MD-PhD Interviews

[Iamdumb]

I have a few MD-PhD interviews lined up but I haven't attended one before and I was wondering if anyone would be so kind as to tell me how I should start preparing for them, where to go to dig out information, what to expect, wear etc etc.

Has there been a post on this before? I can't seem to find one?

Thanks.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[ThatOne]

I haven't had any interviews yet myself, but here's a link I found helpful:
http://www.mdphds.org/guide.shtml#14

 

[SpeakLittleB]

I practiced talking about my research and the reasonable questions--why md/phd, why that school, what are career goals.

Expect conversations to be casual and research oriented, yours and your interviewers. Your interviewers will be faculty members chosen to be interesting to both of you. I reviewed the faculty interests (when schools provided the names of people i'd be speaking to) the night before and thought about interesting topics that might relate to their work. For my interviews, I definitely think that connecting w/an interviewer by being able to talk about what they're interested in left them with a very positive impression. They seem to only have a half-interest in your personal work.

Wear interview attire unless for some schools that specifically say business casual.

One of the MSTP directors actually told us that we should try to direct the conversation so that the interviewer will be able to truly evaluate us. They said that interviewers tend to start rambling about their own work and forget to get a sense of the interviewee.

 

[Caristra]

What is everyone wearing to the night before the interview social gatherings that some schools have? I am thinking casual, but classy since these are supposed to be fun/relaxed. Might actually be the only time on on an interview when I literally let my hair down...

 

[RxnMan]

I have a few MD-PhD interviews lined up but I haven't attended one before and I was wondering if anyone would be so kind as to tell me how I should start preparing for them, where to go to dig out information, what to expect, wear etc etc.

Has there been a post on this before? I can't seem to find one?

Thanks.

Try looking at the Interviews section of StudentDoctor. They'll be broken up by school. Most of it will be for MD-only students, but it will start to give you an idea of how each school's mission is different. It will also give you an idea of what the whole interview trip entails. Also look at (but don't buy) some of those interview books at Barnes and Noble or Borders. Most of those will be for buisness interviews, but some basic tips still apply.

I got myself a How-to book for getting into med school and there were a number of interview questions in there. I used those and practiced answering them in front of a mirror. I got to the point where I could give my stance on most of the pertinent medical questions of the day (e.g. abortion). Nothing pat, but I knew the top 4-5 points I wanted to tell the interviewer when they asked about something. One trick is to always link back these 4-5 things to something you wrote about in your essays. Then you start to sell yourself to your interviewer.

About what to wear, there's tons of threads in the pre-allo forum on this. Just take a look or search.

 

[dave613]

That's really weird. I'm about to interview at a medical school with a director,member of steering comittee, and student--for some reason i doubt they will only be half interested in my work... I wonder what type of schools you interviewed at?

I practiced talking about my research and the reasonable questions--why md/phd, why that school, what are career goals.

Expect conversations to be casual and research oriented, yours and your interviewers. Your interviewers will be faculty members chosen to be interesting to both of you. I reviewed the faculty interests (when schools provided the names of people i'd be speaking to) the night before and thought about interesting topics that might relate to their work. For my interviews, I definitely think that connecting w/an interviewer by being able to talk about what they're interested in left them with a very positive impression. They seem to only have a half-interest in your personal work.

Wear interview attire unless for some schools that specifically say business casual.

One of the MSTP directors actually told us that we should try to direct the conversation so that the interviewer will be able to truly evaluate us. They said that interviewers tend to start rambling about their own work and forget to get a sense of the interviewee.

 

[Caristra]

That's really weird. I'm about to interview at a medical school with a director,member of steering comittee, and student--for some reason i doubt they will only be half interested in my work... I wonder what type of schools you interviewed at?

I think he means that sometimes researchers are supposed to try and sell you their lab/the school in addition to interview you. I have had some cases where my interests were very close to that of my interviewers lab and we discussed his work extensively. I think this is fine so long as you gear the conversation towards what you would bring to the lab, show that you can quickly pick up and grasp what they are working with etc. Not just have the researcher yammer on and on. There's nothing a researcher loves more than to have someone who can understand their work to talk too.

 

[RxnMan]

I think he means that sometimes researchers are supposed to try and sell you their lab/the school in addition to interview you

Well, this may happen, and it kinda happened to me in my school, but think about the numbers - there's hundreds of kids applying for the same seat as you. Your interviewers are in a highly favorable supply-side position. You have to sell yourself to them -

...you gear the conversation towards what you would bring to the lab, show that you can quickly pick up and grasp what they are working with etc...

- not the other way around.

 

[SpeakLittleB]

That's really weird. I'm about to interview at a medical school with a director,member of steering comittee, and student--for some reason i doubt they will only be half interested in my work... I wonder what type of schools you interviewed at?

I mean that any researcher is definitely more interested in what they themselves research than what you research. So it benefits you to be able to talk, as others have said, about what you would bring to THEM specifically. sorry for confusion. the research you do personally is definitely important for an mstp application, but not interesting specifically to your interviewers.

when you go interview, u'll see what i'm talking about. i expected to focus on what i do most of the time too, but the interviewers' eyes definitely light up when they start talking about their own work. so watch out for them taking over the conversation, but at the same time, being able to connect with them is important too.

 

[Caristra]

I actually had an interviewer flat out tell me he was "going to try and sell you on nueroscience" even though its not my area. I think this might be an MD/PHD specific type of thing. It has never happened with any of my MD interviewers. I also think it happens more at lower tier or non MSTP MD/PHD programs where they want to make sure you know the strengths of their program in case they should accept you and have to fight against a more prestigous program that also accepted you. I agree with the fact that you should never let them run away with the conversation just try and bring it back to why this palce is a good fit for you, why they would benefit from your presence etc.

 

[dave613]

This is still confusing:

the only people really evaluating you for admission are the steering committee interviews not the lab interviews. Why would it matter what the person in the lab talks about?

I actually had an interviewer flat out tell me he was "going to try and sell you on nueroscience" even though its not my area. I think this might be an MD/PHD specific type of thing. It has never happened with any of my MD interviewers. I also think it happens more at lower tier or non MSTP MD/PHD programs where they want to make sure you know the strengths of their program in case they should accept you and have to fight against a more prestigous program that also accepted you. I agree with the fact that you should never let them run away with the conversation just try and bring it back to why this palce is a good fit for you, why they would benefit from your presence etc.

 

[Caristra]

This is still confusing:

the only people really evaluating you for admission are the steering committee interviews not the lab interviews. Why would it matter what the person in the lab talks about?

Are you sure about that? I think some places have lab interviews that are just for fun/to sell you the school, but others have lab interviews that count and the interviewer is evaluating you for admission. Check the policy for each place your going.

 

[Neuronix]

Check the policy for each place your going.

That's not a policy you can actually check. Any school is going to tell you that every interview matters and blah blah blah. I know some of you are getting nervous about your first interviews. Relax. Know the answers to the big questions:

1) Why MD/PhD?
2) Why not just MD? Why not just PhD?
3) Describe your research experiences. This is a really broad question. I always gave it a several minute overview of what I'd done in the past.

MD/PhD interviews come down to two types of interviews:

1) Interviews with director/asst. director/other adcom member. You will recognize this interview. You will do most of the talking and you will get most of the usual questions (Why MD/PhD?).

2) Interviews with lab heads. This is a recruiting tool to try to convince you to come to their school. They're practically rotation interviews really. Think of these as the types of people and the types of research that the school is trying to show off.

Typically, the grad program bows to whatever students the MD/PhD program wants. MD/PhD students are almost always more qualified than PhD students in numbers and research experience, and as such unless the grad program has a real problem with you, they don't put up much resistance. If the guy on the other side of the table talks 90% or more of the time and/or gets up and starts showing you their lab, you know which kind of interview it is.

Every year, some of the more zelous interviewees actually try to read their interviewers research before coming. This is pretty much a waste of your time, because more than half the time you won't even get in a word edgewise on your interviewers. After a program or two, if you are one of these people you will almost certainly stop doing it. The real challenge is trying not to nod off in front of someone who drones on at you at 8AM or after your 14th interview.

 

[dave613]

Are you sure about that? I think some places have lab interviews that are just for fun/to sell you the school, but others have lab interviews that count and the interviewer is evaluating you for admission. Check the policy for each place your going.

Caristra,

I am sure. I just got back from an interview. The only ones that mattered were the ones with adcoms, not the lab people. The purpose of the lab people was just to show off the research, not to evaluate you.

 

[Caristra]

Caristra,

I am sure. I just got back from an interview. The only ones that mattered were the ones with adcoms, not the lab people. The purpose of the lab people was just to show off the research, not to evaluate you.

I hope it went well and that you hear positive news back from the school soon! It certainly sounds more pleasant than the interviews I had with lab members that were evaluating me.

I think I am going to use Nueronix's rule of thumb: the ones that give me the lab tour and really focus on their work are the "salespeople". The ones that seem to actually interview me are the evaluaters.

 

[dave613]

I hope it went well and that you hear positive news back from the school soon! It certainly sounds more pleasant than the interviews I had with lab members that were evaluating me.

I think I am going to use Nueronix's rule of thumb: the ones that give me the lab tour and really focus on their work are the "salespeople". The ones that seem to actually interview me are the evaluaters.

Thanks Caristra. Good luck to you too. I got interrogated too, but by the actual steering committee evaluators.

 

[Alvacea]

Caristra,

I am sure. I just got back from an interview. The only ones that mattered were the ones with adcoms, not the lab people. The purpose of the lab people was just to show off the research, not to evaluate you.

I think Caristra's right, you should check the policy for each place. Example: Recently at Yale, I happened to ask the coordinator if the "informal interviews" with the faculty had any bearing on my application. I was surprised to hear that yes, the lab heads were given instructions along the lines of "if you would like to comment on the applicant, please do so". This is apparently a new policy - in previous years the informal interviewers weren't allowed to give any feedback. She added reassuringly that the interviewers would be much more likely to send positive feedback about an applicant, so it would only be to the applicant's benefit.

 

[dave613]

I think Caristra's right, you should check the policy for each place. Example: Recently at Yale, I happened to ask the coordinator if the "informal interviews" with the faculty had any bearing on my application. I was surprised to hear that yes, the lab heads were given instructions along the lines of "if you would like to comment on the applicant, please do so". This is apparently a new policy - in previous years the informal interviewers weren't allowed to give any feedback. She added reassuringly that the interviewers would be much more likely to send positive feedback about an applicant, so it would only be to the applicant's benefit.

I have a hard time believing they take those evaluations seriously, if they do at all. The purpose of lab viists are to attract you to the school, NOT to evaluate you. (maybe in the ivies they're different since there are so many applicants and they're looking to weed out applicants at any shot they have)

 

[Vader]

I have a hard time believing they take those evaluations seriously, if they do at all. The purpose of lab viists are to attract you to the school, NOT to evaluate you. (maybe in the ivies they're different since there are so many applicants and they're looking to weed out applicants at any shot they have)

At UCSF, the informal interviewers (i.e. lab PIs) are given the opportunity to provide an evaluation of the interviewee. The MSTP committee definitely looks at these, in addition to the other evluations and your complete file when selecting applicants.

I would advise applicants to be relaxed but not cavalier about your interviews, whether they be labeled as "formal" or "informal", etc. Even at programs in which the "informal" interviews really do not produce evaluations, it is still possible for word to travel back to the admissions committee.

Good luck!