Tips for Interviews

[XanthusARES]

Interviews are going to start here in a few weeks, and I thought that I would give you some helpful tips (in a conveniently numbered format). A lot of you have the same questions year after year so I thought this would be a convenient place for you to start.

 

Before you get an interview:

 

1. Just because people are posting on GradCafe and on here that they got interview invites, doesn't mean you should freak out. As hard as this advice is to take, try to remain calm. There is plenty of time between now and April 15 (at least I really hope there is, I have a ton of crap to get done before then). Interviews come when the come, stressing out about them won't make them happen any faster.

 

2. If you are reading this at or around April 15th and still don't have any interviews, there is still a chance that you'll get accepted without one (I know that I received an acceptance in May without an interview). To be perfectly honest, though, it probably means you aren't going to get in this year. I know that this can be frustrating, and if you want to go outside and shout the F word as loud as possible and spend the night drowning your sorrows in booze and your favorite XBOX game, go right ahead. But soon afterwards (i.e. after you've calmed down) go over your application and figure out what went wrong. Do you need to apply wider, increase that GMAT, get more research experience. Figure out what you need to do and do it.

 

When that first email comes:

 

1. Immediately go and hug your significant other/friend/dog/closest human being who won't call the cops on you. Congratulations, that's awesome you are one step closer.

 

2. Don't wait too long to respond. You don't have to respond immediately, but this is not like meeting someone at a bar, there is no 3 day required waiting period. Respond as soon as you feel comfortable responding.

 

3. In your response don't forget to ask who will be interviewing you, you'll need this information later on.

 

4. That night go out and celebrate. Listen life is full of disappointment and heartbreak. If you listen to no other advice from me, listen to the advice I got a friend a long time ago: "Celebrate everything that you can, especially the little wins, you'll have far more of those than big wins." Whatever you do to celebrate, do it. If that's a drink with friends, or a night alone with a good book, it doesn't matter, make it happen, work/life will wait for a few hours.

 

5. Start researching the program. If you've done your homework before applying this step shouldn't be too bad. Look over the website and make sure that you know what your interviewers are studying (at a high level). See if there are any questions you want to know that aren't answered on their site. Again this should be easy if you did your work beforehand. Take some notes if you feel inclined, but remember this isn't a test.

 

6. Practice your responses. Know the answers to these questions (but try not to sound too practiced):

 

Why school X?

Why a PhD?

Why professor X?

How'd you decide to pursue a PhD?

What type of research are you interested in?

What do you want to do afterwards?

Favorite band?

 

 

7. Steam/clean/iron your favorite suit. I can't stress enough that you will be a ball of stress on interview day. If you are wearing a suit that looks good and makes you feel comfortable, it will make you feel a little less stress. If you plan it well ahead of time, it will be one less thing to think/worry about last minute. Plus you'll be sure that it doesn't still have that mustard stain from the company pic-nic (you slob). Side note: if your interview is going to be on skype you don't have to wear the bottom of your suit if you don't want to. However if you will feel more together in your full suit do it, I personally went with shorts and have a funny story about that if you're interested.

 

8. Think of what questions you want to ask them. Inevitably the last question they'll ask is if you have any questions for them. Try to have some prepared so you don't look like a doofus. Personally I had a notebook with me during the interviews taking notes about what they said, I had my questions written at the top of the page, so that I would be ready. Honestly, though, do what you are most comfortable with. Some questions that are good choices are (in my opinion):

 

What kind of culture does your program have?

Where do you see your research going in the future?

Do your professors collaborate with each other often?

How does my beard look? (this might not work for everyone)

 

9. Make sure that you have an active Skype account (assuming your interview is over Skype) and that you have a semi-professional photo up as your avatar. Nothing starts an interview off on a bad foot like that picture of you with your friends in Cabo and all you're wearing is your swim trunks.

 

On the day of the interview

 

1. Wake up early enough to take a nice long shower. This will do a few things for you. One: It will make you clean. Two: The steam will help to relax you and wake you up. Three: It will allow you to shave, if that is something you do.

 

2. Go over your CV and any notes on your interviewers you took. Be brief with this, just refresh yourself.

 

3. If this is a Skype interview make sure to log in early, ensure that you are active so that when they call they'll get through, and block anyone who may think about calling you in the middle of the interview. This will also ensure that your internet connection is working fine.

3b. I suggest doing this early enough so that if you internet is not working you can get yourself to a place where it will.

3c. Also make sure to turn off any notifications that may go off during the call including

 

4. Eat a good breakfast that won't give you gas during the interview. I know that sounds disgusting, but it happens. You know what your body can handle.

 

5. 15 minutes before your interview go outside. Get some fresh air in your lungs or do whatever you do to clear your mind and "center" yourself. This is the point where your mind and heart will begin to race, deep breaths will help. Remain as calm as humanly possible.

 

6. 5 minutes before the interview sit down at your computer. Make sure the wall behind you is to your liking. Some people like white space, others prefer a tasteful piece of art, do what you are comfortable with. Remember, though, that Korn poster from when you were 12 is not tasteful, the same goes for that skantily clad Jonathon Taylor Thomas poster. Keep it classy.

Interview

 

1. Stay calm. I know, I know, but at least try.

 

2. Answer their questions with enthusiasm. You applied to this school because you would love to go there, make sure that comes through.

 

3. Smile, you're not going to necessarily think about this, but you need to do it. Also while you're at it try to make eye contact. If you're on Skype this means that you should look into the camera, not off to the side of the room.

 

4. Remember how you said you'd stay calm in number 1, well keep on staying calm.

 

5. Be confident. There was obviously something about you that they want to know more about, so you must have something special.

 

6. Be precise. They have other things to do, don't waste 30 minutes explaining how you've been dreaming of becoming a PhD since you were born. Use examples, but be as brief as possible and as long as needed.

After the interview

1. Breath!

 

2. Don't think too much about the interview. Do something else for at least 30 minutes before you think about how it went (ideally try not to overanalyze it after that).

 

3. Celebrate again. You did an interview and that's worth being happy about.

 

4. Come here and tell us all about it. At minimum we'll congratulate you and tell you that it is not as bad as you thought it was.

 

I think this is a good place to start. If any of the rest of you have some additional steps to add please feel free. This is all I can think of, but it is by no means comprehensive. I'm sure I'm missing some stuff. Most importantly, good luck guys. You've worked hard for this. You'll do fine.

[melek]

This is awesome, thank you! I'm having trouble with the "Why a PhD" question. I don't have any kind of unique answer, it's just that I enjoy research and want to become a professor. What kinds of details would they be looking for?

[Hayao]

Great post!! I'm gonna come back when I got that first email (I will, I hope)

Now tell us about the wearing shorts story please :)

[AppInfo]

This is awesome, thank you! I'm having trouble with the "Why a PhD" question. I don't have any kind of unique answer, it's just that I enjoy research and want to become a professor. What kinds of details would they be looking for?

 

I don't think you need to be unique. They just want to know that you know what you are getting into and are committed enough to make it through the program (and an ensuing career in academia).

[XanthusARES]

This is awesome, thank you! I'm having trouble with the "Why a PhD" question. I don't have any kind of unique answer, it's just that I enjoy research and want to become a professor. What kinds of details would they be looking for?

 

 

Yep this is one of those times that everyone says the same thing and that is exactly what they are looking for. No need to be unique go with the simple, I'm interested in pursuing a PhD so that I can contribute to the field and my eventual plans are to end up at a top research institution.

[melek]

Thank you both! I think a lot of people don't really know what completing a PhD entails and they are trying to figure out if the applicant does. My husband (in addition to all of our friends) is a PhD student in business and I have been helping him every step of the way. This has actually been a huge factor for me in deciding to apply, but is it something I should mention? I also work in a lab with a bunch of PhD students (in neuroscience, not business), and I feel like I'm used to the atmosphere they work in. Again, I don't know if that's worth mentioning. Your feedback is really helpful!

[XanthusARES]

My husband (in addition to all of our friends) is a PhD student in business and I have been helping him every step of the way. This has actually been a huge factor for me in deciding to apply, but is it something I should mention?

 

Alright so my opinion may be different than others on this site, and others in the world, but I, personally, would not mention that your husband is currently in a PhD program. Program coordinators are already concerned about ensuring that the people they let into the program will come, or, more precisely, that a good fraction of the people they accept will come. I think that schools may assume, even if this is untrue, that if your husband is at program X in California, and their program is at university Y in New Hampshire, you will be unlikely to accept if they let you in. It would be a safer bet for them to accept student Z who is unencumbered on location.

 

Secondly, while being able to see the amount of work your husband does certainly provides you with a much better understanding of what a PhD in business entails, I don't think that it really adds anything to the conversation. Also for placement purposes it means you will be locked in to going to a school near where your husband is placed (or vice versa). Sure you might be able to make the long distance thing work for a while, maybe all the way to tenure, but living apart from each other will eventually take a toll on your relationship. In situations like this that I know, one of the partners moves to a lesser school if they can't get a spousal hire, or they move into a clinical professor role at the same university as their spouse. While there is nothing wrong with either of these, in my opinion, it is something that schools may consider.

 

Third, and more controversially, some schools look at having a spouse as a negative sign. They'll want you to be available 24/7 and to be able to work 18 hours a day, which is difficult when you are married. Not every school is like this, but I will pass on the advice I got while interviewing which was to not mention you are married. While it shouldn't be a big deal, some people think that it is, and it's just easier to play it safe.

 

I also work in a lab with a bunch of PhD students (in neuroscience, not business), and I feel like I'm used to the atmosphere they work in.

 

Feel free to talk about it in light of why you decided to come back. I wouldn't make a big deal out of it. The hard sciences have a very different atmosphere and environment than us business people (i.e. what is a grant proposal and what do you mean you don't have funding to go to the conference?).

[wittmic]

Not every school is like this, but I will pass on the advice I got while interviewing which was to not mention you are married.

 

This might be the first time ever I disagree with Xanthus. I think it is ok to practice discretion with the information you willingly provide programs; however, I think the omission of a spouse (or SO) is actually a big deal. Think of it from two different perspectives.

 

1) Program A wouldn't have cared you have a spouse, however you told them you did not have one or omitted this without them asking. You arrive and have a spouse, you are now potentially perceived as deceptive.

 

2) Program B does care you have a spouse (in a negative way), would you really want to be at this program anyway? Or alternatively, Program B does care you have a spouse (in a positive way) because they like work/life balance for their students and having a spouse promotes this. In this case leaving out the fact that you have a spouse is not a good thing.

 

In any of these above cases, I feel like omitting the fact that you are married or seriously involved is the wrong approach to take.

[PhDPlease]

I am in a top 5 program. I was never asked anything about a spouse/family when interviewing. I would estimate that the majority of students in my program are either married or in a long-term relationship where the partner relocated with them, and a few people even have kids. There have been a number of both formal and informal social events where people can bring a spouse/partner (and if it is something that is appropriate for kids, can bring kids as well). Personally I have never heard any professors or other students say anything negative or critical of anyone's partner or family. And in fact a few times when someone has had a family event such as a kid people always say congratulations and express best wishes and positive sentiments. Of course I am only at one program, so I cannot say that my experience is representative, but I am a bit surprised to see so much concern about spouses (since I have not personally experienced such things).

 

I don't really consider it at all deceptive to not discuss your spouse when interviewing. I would think of it as similar to a job interview where it is best not to discuss topics that are irrelevant (and in some cases involve protected classes) such as family status, religion, orientation, and numerous other topics along those lines. I would personally not be opposed to discussing my partner if the subject came up naturally (such as if the interview was in person and involved something less formal like a lunch when the conversation may shift to small talk), but I think it is highly, highly weird if you are explicitly asked about your family in an evaluative context. (Of course I am not saying that it never happens, just that I view it as inappropriate.) As an applicant, I wouldn't find any reason to shift the conversation to personal topics like family unless asked, and I don't think staying on topic and focusing on stuff such as your education/research credentials, the program, etc is deceptive.

 

Also in my personal opinion, I do not think having a partner is bad for one's productivity. Assuming your partner supports you, he/she can help with housework, help with errands, provide emotional support to keep you calm and other such supportive things. Sure a spouse requires time, but people without a spouse may spend time doing things such as pursuing a hobby, joining a sports team, going on dates, going to the gym, spending time with friends, or other numerous such things. No one spends 100% of the time working whether single or in a relationship. I would say the expectation is that everyone works hard, but that everyone is entitled to - and in fact it would be unhealthy not to - take some amount of non-work time (whether it is spent with a spouse, a hobby, friends, whatever is relaxing for you).

[PhDPlease]

Regarding the original question, I would say that the potential issue with mentioning the spouse is that you want to make clear that you are doing a PhD because YOU want to do a PHD, rather than because you are just imitating what your spouse and friends are doing.

[XanthusARES]

This might be the first time ever I disagree with Xanthus. I think it is ok to practice discretion with the information you willingly provide programs; however, I think the omission of a spouse (or SO) is actually a big deal. Think of it from two different perspectives.

 

100% definitely do not lie. I didn't mean to imply that, but rather unless it comes up organically, I would just not mention that you are married. Honestly in a discussion about research interest and fit, there is no reason necessarily to bring up a spouse.

[XanthusARES]

Also in my personal opinion, I do not think having a partner is bad for one's productivity. Assuming your partner supports you, he/she can help with housework, help with errands, provide emotional support to keep you calm and other such supportive things. Sure a spouse requires time, but people without a spouse may spend time doing things such as pursuing a hobby, joining a sports team, going on dates, going to the gym, spending time with friends, or other numerous such things. No one spends 100% of the time working whether single or in a relationship. I would say the expectation is that everyone works hard, but that everyone is entitled to - and in fact it would be unhealthy not to - take some amount of non-work time (whether it is spent with a spouse, a hobby, friends, whatever is relaxing for you).

 

I can honestly say that I would be much less productive without my wife. She is, quite literally, the reason I'm at the office today rather than in bed sleeping.

[PhDPlease]

100% definitely do not lie. I didn't mean to imply that, but rather unless it comes up organically, I would just not mention that you are married. Honestly in a discussion about research interest and fit, there is no reason necessarily to bring up a spouse.

 

Agree with this entirely. I would answer honestly if asked but there is no reason to bring up something that is personal in nature unless explicitly asked. Otherwise talk about your research interests, accomplishments, the program, etc.

[wittmic]

Agree with all!

[YaSvoboden]

I can honestly say that I would be much less productive without my wife. She is, quite literally, the reason I'm at the office today rather than in bed sleeping.

 

This is so true for me too. I am way more motivated to be productive because I have a family.

 

If there are institutions that view having a spouse and children as a bad thing, I wouldn't want to be there. The phd application is largely about matching, so being honest and reducing information asymmetry will allow for the best match.

[PhDPlease]

If there are institutions that view having a spouse and children as a bad thing, I wouldn't want to be there. The phd application is largely about matching, so being honest and reducing information asymmetry will allow for the best match.

 

In my opinion, institutions shouldn't discriminate. I personally believe that the matching process should be on academic/research factors such as research interests, academic achievements, etc, NOT personal characteristics such as family status. Of course, I would not blame any applicant who chose to not attend a school where he/she anticipated facing discrimination; I would blame the school for discriminating and believe the school has a moral obligation to not discriminate.

 

There have to be some boundary conditions on the matching process. What if the interviewers from the school are biased and prefer a certain gender, race, or orientation? Hopefully most of us would agree that that is discrimination, and that there have to be some limits on what the school is justified in considering in terms of the matching process. (Of course I am not saying that discrimination never occurs in reality, but that in the ideal world we would not allow it to occur.)

 

Perhaps if a school is biased against a given group the best thing would actually be to admit MORE people from that group at the program, so those who are biased can be exposed to people different from themselves and hopefully become more open-minded and reduce their biases.

 

Prior to starting my program, I participated in some training on how to conduct interviews which included a discussion of topics that are illegal to ask about (due to violating protected class laws) as well as topics that might not be illegal but could raise biases in the interviewer (in many cases even subconscious biases). Even if we do not consider being a PhD student to be a job, my personal belief is that a similar philosophy/policy that applies to job interviews should apply to PhD applicants so that we can minimize biases and promote diversity (not only of family status but of all sorts).

Edited January 14, 2015 by PhDPlease

[publicaffairsny]

In my opinion, institutions shouldn't discriminate. I personally believe that the matching process should be on academic/research factors such as research interests, academic achievements, etc, NOT personal characteristics such as family status. Of course, I would not blame any applicant who chose to not attend a school where he/she anticipated facing discrimination; I would blame the school for discriminating and believe the school has a moral obligation to not discriminate.

 

There have to be some boundary conditions on the matching process. What if the interviewers from the school are biased and prefer a certain gender, race, or orientation? Hopefully most of us would agree that that is discrimination, and that there have to be some limits on what the school is justified in considering in terms of the matching process. (Of course I am not saying that discrimination never occurs in reality, but that in the ideal world we would not allow it to occur.)

 

Perhaps if a school is biased against a given group the best thing would actually be to admit MORE people from that group at the program, so those who are biased can be exposed to people different from themselves and hopefully become more open-minded and reduce their biases.

 

Prior to starting my program, I participated in some training on how to conduct interviews which included a discussion of topics that are illegal to ask about (due to violating protected class laws) as well as topics that might not be illegal but could raise biases in the interviewer (in many cases even subconscious biases). Even if we do not consider being a PhD student to be a job, my personal belief is that a similar philosophy/policy that applies to job interviews should apply to PhD applicants so that we can minimize biases and promote diversity (not only of family status but of all sorts).

 

Remember a lot of discrimination is not overt and malicious, but rather the result of our subconscious prejudices that our intellectual selves would not admit we have. If an interview committee feel most comfortable with people from race x and you are from race y, they might just not react as well to you regardless of whether they are consciously evaluating or discriminating based on race. The reasons that groups like women and minorities often receive lesser outcomes even when equally qualified may not necessarily be the result of overt sexism or racism but implicit bias.

[arcenciel]

I can honestly say that I would be much less productive without my wife. She is, quite literally, the reason I'm at the office today rather than in bed sleeping.

 

 

Amen.

While I remember having more time to do things as a single (not necessarily productive things.......:D) , I just can't bear to waste time or be unproductive..

I only get to spend perhaps 2 hours or so in a weekday with my wife and kid, so if I'm not seeing them, I better be making the most of my time.

 

Not looking forward to a 2 week business trip during the first weeks of February...when its potentially interview time! hopefully.....

[gretta19]

Remember a lot of discrimination is not overt and malicious, but rather the result of our subconscious prejudices that our intellectual selves would not admit we have.

 

This is really important. I'm going to agree with a lot of what has been said here but possible offer a different perspective. I'm a female PhD student and was married between submitting applications and flying out to interviews. I was advised to not wear a ring or bring up the fact that I was married at my interviews. I largely followed that advice. When it came up naturally during two interviews I didn't lie about it but I certainly didn't bring it up on my own.

 

As far as a spouse (or, I would assume, kids) being perceived as a negative thing, I think there's a huge difference based on sex. Like most in this thread, there is no doubt in my mind that I perform better in my program because I have my husband as support. I honestly don't think I could do this without him. That said, the way that others interpret the dynamics and expectations of your relationship are VERY different when you're someone's wife than when you're someone's husband. I truly do not think that people are malicious or even conscious of it but there have been numerous instances where people with a lot of influence on my career have made assumptions about me and my marriage that are potentially damaging that I can't imagine them making about my married, male classmates. I've had professors assume that I was preparing to ask them a question about whether or not to have kids in grad school during a seminar (I was preparing to ask a question specific to a quant paper that had nothing to do with marriage or children), had faculty make comments along the lines of me not really needing funding for an extra year because if I need the extra time, I can just live on my husband's salary, had people talk about how my high FCQs are going to come in handy if I decide to "mommy track," and all of this in conversations that had NOTHING to do with my marriage or (nonexistent) kids.

 

TL;DR: Don't lie. Also don't be naïve. People will make assumptions about your goals and priorities based on what they know of your personal life, whether they mean to or not, and those assumptions can hurt you.

[YaSvoboden]

In my opinion, institutions shouldn't discriminate. I personally believe that the matching process should be on academic/research factors such as research interests, academic achievements, etc, NOT personal characteristics such as family status. Of course, I would not blame any applicant who chose to not attend a school where he/she anticipated facing discrimination; I would blame the school for discriminating and believe the school has a moral obligation to not discriminate.

 

There have to be some boundary conditions on the matching process. What if the interviewers from the school are biased and prefer a certain gender, race, or orientation? Hopefully most of us would agree that that is discrimination, and that there have to be some limits on what the school is justified in considering in terms of the matching process. (Of course I am not saying that discrimination never occurs in reality, but that in the ideal world we would not allow it to occur.)

 

Perhaps if a school is biased against a given group the best thing would actually be to admit MORE people from that group at the program, so those who are biased can be exposed to people different from themselves and hopefully become more open-minded and reduce their biases.

 

Prior to starting my program, I participated in some training on how to conduct interviews which included a discussion of topics that are illegal to ask about (due to violating protected class laws) as well as topics that might not be illegal but could raise biases in the interviewer (in many cases even subconscious biases). Even if we do not consider being a PhD student to be a job, my personal belief is that a similar philosophy/policy that applies to job interviews should apply to PhD applicants so that we can minimize biases and promote diversity (not only of family status but of all sorts).

 

In with you. Programs shouldn't discriminate on any non-merit based measure. I'm not sure that any really do. I think that the general attitude towards this like family and personal life may vary between schools.

 

As an example, a couple weeks ago I was talking to my advisor and told him that my wife is pregnant and due around the same week that I am set to take my comprehensive exam. He congratulated me and we worked on a tentative schedule that would hopefully get me done with everything so I can plan on having a couple of weeks off when I need it. He reminded me that there are things that are actually important in life and then there are things like comprehensive exams.

 

I can't really imagine a school not working with someone that is having a baby around an exam, but it is nice that I can be open about my priorities.

[melek]

Thanks for all of your feedback, it looks like there are a lot of strong opinions about this topic. I definitely won't lie, but I don't think I will mention it unless it somehow comes up. I also agree that it's different if you are a wife or a husband, because women are usually the ones to take on more of the work when it comes to the home and children (if there are or will be any) and a male being married might mean that since he has a wife, he will have help with housework, whereas a woman might have an increased workload at home. So I don't think it's as risky for men to mention that they have a wife as it is for women to say they have a husband. Not necessarily because of discrimination, but I think people automatically make assumptions that influence how they view the applicant.

[PhDPlease]

Remember a lot of discrimination is not overt and malicious, but rather the result of our subconscious prejudices that our intellectual selves would not admit we have. If an interview committee feel most comfortable with people from race x and you are from race y, they might just not react as well to you regardless of whether they are consciously evaluating or discriminating based on race. The reasons that groups like women and minorities often receive lesser outcomes even when equally qualified may not necessarily be the result of overt sexism or racism but implicit bias.

 

Yes, I agree with you. This is part of why I said that my belief is that interviewers should just stick to academic/research-related topics and not get into personal life topics. Even if the intent is to be friendly or make small talk rather than to discriminate, you might have situations where there is unintentional or subconscious discrimination. (I realize many classes of discrimination involve visible characteristics that will be apparent even if the interviewer doesn't ask, but for cases when the characteristic isn't obviously visible, best not to ask/bring it up since that just makes room for potential discrimination.)

 

Of course I do understand that some people will counter-argue that personal questions are necessary to see if there will be a fit and people will get along on a personal level. In my (admittedly limited sample size) personal experience at places that avoided personal questions in interviews, I have found that people still got along and there were not personality conflicts.

[publicaffairsny]

Yes, I agree with you. This is part of why I said that my belief is that interviewers should just stick to academic/research-related topics and not get into personal life topics. Even if the intent is to be friendly or make small talk rather than to discriminate, you might have situations where there is unintentional or subconscious discrimination. (I realize many classes of discrimination involve visible characteristics that will be apparent even if the interviewer doesn't ask, but for cases when the characteristic isn't obviously visible, best not to ask/bring it up since that just makes room for potential discrimination.)

 

Of course I do understand that some people will counter-argue that personal questions are necessary to see if there will be a fit and people will get along on a personal level. In my (admittedly limited sample size) personal experience at places that avoided personal questions in interviews, I have found that people still got along and there were not personality conflicts.

 

Personality is a big deal though. Sense of humor, eye contact, perspective, appropriate choice of topics; these are all qualities that speak to the ability of the researcher to thrive in an academic environment. I know of anecdotal examples of exceptional researchers from top programs who failed to secure a good placement or tenure because of poor communication or personality flaws. So even while there are liabilities of subconscious class or racial prejudices in how we assess personality, it is absolutely valid to discriminate based on personality and it is a key factor in hiring decisions, though probably less of a factor in doctoral admissions. This is why when you go on the job market your interview consists of not one but 2 social engagements with program representatives over dinner, and this group will generally include someone like a department administrator who is not a researcher. Better be able to talk to that person too.

[PhDPlease]

Personality is a big deal though. Sense of humor, eye contact, perspective, appropriate choice of topics; these are all qualities that speak to the ability of the researcher to thrive in an academic environment. I know of anecdotal examples of exceptional researchers from top programs who failed to secure a good placement or tenure because of poor communication or personality flaws. So even while there are liabilities of subconscious class or racial prejudices in how we assess personality, it is absolutely valid to discriminate based on personality and it is a key factor in hiring decisions, though probably less of a factor in doctoral admissions. This is why when you go on the job market your interview consists of not one but 2 social engagements with program representatives over dinner, and this group will generally include someone like a department administrator who is not a researcher. Better be able to talk to that person too.

 

Yea, I think this can often at least partly come through when talking about topics that are less likely to lead to discrimination than asking someone if they are married though. I guess I'd consider personality valid when you are considering things like whether the person will be a good colleague in terms of being polite to others, participating constructively in department events such as seminars, behaving appropriately when interacting with faculty and students, communicating clearly, and that sort of thing. However, I think it is problematic if people start thinking about candidates in terms of whether they fit the imagine of someone who fits a fairly narrow imagine of the sort of person they'd imagine personal friend.

[publicaffairsny]

Yea, I think this can often at least partly come through when talking about topics that are less likely to lead to discrimination than asking someone if they are married though. I guess I'd consider personality valid when you are considering things like whether the person will be a good colleague in terms of being polite to others, participating constructively in department events such as seminars, behaving appropriately when interacting with faculty and students, communicating clearly, and that sort of thing. However, I think it is problematic if people start thinking about candidates in terms of whether they fit the imagine of someone who fits a fairly narrow imagine of the sort of person they'd imagine personal friend.

 

Asking if someone is married is an illegal question. Though it goes both ways. Personal information is a currency and some candidates will attempt to exchange it for personal gain. Ever seen that guy in the interview who whips out the wallet photos of his cute baby? Then with other minefields like money, politics religion, candidates can hang themselves no matter how much rope you give them. With such a personal process its impossible to take the human element out.

Edited January 16, 2015 by publicaffairsny