You can learn as much from the bad interviews as you can from the good ones, says Simon Peyda.
Guest contributor Simon Peyda.
Science is all about trial-and-error, and job interviews were no different for me. My job hunt began in the spring of 2014. With graduation rapidly approaching, and without any curricular preparation, I had to learn along the way. I would inevitably make mistakes but, as it turns out, failure is a great teacher.
My very first interview was a video call – I was a contender for a position as a PhD student with a research group at the University of Cambridge. Set up in a vacant office space, with a notepad full of questions and the laptop ready to go, I accepted the incoming call. My laptop froze. I did the same. A frantic reboot and profuse apologies later, the conversation got underway. Lesson 1: tech-check before a video interview.
Despite the bad start, I interviewed OK. Then, I was asked about my “dream project”. After a brief bout of awkward silence over the airwaves, I gave my best answer. I described a project that barely overlapped with the position I was interviewing for. While my naïve and brutally honest answer cost me the position, we all learned that I was not the ideal candidate. Lesson 2: apply for roles that you’re honestly interested in.
Later, I had another video interview, for a haematology PhD project in the Netherlands. This time, a tech-check prevented an awkward start, and I was invited to visit the laboratory in person for round two. I was sent a related article to read for an intellectual discussion with the PI in the afternoon. I spent the morning of the interview reading about the study one last time. I had anticipated a general talk about the main findings in relation to the proposed project, so I didn’t focus too much on the details. Turns out, this was a mistake.
The afternoon arrived. After a tour of the lab and staff members, the PI and I huddled around a table in a small room. The intellectual dialogue soon fell apart when I was asked to detail the molecular biology of a particular result. Since my focus and preparations had been on the big picture, I panicked and got disoriented. That afternoon, in a room that was getting smaller with every question, we had to revise basic immunology instead of discussing scientific findings. Although the decision would be made later in the day, the outcome was obvious.
Embarrassed, I returned to the airport for the evening flight home. The following week, an e-mail told me that another applicant had been chosen, and gave some constructive criticism. It’s still the most mortifying day of my life, and I would never let it happen again. Lesson 3: Prepare for everything and lesson 4: Don’t panic.
A year into my job hunt, I found a part-time position as a research assistant at Karolinska Institutet. After an informal meeting with the lab manager and project leader, I was hired. Still looking for long-term employment a month later, I applied for a PhD project with Arthritis Research UK at the University of Glasgow. While awaiting news from Scotland, a full-time vacancy was available at work, and I applied. The two applications were successful. I would be interviewed for both positions within a 24 hour timeframe. Firstly, I would meet the professor of the group about the research assistant opening.
Confident from my experience of the role, I interviewed well. Towards the end, the professor asked about Glasgow. I said it was a while away, and I hadn’t been accepted yet. He offered to hire me, with an extension if I didn’t start the PhD. The deal was done and I travelled to Scotland. The next morning, I arrived in Glasgow and was interviewed in a bright, sunny conference room. The mood was light-hearted and the panel members were welcoming. I had nothing to lose and left Scotland satisfied. They would contact me in the coming weeks.
I was unlucky again, but I wasn’t devastated: the job hunt was over. It’s now early 2016 and the project is almost finished. I’m confident that the trial-and-error process of the past has prepared me well for future job interviews. Lesson 5: Learn from your failures.
Simon Peyda holds an MSc in Biomedicine from Karolinska Institutet. During his studies he experienced five projects in four research labs at three universities in two countries, with one focus: immunology.
Report this comment
“While my naïve and brutally honest answer cost me the position”. I do not think this was only a reason to be refused, because the competition to get a position in the University of Cambridge is extremely high.
Report this comment
Hello Sergey,
Thank you for your comment. Indeed, the competition is fierce and there were likely other reasons for not selecting me as well. In retrospect, I can identify other things that I would have done differently. What I chose to highlight in the story was perhaps the most likely reason why I was not offered the position, though.
As you imply, we would all be strong contenders to even have the interview to begin with and in a scenario where candidates are equally qualified it is details, e.g. motivation, that prove decisive. From their perspective as employers and future colleagues, they want the candidate with the biggest passion about their research to join the their team. In my mind, that was one reason for asking the “dream project” question.
Briefly, when I applied for Cambridge I was in the middle of my master dissertation project on blood cancer and macrophages. The Cambridge position was about another aspect of blood cancer and that is why I applied. That question then revealed that my passion was more about immunology than oncology. They likely realised that from the answer I gave and I am glad I learned what I really wanted to do.
Finally, I value honesty highly and do not regret that I answered honestly. In fact, I have surprised a few interviewers who have told me “That is an honest thing to say” or “It was honest of you to say that”.
Through honesty both parties will be satisfied, as explained by the stable matching theory that was awarded the ‘Nobel Prize’ in Economics in 2012
I hope that I have clarified the situation for you, Sergey.
Thank you for reading and sharing your thoughts,
Best regards,
Simon
Report this comment
Oh, yes—the more bruised your shins are, the wiser your head is! Or as Alanis Morissette once put it:
You live you learn
You love you learn
You cry you learn
You lose you learn
You bleed you learn
You scream you learn
On one point I agree with Sergey, though: I think you make a too strong connection between what you consider your own mistakes and the outcome. Mature and sensible seniors see through the small blunders and nervousness and try to get a picture of the junior in front of them – “does she/he have the right stuff”? As the competition for the few positions available is murderous, you have to keep trying and trying again, no matter how talented you are.
PS The cross-examination by the PI in the Netherlands gives me the creeps; from the info given here, you should be happy that you didn’t get the position!
Report this comment
Hi Olof,
Thank you for your feedback – and for sharing some Alanis Morisette with us.
Yes, it is probable that experienced recruiters disregard certain aspects. As I mentioned to Sergey, in my case it must have been more than what I focused on in the story. It was my first interview experience and I would have been surprised if I had nailed it straight away. To quote another of my favourite songs: “ all of your failures are training grounds “.
About the Netherlands; I must stress that I have not intended to portray anyone badly. While it was the worst moment in my life, the PI was in fact understanding and tried to help me get back on track because it was supposed to be a discussion but it turned into a lecture about things I would be expected to know already.
Realising my focus had been wrong, my mind had gone completely blank and I could not even recall the co-stimulatory mechanism of T cells at the time. I had prepared and taken notes, with the PI could see, but I had simply misunderstood what we were supposed to discuss.
Moreover, the final decision was based on the individual discussion, an oral presentation that followed in front of the other lab members, and lastly a meeting with a co-supervisor for the project. Theoretically, I could have rectified the poor discussion performance but given the mindset I was in, the rest was not good enough either.
While it was a crushing experience, I feel most of it was my own inexperience and I do not blame anyone else for what happened. As mentioned, I would never wish for anyone to end up in such an embarrasing situation however, and that has been a motivation to share my “failures” with the Naturejobs blog readership.
Thank you for your comment,
Simon