Academics, what are you looking for in a PhD candidate during interviews?

[blushbouquet]

For reference I am in the sciences so applying for specific projects which already have funding.

I am just wondering what academics are looking for in a PhD student when they are interviewing candidates? I really struggle articulating my thoughts during interviews so I am trying to have answers prepared in advance. However I find that I am struggling to know what exactly it is I should be saying.

The question I am struggling most is "why do you want to do a PhD?" I know internally why - I have loved studying my subject at university and as I have learnt I have gone from being satisfied and enjoying just learning about topics to having more and more questions that research cannot yet answer for. I completely loved my research project that I did during my master's and was gutted when it finished. I loved the research environment, the discussions with labmates about science, I loved every aspect of the lab work including the "monotonous" pipetting for hours on end, I loved my designated time when I was responsible for maintaining adequate levels of lab supplies during the rota system, I loved mentoring the undergraduate student, I loved seeing my results and data, I loved reading papers, I loved writing my dissertation. For the first time in literally years I would wake up and spring out of bed excited for my day.

But all of that is cheesy, and lots of small little details and I just do not know how to adequately and professionally convey just how much I want to do a PhD.

I am also struggling with questions along the lines of what are my best traits / why would I be a good PhD student. Again I know all of this. I am resilient and deal well with hard work and lots of deadlines and pressure. I am patient and kind and helpful and was a good lab mate during my master's project. I am motivated and passionate about my subject area. I am organised and meticulous with a high attention to detail. I love reading papers. I love writing papers. I am good at statistics and writing. I have good academic grades.

I guess the student in me is here asking the academics what the "correct" answer is and there obviously is not a correct answer but I would just love to know what is is you want to hear. I really struggle during interviews and I think I don't make a good first impression so I am trying to brush up on my technique.

Thank you.

You sound very convincing in what you have written, I don't think you need to say different things, just get more practised at articulating them. The fact that you love reading and writing papers will be a real plus- can you mention what you have written?

@Nearlyalmost50 Thank you for your reply. Unfortunately I have not written any published papers as I have not had the opportunity to publish yet but I have enjoyed writing my dissertations and other written assignments at university.

I agree that these sound like good answers. When recruiting for a project I'd be looking for someone with excellent project management skills, as well as good at keeping on top of the literature. If you haven't published, have some thoughts about what and where you might publish. Also make sure you're as familiar as can be with the research being done in the lab: is there any paper in particular that has captured your interest that you can talk about? Could you envisage publishing with the team? Both of the latter points will help you demonstrate that you're a good fit with the lab.

BTW for your own sake try and get a feel for the working hours of the Lab. Make sure this isn't a situation where you're going to be asked to work long hours with no flexibility in gaining time off in return. I'm not saying you should raise this, but if there's the dreaded 'and do you have any questions for us', it's not unreasonable to a) ask what a typical working day or week looks like and b) ask if there is funding for you to attend conferences - answers to both will give you a feel for the culture of the lab.

@impostersyndrome Thank you for your response. I will make sure I read lots of literature that have been published by the specific labs I am applying to.

That is such a good point, I will definitely ensure I ask either the PI or current PhD students what their average working week looks like.

Truthfully, in my experience they’re looking for someone who ticks the boxes for funding eligibility and equality monitoring. Whether that’s someone from a certain background or gender or socioeconomic class etc. Or they’re looking for someone they like and want as a colleague, who they can see fitting in and being enjoyable to work with in terms of personality. Not always the best academic candidate, just someone they can get along with on a daily basis. Either that or they already have someone in mind but have to go through the rigmarole of advertising the post even though they’ve already decided who to give it to.

@DillBaby How do they find out about socioeconomic background? I was raised working class and attended a very poor state secondary school but surely now that I have an undergraduate and master's degree and am an adult that is irrelevant?

I have another question. So I have shortlisted four PhDs I wish to apply for. I started on the first one and have been reading the papers that they have given and writing notes on it. However I am unsure how much in-depth understanding I need to have at this stage for the project?

In my personal statement, how in-depth should I go about the proposed project? All the projects link loosely with my research interests but the specific mechanisms they are intending to research are new to me as they are very niche, novel and specific (as expected!) I spent several hours today reading the recommended papers for one project and trying to link it all together but I am not sure if it is a waste of time to go that much in-depth at this point? Is a deep level of understanding of the mechanisms needed to write the personal statement? Or should I save this detailed reading for when I am (hopefully) invited for an interview?

Thank you

I’d say the latter. You want to show a good fit, but save the heavy duty prep for interview.

I got accepted for a PhD without even having a project in mind. I knew a bit about the field in general but that’s it. However I ticked the boxes for “non-white female wanting to study a male-dominated subject, local person from a disadvantaged background” so I was eligible for lots of funding.

Of course after I graduated it was a different story. I was told my local accent basically made me un-hireable as a lecturer because it didn’t fit with the international image that the university was seeking to project. At the end of the day nobody hires based on merit - it’s all politics.

I’m sorry you’ve had this experience, but as somebody also from a non traditional background, now in a decision making position, I can say that your experience is not universal. At least where I am merit is valued much more than background. Perhaps this is discipline specific? Who knows...

@impostersyndrome Thank you for your reply, that is reassuring to know I shouldn't do too much in-depth reading at this stage. :)

@DillBaby I am sorry to hear that. That sounds like such a difficult experience.

I look for evidence that they will be an independent worker who can take the initiative and not be asking me what they should do next every 5 minutes. I do not need the candidate to know the area inside out; they will learn that during the next three years.

There are probably ways to phrase your written answer to 'why do you want to do a PhD' without sounding cheesy.

Good luck!

@Teafield Thank you for your reply. May I ask what field you are in and how you gauge whether a candidate is going to be independent?