research knowledge

[jot]

question about research knowledge. my educational background is in developmental biology. my research is in computational biology and a seperate experience in neuroscience (global changes in neuropathic pain models). i'm intimately familiar with the research i have done and i can place it in a larger context, but i just don't have the in depth background a formally trained neuro person has to field anything that is very divergent from the research itself (those left field interview Q's). how in depth would you recommend me going into background literature to make me "interview-competent"? read a neurobiology text? it seems a bit much, but i wouldn't mind doing if it is necessary. those that interviewed let me know thanks a lot.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[none]

You're an undergraduate student! Not a graduate! The interview is not some final examination... The majority of your interviewers will likely not be familiar enough with computational biology or neurobiology to pose questions that are beyond the scope of your research. And if, by some odd chance they are, then you just tell them that you didn't focus on that or you will look into it, etc. Honestly...you already took the MCAT. They know you know science. At the interview stage, they're much more interested in how you present your research than your in-depth knowledge of the overall field.

 

[Vader]

It sounds like you know your stuff well. There's no need to make yourself the world's expert on a subject. Just be able to explain your research and how it fits into the big picture.

 

[wgu]

It will probably depend on your interests. If you're excited about reading on some topics, go do it. Just be sure you're not forcing yourself to do it and that you're sincere in your interest. If you fake it they'll probably pick that up. Also I find that reading journal review articles and articles for the general audience good. Try Nature or Science, or even Newsweek/Time. I almost always enjoy those articles.