UKH

I have an interview next week for a research masters project in a sciency subject. It's in a subject I have no prior knowledge of, having studied physics for my first degree, but it's quite mathematical so the physics should help.

So far, my preparation has involved studying textbooks to give myself a background in the subject and I'm moving onto reading research papers to get up to date with the current level of understanding. Can anyone who's done an MRes give me some indication of what I might get asked in an interview? Are they likely to grill me in depth about the subject or am I just stressing myself out too much? Should I instead expect 'why here/this subject?' type questions?

Also, what should I wear? A suit seems like overkill but might jeans seem too casual?

In reply to Trevers:
I've never been grilled too much on subject matter.

Occasionally they will throw the odd term at you.

I had 'What does the term ecosystem resilience mean to you'

And 'What is the greatest threat to the oceans at the moment?'

But apart from that more why here, why this post, where do you see yourself in 10 years time? How does this position fit in your longer term plan?

And then specific questions on my background and how that fits into their needs

I'd look at bigger picture stuff, where their research fits into the field and what the main issues are, then drill into their more recent publications.

Good luck. Just beware that a lot of academic posts are internal positions, advertised for the sake of it, with the position already lined up for someone else. So sometimes they can be pretty shit to you.

Interviews vary a lot, some you get a fair go at, some I thought were horrible.

re what to wear, suit or at least a shirt, trousers, tie..

In reply to Trevers:

Unlikely they'll grill you about detailed information for a Masters. They really just want to check that you're motivated and committed to the programme.

They might (should) ask you a few questions about your understanding of the field as a whole, really just to demonstrate that you have an interest in the subject. Certainly not at the level of having read a bunch of papers. Better to have a clear idea of why you want to do the course and be able to articulate that. Know enough to be able to ask some questions about the project.

As for dress, a suit may be overkill but that wouldn't count against you (wearing a suit in an academic environment always feels a bit odd). There's no real dress code for these things, but personally I like to see that the student has made some effort to be presentable (smart casual is fine).

Good luck.

In reply to Trevers:

They won't grill you on stuff you're not expected to know about yet- though you would be expected to show awareness of what the subject you're applying for is about.

Primarily, they'll ask about what *you*'ve done, as a means of assessing your overall ability. So they'll ask you to talk about your recent work (say physics degree project).

They will be interested in your motivation for doing this course, so expect questions about that.


No.


Yes!


Yes.

Dress: smart casual (as opposed to casual casual, i.e. not jeans). A suit won't do any harm but is not required.

In reply to Trevers:

The most important part of your preparation is to know who you will be talking to. Have a look at the departmental website, check out the most recent publications of the group you are applying to, etc. ...

I always ask applicants why the would like to join my group in particular, just to see whether they have bothered to check up on what we are doing. Indeed, my lab web page is slightly out of date. Although I would like to claim that this is done on purpose, it is largely due to lazyness. However, there is a useful side effect, in that this helps with identifying any candidates who have looked up recent publications by my group using pubmed, rather than just scanning the institute home page, which counts as an immediate bonus.

I also ALWAYS ask why an prospective student wants to join my group in particular. A generic answer, e.g. professing an interest in stem cells and regeneration, is typically not good enough (we do work with stem cells, but not regeneration, although most other groups in the institute do). I am much more impressed by applicants who refer to a recent publication, either because they like the scientific question or want to learn a particular technique.

I also ask any candidates whether they have applied elsewhere. The point here is not that they should be interested in my group alone (that would be preposterous), but it gives me a good idea about their ambitions: Do they just want to stay in the city (for reasons that can be perfectly fine, I have recruited several excellent students whose partners went to one of the bigshot labs next door), or do they have a rough idea which labs are doing good science in my field?

Good luck!

CB

In reply to cb294:

Thanks for the advice!

On this occasion, I have only applied to the one department, for a mixture of reasons (academic and lifestyle). Do you think this is going to look bad on me, or should it be alright as long as I can justify that choice?

In reply to Trevers:
I wouldn't expect a subject specific grilling but you need some broad knowlege of the subject area to show you are keen and interested.

Yes expect why here/why this subject. You will need to be able to talk about why you choose this course. You should also be bale to talk knowledgeably and passionately about previous research e.g. dissertations, research based modules. Expect the question "What did you do? and what did you find out?" as for a research masters they are expecting you to be a more independent scientist not just to have followed what you supervisor told you to do.

Wear shirt and smart trousers. Taking the jacket and tie with you won't hurt and you can decide to wear them or not depending on what feels more comfortable.

In reply to Trevers:

No, just say you guys are first choice, the call came up at the right time, it fits great both topicwise and with your other plans, but you would of course look at other labs if this falls through.

Just make sure you have a convincing reason why you want to join this particular lab,

CB

In reply to Trevers:
Just justify it, still pretty early.

I only applied to 2 PhDs. In those days BSc > PhD directly was more common.

In reply to Trevers:

On the dress standard, for academic positions you can get away with just about anything. Anything with elbow pads will certainly help you fit in tho.

As for the interview itself, the most important things for institutions these days is that a) you will complete and b) you won't be a militant thorn in their side when you discover the supervision or estates are not up to scratch. So coming across as self-motivated and willing to make your own arrangements to get through, rather than relying on the institution to provide for you, will be useful. Any willingness to represent the institution at conferences and to contribute to any campus events without pay will also be an added bonus.

I would disagree with the "jobs reserved for internal applicants" view. As public sector institutions we are bastions of right-on recruitment policy. Stellar internal candidates are routinely cast aside in favour of an external candidate interviewing better. If you can appeal to the individual research interests of those on the interview panel then it will go a long way.

In reply to Falung:

Not if they bring the money in...

I've certainly written my own job advert a few times..

In reply to Roadrunner5:

In the era of RAE/REF, I've seen many a good and shoe-in internal candidate turned down for an incompetent lecturer who has an extra publication or two.

In reply to Falung:
So have I and with technically illegal contract roll-overs often resulting, to keep the proven 'teaching machine'. Birds in bush prioritised but dont forget to tempt the bird in the hand with another year. Of course if they could just publish those 3 top journal articles (they don't really have time for on a full and constantly changing teaching load) they could get that job. Frankly it stinks but nothing like as bad as the mass abuse of lecturing ZHCs.

Its pretty sad what too many UK Universities are becoming: qualification and research factories with strict quality compliance but little evidence of senior management understanding of real quality; beyond the tick boxes they too often have scant interest in: genuine learning, properly looking after the staff they employ, or even academic freedom. I've loved my job (the students from foundation to PhD, the research, the very profitable and rewarding international development) and have been very good at it but even so have been lucky to survive several engineering departmental closures (as if the UK is overrun with home grown engineers) and would really struggle to do it if I was starting my career right now. Hence I now think that those who are honest who are considering an academic career in a UK University need to either be totally dedicated to becoming an academic and preferably a real research star with superb resiliance to weather unexpected storms or reconsider their choice (lots of countries offer better T&Cs to teach and research in English in academia... and with some of our Universities trying to outdo anyone on blood and claw career progression for the elite, the elite will almost always do better elsewhere... even work for a company... or start your own). Of course if you are an able but brown-nosing sociopathic type, things are much easier... you may even make VC. My greatest worry is in this race to become as corporate as possible the medium term reputation of most of our mid level Universities could quickly become so damaged (at the time of fast growing external and online competition) the majority of the system could just implode.

In reply to Offwidth:

While I can sympathise with the pain the current university system produces, there is a flip side. My colleagues fail to see how good they've got it, with an apparent right to refuse to teach first year UGs, classes sometimes recruiting less than 5 students, and all of 4 hours teaching a week in total for just 20 weeks of the year...

All that coinciding with an unwillingness to abide by any management requests, be it UKBA demands that we take class registers, or that we give an accurate account for time spent on research, teaching and admin. Its no wonder that management are on the offensive as the waste and shirking knows no bounds. The telling point was our last voluntary severance round, where an award of one year's salary failed to elicit a single applicant from academic staff. That is despite all and sundry claiming the working conditions were intolerable and that we are being cruelly oppressed. Point being, there is a lot of whinging, but deep down it seems to be understood that we have it good, with virtually no oversight of our work other than to submit REF ready publications...many failing to achieve even that.

There are far far tougher jobs out there, with far fewer career/salary prospects, and none of the perks in terms of sabbatical and research leave, generous holiday, or sick leave arrangements.

In reply to Trevers:

Ignore the cynics here - if it is a good department in a subject you are genuinely interested in, you will have great year. At the interview show interest, background knowledge, that you have your own ideas rather than require minute direction, can write, know about academic literature review etc. The relationship with your supervisor will be crucial. If possible talk to them, if they are not interviewing you. Make sure you understand the way they work and expect you to work with them. Is their a rapport there or do get a bad feeling? Walk away if this aspect isn't positive.

In reply to Offwidth:

If it offers you any comfort, the German academic system is just the same.

CB

In reply to Roadrunner5:



I think this is quite common, but I also know of several people from different institutions who wrote their own job advert and then didn't get the job when someone else interviewed better...

In reply to kathrync:

On a pessimistic note I have been to several phd interviews where it was painfully obvious they already had an internal candidate lined up. But then again maybe I was just rubbish a friend thought she had a phd in the bag and and had a good relationship with the supervisors only to loose it to some bright star at interview. Be warned research msc's are generally ridiculously oversubscribed.

In reply to Falung:

That is what happens when the management system, UUK down, starts to rot. Of course your colleagues have a good job but they are highly trained people who, are amongst the brightest in the UK. Why on earth would they celebrate that they are better off than other jobs when for most its nothing like as good as it was and getting worse each year (job pressure is much larger across the board, pay (excepting at the very top) is worse, conditions much worse, pensions much worse): its hardly motivational, which management theory tells us is the key task of a good system. In any case I was talking about the prospects for the next generation of academics which look really shit unless something big changes soon.

In the 30 years I've been an academic: the workload has nearly doubled, student staff ratios have more than doubled, research has gone from uncontrolled to heavily directed (aggressively so in some areas with people forced out not making the grade), research outputs must fit in neat parcels arguably stopping the concentrated thinking time needed for some of the very best work done in the past, staff admin has tripled for no noticeable quality gain, direct admin support has reduced, subject staff development has gone from healthily supported to nearly all done on our own in our spare time (or through research links), our ability to teach is now measured by a portfolio essay to the (management run) HEA (conning the students and parents that we are better qualified than ever), management negotiations have gone from broadly sensible to barely used (most things offically due to be negotiated are just imposed these days) and for all this, pay, conditions of service and pensions have got a lot worse. Academics are pretty resilient but I'd say too many are close to breaking point in many institutions. For the moment, our main outputs are broadly holding up: undergraduate quality has held reasonably well, despite mass increase in numbers, although there are sticking plasters in many areas compared to the past standards; postgraduates have increased (if standards have dropped more obviously) but hidden in this, home numbers are a becoming a national disaster, as its more about making money to fill government funding gaps ( from recruiting overseas students) than meeting even minimum national needs. UK research outputs are internationally excellent but the investment to achieve this increasingly exceeds income so is not stable in many institutions. Its not all bad: there are a few beacons of good practice institutionally; in the top ranked institutions and some pockets below research stars do well and even in bad places a few teams 'shine a light'.

When I started I'd say on average the UK universities were regarded as easily the best in the world, I can't say that now and the outlook is worse still.

As for your other points: on the redundancy offer why on earth should anyone leave your place with a years pay unless they have a job set up.... they would get more (and more time to look for alternatives) by being forced out; as for lack of oversight what on earth is being an academic for if not that? UKBA demand institutions take registers not academics...wtf is wrong with investing in swipe cards in the modern world or a cheap classroom assisstant, rather than wasting expensive academic time?

In reply to cb294:

No its not. We work with plenty of German academic colleagues. Its getting worse but its nothing like as bad as the UK.

In reply to MG:

Ignoring large scale cynicism is daft: with this much smoke what chances are there that there is no fire.

I'm not telling the OP not to go for the post. I'm just saying consider very carefully if they want to follow this up with an academic career.

In reply to Offwidth:


Large. You sound like the Three Yorkshiremen in reverse. Things change - some get better, some worse, some just different. Adapt and live with this rather than harking back to some mythical past.

In reply to MG:

Adapt? What do you think academics have been doing?? Having to adapt doesn't always make the reasons for it good or the adapting enjoyable nor particularly in this, case the vocation more attractive to new starters. We can also adapt by going elsewhere (as many do). I lived that past. It was no myth.

I've adapted to 4 partial departmental closures from 3 versions of engineering through most recently computing. Our standards have always been good, our research matched the best in the institution as did our external income, and our employability was up with the best in the UK. Nearly everyone who left recently in the downsizes was willing and able to continue helping train the future wealth generators of the UK. One prof who left in the earlier rounds has recently retired again as a multi-millionaire entrepreneur. Nearly all those lost in the most recent changes needed replacements within a couple of years. The waste in all this because we insist in an uncontrolled UK market in arguably stratetigicly important subjects is dreadful. I continue to adapt by encouraging better future practice on central committees I'm elected or asked to serve on.

Name me some real improvements in contracts, conditions or prospects in the last decade that have made the job more attractive, if you can.

In reply to Offwidth:

That is exactly not what I wanted to hear (applying in UK again...)

CB

In reply to Offwidth:

Interesting how much adjuncts are used in the US. I 'm doing it now but will leave soon.

To continue to Biology as a post doc I'll have to continue to move around and after the best part of 10 years I'm sick of it and just want a job so me and the wife can live in the same area. Maybe in 5-10 years I'll re-enter but for now I think I'll go into teaching as we need regular pay (and benefits which are hugely important here) whilst she's a med student/resident.

But in the US a huge amount of lower level undergrad courses are taught by Adjuncts on poor pay, no health care, little pension. It's just a much cheaper system and there is such a glut of bio PhD's post docs the supply is there.

In reply to Roadrunner5:

Aye - it certainly is a much cheaper system. I had a request from an ex colleague "would you like to do some teaching - we badly need some faculty. Of course we couldn't pay you initially...". I managed to refrain from laughing. And was polite in my "No."

In reply to Roadrunner5:


Is that you Mr IR? Presumed so but wasn't sure. In which case you mentioned thinking about teaching. Are you thinking of doing a PGCE in the UK? I'm finding it bloody hard work! Just lots and lots of hours, knackering and making me feel I'm not looking after my own kids properly. But the end is in sight, I've made it this far with out going totally mental, and hopefully sooner or later I'll have a job for next year. More jobs in the sciences I think, so if you did do it you would probably have less stress about landing a position.

In reply to TobyA:
Yeah, I'm looking at the alternative route in NJ, you do it whilst you teach.. Hard work but you get paid.

In reply to Roadrunner5:

At my first placement last autumn we had two American trainee teachers visit for a few weeks on an exchange. Interesting hearing how their experience differed. Have a read of this too: http://www.taughtbyfinland.com/home/work-life-balance-in-finland-americans-... and American teacher now working in Finland, he doesn't make the amount of work involved in the US sound too attractive, but I shouldn't be trying to put you off!

In reply to TobyA:
I sub teach now so have some idea, but it's a much lower work load, but the main thing I've seen I show much the schools vary across districts.. It can be chalk and cheese just 2-3 miles away.

But right now I barely earn minimum wage lecturing, subbing and coaching athletics and don't have any health coverage..

I'm not certain, I took my subject exams today, but think I'll do this at least for the next 3-5 years whilst my finishes need school / residency..

Biology isn't a huge shortage area but I should find work ok..

In reply to Roadrunner5:

You can always cook meth as sideline to make some more cash, at least I understand that's what US science teachers do.

In reply to Roadrunner5:
We have major postdoc issues in science, especially biosciences, but not as bad as the US. Our research success generates many reasonably well paid RA and RF contracts but these are fixed (ie hard to get a mortgage) and vary in their objectives, so after a couple of rolled posts they can hit a gap wih no obvious fit to the latest grant's advertised new role. Moving to a lectureship is difficult for some as the teaching load may not suit the candidate or may eat time such that their research stalls. We really need more 'gap' funding between contracts and ideally some senior research fellow posts so those with the best consistent research outputs who are not so interested in undergrad teaching can be retained and maybe transition to readerships direct. Most research grant awarders and institutions seem very unwilling to fund these highly pragmatic fixes for the benefit of the long-term success.

In reply to Trevers:

I done a MRes at Reading Uni back in 1999. I never had an in depth interview as, I was just asked what I had been studying in my first degree, I talked about my dissertation for 10 minutes, was asked why I want to do the MRes and my plans for the future, that was it really. Over and done with in about 30 minutes