Hi everyone,

I had an interview for a PhD position today, which I was told I would hear back about by the end of next week. I find it hard to tell how the interview went- a few questions I feel I didn't answer properly that I can't put out of my head but overall it was okay.

I was just wondering if anyone had any insight into how much your application/CV/experience/qualifications count for in comparison to the interview when the lecturers are making a decision on the best candidate? For example, let's say the university interview 5 people today, and hypothetically I had the best application but performed 3rd best in the interview- would they automatically give it to the person they thought answered their questions the best, or would everything be taken into account? Or does this really depend on the university?

Thanks in advance!!

I usually assume that if you have made the interview, then you are on a level playing field at that point with everything to play for. Unless there was a tie (there rarely is in practice) you can forget the application process and yor grades now and expect it to be based on the interview.

I would expect the person who performed best at interview will be offered the position.
This is what happens in industry. Of course academia is a law unto itself.

I agree re law unto itself!

I think the interview matters more than the application - but all will be taken into account.

Good luck and don't worry - every goofs up on some questions!

I would agree, it's mostly riding on the interview now ie their perceptions of you. Are you resilient, are you knowledgeable, are you interested, are you capable and do they think you will fit into the research group?

If someone has the worst application, but did the 'best' at interview, I no longer care about the application. If they gave a crap interview but have a great application, they have no chance.

This is the same in any interview in my experience, although there's no 'point scoring' in academia like there is in business. They just give it to who they want to give it to. Doesn't matter, the outcome is the same.

True! Basically you just have to go for it and apply for a number of funding options / positions to try and secure funding with the knowledge that being rejected doesn't necessarily mean that you aren't good enough.

pm133 - do you stand by your statement in another recent thread that not being awarded funding is "a strong message that your research is not valued enough by our society to bother funding"? Just wondered as it seems a bit contradictory to what you've posted here about academics interviewing token candidates to tick boxes and then giving the position to the one they wanted in the first place.

Thanks for the replies everyone! That’s interesting to hear.
Tudor_Queen it was a funded PhD which the university were interviewing 5-6 people for for 1 place unfortunately, so if I don’t get it i can’t look for extra funding or anything, that’ll be that- but thank you for the advice :)

I guess it all boils down to how the other candidates performed on the day and maybe a little on what their opinions were of everyone before the interviews- hate this waiting game to hear back it’s so nerve wracking! Hopefully this time in 5 days I’ll know!