Interview Questions

[blazinfury]

For those who are currently interviewing, what were some interview questions that you were asked? Were there some that threw you off your game, if so, would you mind sharing the questions? How intensely were you probed about your research-- did you feel that the interviewer was trying to stump you or assess your critical thinking skills by proposing new scenarios and asking you to predict the result? Of those who interviewed, was the interview mostly based on your research and reasons for MSTP or was also a decent portion of it centered around your ECs and clinical experiences?

Thank you.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[Gnomes]

For those who are currently interviewing, what were some interview questions that you were asked? Were there some that threw you off your game, if so, would you mind sharing the questions? How intensely were you probed about your research-- did you feel that the interviewer was trying to stump you or assess your critical thinking skills by proposing new scenarios and asking you to predict the result? Of those who interviewed, was the interview mostly based on your research and reasons for MSTP or was also a decent portion of it centered around your ECs and clinical experiences?

Thank you.

I got very few stereotypical generic interview questions when I interviewed for SBU's MSTP. The only one I can remember is being asked what I was most afraid of with respect to a medical career. I blurted out something about getting up at 5 AM for the surgery rotation. Luckily, the interviewer laughed and said that he thought that making students get up before seven was inhumane.

Be ready to talk about your research though, a lot. And about your interviewer's research. Three of mine talked about their research quite a bit - I think they were trying to get a feel for my ability to understand scientific communication, but I'm not entirely sure.

They weren't extremely deep with respect to asking about my research. This might be an artifact though of my particular situation - the program couldn't arrange for me to meet with any bioinformaticists (my field of research.) So mostly I ended up explaining my research at a fairly high level, rather than getting into details. I don't know if that worked in my favor or not, but I would argue that explaining your research to an educated nonspecialist is a pretty important skill in real life, so it didn't bother me to be evaluated in this way.

I had one interviewer ask about the bad grades I got one semester, and what I would do if I found myself struggling academically with medical school. Fortunately, I was able to answer this easily because the tour earlier in the day had emphasized all the resources available to help students in that position, and also it's something that I had anticipated being asked, so I had thought about the question in advance.

Most of my interviewers did not ask much about my non-research ECs. One of my interviewers remarked on how unusual one of them was (in a positive way), but we only talked about it for a few minutes, tops. Some interviewers wanted to know how I studied for the MCAT. A couple asked what else I wanted to share with them / the adcom. Nobody asked for anecdotes or experiences from shadowing, but I included some of that in my personal statement and secondary. I didn't get "why medicine," perhaps for the same reason, but I did get asked several times what my career plans were and how a dual degree would help.

That's about all I remember. Overall, my interviewers were very friendly. I could have chatted with most of them for considerably longer than the alloted time. I felt like they were trying to get to know me, rather than trying to find a reason to disqualify me.

 

[sakata8242]

During my interview experiences the more "thought provoking" questions came from medical school interviewers. I had one ask me: "So, what's your story?" And that was it. I had others ask about the most recent non-science/non-school/non-research book I'd read; how I'd explain an HMO to someone not familiar with the system; how I would handle a hypothetical ethical issue; to talk about my volunteering experience in a trauma/burn ward; why I wanted to go into medicine. I didn't really have any "red flags" (e.g. low test scores, GPA etc.) so they never pressed those kinds of questions in my case.

As you might expect, the PhD interviewers were primarily interested in my undergraduate/post graduate work in the lab, but many actually talked more about themselves and their research than I did during the interviews. Depending on the interviewer you get (and which ones you pick, which is often the case for MSTP interviews) you may end up having a pleasant discussion about your project with your interviewer, or you could get a d-bag (you know, the guy who's always at the seminars asking ridiculous questions) who's only interested in grilling you to see how stupid he can make you look. I only had one interviewer like this, but he sure did make that half hour seem a lot longer than it really was.

In general your interviewers are trying to get a feel for you and know you as much as is possible in a 30-60 minute conversation. I know a lot of people who were applying at the same time as me would look up "study" interview questions so they could have a prepared answer for as many hypothetical questions as possible. I think that's ridiculous. You want to present to the admissions people the person you really are, and having canned answers only makes you come across as insincere. That being said, if you do have things in your application that you know might be cause for question, you should be ready to explain it honestly and take it a step further by telling your interviewer what you learned from that experience.

 

[EsseQuamVideri]

So far, I've gotten:

1) Sooo, why medicine?
2) Why didn't you choose to get a Ph.D only? (from a Ph.D)
3) Probing question from a Ph.D about how specific my research interests are.
4) Let's talk about my research
5) Tell me about a difficult situation you've encountered and how you treated it.
6) Who are you?
7) Tell me about your research/clinical/EC experiences
8) I need some caffeine. Wanna grab a coffee?

Luckily, all of my formal interviews went extremely well. Q3 didn't go so well because PI didn't think my questions were specific enough or he didn't understand (dissimilar field).

 

[Roo2]

So far, I've gotten:

1) Sooo, why medicine?
2) Why didn't you choose to get a Ph.D only? (from a Ph.D)
3) Probing question from a Ph.D about how specific my research interests are.
4) Let's talk about my research
5) Tell me about a difficult situation you've encountered and how you treated it.
6) Who are you?
7) Tell me about your research/clinical/EC experiences
8) I need some caffeine. Wanna grab a coffee?

Luckily, all of my formal interviews went extremely well. Q3 didn't go so well because PI didn't think my questions were specific enough or he didn't understand (dissimilar field).

How specific are your research interests "supposed" to be? Is "I have set goals right now that I've been committed to for a while, but if you show me something even more interesting then I'll jump on it" an acceptable answer?

 

[Gnomes]

A program director I spoke to said that he feared admitting two types of applicants: those who had no particular research interests and just wanted to "do an MD/PhD," and those who were dead set on a particular narrow research goal.

 

[StoicJosher]

A program director I spoke to said that he feared admitting two types of applicants: those who had no particular research interests and just wanted to "do an MD/PhD," and those who were dead set on a particular narrow research goal.

There is definitely a continuum between the two extremes and, I think, it comes down to finding a comfortable place on the spectrum and being able to defend your point of view sufficiently.

And to answer the OP's questions - My first interview started off with "Who are you? I didn't have time to read your file". Since then, I have had everything from "Tell me about your research" to "How do you perceive global warming changing the infectious disease research field"
I even had an interviewer tell me outright that there is no point in doing an MD/PhD and that it is a waste of time because no one can be good at both things. That conversation got a little heated.

 

[miz]

Some of the med school side interviewers asked me tricky public health and health policy questions (eg, they don't hold back just because you're MD-PhD). Assume that you need to hold yourself to the standard of a top MD applicant, not just that of a PhD applicant.

 

[MSTPlease]

For those who are currently interviewing, what were some interview questions that you were asked? Were there some that threw you off your game, if so, would you mind sharing the questions? How intensely were you probed about your research-- did you feel that the interviewer was trying to stump you or assess your critical thinking skills by proposing new scenarios and asking you to predict the result? Of those who interviewed, was the interview mostly based on your research and reasons for MSTP or was also a decent portion of it centered around your ECs and clinical experiences?

Thank you.

As people have said, the one thing you absolutely, must, 100%, make no doubt about it be able to do is talk about your research intelligently (why you're doing, what have you done, what have you had to overcome, what's your next step, what you like/don't like about it, what exactly your role is, etc). The lab I was in before starting my MD/PhD had me interview people to be my replacement, and I can assure you that there is a way to talk about your research that demonstrates the significant and important role that you played and there's a way that makes it clear you are nothing more than a set of hands to assist someone else.

A lot of questions on here are ones I got but I'll throw a few more in that I don't see already mentioned:

*What's your ideal job title?
One school asked me to follow up with a description of an average day in my ideal position.
*Why do you want to live in this city?
Whose research are you interested in at this school?
*Why this school?
*How did you get involved in this or that extracurricular activity?
Did you like your undergrad, why or why not?
Why did you choose the lab you're in?

I *ed the ones that I got most frequently, with the "why this city" question only happening at schools that were not in the region of my hometown or undergrad.

I agree with the person who says you don't want to study too much because you don't want to sound like you're reciting a monologue. That being said, I think it's a good idea to have a skeleton outline for the more obvious types of questions memorized so that you aren't rambling/stumbling through your answers trying to generate something entirely novel every time you get asked. While it might make sense for interviewers to somewhat divvy up the topics they want to hear you talk about, they don't, and so since you'll frequently be asked the same questions 4+ times in a day, you'll get very comfortable at answering the 10-15 most common questions.

 

[StIGMA]

A helpful tip: for the interviews where you get to select faculty to speak to, it absolutely can make a difference who you select when it is time for the admissions committee to select candidates. Who you select gives the committee an idea as to who you consider an acceptable mentor and where your interests lie. If you pick 4 obscure faculty members from the same department who run tiny labs with little productivity, it won't look as good as if you picked significant PI's with good funding and a solid publication record, potentially with diverse interests (within your field). Have reasons for why you chose to speak with whoever you chose.

 

[Maebea]

Agree with StlGMA for the most part; however, avoid simply picking big names whose research is not related to your stated interests. We cringe when we see interview request lists filled with HHMI/National Academy labs of disparate interests, or even worse, department heads. This leads us to believe that the applicant is not genuinely interested in our institution or lacks a serious approach to science. Either case is not good, and will often lead to a rejection or a wait list position, regardless of how well the applicant interviews.

 

[Roo2]

I'm sorry, could you explain why it's bad to choose researchers with little funding? For the three interviews that I've scheduled so far, I haven't even looked at the funding levels of the PIs I chose to meet with; I just checked their lab descriptions and publications to make sure their research was in line with either of my two big interests. So far, there was only a single PI that I decided not to list, because he only had 2 publications in his entire CV. If I picked researchers that care about what I want to do, why does it matter if they're not currently the brightest star in their respective field?

edit: Thanks for this thread, by the way. I think it's the most useful one I've read on SDN.

 

[StIGMA]

I am not saying to check the funding levels of people you choose to interview. I am saying that it is unwise to pick only researchers who are not model scientists, eg: run small labs with 1-2 grad students/postdocs combined, low publication output, they are primarily clinical, whatever. You can only know so much before meeting the lab in person.

There are a number of labs in my department that are less well funded (eg: job may be at risk if funding is lost), have few students that also tend to take above average time to graduate, and have mentors that just seem to have less drive than other mentors. Departments know who the good labs are and who the bad labs are. If you select only the 'bad' labs, it can look bad.

On one of my revisits, the program director explicitly said to me, "we really liked who you selected to speak to." Invest time in who you select.
​

 

[Neuronix]

I am not saying to check the funding levels of people you choose to interview. I am saying that it is unwise to pick only researchers who are not model scientists, eg: run small labs with 1-2 grad students/postdocs combined, low publication output, they are primarily clinical, whatever. You can only know so much before meeting the lab in person.​

Putting yourself in the shoes of an applicant, how could you possibly know who is a productive faculty member from their websites? The websites are often not only woefully out of date, but don't talk about whether the faculty member is 80% research or 80% clinical. The sites will just list "research interests". Unless you have inside knowledge of the program, the only thing you could possibly do is go check their funding levels to see if they have R01 grants in basic science topics. This is an interesting idea that never really occurred to me. I don't know that any applicants are doing this, but now that we're mentioning it I bet a good percentage of applicants will start doing it. Hah!

Then to select labs that abuse their grad students. How would you ever know? This is really the job of the MD/PhD program to filter. This is why many of your interviewers will be "unavailable". No program wants to admit that some of their faculty suck.

 

[blazinfury]

On a similar note, where would we even find the funding level of the PIs? I know that some PIs list the grants that they receive/d on either their CV, website, etc, but not all do and most are not up-to-date.

I agree with StIGMA that the person with whom one interviews matters a lot-- esp after looking at some of the questions asked. The problem is that us applicants do not readily have an inside scoop inside of the institution about who the nice/helpful faculty are. The only way this would be possible is if you know other faculty and/or students in the school to which one is applying to and get their perspective or if one's PI is familiar with the faculty in that institution and can recommend an ideal person to interview with. I agree that the individual that one selects should be based on research interest, but students cannot know about every single PI in the field and how successful he/she is. For instance, I know the main/big PIs in my field but that is mainly because I read their pubs frequently and/or have heard them talk about their research. I would appreciate more elaboration from StIGMA on his earlier point and how I would be able to access that info. Thanks.

 

[ablavar]

Unless you have inside knowledge of the program, the only thing you could possibly do is go check their funding levels to see if they have R01 grants in basic science topics. This is an interesting idea that never really occurred to me. I don't know that any applicants are doing this, but now that we're mentioning it I bet a good percentage of applicants will start doing it. Hah!

An admissions director at Penn had advised me to do this

As an applicant, I've done it before, and I think it gives you a good idea of what investigators are invested in what research. I have a pretty specific research interest, and it is good to know that projects based on my interests are being funded. But as you say, you still have no idea if investigators are accepting grad students, what they are like, etc.

That being said - I would never use 'funding level' as a pure metric to pick my interviewers, but I think it's a great way to identify PIs that are doing the kind of work that I want to be involved in as a graduate student.

I also imagine some applicants might judge productivity based on their appointments (national academies, etc.), or just by how 'famous' they are in their respective fields, which isn't impossible to find out.

 

[ablavar]

On a similar note, where would we even find the funding level of the PIs? I know that some PIs list the grants that they receive/d on either their CV, website, etc, but not all do and most are not up-to-date.

The NIH Reporter is one tool. PIs get grants from all kinds of organizations (AHA, etc.), so it's not always easy to determine.

 

[miz]

What an amazing idea! Thank you, I'll definitely look at R01 funding in the near future :]

My current MO is time consuming. I look up everyone in the department and sort based first on research topic and productivity (roughly), then assess based on age since PhD and lab group composition, and lastly based on apparent kindness. I recognize that this isn't particularly scientific.
I do look for a few 'red flags'-
- PIs who don't have a website or lab members listed (because I have no idea if they have a huge group or only one staff scientist working for them)
- PIs with only postdocs.. they are unlikely to accept you, plus it looks like you didn't bother to look them up and see their preferences. Even if they were to accept you, there are all the other concerns that come with joining a lab of mostly postdocs.
- PIs who only have one racial/ethnic group in the entire lab, or all male grad students/postdocs and all female lab techs- this happens surprisingly often
- PIs who don't like people! I found a Science interview with a PI I was going to request. In it he mentioned that he hated conferences because he hated the necessity of meeting new people and didn't think the science he learned there was worth that burden (!)
- slightly obvious, but PIs who are brand spanking new as well as those who may be heading into retirement

I recognize that this probably misses a few awesome PIs who don't have websites, but I imagine that the groundwork is easier if you can talk to graduate students, once you're a little further along in the process.

tl;dr:: if possible, I just ask a friend in the department to tell me which PIs do cool stuff. If not, then it's harder.

 

[blazinfury]

I was wondering if anyone was asked during interviews to suggest a project that he/she would like to pursue at that school if accepted as an MD-PhD? If so, how critical and how much detail were you asked and did it seem like the interviewer was questioning the success and/or logic of pursuing such a project? I ask because I would like to know how specifically we should discuss a potential research study that intrigues us and how detailed, if any, they may be about it.

Also for those who interviewed, did you tailor your research interests to why specifically you are applying to that school and to why you would like to work with a particular PI?

 

[StIGMA]

1) I don't agree with many of Miz's points, but everyone's priorities are different.
2) To Blazinfury: It is not a great use of time to come up with talking points of specific projects you would work on with a PI. This is far too burdensome, especially if you have multiple interviews. However, it is important to at least know what the PI is interested in and have some very basic understanding what they study.
3) Most people apply to schools based on factors other than a specific research topic. The chances of acceptance are relatively low at any institution, so applicants apply broadly. If you have a specific interest that is well represented by that school, it is great to state it, but don't refuse to apply to school's because they don't have the big names in ribosome biosynthesis, or whatever. If a school is really strong in cancer or virology, for example, and you are somewhat interested in those fields but more interested in a more niche field the school doesn't have faculty working on, it is OK to emphasize your interest in cancer or virology.
4) Spend more time thinking about projects and labs on revisit, because you will actually have to pick a lab at one of these schools.
5) It is important to put thought into who you select to speak for interviews. Don't blow it off, and don't obsess over it. This is the main point I am trying to instill.

 

[miz]

I have yet to be asked so specific a question! Your projects are highly dependent on your mentor, who could be just about anyone in the department. I didn't approach any school with the idea that I would work with one particular PI. Keep in mind that it's 3 years before you'll work full time in any lab and the lab's research interests and goals can shift over that time (not to mention your own).
I have been asked to propose a question to ask within my previous/current fields, though.

 

[justgo]

I was wondering if anyone was asked during interviews to suggest a project that he/she would like to pursue at that school if accepted as an MD-PhD? If so, how critical and how much detail were you asked and did it seem like the interviewer was questioning the success and/or logic of pursuing such a project? I ask because I would like to know how specifically we should discuss a potential research study that intrigues us and how detailed, if any, they may be about it.

Also for those who interviewed, did you tailor your research interests to why specifically you are applying to that school and to why you would like to work with a particular PI?

I was asked about "what questions I wanted to pursue" as an MD/PhD student at X school (the one I was interviewing at)....so it could definitely come up. I think the more specific you can be/the better your responses, maybe the more specific the questions get. However, you need to respond in a realistic way admitting that a lot can change and not presenting yourself as wedded to some small sliver of a world because that sliver just might not be the best place to go for a thousand reasons. This question was asked at a program I was accepted at and another program that has not yet issued any acceptances.

I'm not sure about the last bit of your question, but I don't think you should change what you present as your research interests based on the school you are applying to. If there is no one who does what you want to do then you probably shouldn't be applying there....and they will figure it out! Just be clear about what you know you want and what you are not yet sure about and I think it will all work itself out.