Expected Knowledge Depth about Research on Interview Day

[GravityDefier]

---

Members do not see this ad.

I know this may be school-specific, but I just wonder in general how deep adcoms and program directors expect me to be able to discuss my research on the interview day ? Am I expected to be able to discuss in depth into each specific condition of each experiment I did and tiny details about how each assay works ? Or, is it more like on the level of a big picture and type of discussion about overall pathways and whatnot ? I basically just hope to have some idea how the research discussions will be like on the interview day to prepare for my interview at best.

Thank you very much !

 

[red doctober]

I know this may be school-specific, but I just wonder in general how deep adcoms and program directors expect me to be able to discuss my research on the interview day ? Am I expected to be able to discuss in depth into each specific condition of each experiment I did and tiny details about how each assay works. Or, is it more like on the level of a big picture and type of discussion about overall pathways and whatnot. I basically just hope to have some idea how the research discussions will be like on the interview day to prepare for my interview at best.

Thank you very much !

Most likely no, interviews aren't meant to be an oral defense of your research. It's more to probe your interest in/commitment to research. In my opinion though, you should know the ins and outs of your research for your research's sake.

A typical interview may go like this:
Enter. Shake hands. Introductions.
"Tell me about yourself?"
"Why do you want to do an MD/PhD program?"
"Why not just one or the other?"
"Why are you interested in our school?"
"Tell me about your research."
"Let me tell you about my research."
"Do you have any questions?" <-- ask some!
Say thanks and goodbye. Shake hands. Leave.

After you give a short explanation of your research and your role in the project, your interviewer will probably ask some questions that probe deeper into project specifics just because they're interested. They won't ask you minutiae unless they're really prickly or having a bad day and want to see you sweat. If you want to be fully prepared for any possible scenario, know these things, but most likely you won't need it.

 

[GravityDefier]

Most likely no, interviews aren't meant to be an oral defense of your research. It's more to probe your interest in/commitment to research. In my opinion though, you should know the ins and outs of your research for your research's sake.

A typical interview may go like this:
Enter. Shake hands. Introductions.
"Tell me about yourself?"
"Why do you want to do an MD/PhD program?"
"Why not just one or the other?"
"Why are you interested in our school?"
"Tell me about your research."
"Let me tell you about my research."
"Do you have any questions?" <-- ask some!
Say thanks and goodbye. Shake hands. Leave.

After you give a short explanation of your research and your role in the project, your interviewer will probably ask some questions that probe deeper into project specifics just because they're interested. They won't ask you minutiae unless they're really prickly or having a bad day and want to see you sweat. If you want to be fully prepared for any possible scenario, know these things, but most likely you won't need it.

Thanks. I hope the interview will go in a relaxational way like that. Recently I have heard from a friend who came back from an interview at a non-MSTP MD/PhD school, and he said he was grilled on every minute detail of an assay he did a while ago. I am not sure if he just wanted to scare me, or if he had a mean interviewer, or if MD/PhD interview is supposed to be intensively grilling your research.

Any other comments from other members are much appreciated !

 

[Neuronix]

It varies based on the faculty member and the program. Some will ask in-depth questions about your research, others won't. It often depends upon the expertise of the particular faculty member, and whether or not they know anything about your research. If their lab does very similar work, it lends to a more detailed discussion. If they don't know anything about what your lab does, the discussion tends to be more superficial.

It benefits you to know as much as you can. In an interview with the PD of one program, we discussed our cell culture assays and western blot techniques in detail. I suggested he should try a different HDAC we had better luck with. I think these sorts of discussions are major contributions to acceptance, because it shows you know what you're doing instead of just doing whatever you're told.

 

[URHere]

I agree that the level of detail is going to be very interviewer-specific.

In most cases, your interviewer will not be familiar with every technique or hypothesis of your research field. They are unlikely to ask you for specific experimental details, but you should be prepared to talk about the implications of your research, whether your model reflects what happens in a human or actual disease state, or how you plan to make sense of your experimental results. Many of my interviews involved questions like these.

In rare cases, you will have an interview with someone who is an expert in your field or on a topic tangentially related to your field. I had one interview with a researcher who studied a cofactor of the enzyme I was using for one of my bioassays. I didn't know anything about that cofactor, but that didn't stop him from grilling me about it, and handing me about 4 articles as I left his office. You should be prepared for these people - look up your interviewers beforehand if at all possible. If their work is related to yours, read it and think about where and how your fields overlap. Worst case scenario: they don't grill you and you've wasted some time. Best case scenario: you have a really useful discussion, impress your interviewer, and leave thinking about your research from a new angle.

 

[Neuronix]

You should be prepared for these people - look up your interviewers beforehand if at all possible.

I've disagreed with this approach based on my own experience and the experience of others who have tried this approach. Interviewers do expect you to know your own research. They won't expect you to know THEIR research, even if your work is related.

When I tried reviewing my interviewers before I interviewed, having read their articles didn't stop them from giving me a long lecture about their work. They would ignore what I thought or had read about their work, and they would hand me multiple articles anyway, including what I already read. I stopped looking up my interviewers two institutions in.

I think it's better if you are relaxed and excited at your interviews. If you spend hours preparing for every interview, you are probably going to be nervous and burnt out given your other commitments.

 

[esmjjs]

I've disagreed with this approach based on my own experience and the experience of others who have tried this approach. Interviewers do expect you to know your own research. They won't expect you to know THEIR research, even if your work is related.

When I tried reviewing my interviewers before I interviewed, having read their articles didn't stop them from giving me a long lecture about their work. They would ignore what I thought or had read about their work, and they would hand me multiple articles anyway, including what I already read. I stopped looking up my interviewers two institutions in.

I think it's better if you are relaxed and excited at your interviews. If you spend hours preparing for every interview, you are probably going to be nervous and burnt out given your other commitments.

While I think reading journal articles is unnecessary, because most MD/PhD programs ask you to select who you want to interview with, many of my interviews have begun with "Well why did you choose to meet with me." So while detailed knowledge of their research is unnecessary I like to be able to give a two sentence summary of why I'm interested in their work and how it relates to my personal interests.

 

[Neuronix]

While I think reading journal articles is unnecessary, because most MD/PhD programs ask you to select who you want to interview with, many of my interviews have begun with "Well why did you choose to meet with me." So while detailed knowledge of their research is unnecessary I like to be able to give a two sentence summary of why I'm interested in their work and how it relates to my personal interests.

I think this is good advice. I think the answer "I read on the website that you work on X thing that I am interested in" is sufficient. Don't say what I did at one program and say "I ran out of faculty in the department because everyone I requested was unable to meet with me." That probably gets you rejected

 

[GravityDefier]

It varies based on the faculty member and the program. Some will ask in-depth questions about your research, others won't. It often depends upon the expertise of the particular faculty member, and whether or not they know anything about your research. If their lab does very similar work, it lends to a more detailed discussion. If they don't know anything about what your lab does, the discussion tends to be more superficial.

It benefits you to know as much as you can. In an interview with the PD of one program, we discussed our cell culture assays and western blot techniques in detail. I suggested he should try a different HDAC we had better luck with. I think these sorts of discussions are major contributions to acceptance, because it shows you know what you're doing instead of just doing whatever you're told.

I agree that the level of detail is going to be very interviewer-specific.

In most cases, your interviewer will not be familiar with every technique or hypothesis of your research field. They are unlikely to ask you for specific experimental details, but you should be prepared to talk about the implications of your research, whether your model reflects what happens in a human or actual disease state, or how you plan to make sense of your experimental results. Many of my interviews involved questions like these.

In rare cases, you will have an interview with someone who is an expert in your field or on a topic tangentially related to your field. I had one interview with a researcher who studied a cofactor of the enzyme I was using for one of my bioassays. I didn't know anything about that cofactor, but that didn't stop him from grilling me about it, and handing me about 4 articles as I left his office. You should be prepared for these people - look up your interviewers beforehand if at all possible. If their work is related to yours, read it and think about where and how your fields overlap. Worst case scenario: they don't grill you and you've wasted some time. Best case scenario: you have a really useful discussion, impress your interviewer, and leave thinking about your research from a new angle.

While I think reading journal articles is unnecessary, because most MD/PhD programs ask you to select who you want to interview with, many of my interviews have begun with "Well why did you choose to meet with me." So while detailed knowledge of their research is unnecessary I like to be able to give a two sentence summary of why I'm interested in their work and how it relates to my personal interests.

Thanks everyone ! These helpful advices give me a general idea how the interview day will be like in regard to research talk 🙂.

 

[24thGrade]

I think you should be able to defend your research pretty well. I had plenty of examples of interviews where people were slyly testing my knowledge of the literature in my field and asking me to explain the details of the assays I developed. They generally weren't "grilling" me but I think were somewhat genuinely interested when they were asking the more difficult questions. I honestly really liked when people were hard on me though because I (like many applicants) had put an enormous amount of time into the work and it was only when people asked the hard questions that they would understand how much I had done.

If you aren't comfortable with dealing with these types of questions I think you should work to get yourself there. No, you don't need to know everything in literature about everything your doing but people will want to hear that you at least have some grasp of the key people in your field and how their work relates to yours.

 

[GravityDefier]

I think you should be able to defend your research pretty well. I had plenty of examples of interviews where people were slyly testing my knowledge of the literature in my field and asking me to explain the details of the assays I developed. They generally weren't "grilling" me but I think were somewhat genuinely interested when they were asking the more difficult questions. I honestly really liked when people were hard on me though because I (like many applicants) had put an enormous amount of time into the work and it was only when people asked the hard questions that they would understand how much I had done.

If you aren't comfortable with dealing with these types of questions I think you should work to get yourself there. No, you don't need to know everything in literature about everything your doing but people will want to hear that you at least have some grasp of the key people in your field and how their work relates to yours.

Thanks for your input. I think my grasp of the project can get me to defend my research project pretty well. Though, when it comes to the literature, I may have some difficulties. The pathways involved in my work are fairly complicated that even my PI had to struggle to understand them. Thus I was asking just to get the general idea how things would be asked during the interview.

 

[Gnomes]

I found the questions I was asked about my research to be fairly superficial except for one interviewer at UIUC who was working on, it turned out, almost the exact same thing. (That's always awkward.) The situation was different for second visit.