Talking about research in interviews

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.

KarEntropy

Full Member
10+ Year Member
15+ Year Member
Joined
Sep 24, 2006
Messages
64
Reaction score
0
So I've got a couple of interviews coming up and I'm not sure how much interviewers will want to know about my research. I'm a research asssistant in a lab, but not involved in too much "real thinking" because I don't have the biochemical background to help out in that respect (I can do troubleshooting of assays and that kind of thinking, but not much analysis or planning). I know WHY we're doing the research, what we hope to gain from it, and I understand the details of a project I worked on extensively last spring. But lately I've been just doing western blots, luciferase assays, etc. for my boss, and he seems to be working on a different project every week, and usually several projects at once, making it hard to keep up with what exactly we're doing currently. I'm just not sure how much detail I should be prepared to go into, and if I should ask my boss to explain in detail what he's been working on lately. Insights?

Members don't see this ad.
 
Um. They might ask you WHY you chose to do research or WHAT you get out of it, but not so much what your specific work is.*

*Unless you are interviewing MD/PhD, in which case I have no idea.
*Unless you are interviewing at a major research school or your interviewer does the EXACT same research as you.

I've only been on one interview so far. But don't worry too much. Just be able to talk about why research is important and what it means to you. :)
 
um . . . not sure about that one jackie, I've defintely gotten asked what my research was about. Just be prepared to explain your part in the research (which I hope you understand). For example, in my project I just did sample analysis. I knew about a one sentence summary of the project, but I would follow that up by saying that I really just did the sample analysis. They definitely understand, no one expects you to be dreaming up your own independent projects and publishing them as an undergrad.
 
Members don't see this ad :)
I'm sort of in the same boat ... I do research for a company who does contract-research for the government (i.e. I'm not allowed to talk about it), so I will try to concentrate on how my research experience has impacted my decision to follow medicine (i.e. how working in a lab all day with nothing to keep you company but your Ipod sucks.... and how much more interesting I found my volunteering at hospital X was due to subject material/personal interactions). Hope this helps :)
 
I think if you know what the lab does generally, and what your project's goals are then you're fine. I don't think you have to be up to the nanosecond on your boss's activities unless he has a nature paper that's comes out every week. Maybe before interviews take a look at review article citations in the intro of your boss's recent publications and try explaining what you do to a friend with some science, but who doesn't knwo what you do (without boring them).
 
So I've got a couple of interviews coming up and I'm not sure how much interviewers will want to know about my research. I'm a research asssistant in a lab, but not involved in too much "real thinking" because I don't have the biochemical background to help out in that respect (I can do troubleshooting of assays and that kind of thinking, but not much analysis or planning). I know WHY we're doing the research, what we hope to gain from it, and I understand the details of a project I worked on extensively last spring. But lately I've been just doing western blots, luciferase assays, etc. for my boss, and he seems to be working on a different project every week, and usually several projects at once, making it hard to keep up with what exactly we're doing currently. I'm just not sure how much detail I should be prepared to go into, and if I should ask my boss to explain in detail what he's been working on lately. Insights?

No, No, No....do not talk about details. Talk about the BIG PICTURE. For example, I discovered an awesome link between a drug for disease A, that also helped disease B. (I was fortunate to publish a few papers undergrad, related to this link, which i brought along to show in case they had further questions, which most of the time they did not). I didnt go into detail "how" i found this link (western blot, pulse-chase experiments), just explained more about this link and its application in broader picture :)

Again, dont worry details, just big picture...most of the time you have MDs interviewing you, and they do not have a good knowledge of complicated molecular details...like "nerdy" pre-meds like us

Disclaimer. I still have to get accepted, so use my advice cautiously
 
When interviewers asked me about research, they seemed more interested in whether I understood the big picture (translation into clinical medicine) and why I was choosing medicine over research. Some people did ask me what kind of equipment I was using to conduct the assays, but they were in the same field; I can't imagine it would have come up otherwise. But then again, I haven't interviewed at any real research powerhouses, so they might conduct things differently.
 
I'm sort of in the same boat ... I do research for a company who does contract-research for the government (i.e. I'm not allowed to talk about it), so I will try to concentrate on how my research experience has impacted my decision to follow medicine (i.e. how working in a lab all day with nothing to keep you company but your Ipod sucks.... and how much more interesting I found my volunteering at hospital X was due to subject material/personal interactions). Hope this helps :)

Just be aware that you may be interviewed by a PhD. In this case, it's still totally fine to decide you just want to do clinical medicine, and not research. However, I would still start thinking of things you got out of doing the research that were positive, and ways to explain why medicine but not research without stepping on any Ph.D. toes...
 
So I've got a couple of interviews coming up and I'm not sure how much interviewers will want to know about my research. I'm a research asssistant in a lab, but not involved in too much "real thinking" because I don't have the biochemical background to help out in that respect (I can do troubleshooting of assays and that kind of thinking, but not much analysis or planning). I know WHY we're doing the research, what we hope to gain from it, and I understand the details of a project I worked on extensively last spring. But lately I've been just doing western blots, luciferase assays, etc. for my boss, and he seems to be working on a different project every week, and usually several projects at once, making it hard to keep up with what exactly we're doing currently. I'm just not sure how much detail I should be prepared to go into, and if I should ask my boss to explain in detail what he's been working on lately. Insights?


You are not going to be asked how your research project was designed but you will likely be asked to explain your role in the research project. From your description above, it sounds like you CAN explain your role and what your actual job was. No interviewer is going to expect a research assistant to be able to discuss the pros, cons and theories of project design.

Just be able to logically and knowledgably discuss what YOU do and how it works within the scheme of the lab that you work in. Other than that, you should be fine.

If you were a Ph.D running the lab, the questions would be different but as a lab assistant, just be ready to discuss your assays and what you have learned/observed.
 
I was asked what I did for my research projects. The interviewer was not interested what it was about, but what I actually did... So, it depends...
 
It would help with your confidence if you knew as much as you possibly could before your interview. See if your boss is available for an hour or so to explain to you all the technical details. If he/she agrees then make sure to come up with some questions that you think might be asked of you.
 
Thanks so much for all the great advice! :D
 
as others have said, it depends on your interviewer.

if you get a practicing MD in a field completely different than your research or a PhD who probably wouldn't have a clue on your research methods, give him/her a broad overview of the research but emphasize the impact of your research because that's the scope your interviewer will have most contact with.

if you get an MD, PhD in your field, you can go deeper into the research methods but still the focus should be on the impact of your research. they want to know that you understand the tangible results of your research. knowing about the research methods is not as important since you can train anyone to do luciferase assays, blots, PCR, or any other bench work.

basically, emphasize the impact above all other things.
 
hey so most interviews are discussions and you can lead them where you want to go. But an MD is an advanced degree and people probably want to see that you can do the "higher thinking" that goes along with being a leader in healthcare, inside or outside the lab.

But on that note, I was asked specifics about my research (ie what type of white blood cells were you isolating 6 years ago, specifics of the molecule the lab was studying). I didn't think I built it up on my AMCAS app, and I sure as hell didn't remember exactly what I did freshman year for a couple months, I knew the big-picture stuff. The lady was just interested because she did virus infections of white blood cells.

so its all fair game, but you know how politicians always say what they want to say no matter what question is asked. ya. do that.
 
Top