can explain is what I know the kinase to be doing in our narrow case... especially since I'm a pure chem major, all of this knowledge comes from my research only. </p>
<p>What are the professors expecting from us? I'm so afraid they'll ask me something in the middle of my spiel that will turn out to be a major thing that I missed out of my ignorance.</p>
<p>They're not expecting you to be an expert in the field. If they ask you a question to which you don't know the answer, it's perfectly fine to say that you don't know (and it's better to say that you don't know than to try to BS an answer), and you don't have to be apologetic or worried because you don't know the answer. Nobody will ever be trying to grill you -- when they ask questions, it's generally because they find what you're doing interesting, and they want to understand more deeply. </p>
<p>For the thread in general, this was the advice I gave last year:
[quote]
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.
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.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Hello everyone. </p>
<p>I just got back from Vanderbilt (which skyrocketed on my list and I could definitely see myself attending). I didn't really understand what was meant by interviewing. I had imagined a job interview where it was my goal, as an applicant, to lay out my experience, skillset relevant to the goals of the lab and impress upon the PI, my dedication and passion for the subject. This isn't what happened. </p>
<p>Only one of the four interviews directly asked me about my experience (another actually stopped me and told me that he had read about my experience in my app and wasn't interested in hearing it again, as he wanted to discuss my motivations and personal feelings more). The faculty took these interview sessions, which were scheduled for 30 minutes and ran closer to 90 minutes, to try to recruit me as a rotation student. They told me about all the projects going on and the personnel in the lab. They introduced me to other individuals in the lab and even in the department. They explained their current funding situation and told me about their recent publications and goals/expectations for new students joining their lab. They all encouraged me very strongly to go to Vanderbilt but were bluntly honest about certain shortcomings (the micro department is a bit light on bacterial host pathogen interactions). </p>
<p>I was a nervous wreck going into these interviews with images of me blowing an interview and getting rejected from my favorite graduate programs and being forced to work at burger king for the rest of my life. It turns out that burger king isn't hiring and besides, that isn't really how this works anyway. Apparently, at the earliest interviews, they offer acceptances to over 90 percent of the interviewees.</p>
<p>"The acceptance rate post interview is probably closer to 80% than 90%"</p>
<p>That would depend upon the school. I have yet to be offered an interview at a school that extends offers to "80 to 90%" of its interviewees. Of the schools where I will be interviewing this application cycle, the highest percentage of students accepted out of those interviewed is about 35% and the lowest is about 10% of interviewees (in the latter case, they interview about 50 of their 300-400 applicants each year and then select 5-6 for admission -- which ends up being about a 3% admissions rate overall).</p>
<p>apumic</p>
<p>What types of programs are you interviewing for?</p>
<p>The most selective Bio program that I've heard of cuts about 50% of those interviewed. This is true for Stanford Biology, and at least for some programs at Harvard (Systems Biology). Are you applying to Bio programs, apumic?</p>
<p>That was why I found it so interesting that (at least at Vanderbilt) the earlier interviews have substantially higher likelihoods of acceptances than later ones. These figures are all over the board and I was pleased to see that there is a legitimate basis for them.</p>
<p>My friend is a grad student at vanderbilt. he says the girls there are gorgeous...</p>
<p>Belevitt, glad to hear that your interview went great! :)</p>
<p>Yup, 50% is also true for Harvard immuno as well...</p>
<p>JUST ONE QUESTION - what do you mean "at the earliest interviews, they offer acceptances to over 90 percent of the interviewees"?? Do you mean when the school gives you two weekend choices and it's better to be interviewed with the first wave of interviewees??? I was just talking to a recent graduate of UW Seattle PhD program in immuno and he said that which interview weekend you attend, absolutely does NOT affect your chances of acceptance...</p>
<p>
[quote]
Do you mean when the school gives you two weekend choices and it's better to be interviewed with the first wave of interviewees???
[/quote]
It's true for some programs (such as the program about which belevitt is talking), but not for others.</p>
<p>Some programs deliberately structure their interview weekends so the most promising applicants are interviewed early. I think the idea is that if many of the top recruits turn them down early, they can go further into their applicant pool for the later weekends. But not all programs do this, and in any event, it's not that interviewing early increases your odds of acceptance, it's that the program chooses to interview its most promising applicants at the early interview weekend (and does not offer that date choice to less-promising applicants).</p>
<p>dear molliebatmit, that was VERY helpful - THANK YOU!</p>
<p>I've had to re-schedule two of my interviews due to scheduling conflict, and for one of them they "strongly encourage you to visit us during this primary recruiting session." Ahh now I'm a little nervous - they actually called the alternate weekend (that I am attending) the "secondary recruiting session" - yikes!!!!!! I hope I didn't lower my chance of acceptance by not attending their primary session.</p>
<p>... ah I probably did. BUT what can you do at this point anyway, right? All I can do is to be as ready and confident as I can be. :)</p>
<p>Patches, it isn't that they have quotas that differ between the weekends, it's that they expect more impressive people in the earlier ones. You're just as impressive as you were had you come during the earlier one, your competition may be less so.</p>
<p>belevitt, EXCELLENT point - THANK YOU! :)</p>
<p>So....</p>
<p>Here might be an interesting question--
Everyone mentions talking about and presenting research done as an undergrad. What if I've received invitations to multiple places but haven't done research at all? What would that mean?</p>
<p>My labs have een fairly research based--we arent told exactly what to do, the order of steps, the amounts to use or anything like that. More or less our labs require a lot of self-guidance, trial and error, etc.</p>
<p>I understand why research is important as an undergrad (I never had an opportunity to because of my commitment to the football program as well). I know they must have a reason to invite me for interviews since the programs informed me they only bring in 30-40 of the 300 applicants they receive.</p>
<p>Any input would be much appreciated.</p>
<p>This thread's pretty helpful. I'm having an interview on Monday and quite scared, to be honest, that I'll not make the cut. Just curious, why did they include a current PhD student as part of the interview line-up. To check if I'm "normal"?</p>
<p>^Probably so you can ask questions about the program to a current student, who's likely to know more about student issues than a professor.</p>