The Stress Interview?

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.
Now that the dust has settled and I've spoken with a few other people about the interview as a whole, I've changed my mind. Yes, like Aura5 said, I saw the interaction as a potential test because the behavior seemed so outrageous as to defy any other explanation. Then anxiety set in and I questioned myself (i.e. did I cause this by something I said or did). Ultimately, I think I made the mistake of assuming that the faculty and grad students of these programs reside in some other realm than the rest of us. One where getting drunk and acting stupid at a party or being arrogant and abrasive isn't possible. During the interview process, we applicants put these people on a pedestal because, for the moment, they are in a position of power over us. Books and message boards say we are judging them as well, but it’s us that have put our blood, sweat, and tears into being accepted. It’s us that have to wait a year and a half to reapply if things don't work out. Not to say that this is a bad thing, it is what it is. In conclusion, for anyone else preparing to go through the process, remember these things: Be proud of and stand by all the work that you have done to get to this point, be yourself, and if anything questionable happens during any part of the interview process, don't assume it’s something you did. Handle it as best you can and don't fail to believe in yourself, even if your POI insults you to your face or if you get thrown into an unusual interview situation.

👍 <- thumbs up, not to the fact that he was rude, but to what your conclusion about it was. Yay for you! lol. Me personally, I have a tendency to over-analyze situations and then part of me realizes, wait a second, what the heck, other people are responsible for their actions too.
 
I have a friend who interviewed at Adelphi last year who told me he kind of flipped out during the group 'stress interview' (and it definitely is that); I dont remember exactly what was said, but he felt like a grad student was making some kind of generalization about him based on him being Latino, like he had a chip on his shoulder bc he's a minority or something. Needless to say that's a little surprising and off-putting. :eyebrow:

He put the student in his place and decided it was the last place he wanted to be...
 
Derner (Adelphi) does that. 9/10 of the professors (and a 4th year) will either sit there and watch you interact or watch you interacts AND mix in some bizarre questions that usually have nothing to do with psychology and it lasts between 2 and 3 hours. Sometimes you get lucky and get a normal professor..

I've heard, I want to say, Yeshiva does a stress interview where they purposely try to upset you and see how you react.. I could be wrong

One of the professors I interviewed w/ at FDU was very aggressive and argumentative, but I'm not sure if it was a 'stress interview'. I've just heard he's intense. For example, he must have seen that I volunteer at a cat rescue and he started going on and on about how he can't wait until his cat kicks the bucket b/c all he does is throw up and he wants to kick it out to the curb. It was odd...

I have a friend who interviewed at Adelphi last year who told me he kind of flipped out during the group 'stress interview' (and it definitely is that); I dont remember exactly what was said, but he felt like a grad student was making some kind of generalization about him based on him being Latino, like he had a chip on his shoulder bc he's a minority or something. Needless to say that's a little surprising and off-putting. :eyebrow:

He put the student in his place and decided it was the last place he wanted to be...

what does adelphi do in general in an interview??
 
As far as I know you sit as a group with a bunch of other applicants and an interviewer or two and have a discussion/group interview. At times the interviewer says something that sparks debate or argument, and kind of tries to fan the flames and make things interesting. Obviously most interviewees at first try to be as diplomatic as possible and also as vague and neutral on topic as possible (these dont usually have to do directlywith rsrch or anything like that), but the interviewers will push them to take a firm stand and not be equivocal, and push others to disagree with them just as unequivocally. How much this ends up being an 'interesting' conversation or one that pisses people off I guess has in part to do both with the mix of people and the interviewers. I have also had people tell me they strongly suspect that some people in the group are 'decoy' interviewees who are really interviewERS who make really outrageous statements, but personally I feel that is probably them being a bit paranoid and letting the stress of the stress interview get to them. Who knows, though?🙄
 
As far as I know you sit as a group with a bunch of other applicants and an interviewer or two and have a discussion/group interview. At times the interviewer says something that sparks debate or argument, and kind of tries to fan the flames and make things interesting. Obviously most interviewees at first try to be as diplomatic as possible and also as vague and neutral on topic as possible (these dont usually have to do directlywith rsrch or anything like that), but the interviewers will push them to take a firm stand and not be equivocal, and push others to disagree with them just as unequivocally. How much this ends up being an 'interesting' conversation or one that pisses people off I guess has in part to do both with the mix of people and the interviewers. I have also had people tell me they strongly suspect that some people in the group are 'decoy' interviewees who are really interviewERS who make really outrageous statements, but personally I feel that is probably them being a bit paranoid and letting the stress of the stress interview get to them. Who knows, though?🙄

haha, I've had friends that thought that--but they aren't. They are legit applicants that have no social skills (they don't get accepted). So if you are in an interview and think that one of your fellow applicants is so rude/mean/outrageous/etc and that he/she might be a decoy, take pride in knowing that it is one less person that you are competing for a spot with...you>them

The interview really depends on the interviewer. Just be calm and comment on the dynamics of the group. If you think you or someone else is acting anxious, mention it...it shows insight.
 
Just be calm and comment on the dynamics of the group. If you think you or someone else is acting anxious, mention it...it shows insight.

Really? The program would look at pointing out another applicant's nerves in front of a group as a good thing? That just seems mean.
 
As far as I know you sit as a group with a bunch of other applicants and an interviewer or two and have a discussion/group interview. At times the interviewer says something that sparks debate or argument, and kind of tries to fan the flames and make things interesting. Obviously most interviewees at first try to be as diplomatic as possible and also as vague and neutral on topic as possible (these dont usually have to do directlywith rsrch or anything like that), but the interviewers will push them to take a firm stand and not be equivocal, and push others to disagree with them just as unequivocally. How much this ends up being an 'interesting' conversation or one that pisses people off I guess has in part to do both with the mix of people and the interviewers. I have also had people tell me they strongly suspect that some people in the group are 'decoy' interviewees who are really interviewERS who make really outrageous statements, but personally I feel that is probably them being a bit paranoid and letting the stress of the stress interview get to them. Who knows, though?🙄

What kind of debate can they strike? Anything you can prepare? Any ideas on topics? I dont like coming to debates without preparing, but I have no clue on types of topics that can be asked! I feel that my undergrad did not teach some of the "controversial" areas but I learned a lot undergrad, dont get me wrong. I think (as well as others I have asked advice from) think I can do the work of the programs... I just dont know some of the debatable topics well enough to debate them... Help???
 
Really? The program would look at pointing out another applicant's nerves in front of a group as a good thing? That just seems mean.

I disagree with pointing it out for another reason, besides being mean. I think it shows a lack of social skills and shows immaturity. Yes, it could be that they are in the wrong, but as a professional, you need to be able to deal with all sorts and not "tattling" on others. "But teacher, he was being mean and had nerve to do that...." If you cant deal with people's problems, nerves, lack of social etiquette ect why are you in this field? Not everyone will be dressed clean and neat in every job you get!🙂
 
Really? The program would look at pointing out another applicant's nerves in front of a group as a good thing? That just seems mean.

not like pointing them out and saying "haha you are nervous! sucker!!" But I've been told to comment on just the room dynamics and what possibly is causing the anxiety/happiness/whatever in the room. Least that's what I've heard. Take it or leave it
 
I think this kind of observation can be pulled off with sufficient tact -- make sure to couch such statements with a phrase like “it seems to me,” or “I wonder if...”, seek feedback re the validity of your assumptions and formulations, and be sure to own any defenses (eg projection) you may be adding to the mix.
 
It seems like this is another case of schools blurring the boundary between the professional and clinical contexts. If I were running a therapy group, I could absolutely see making these kinds of process comments and urging people to talk about their experiences sharing, etc. However, I couldn't see this translating into a professional setting such as an interview, where the goal of the group members is clearly to come off in the best light.

It just rubs me the wrong way that schools intentionally pretend that interview and therapeutic contexts are the same. It seems they try to foster the latter atmosphere artificially.

Of course, if this is the situation you find yourself in, all you can do is do your best. However, I encourage people who experience any type of stress interview to really consider what it says about the school they are applying to.
 
I was on the corporate job market for many years before going back to school, and while stress interviews were not common there, they certainly did happen. However what you describe sounds nothing like one. Stress interviews involve difficult questions and challenges during the interview itself. They do not involve publically embarassing somebody at a dinner party.

Like you said though, it's important to remember that these people you are interviewing with may be brilliant scientists, but that doesn't mean they are good at anything else, or even good people. It's not at all uncommon for scientific ability and poor social skills to go hand in hand, and many may not even realize how they are coming across.

That is my perception of things (coming from my experience of med school interviews/residency interviews). It sounds to me like the person was just being very rude rather than testing you, and I definitely wouldn't want to work with someone like that.
 
It seems like this is another case of schools blurring the boundary between the professional and clinical contexts. If I were running a therapy group, I could absolutely see making these kinds of process comments and urging people to talk about their experiences sharing, etc. However, I couldn't see this translating into a professional setting such as an interview, where the goal of the group members is clearly to come off in the best light.

It just rubs me the wrong way that schools intentionally pretend that interview and therapeutic contexts are the same.


I'm with you on this. It rubs me wrong too. I get that psychologists should be able to read situations, act accordingly, be prepared for high-stress situations etc...when dealing with therapy/patients/clients. So this pseudo-psychological-experiment via the interview rubs me wrong. Again, set up a mock therapy session if trying see what the applicant is made of. Even if that includes the mock-patient saying directly hurtful things to the applicant...may be harsh for just an interview...but..at least that makes sense in context of it being a mock-therapy-session because that might arise in the future and it's important to see the therapist not getting all defensive or lashing back or crying, etc. and instead helping to diffuse. But the psychological personality 'test' of the interview seems weird. Doubly so if it's a primarily research-based program, where direct patient therapy might not come up as much. No need for those psychological games.
 
I think it's important to remember, in attempting to understand stress interviews and other unusual or distressing interview situations we come across, that just because someone is a psychologist does NOT mean that they themselves are mentally healthy. Find a psychologist who's got an excellent clinical sense, whose opinions you trust, and who's willing to be very honest with you, and ask them for their thoughts on that issue. The answers may surprise you...
 
I'm not sure its anything you can prepare for like a debate on politics or something. More like weird questions like how do you feel about people with mental illness trying to get a clinical phd?
 
I think it's important to remember, in attempting to understand stress interviews and other unusual or distressing interview situations we come across, that just because someone is a psychologist does NOT mean that they themselves are mentally healthy. Find a psychologist who's got an excellent clinical sense, whose opinions you trust, and who's willing to be very honest with you, and ask them for their thoughts on that issue. The answers may surprise you...


Oh I believe you. I would venture to guess that a lot are drawn to this field because they may have some experience with mental illness or trauma or something, etc., themselves. I know I come from some familial dysfunction and there's abuse and dependency in farther back generations. Anyway I think it is possible with others too...they may have thus learned how to deal with tricky emotional situations, helped build empathy, were made to have to think beyond just the surface and analyze maybe the under-workings of other's actions/motivations...you know. Whereas someone from just a perfectly balanced life might not have the motivation to delve further. (Or maybe they would...can't speak for everyone). But anyway, just a thought.

But what's your stance...that the stress interviews are good? So they can 'weed out' the applicants who might be dealing with psychological issues themselves? Not sure if you're saying they are a good thing or not 😛 Because you also seem to say that, even if the psychologist has a mental illness, they can still be competent/effective in their job. Or are you saying the Ph.D.s giving the interview are the mentally ill ones?
 
I'm not sure its anything you can prepare for like a debate on politics or something. More like weird questions like how do you feel about people with mental illness trying to get a clinical phd?

see that topic is one that I could argue, but do they chose a side for you or do you get the choice? wow... deep and complicated question... the answers can range from "discrimination" to "how much help can they be for the patient if they may not be stable" to "therapist's personal history- should it interfere with therapy? is it good?"

Any other ideas out there of topics?

If it would be "one type of therapy vs another", what can you say? I dont want to seem to be close-minded, unaware of the full picture, not too familiar with both sides ect... And how do I know what the interviewer's preference is for if we dont find out until we get there who he or she may be?
 
But what's your stance...that the stress interviews are good? So they can 'weed out' the applicants who might be dealing with psychological issues themselves? Not sure if you're saying they are a good thing or not 😛 Because you also seem to say that, even if the psychologist has a mental illness, they can still be competent/effective in their job. Or are you saying the Ph.D.s giving the interview are the mentally ill ones?
Ah, sorry about that. I was trying to give people another view of the issue, without pointing fingers at specific situations that have been described here. I guess I was being a bit *too* obscure... 😳

I don't think that one can draw any general conclusions about psychologists with mental health diagnoses; some are marvelous at their jobs, others are a disaster. It depends on the specific diagnosis, and on how that individual has dealt with it. For instance, one of my mentors has a mental health diagnosis, and he is one of the wisest and most perceptive clinicians you'll ever meet. On the other hand, a psychologist with, say, an out-of-control Axis 2 diagnosis, or who hasn't accepted and adequately dealt with any diagnosis, is fairly unlikely to be competent/effective.

No one is perfect, and that includes psychologists. An effective psychologist isn't someone who shows clients the path to perfection from a flawless position of their own. An effective psychologist is someone who shows clients how to cope with their issues, and sometimes an important part of that psychologist's development comes from the experience of having walked those same rocky paths themselves.

To answer your other questions... I haven't had any experiences with stress interviews, but they sound fairly pointless to me. (For whatever my opinion is worth. 😀) Applying to a PhD/PsyD program in clinical/counseling/school psychology is stressful enough as it is; one need only read the threads here to see that most applicants are reduced to a bundle of nervous, worried stress by the whole process, regardless of how resilient and mentally healthy they are otherwise. That's all a stress interview is going to "explore". I think it says little to nothing about how an applicant will cope with stress in grad school or on the job.

And yes, I was suggesting that, when an interview situation goes sideways, the problem could be with the interviewer and/or the program rather than with the interviewee. As above, I say that as another viewpoint to consider, not in response to any specific situation described here. I've heard some wild stories about people's academic experiences, though; there are some odd programs and difficult people out there. It can be hard to spot that when you're applying to school. We're taught to take responsibility for what happens to us, rather than blame others. Mostly that's a reasonable approach, but not when taken to such an extreme that it blinds us to mistreatment or unreasonable behavior from others. And I think that's an easier-than-usual trap to fall into when one is faced with the power imbalance that's inherent in the grad school application process.
 
see that topic is one that I could argue, but do they chose a side for you or do you get the choice? wow... deep and complicated question... the answers can range from "discrimination" to "how much help can they be for the patient if they may not be stable" to "therapist's personal history- should it interfere with therapy? is it good?"

Any other ideas out there of topics?

If it would be "one type of therapy vs another", what can you say? I dont want to seem to be close-minded, unaware of the full picture, not too familiar with both sides ect... And how do I know what the interviewer's preference is for if we dont find out until we get there who he or she may be?

For an interview I had this week, it wasn't a debate but a discussion about a quote by Carl Jung. It ended up with us interpreting and talking about our feelings on his quote. The faculty sat and took notes while the grad students facilitated.
 
Top