So far I have been invited to one interview for a program taking place in couple weeks. I am beginning to prepare for it and have been glancing at the preparatory list of questions that I might be asked as well as scrutinizing the program information. In terms of preparation, I have heard two sides of the coin. People on one side have been telling me that I should be ready to comprehend any and all information about my POI and potential interviewers especially about their publications. They recommended me that I should definitely read into their major research achievements and try to build that into the interview process to sort of "impress" them. Other people have been telling me that this type of preparation may backfire and come off across as a little arrogant and know it all. Their advice was just to be who you are and show your humane colors. I plan to read at least some of the defining publications of my POIs but how much is too much of preparation? In general, should I just go with the flow having already immersed in some background knowledge about my research interest and fit with the POI? Or should I even bother doing a more extensive digging and learning at this point?
PhD/PsyD How much is too much of preparation?
- Thread starter denimfan
- Start date
- Joined
- Feb 15, 2009
- Messages
- 19,152
- Reaction score
- 26,597
Go with the flow. I get turned off when I feel like people are just telling me "what I want to hear" vs genuine interests.
- Joined
- Sep 18, 2011
- Messages
- 1,934
- Reaction score
- 51
Honestly I feel like the interview that you least prepare for is the best, sure you may be nervous and mess up a few things, but if you are sincere and know whats on your CV you should be absolutely fine.
- Joined
- Feb 6, 2009
- Messages
- 285
- Reaction score
- 179
FWIW, I probably read over a dozen articles for each person I applied to work with and then had the opportunity to interview with, but I didn't read up on other faculty members who had varying interests, but just happened to be on my schedule.
I don't think you need to memorize someone's work, nor should you try to "impress" a faculty member by showing off how you've read publications. However, I think you should definitely read a lot of recently published work (or other material - e.g the grant proposal for currently funded projects if you can find it) by the person you hope to have as a mentor... because, you should make sure you are interested in what s/he is doing and where s/he might be headed next with their research. Reading up ahead of time will help you come up with better questions to ask them about the current state of their research, and also help you to think about what you might want to do as their student (e.g. do you bring a new perspective to a question they have been studying?).
I don't think you need to memorize someone's work, nor should you try to "impress" a faculty member by showing off how you've read publications. However, I think you should definitely read a lot of recently published work (or other material - e.g the grant proposal for currently funded projects if you can find it) by the person you hope to have as a mentor... because, you should make sure you are interested in what s/he is doing and where s/he might be headed next with their research. Reading up ahead of time will help you come up with better questions to ask them about the current state of their research, and also help you to think about what you might want to do as their student (e.g. do you bring a new perspective to a question they have been studying?).
Have more than passing knowledge, but don't be so worried about details that you can't have a normal conversation. POIs know what they've written; I can see trying to "impress" someone who's made a name for himself/herself going over badly.
- Joined
- Mar 9, 2013
- Messages
- 102
- Reaction score
- 11
You shouldn't try to impress them with your knowledge of their research... BUT you have to be able to talk intelligently about why you want to work with them, which areas of their research interest you, what type of studies you might want to create/work on with them... all of which require knowing their research fairly well, and in some cases, their viewpoints on controversial topics in the field. (Making this example up, but you wouldn't want to interview with a professor who focuses on schizophrenia and tell him that you're interested in studying schizophrenia + xyz if he just wrote a commentary two years ago about how xyz is overhyped and people should really be studying abc). I pulled people's CVs and downloaded and read just about every paper I could. Some interviews, my knowledge barely had the chance to appear, and in others, I got fairly hard questions that I was prepared to answer specifically because I read their papers and learned more about the research area. You're not expected to know everything, but it's a good idea to have a sense of their research, the field as a whole, and the types of projects they would generally be interested in pursuing.
- Joined
- Dec 20, 2013
- Messages
- 7
- Reaction score
- 0
In proposing a research project that I would be interested in doing in their lab, how much does it have to relate to their current research? Making this up, but for example, if their current research is CBT intervention for substance use, would a proposal on mindfulness intervention be too far off if they're not currently looking at mindfulness? Do I need to put into hypothesis format and provide some citations/reasons for the hypothesis? Thanks!!!
- Joined
- Mar 9, 2013
- Messages
- 102
- Reaction score
- 11
No hypothesis format or citations! 🙂. In my interviews, I tended to get questions like "if you could do any study with unlimited resources, what would you do?" or "do you have a project or two in mind for if you worked with me?". I think this came up in 4 of my interviews (out of 5). Nobody is going to ask you for a written proposal :-D. Sometimes before this came up, if they asked me if I have any questions first, I'd ask them where they see their lab going in the future. For example, someone may put they study abc and xyz on their home page, but have a slightly more specific idea of which direction and which area they want to go over the next 5 years. I interviewed with someone I thought would be a good match based on their past research and posted research description, but she had recently changed universities and, based on the other people at the school, started shifting her research in a new direction. This new direction wasn't a great match for me.
For your example, I'd just take a look at their past papers and their description of their research and see what you think they'd be open to. To me, it sounds like your example would be fine, but some people may be very traditional behaviorists and may not be open to it. That being said, if that's an area you definitely want to study, it may make sense to bring it up and see what their reaction is. After all, you don't want to waste 4-6 years of your life doing something you don't want to be doing. I'd also be careful in how you word it- for example, if they've run 5 CBT trials they may strongly believe in their intervention- you don't want to come in saying your intervention would beat theirs. But perhaps something like "adding a mindfulness module to your CBT intervention for substance abuse" and looking at how that changes outcomes.
So, I'd read their past papers and think strategically about how you want to approach your research in the person's lab. My answer was a bit different at each interview, but had common themes and were things I was genuinely interested in doing.
For your example, I'd just take a look at their past papers and their description of their research and see what you think they'd be open to. To me, it sounds like your example would be fine, but some people may be very traditional behaviorists and may not be open to it. That being said, if that's an area you definitely want to study, it may make sense to bring it up and see what their reaction is. After all, you don't want to waste 4-6 years of your life doing something you don't want to be doing. I'd also be careful in how you word it- for example, if they've run 5 CBT trials they may strongly believe in their intervention- you don't want to come in saying your intervention would beat theirs. But perhaps something like "adding a mindfulness module to your CBT intervention for substance abuse" and looking at how that changes outcomes.
So, I'd read their past papers and think strategically about how you want to approach your research in the person's lab. My answer was a bit different at each interview, but had common themes and were things I was genuinely interested in doing.
- Joined
- Jun 7, 2009
- Messages
- 3,003
- Reaction score
- 26
I haven't interviewed for PhD programs, but when I interviewed for RA positions I think I faced a similar conflict. What I did is looked up the professors top 5 publications on Web of Science and read those. I also skimmed the titles/abstracts of about 15 other top articles to get an idea of major trends etc and to make sure they hadn't shifted interests in recent times. I also placed particular emphasis on anything that was similar to my specific interests and work and how I might be able to add to that.
I found that in some interviews I was able to "slip in" certain things about their papers and work without it feeling forced or like I was trying to show off. At others I didn't try because the opportunity wasn't there. Not one outright asked me about any particular paper or anything.
Perhaps PhD interviews are way different, but that is my 2c. You could drive yourself nuts by trying to learn everything about a particular researcher and that just isn't worth it. You are trying to sell yourself, not write a biography on your potential mentor.
P.S. Everyone in my lab that got interviews go the "if you had unlimited funds in the lab what would your ideal study consist of," or something to that effect.
I found that in some interviews I was able to "slip in" certain things about their papers and work without it feeling forced or like I was trying to show off. At others I didn't try because the opportunity wasn't there. Not one outright asked me about any particular paper or anything.
Perhaps PhD interviews are way different, but that is my 2c. You could drive yourself nuts by trying to learn everything about a particular researcher and that just isn't worth it. You are trying to sell yourself, not write a biography on your potential mentor.
P.S. Everyone in my lab that got interviews go the "if you had unlimited funds in the lab what would your ideal study consist of," or something to that effect.
Last edited:
Similar threads
