In December I completed my MA in American history. I have applied to several PhD programs and they are making their decesions as I type. I am going to be near one of the schools I applied to in a few days presenting a paper at a conference. I made appointments to meet with the graduate director and the proffessor I want to study under. I will also attend their monthly colliquem that afternoon.
I want to make a good impression. Any tips? Questions I should ask? Things I should say? Things I should avoid? Any and all advice is greatly appreciated.
I don’t know how relevant tips from CS are going to be but my advice would be to bring in previously published pieces of work, be prepared to explain them including the necessary background and thinking that went into them and how this extends into a future arc. Have a sense of why you want to be doing a PhD program and what you want to accomplish. Finally, figure out if you would be a good fit personality wise with your potential advisor. Show an interest in the research your advisor is doing and ask good questions.
I’m in a PhD program in history. It definitely is recruiting season!
Here’s my best advice (for whatever it’s worth). Do not hit on people. Do not get screamingly drunk. Be friendly and polite. Yes, yes, I know this all seems obvious. Apparently, to some people, it’s not.
More seriously, be a politer version of yourself. I know you want to get into schools, but you don’t want to go somewhere, even if they accept you, that doesn’t fit your needs. Have a fairly good idea of the direction you want to go in, research-wise, and make sure you don’t sound like an idiot when talking about it.
I’m on the other side of this – professor reviewing applications. All the advice above is good. Be yourself and project that you would be an interesting grad student to work with…your potential future advisor is probably the most important. If they tell the admissions committee, Hey, let Thrash in, it is likely to be the decision.
I’m interviewing undergrads at the moment to join my group as PhD students. The basic quality I’m looking for is potential to excel at the research level, but it’s often difficult to pin down this nebulous phenomenon. The safest best is to fall back on the good old ‘past performance is the best guide to future performance’ and attempt a triangulation of undergrad achievement, letters of reference and personal impression. The references can be key - if someone endorses you with a ‘I would take this person on in my own group’, or you have offers from elsewhere, that is v reassuring.
The problem with the past performance guide is that sometimes undergraduate superstars have reached their intellectual peak at that level. I have seen this at first hand on several occasions, people who have left their days of excellence behind them in the undergrad examination halls. They go on to be OK PhD students, because hard work gets you a long way, but they’re disappointing in light of their previous achievements. So anything you can do to throw some light onto your fitness for the next level, rather than the level you’re at, can really strengthen your case. People who understand that separation usually impress me.
You have to be yourself, to use a horrendous cliche. In my field, the PhD is really the first steps to getting serious with the subject, so I’m not looking for the finished article at interview stage, not by a long chalk. I’ve interviewed some undergrads who have attempted a critical appraisal of my research and pulled it off with style and panache. Others have done the same and my office has turned into the South Pole, plus tumbleweed. So there is no perscription for how you manifest your potential - you won’t go wrong, though, with showing some recognition at what the PhD means to you plus an appreciation of what you’re taking on and what it can give you.
You need to find out how your supervisor is to work with. Getting along well with your supervisor is your main priority. You should ask other students in the research group what your chosen supervisor is like. Some professors really are dicks, and they’re often pre-eminent enough that getting on the wrong side of them is career threatening (there is somebody like this in our department).
You should also look at the research group/department as a whole, to see if they get on with each other. Strangely, some don’t!
Do not suggest that you have a massive crush on your current advisor or that you (mistakenly, we presume) believe that your 30+ years older married advisor has feels for you. We STILL talk about that one…
But yes, mind your manners and stay sober. Less obvious advice: Ask questions about the school. This kind of interview is half you selling yourself to them and half them selling themselves to you. Don’t forget the second half.
Oh, if you’re stuck in an interview and are trying to fill an awkward silence, ask the prof about their work and try not to yawn.