qualifications vs. the "like" factor

[chai_latte]

---

Members don't see this ad.

How do graduate programs (specifically PhD and PsyD) decide whom to admit after the interviews? I'm beginning to feel as if the "like" factor and personality have more pull than qualifications and someone who demonstrates knowledge and awareness of the field. I personally have applied for the second time and have yet to receive any acceptances. I have strong research experience, great recommendations, knowledge of the field, high GPA, solid ideas for my own research, attended a prestigious undergraduate program...yet I know people lacking these qualifications, who to me seemed full of "fluff," who were admitted. Any thoughts?

 

[WisNeuro]

Depends on the program. IMO it's been about 75-80% CV, 20-25% personality and fit.

 

[researchgirl]

In my experience, your CV and qualifications get you an interview, but after that it is much more based on "fit" which includes personality. At least in the program I attended, anyone who received an interview had strong research experience, great recommendations, good GPA/GRE, decent research match at the university, etc. - so determining which highly qualified person to take, in many cases, comes down to things like: who would you rather mentor/see at work every day for the next 4-6 years?

 

[qualpsych]

Good question. Not sure if there's an answer. If multiple applicants are equally competitive and likable, it makes you wonder how they actually decide who to reject and who to admit. During my interviews I received positive feedback on my responses, my experiences, my grades, praise on my letters of recommendation, I think I came off as likable, etc. but I have no idea how the other interviewees did, or how many other factors are actually involved in deciding who is accepted and who is rejected. In some ways, is this just a crapshoot?

 

[bcliff]

I agree that everyone at the interview stage has been deemed qualified by the faculty, so at that point personality/fit become much more important. I pushed myself to socialize with all of the grad students (not only the ones in my lab) and to interact well with as many faculty as possible - YMMV, and I think a lot of this depends on the program.

 

[psychRA]

It probably varies a bit by program. Based on observing the process as a grad student, it was never a question of choosing between a qualified interviewee and a likeable (but not qualified) interviewee. My mentor got maybe 50 applications each year, and by the time that pool was narrowed down to 5 interviewees, everyone who interviewed was certainly qualified. At that point, it really becomes a question of "which of these qualified individuals do I want to work with for the next 5 years?" It's not just about personality per se, but about choosing someone whose work/communication style seems like it would fit well with the POI and the rest of the lab.

 

[CheetahGirl]

It probably varies a bit by program. Based on observing the process as a grad student, it was never a question of choosing between a qualified interviewee and a likeable (but not qualified) interviewee. My mentor got maybe 50 applications each year, and by the time that pool was narrowed down to 5 interviewees, everyone who interviewed was certainly qualified. At that point, it really becomes a question of "which of these qualified individuals do I want to work with for the next 5 years?" It's not just about personality per se, but about choosing someone whose work/communication style seems like it would fit well with the POI and the rest of the lab.

...And I'd like to add: If it is a clinical, counseling, child/school psychology program who will train clinicians to assess, diagnose and treat other individuals with mental health issues, does the applicant give off a good vibe? Are they approachable, friendly, engaging, warm....does this applicant seem like someone you could build upon her/his knowledge base and throw her/him into a room with any person (the patient) suffering from delusional thinking, perceptual disturbances, acute trauma, history of childhood abuse, substance use or xyz (the list goes on and on...you get my point) and any person will feel like communicating his/her deepest thoughts, discussing his/her problematic behaviors, things he/she is denying or avoiding or troubling emotional experiences, and building trust with this applicant for the purpose of assisting the patient through the difficulties?

If an applicant appears mature and well-related enough for a POI to be proud of their scientist-transformed-clinician, then it boils down to who seems more mature, the most well-related, the most engaging and approachable. And those are the ones you find with the most offers. *Not to say those who did not receive offers lacked in 'people-skills,' but there may have been more qualified applicants who gave off a more friendly and warmer vibe.* You know the type? Those friendly, genuinely caring folks, who you want to spill your beans to in an elevator. And what do they have above and beyond their excellent CV? It can translate into compassion, kindness, empathy, genuineness...and all of the abovementioned qualities as well (i.e., strong CV).

Sounds like a tall order, but it's not necessarily, when you consider the work we do. Simply stated: the "like" factor pertains to the qualities one possesses, how they carry themselves (during the interviews and evidenced by relationships they've maintained with their letter-writers) , as well as what they accomplish...and some can become more likeable than others when you break it down in those terms. Knowledge and awareness in the field can be considered "book smart"...programs want an applicant to be savvy, mature and book smart. (Again not speaking to anyone specifically, but perhaps other applicants displayed more of these factors and also (maybe) had better luck... this time around.)

chai_latte, if you consider it this way...then, the "like" factor and personality may have not more pull than qualifications & demonstration of knowledge and awareness of the field, but actually become the deciding factor.

 

[Justanothergrad]

How do graduate programs (specifically PhD and PsyD) decide whom to admit after the interviews? I'm beginning to feel as if the "like" factor and personality have more pull than qualifications and someone who demonstrates knowledge and awareness of the field. I personally have applied for the second time and have yet to receive any acceptances. I have strong research experience, great recommendations, knowledge of the field, high GPA, solid ideas for my own research, attended a prestigious undergraduate program...yet I know people lacking these qualifications, who to me seemed full of "fluff," who were admitted. Any thoughts?

Much as there is little concensus on what make a good training program, there is little agreement on what constitutes the qualities desired/requisite for admission. It will differ as much between programs as betwen professors within a program according to their beliefs, weightings, and what they may/may not have had for breakfast. In general, it is about fit. But what defines fit to each person/program? is it research production? sense of humor? etc. That is the variability.

 

[bostongal109]

I have a hard time believing the interview matters that much*, given that the interviews only seem to last about 30 minutes and 20 minutes of that 30 is hearing about the research being conducted in the lab.

I definitely think it can make or break things when it's down to two almost identical applicants, but I feel like going in to interviews they already know who they want.... and just want to make sure they aren't complete whack jobs 🙂

 

[bcliff]

I have a hard time believing the interview matters that much*, given that the interviews only seem to last about 30 minutes and 20 minutes of that 30 is hearing about the research being conducted in the lab. If personality mattered that much I would think they would have longer interviews and actually get to know the personality of the applicants.

I definitely think it can make or break things when it's down to two almost identical applicants, but I feel like going in to interviews they already know who they want.... and just want to make sure they aren't complete whack jobs 🙂

I think that grad students have more say then they may let on. I think that the interview really starts the second you get to your host's house and doesn't end until you're on your way home, but it probably varies from school to school.

 

[bostongal109]

I think that grad students have more say then they may let on. I think that the interview really starts the second you get to your host's house and doesn't end until you're on your way home, but it probably varies from school to school.

I would think it is rare interviews change the rankings that were done before. Just my own hypothesis 🙂

 

[SharkBait13]

I'll go ahead and throw in my two cents here. I just finished with interviews, and was accepted to about half and rejected from half. I hope none of this comes across as prideful, but I feel like the following was my only strength coming into this complex process, and I think it is what got me acceptances.

At all my interviews, there were many students I was interviewing against that were waaaaayyy more qualified than I was (multiple pubs compared to my zero, killer GPA compared to my mediocre one, etc..). Of course, they want someone warm and approachable, but I think it goes beyond this.

My one redeeming quality (I think) was that I was not robotic at all. No preparation for interview questions, so none of my answers or questions came off as rehearsed. I was able to ask questions and talk with both professors and students in a genuine way that "flowed", instead of parroting questions with no transition between them. So many of the other interviewees were rigid, serious, stoic, and seemed to question everything they did/said. When it was warm, I had no hesitation to take my suit jacket off (others did). When we were in line to eat, I had no problem taking two pieces of pizza, while others questioned it (there was PLENTY of pizza too). Some students questioned which color cup they should grab for drinks! I feel like that stiffness/anxiety carried into their interviews, which might have hurt them.

I came into interviews with the goals of getting to know everyone else, while having as much fun as possible along the way. Thus, I was able to talk about stuff outside of academia and have a "normal" conversation with everyone, while also being able to crack a few jokes to liven the situation up. (not to brag, but) This was especially noticed by the grad students, as I was told at multiple interviews that I was their favorite. Some went so far as to say they would really try to talk to their prof to get me in. When I asked them why, they said that while every other applicant was parroting the same academic questions late in the interview day (after they had been answered, they were only asking them to appear inquisitive) I was able to talk with them about hobbies, current events, crack jokes, and I wasn't afraid to be a person. They told me that it really separated me from the rest of the group.

TL;DR: Many better qualified interviewees seemed to put "professionalism" severely above every other trait at an interview, which hurt them. In my experience, your CV gets you the interview, but your personality gets you the acceptance.

 

[SharkBait13]

I would think it is rare interviews change the rankings that were done before. Just my own hypothesis 🙂

I would disagree. Some qualifications can be so ambiguous to compare (ex: working in three countries abroad vs working with an autistic student for a few years. Which is the better qualifier?), so I think the interview gives you the chance to explain what you could not adequately convey in 2-3 pages. Plus, there are often 4 to 5 people interviewing for the same spot. It would seem very ridiculous to invite so many out to interview, when in reality the prof has already made his decision.

 

[MCParent]

I think that grad students have more say then they may let on. I think that the interview really starts the second you get to your host's house and doesn't end until you're on your way home, but it probably varies from school to school.

Well, of course, but I think that's all within reason. "Applicant spent 45 minutes doing her hair" or "applicant didn't use a coaster" are not going to be material anyone would take into consideration; "applicant spent all night telling racist jokes" is obviously more useful information for how someone behaves in a social context. I think many applicants seem to think that their slightest social error is going to be noted and used against them....

 

[erg923]

Well, of course, but I think that's all within reason. "Applicant spent 45 minutes doing her hair" or "applicant didn't use a coaster" are not going to be material anyone would take into consideration; "applicant spent all night telling racist jokes" is obviously more useful information for how someone behaves in a social context. I think many applicants seem to think that their slightest social error is going to be noted and used against them....

Neck beards.......are a "social error." I don't care what anyone (or "society") says.

 

[CheetahGirl]

‎

but if personality match with your POI was a big deciding factor I would think they would talk to you for more than 30 minutes.

‎
....All you need is 30 minutes (and ask the most important, relevant questions) to assess personality from a rule-out perspective. Remember (in most cases) your interviewers are trained clinicians, who can pretty‎ much sum up what they want to see in an applicant in the first 15-minutes (which is what I operationalized as the "vibe" you give off).
Heck, on internship, I spend 30-minutes with someone (and ask all the important, relevant questions) to assess, diagnosis (which can change...but usually does not too much from initial presentation)‎, and make recommendations for treatment. Applicants are not patients...but my point is that you don't need all afternoon to figure out who you are laying your eyes on (after sifting thru their applications) and....making sure the applicant is not a whack jobs is important, too. 😉

 

[bcliff]

Well, of course, but I think that's all within reason. "Applicant spent 45 minutes doing her hair" or "applicant didn't use a coaster" are not going to be material anyone would take into consideration; "applicant spent all night telling racist jokes" is obviously more useful information for how someone behaves in a social context. I think many applicants seem to think that their slightest social error is going to be noted and used against them....

I was thinking more on the positive side of things - I really liked applicant A, she seems like a really interesting person... Applicant B didn't seem very open, so I didn't get a chance to get to know him very well

¯\_(ツ)_/¯ though

 

[FLpsychstudent]

I think that some applicants here are confused about the point of interviews. By the time you are in the interview process, everyone is extremely well-qualified on paper, and I don't even know if people "rank" applicants prior to interviews (maybe some do), but even if they do, these can and do DEFINITELY change after interviews. Also, your brief interview with faculty is important, but yes it is brief. That is why there are typically hours of other social events, including informal social events w/ faculty (btw actually talking to your POI during these is a good idea lol). And yes it varies by lab but in ours the grad students' opinions matter a lot esp because the PIs realize that what they see may not be representative, considering they met with them briefly and the applicants were likely on their best behavior. Lol. And even your behavior after the interview process matters (e.g., sending thank yous, your apparent level of interest, etc.). It's a lot but it all factors in.

 

[WisNeuro]

Everywhere I've been we have ranked applicants pre-interview, for different steps in the process, be it grad school applicants, internship, fellowship. And honestly, ranks don't often change all that much unless someone either make a huge gaffe, or makes such an overwhelming positive impression that blows away the faculty. Even then, doesn't always trump the application. We had an applicant that every one of the faculty just loved on interview, did great. Pre interview was ranked near the bottom of our pool, moved up a spot or two, but in the end, it's your application which moves the needle the most.

 

[MCParent]

...By the time you are in the interview process, everyone is extremely well-qualified on paper, and I don't even know if people "rank" applicants prior to interviews (maybe some do), but even if they do, these can and do DEFINITELY change after interviews. Also, your brief interview with faculty is important, but yes it is brief. That is why there are typically hours of other social events, including informal social events w/ faculty (btw actually talking to your POI during these is a good idea lol). And yes it varies by lab but in ours the grad students' opinions matter a lot esp because the PIs realize that what they see may not be representative, considering they met with them briefly and the applicants were likely on their best behavior. Lol. And even your behavior after the interview process matters (e.g., sending thank yous, your apparent level of interest, etc.). It's a lot but it all factors in.

I think all programs and internships rank everyone. That's how you pick the top few you're going to invite.

Research reliably indicates that unstructured interviews are terrible for making employment decisions, sometimes even making decisions worse. I suppose it's possible that some training sites make decisions based on utterly ridiculous criteria (e.g., "if you were an animal, what kind of animal would you be?"). But interviews are better as just a rule out (applicant told sexist jokes, applicant's research interests bear no resemblance to what they talked about in application).

 

[WisNeuro]

Building off MCP, I agree that interviews are more about rule-outs. They can help us see the people who look good on paper but have no substance. For example, someone who cannot articulate much of anything about their dissertation, or shows fundamental misunderstandings about the research basis for a treatment that they claim to be something of an expert in.

 

[MCParent]

Building off MCP, I agree that interviews are more about rule-outs. They can help us see the people who look good on paper but have no substance. For example, someone who cannot articulate much of anything about their dissertation, or shows fundamental misunderstandings about the research basis for a treatment that they claim to be something of an expert in.

I can see though, why interviewees would be concerned about some things related to interviews when, for example, some interviewers really are asking "if you were a tree what kind of tree would you be?" Or some grad students might really be overly judgey and try to read heavily into a person from limited interactions. I mean, I wrote that paper on inappropriate interview questions and some people really are asked invasive things. If an interviewer thinks they have any right to ask, "are you in a relationship" and the interviewee declines to answer, maybe that interviewer really will have an irrational reaction to that and see that as "defensive" or "overly reactive" or some other nonsense.

I guess I'd say that by and large some applicants are overly concerned about "likeability" or whatever in interviews, but at the same time I think some interviewers attach far too much importance to minutia so there probably is some basis for the concern.

 

[WisNeuro]

Oh, I agree, some interviewers probably have no business interviewing people. We had some faculty over the years who we just ignored their recommendations because we knew they were way off base. But, by and large, I think people get overly worried about these things.

 

[CheetahGirl]

Building off MCP, I agree that interviews are more about rule-outs. They can help us see the people who look good on paper but have no substance. For example, someone who cannot articulate much of anything about their dissertation, or shows fundamental misunderstandings about the research basis for a treatment that they claim to be something of an expert in.

...And to add to WisNeuro's example, someone better have knowledge about their theories behind the research, and how to apply it in a scholarly way....hence the PhD/PsyD scholar-practitioner model, which uneviquocally accepts/rejects science & research in its plausible consider‎ations.
‎
However, if you're discussing a dissertation, no doubt you should have your theories down‎ and how to articulate thoughtfully about them...but for initial program acceptance, substance is key... so is a cohesive narrative (a story that tells how you arrived at this moment an interesting way).

 

[CheetahGirl]

Do you work with my supervisor on the other thread? Hee, hee.

Oh, I agree, some interviewers probably have no business interviewing people. We had some faculty over the years who we just ignored their recommendations because we knew they were way off base. But, by and large, I think people get overly worried about these things.

 

[smalltownpsych]

There are always people who think they can "beat the stats" and are better at predicting how applicants will fare based on an interview. As someone who has made those decisions, I can tell you that my experience supports the research as I have been proven very wrong in my judgement. I am not sure what the flawed logic behind that is called but it always disappoints me when psychologists fall into that trap.

 

[Tupelo Honey]

Yes I know that any time you are around people it's part of the interview, but I'm talking about fit with the professor. Grad students will clearly discuss who they liked best, but if personality match with your POI was a big deciding factor I would think they would talk to you for more than 30 minutes. I'd be curious to know how often the front runners are changed after interviews. I would think it is rare interviews change the rankings that were done before. Just my own hypothesis 🙂

I have to say that rankings changed quite a bit after the interviews at my program. In fact, most of the clear frontrunner applicants did not end up getting accepted this year for a number of reasons. Arrogance, awkwardness, anti-social behavior, etc. Also, current graduate students have a lot of input.

 

[kestrelcry]

In my lab, there was no discreet ranking system pre-interview. Some applicants might have had certain things about them in which our advisor might have been particularly interested, but for the most part, everyone came in very well-qualified and on an equal playing field. While our advisor only did 30 minute interviews, she certainly had opinions after those interviews and the grad students did interviews as well. In addition, applicants almost always stayed with us and there were multiple social events. Grad students had huge input and more than once, vetoed our advisor's first choice, because we found the person hugely unpleasant at the social events or during our interviews. Applicants were evaluated on how well they could talk about their research, both past and future; how well their research interests matched with the lab's; and how cohesive their narrative was, as CheetahGirl said; and absolutely on how much we liked them as people. You spend a lot of time over the years with your labmates, and we wanted to spend time with people we liked, plus, interpersonal skills matter particularly for a clinician. My advisor evaluated on the same criteria, and this was common practice in my program.

 

[psychRA]

In my lab, there was no discreet ranking system pre-interview. Some applicants might have had certain things about them in which our advisor might have been particularly interested, but for the most part, everyone came in very well-qualified and on an equal playing field. While our advisor only did 30 minute interviews, she certainly had opinions after those interviews and the grad students did interviews as well. In addition, applicants almost always stayed with us and there were multiple social events. Grad students had huge input and more than once, vetoed our advisor's first choice, because we found the person hugely unpleasant at the social events or during our interviews. Applicants were evaluated on how well they could talk about their research, both past and future; how well their research interests matched with the lab's; and how cohesive their narrative was, as CheetahGirl said; and absolutely on how much we liked them as people. You spend a lot of time over the years with your labmates, and we wanted to spend time with people we liked, plus, interpersonal skills matter particularly for a clinician. My advisor evaluated on the same criteria, and this was common practice in my program.

My grad program operated pretty much the same way. Once applicants were invited to interview, they were pretty much on equal footing (within labs) and input from the interview weekend (from current students and other faculty as well as the POI) was the deciding factor. Applicants were not ranked ahead of interview time.

My internship site was similar, too. While it was necessary to do some sort of ranking system in order to determine which applicants would be invited to interview, those rankings became irrelevant once invites went out. Interviewees were all pretty much equal when they walked in the door, and the scores they receieved from each person who interviewed them determined where interviewees fell on the rank list for the match.

 

[MCParent]

...While it was necessary to do some sort of ranking system in order to determine which applicants would be invited to interview, those rankings became irrelevant once invites went out. Interviewees were all pretty much equal when they walked in the door, and the scores they receieved from each person who interviewed them determined where interviewees fell on the rank list for the match.

Given what we know about the validity and reliability of interview data... yikes. Maybe people are right to be nervous about this stuff.

 

[bcliff]

Given what we know about the validity and reliability of interview data... yikes. Maybe people are right to be nervous about this stuff.

I think it makes a lot of sense that these interactions would be at least one of many important aspects of a student's application given how integral good, common sense and social skills are in developing rapport with clients/participants and being a successful clinician in general (I'm not in grad school yet, so I guess I could be way off on that). I could see experimental psych programs (or maybe very research heavy clinical programs) paying less attention to the interview weekend, but even then, when all of the applicants are similarly qualified, what other criteria is there to base decisions off of other than who you got the best vibe from?

 

[MCParent]

I think it makes a lot of sense that these interactions would be at least one of many important aspects of a student's application given how integral good, common sense and social skills are in developing rapport with clients/participants and being a successful clinician in general (I'm not in grad school yet, so I guess I could be way off on that). I could see experimental psych programs (or maybe very research heavy clinical programs) paying less attention to the interview weekend, but even then, when all of the applicants are similarly qualified, what other criteria is there to base decisions off of other than who you got the best vibe from?

"Vibes" are the very problem though. Humans get "good vibes" off of things that are utterly irrelevant to either job performance or long-term getting-along (e.g., the research that indicates that interviews not only don't help decision-making, but actually hurt it sometimes). The best indicator of future behavior is past behavior; the cv and prior experiences are the best base for decisions (notwithstanding obvious interview problems like the participant having no clue what the POI does when away from his/her notes, making offensive comments or jokes, etc.).

 

[WisNeuro]

Maybe the neuro realm handles it differently from my experience. I've never been party to any "seismic" shifts from pre-ranks.

 

[bcliff]

"Vibes" are the very problem though. Humans get "good vibes" off of things that are utterly irrelevant to either job performance or long-term getting-along (e.g., the research that indicates that interviews not only don't help decision-making, but actually hurt it sometimes). The best indicator of future behavior is past behavior; the cv and prior experiences are the best base for decisions (notwithstanding obvious interview problems like the participant having no clue what the POI does when away from his/her notes, making offensive comments or jokes, etc.).

I agree, but I guess what I'm talking about are red flags that can't be conveyed in an application like excessive mumbling, or inappropriate behavior, or an inability to pick up on social cues, etc., etc., etc. - These are all things I noticed among some of the other applicants at my interviews but rarely among the current students.

I imagine that these things aren't terribly uncommon among gifted researchers and students applying to PhD programs and that they probably wouldn't be a huge deal breaker in a bench science program, but in the limited time a clinical professor has with a clinical applicant, I imagine that they could be a big enough factor to warrant some additional concern. I think I'm talking about the reading between the lines of someone's CV that can only take place in a face to face situation.

I almost applied to clinical PhD programs when I was 19 (I'm so glad that I didn't), and had I gotten to the interview stage, I feel like my age would have been one of those factors that might not have read in my application (Do admissions committees know an applicant's age?) - "Do we expect a 19 year old to possess the maturity to work with severe psychopathology? Do we expect clients to trust a 19 year old clinician enough to even engage in treatment?" - Idk maybe I'm way off base, but I feel like there must be some significance to the interview weekend.

 

[CheetahGirl]

I think it makes a lot of sense that these interactions would be at least one of many important aspects of a student's application given how integral good, common sense and social skills are in developing rapport with clients/participants and being a successful clinician in general (I'm not in grad school yet, so I guess I could be way off on that).

Briarcliff, you're on point, not way off. I have met some extremely intelligent individuals who fumbled and bumbled in the treatment room (observed through a two-way mirror) for this very reason...the common sense and social skills were still in development because the trainee was academically stellar, but young/naive and lacked maturity (especially when their clients wanted to discuss the clients' sex life or erectile dysfunction, sensitive topics of this manner).

"Vibes" are the very problem though. Humans get "good vibes" off of things that are utterly irrelevant to either job performance or long-term getting-along (e.g., the research that indicates that interviews not only don't help decision-making, but actually hurt it sometimes). The best indicator of future behavior is past behavior; the cv and prior experiences are the best base for decisions (notwithstanding obvious interview problems like the participant having no clue what the POI does when away from his/her notes, making offensive comments or jokes, etc.).

Let me operationally define "vibe" (since I was one the ones who initially brought the concept into the discussion): The gut or visceral reaction one gets from someone who is evaluated by your educated guess, with the assumption that the more educated you are on psychological functioning, personality development and the like, the more attuned your visceral reaction will be to the subjective (yet collective) reality.

Therefore, if they [applicants] made it to the interview...and they quack like a duck, and look like a duck...they must be a duck (duck = great student, astute human, potentially excellent mentee/clinical apprentice). Subsequently, you and your faculty are overjoyed to subsidized this person's education and have that individual represent your program wholeheartedly in future endeavors of the field. And the ultimate task comes from choosing the best ducklings for your funding pond at the time (said with affection, having been a duckling myself). (Now, if you're paying through the beak to be in that pond...that's a whole other deal...)

I agree vibes can be irrelevant in some cases but they can also give you alternative information, like a sociopath or a narcissistic individual gives off great vibes when she/he wants what you have. (Lord knows, sociopaths and narcissists find their way into every training program.)

 

[MCParent]

I'm talking about are red flags [...] like excessive mumbling

Really? We fundamentally disagree on this. What on earth do I care if someone mumbles when nervous? If that's the worst thing they do in a clinical setting I'll be happy, and that behavior can be trained out.

 

[bcliff]

Really? We fundamentally disagree on this. What on earth do I care if someone mumbles when nervous? If that's the worst thing they do in a clinical setting I'll be happy, and that behavior can be trained out.

Like I said, I could be totally off on this. I only have my own limited experience (from one side of the interview process) as a point of reference, so I'm definitely not any kind of an expert. I'll defer to people who have more knowledge on the topic.

 

[CheetahGirl]

Really? We fundamentally disagree on this. What on earth do I care if someone mumbles when nervous? If that's the worst thing they do in a clinical setting I'll be happy, and that behavior can be trained out.

MCParent - exaggerating to make a point - if you discovered Applicant #11 who was interviewing for your research assistantship was in a sensory overload, schizoaffective-like state, and exhibiting mumbling behavior, I'm sure you would empathize with the poor timing of an uncontrollable, suspected psychotic-state but would you want to train that out...or move on to Applicant #12?

...Just sayin'

 

[MCParent]

MCParent - exaggerating to make a point - if you discovered Applicant #11 who was interviewing for your research assistantship was in a sensory overload, schizoaffective-like state, and exhibiting mumbling behavior, I'm sure you would empathize with the poor timing of an uncontrollable, suspected psychotic-state but would you want to train that out...or move on to Applicant #12?

...Just sayin'

Well, now you're changing the parameters of the issue. Yes, cowering in a corner screaming during the applicant social probably indicates something significant going on. My point was that it seems to me, though, that too many people make too much out of too little.

 

[Chalupacabra]

I think that grad students have more say then they may let on. I think that the interview really starts the second you get to your host's house and doesn't end until you're on your way home, but it probably varies from school to school.

This is part of the reason I always sprung for a hotel or stayed with a friend - didn't seem worth the added stress of extending the interview process.

One of the three interviews I went on we were repeatedly told current students had no say in the admissions process. Has its pros and cons, obviously, but as an applicant it put me much more at ease and I feel like it made all applicants much more forthright with their questions to students about faculty and the program in general (especially asking about the potentially negative aspects of the program, which are obviously important to know). It seems to be the exception by far, though. I also was once insulted by a current student within minutes of arriving to an interview day (at a respected, APA approved program, mind you), so I may be a bit biased .

 

[deleted343839]

The "like factor" matters enormously. No one expects an applicant to be a master of the field with a 4-year undergraduate degree. Rather, program faculty are looking mainly at potential. Anything you learned in college coursework that is of any relevance is going to be re-taught to you the way your program wants you to learn it. It's nice that you learned your research advisor's methods, but your future graduate advisor is going to run a lab very differently. And, as others have noted, you will be in close quarters with your lab mates and classmates for 5+ years. Hence, you should be personable and easy to get along with. If you are training to become a clinician, this is critical.

It is also important to have certain qualities of "fit" that are hard to define and will be valued differently from program to program, advisor to advisor. Grit, creativity, poise, self-motivation, passion for a topic -- whatever it is that a faculty member sees in you -- that will be at least a partial basis for your admission decision. Yes, it is arbitrary to a degree, and that will never go away as long as you have a career. When you are a senior professor on the other side of the journey and your ideas are starting to look stale and maybe even a little wrong in the light of day, you will still wield more authority and influence in the field than the young up-and-comers with objectively better ideas and methods. Science is science, but it's still conducted by humans with character and cognitive flaws that you will learn about in detail in grad school.

By the time you are faculty, or even well along in graduate school, you will have seen examples of bright, accomplished, letter-perfect undergraduates who entered grad school and underwhelmed, if not flamed out altogether. This is more common than you'd think. So look upon your accomplishments not as gold stars to impress everyone, but rather as baseline evidence of your ability to be trained and go on to do useful things. Once graduate study is underway, the clock resets and you can't bank on "prestige" (this cycle will repeat itself in similar ways at the postdoc level, job market, career change, etc.). So, look ahead. Think about what else you bring to the table that's not on paper.

 

[smalltownpsych]

I don't think that much weight should be given to personality assessments based on a limited sample during an interview. I side with Dr. Parent on this issue and am surprised how quickly many are to rely on a demonstrably unreliable metric. Think about it from the standpoint of offering long-range advice based on love at first sight. People who rely on that type of "fit" end up asking me why they keep having bad relationships. I also don't think that making a judgement about how good a clinician someone will be should depend that much on their likability during an interview because it demonstrates social skills. The flaws in this thinking are too numerous to mention.

 

[WisNeuro]

I think people are reading these responses the wrong way. It's not as if students who are woefully inadequate on paper are getting offers over people with stellar CV's. Rather, the people who are brought in to interview are all pretty close on paper, maybe a couple clearly in front, and most right behind that. People on this thread make it seem rampant that it's all about only making offers to the prom king and queen. This ain't undergrad admissions, where you were clearly in the upper 25% and were assured a spot. Grad school (at any reputable school, anyway) applicants are all in the upper 10% at this point if they've received an interview offer. It's competitive, it's hard, good people aren't going to get offers, because most of those applicants are pretty darn good.

Than again, maybe I'm one of the leaders of this shadow graduate school government that is conspiring to keep all of you shy, poor interviewers, out of grad school.

 

[SharkBait13]

I always knew there was something suspicious about you, WisNeuro...

I'm sure different programs do it differently, and I am just drawing from my experience. I just cant make sense out of it any other way. I keep seeing waitlist posts on gradcafe for some of my schools, and they all report way better GPA's, test scores, pubs, etc.. The only conclusion I can draw is that I made a good impression at the interview, or else got reallllly lucky somehow.

I also applied to mostly counseling psych and less-competitive clinical programs, so maybe they put more emphasis on the interview since they are more laid back than the more competitive programs out there.

After this entire experience, I feel like I am just as confused as I was at the start of this process, haha.

 

[WisNeuro]

But you are assuming that all of those variables are equivalent across people. Take pubs for example. Having 1 pub varies wildly. Which author were they? Was it in a refereed journal? What's the impact factor? Etc. And GPA. What kinds of classes did they take? Heavy science and math (chem, bio, anat and physio, calculus) or was it heavy on less intensive coursework, etc.

A pub is not a pub is not a pub, and a grade is not a grade....you get the picture. Once those things are taken into account, I think you'd see that the people getting interviews and offers makes a little more sense on paper.

 

[SharkBait13]

Fair enough, that's true. But again, it just seemed to be such a sharp difference. One interviewee I met had sixteen publications, another had ten. Which I know they aren't all equal, but when compared to my zero... you get the picture.

 

[kestrelcry]

The other thing you can't see on forum posts is people's essays. Someone's stats can look great, but they can't write a coherent essay, or they write an inappropriate essay that involves way too much self-disclosure, or come across as really personality disordered. You also can't see their letters of recommendations, which may be lukewarm. The stats that people post are only part of the picture, and like WisNeuro said there are soooo many qualified applicants.
And while it may be true that the social interactions of an interview day might not ever be able to qualify as a data-driven evidence-based assessment for future liking, I don't think we've come up with anything better than spending time with another person and getting to know them as best you can over that time. If we had, the eharmony model would be way more successful.

 

[PsychScience]

There is obviously going to be incredible variability between schools on the relative “value added” of making a good interview impression, but I think that there is also plenty of variability within programs. For example, within my grad school clinical program there were 2 different professors that were on the opposite side of the spectrum on this issue. Professor A was a numbers person, and had preranked all of the applicants for her lab prior to interview day. Unless something exceptional or noteworthy happened at the interview, these rankings changed very little post interview (Example of noteworthy: there was one instance where her number one ranked applicant came to the interview and was exceptionally rude to the office staff. What this person was thinking is totally beyond me, but needless to say, Professor A was FURIOUS, and the applicant definitely did not get an offer). On the flip side, Professor B relied heavily on the interview to make his final decisions. I worked in Professor B’s lab, and from his perspective, everyone coming to the interview day was qualified to be there, and thus, on equal footing. The interview essentially would make or break your application. He also depended heavily on grad students for interviewing and for providing feedback on who would be a good fit in his lab.


So, same program, but wildly different approaches for how faculty viewed the interview portion of the application process. Regardless, I think it is worth echoing what has already been stated. For both professors (and all the faculty in my program) it was never a decision between “qualified” versus “likable”. If the applicant was at the interview, they were “qualified” to be there. Each professor just weighted the likable variable differently.

 

[smalltownpsych]

The other thing you can't see on forum posts is people's essays. Someone's stats can look great, but they can't write a coherent essay, or they write an inappropriate essay that involves way too much self-disclosure, or come across as really personality disordered. You also can't see their letters of recommendations, which may be lukewarm. The stats that people post are only part of the picture, and like WisNeuro said there are soooo many qualified applicants.
And while it may be true that the social interactions of an interview day might not ever be able to qualify as a data-driven evidence-based assessment for future liking, I don't think we've come up with anything better than spending time with another person and getting to know them as best you can over that time. If we had, the eharmony model would be way more successful.

A writing sample is not only a good predictor to use but an actual work sample is the best predictor according to what I remember from my EPPP studies. Also, I am not saying that personality factors should not be a factor at all, rather I am just cautioning against drawing too strong of a conclusion based on the interview, and this is based solidly on both research and experience of interviewing and hiring people. Also, one factor of likability is physical attractiveness, is it not? So watch for those biases.

 

[bostongal109]

I just have a hard time with the process as I feel like it's really advantageous for extraverts and introverts can be penalized for not fitting the mold of how they want people to be. Being an introvert/extrovert doesn't make you a better or worse clinician.