worried about interview question

[ablumoon]

so i recently went on an interview to one of my top choice schools and the interview mentioned that states in the south such as KY, WV, etc. often have an 'anti-academic' agenda. i responded by talking about why i thought this was, citing reasons such as lack of national and regional identity and economics. (i mentioned that the adminsitration caters to this through the media and provides them a way to identify with something larger).

anyway, in hindsight i realize that i totally missed the point of that comment and led the discussion into a totally different path than the interviewer intended. i feel like an idiot and now i feel ilke i won't get in. was it really that bad of a response? i probably should have mentinoed something like, how i think the 'intelligent design' theory is @#*& and how science really needs to advance in order for society to advance...

should i mention something ilke this in my letter of interest to the school?

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[DrBowtie]

When reading this I thought they were meaning "anti-academic" as primary care focused. Most places around the region are very underserved and their mission statements often include keeping people in the area.

The coasts are home to the "academic centers" like the NE and Cal. I think thats what they could have been referring to.

 

[jebus]

I agree with Brett (you know, I'm getting awfully tired of saying that). When you're poor you have different priorities.
The top research schools are all in wealthy states. MS, AR, NM, AL, KY, WV, etc., are all poor states. They are not anti-academic, per se, but they certainly have other obstacles to overcome before the state legislatures fund research. The groups in charge of the money are also in charge of the agenda. Unfortunately, this agenda is dictated by the realities of the state: a large, rural, impoverished population needs primary care physicians more than it needs a new NIH designated Comprehensive Cancer Center.