Eight common errors I see in PhD applications and interviews, and how to avoid them

Email Bluesky Facebook LinkedIn Reddit Whatsapp X Credit: Peter Dazeley/Getty Each year, my laboratory receives around 200 PhD-student applications. I also serve on the admissions committee for a doctoral programme at the University of Illinois Urbana–Champaign that receives between 300 and 500 applications annually, often for only 3–5 slots. After reviewing hundreds of files and interviewing many applicants in each cycle, I have noticed that the same mistakes appear again and again, including some that I made when I was applying for graduate programmes. I wish that someone had told me the things I am about to share. These mistakes are not about grades or awards. They are about how applicants communicate, present their ideas and engage with the research environments that they want to join. Although my perspective comes from a background in psychology and health research, the applicants to my Health Equity and Action Lab at the University of Illinois come from a variety of fields because of the interdisciplinary nature of our work. The patterns that I describe crop up across these research areas, even if specific expectations vary by PhD programme. Here are four of the most common application mistakes, as well as four interview mistakes, that I see — and how to avoid them. Writing a personal statement without a research direction Many applicants focus entirely on why they care about a field. These stories can be moving and sincere, but they rarely tell me what the applicant wants to study or how they think scientifically. By ‘what do you want to study?’, I mean having even a broad sense of the questions or themes that interest you. By ‘how do you think scientifically?’, I mean showing how you approach problems, make decisions and reason through uncertainty. These are not the same questions. For example, an applicant might say that they want to study how discrimination affects youth mental health. That is a topic. If they add that they are interested in comparing daily diary entries and interview methods because each one captures distinct aspects of lived experience, that tells me how they think as a developing scientist. I often reach the end of a personal statement and think, ‘you clearly care, but what do you want to study once you arrive?’. What to do instead. Provide a brief overview of the research direction you want to pursue. It can be broad. It does not need to be a proposal. A question, a theme and a sense of how you’d approach the research is enough to make your application feel more focused and compelling. Using the word ‘fit’ without showing how you would fit in Most applicants say that they are a strong fit for a lab or a programme. Few demonstrate it. Some people list work that they’ve done with colleagues from their previous lab that is unrelated to the position they’re applying for, which can signal that they do not understand the content of the programme. Others paste the same paragraph into every application. Fit cannot be declared. It must be shown, and what you write about being a good fit should match how you describe it during interviews. What to do instead. Show that you understand what the group is doing now. Mention one of their projects, publications or methods and explain why it interests you. Be specific and genuine. Checking faculty websites, the lab’s recent research output and researcher profiles on Google Scholar can help you to describe your suitability clearly and accurately. Avoiding or hiding weaknesses Almost every application has a gap or an irregularity. People might have had a difficult semester, a break from university, a late start in research or a period of limited productivity. Leaving these issues unexplained is one of the most avoidable mistakes. When applicants do not provide context, reviewers begin to make guesses — and guessing is rarely favourable to the prospective student. What to do instead. Offer a short and clear explanation. Then show evidence of how you improved after the period in question. Committees care more about your trajectory and maturity than about a perfect record. I’ve also had a few instances in my career when my productivity was inconsistent, particularly when I was looking for a job in academia. Some examples include the period after my bachelor’s degree when I was not doing research, and during my PhD when I was focusing on my clinical training while dealing with an illness in my family. What reviewers cared about was the clear upward trajectory I could demonstrate afterwards, not the temporary setback. Listing tasks instead of demonstrating thinking Many applications include long lists of tasks completed. Applicants say that they collected data, ran simulations, processed samples or conducted analyses. What is often missing is any sense of their intellectual contribution. Without this, reviewers cannot evaluate an individual’s research potential. What to do instead. Explain what problem you were trying to solve, how you approached chal