How are decisions made after interviews?

[bunderj]

Hi all,

I'm wondering if any current doc students or other informed parties have any idea how interviewees are ranked after interviews. I am just curious, say if a professor is interviewing 5 people for a spot in their lab, what sorts of things go into the decision? It seems like at that point, all 5 people probably have demonstrated good fit, met criteria, etc...Anyone have any inside info?

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[ILGirl]

It depends on the professor and the program. Some people have pre-ranked their candidates. If their top choice performs well at the interview, that individual will most likely get the acceptance letter. Other people choose not to pre-rank candidates that invite for interviews.

They are still looking at fit. Do you fit into their program? You may fit well on paper, but how do you handle the interview questions, interact with others, etc.

And, don't underestimate the importance of likability. They have to work with you for 4+ years.

 

[FuturePhD2]

Hi all,

I'm wondering if any current doc students or other informed parties have any idea how interviewees are ranked after interviews. I am just curious, say if a professor is interviewing 5 people for a spot in their lab, what sorts of things go into the decision? It seems like at that point, all 5 people probably have demonstrated good fit, met criteria, etc...Anyone have any inside info?

There is no one way. This will vary by school and by mentor. My mentor wants to see that someone can demonstrate knowledge of research during the interview. Anyone can look good on paper, but they would want to see someone that can talk on the fly about the research they've done or want to do in a coherent and knowledgeable way. They want to know if the applicant can competently design a study. They would also want to know that the applicant's interests are compatible with the current focus and lab projects.

Another reason for interviews is to make sure that someone is a good fit for a clinical program personality-wise. Someone can look good on paper but be a trainwreck socially. If a person is inappropriate or not socially savvy during interviews, this can be a red flag about whether the person is cut out for clinical work, and I've seen people not be accepted on the basis of their behavior during interview weekend when they looked good on paper.

Beyond that, in my program, the PI has the final say on who they take after the faculty negotiates about how many students each faculty member can take. Unless there were glaring red flags when the student was meeting with others, the PI's choice usually stands.

 

[futurepsydoc]

Another reason for interviews is to make sure that someone is a good fit for a clinical program personality-wise. Someone can look good on paper but be a trainwreck socially. If a person is inappropriate or not socially savvy during interviews, this can be a red flag about whether the person is cut out for clinical work, and I've seen people not be accepted on the basis of their behavior during interview weekend when they looked good on paper.

As many people have pointed out, the importance of interviews varies depending upon the program or professor. Social skills are key for many of the reasons mentioned earlier, especially because your potential POI will be working with you for several years to come. As far as the department goes, poor social skills can be a big red flag for clinical work. I have one thing to add to this issue. While I am not trying to make anyone anxious, I would urge all interviewees to consider the way they interact with current students as well.

Many programs ask current students to "house" applicants for the night before an interview, show applicants around the lab/facilities/campus, or be available for questions on interview day. For the most part, students have little say in the selection future applicants acceptance. Though, I am sure this varies depending on the program. However, don't think that "train wreck" type behavior, to quote the author above, goes unnoticed. Believe me, it does get noticed and will move up the food chain. Whether it has an impact will vary.

 

[erg923]

As many people have pointed out, the importance of interviews varies depending upon the program or professor. Social skills are key for many of the reasons mentioned earlier, especially because your potential POI will be working with you for several years to come. As far as the department goes, poor social skills can be a big red flag for clinical work. I have one thing to add to this issue. While I am not trying to make anyone anxious, I would urge all interviewees to consider the way they interact with current students as well.

Many programs ask current students to "house" applicants for the night before an interview, show applicants around the lab/facilities/campus, or be available for questions on interview day. For the most part, students have little say in the selection future applicants acceptance. Though, I am sure this varies depending on the program. However, don't think that "train wreck" type behavior, to quote the author above, goes unnoticed. Believe me, it does get noticed and will move up the food chain. Whether it has an impact will vary.

I am well past all this stuff (fortunately), but just wanted to point out the irony of the focus on social skills and pleasantries given the fact the psychologists (academic psychs especially) are notorious for being interpersonally eccentric/odd, gruff, or sometimes even rude/arrogant.

 

[KayJay85]

Most labs require a ton of collaboration. A PI has to have reasonable faith that an applicant will be able to get along with others. Also, if it is a mentorship program, the PI probably doesn't want to be stuck with someone who is unpleasant for 4-5 years.

 

[kapinkkidowski]

Individual professors and programs may have their own specific criteria, but as far as I know, programs generally have all the faculty meet together, and they decide on a good GROUP of students to make offers to.

Profs can have their 1st and 2nd choices which will have a lot of weight, but the dynamic of all the students make a difference also. Also, you could have a situation like prof 1 not having gotten any students for 2 yrs, and prof 2 having students both those years. Sometimes if prof 2 will have to wait and see if one of prof 1's top 2 or 3 choices turn them down before giving a spot to their number 2 choice. It isnt always that every prof saying they will want to take a student will end up with one. If you pay attention from year to year this happens at a lot of schools.

 

[StudentBsMs11]

I am well past all this stuff (fortunately), but just wanted to point out the irony of the focus on social skills and pleasantries given the fact the psychologists (academic psychs especially) are notorious for being interpersonally eccentric/odd, gruff, or sometimes even rude/arrogant.

+1 - too true!