how to apply for PhD's | Timothy R. Sandhu

NB: This blog used to be on WordPress, and has been slightly updated since then, but the main content has stayed the same.

Before starting my PhD, I applied (mostly unsuccessfully) for lots of PhD places and funding schemes. I’m writing this post for anyone thinking about a career in academia/applying for a PhD, and I would encourage anyone with even the slightest interest to do so. I applied for projects in cognitive neuroscience/computational psychiatry/neurology. I hope this post will be useful to anyone applying for a STEM PhD, although what is required for your prospective courses may differ.

For context, here is a table showing how far I got across three years/rounds of applications. I should also note at the top that these experiences are based on applying to predominantly UK universities/funding bodies, bar one funded place in Ireland.

First Round	Second Round	Third Round
Post interview rejection	Accepted without funding	Accepted with funding
Post interview rejection	Accepted without funding	Accepted with funding
Withdrew post interview	Failed funding application	Withdrew post interview
Rejected pre interview	Failing funding application	Accepted without funding
Rejected pre interview	Post interview rejection	Post interview rejection
Rejected pre interview	Rejected pre interview	Rejected pre interview
Rejected pre interview	Rejected pre interview	Rejected pre interview
Rejected pre interview	Funding rejected pre interview
	Failed funding application

I’ve left the university names out for privacy. Several of the applications were for the same scheme and or university, or with the same supervisor. See the Proposals section.

This post has some reflections on my PhD applications. I’ve split it up chronologically into key sections, trying to focus on the different stages of applying for a PhD. There’s several short chunks of hopefully digestible info, along with links to relevant footnotes. A rough table of contents as a spoiler:

Thinking about academia?
The importance of research experience
What’s in a PhD application?
Doctoral training partnership applications
Proposing a project with a supervisor
PhD Interviews
Presentations for interviews
Interviews
Specific interview questions
Harsh realities
Concluding remarks
Footnotes (linked within other pages)

Big thanks to (in alphabetical surname order) to Sammi Chekroud, Saskia Frisky, Debesh Mandal, Gavin Shields and Natalia Zdorovtsova for their comments on earlier versions of this blog. Thanks also to my fellow PhD cohort, and the Prediction and Learning Lab.

Thinking about academia?

The first (and most important) thing to say is that if you want to get into academia, you can end up here from many routes. Academia may not have been a lifelong ambition; it certainly wasn’t in my case (I wanted to do graduate medicine). You can also pursue academia alongside other employment options such as grad schemes; it doesn’t have to be one or the other. I think the following things are important to bear in mind when thinking about academia as a career (or at least doing a PhD):

The title of your undergraduate degree doesn’t define your skills and background. If you think these skills are suited to particular field, don’t let that hold you back (i.e. if your first degree isn’t in psychology, you can still apply for a PhD in psychology)
Whilst academia is a great career choice if you want to ‘make a difference’, you need to be realistic about the timescale of this difference and its potential impact (see harsh realities #1).
Be curious. Academia has been very ‘small world’ in my experience. Read that random article someone sent you. It could become the thing you end up becoming interested in/pursuing a PhD in (like me).

The importance of research experience

If you’re still thinking about academia after this - get some research experience. Just do it. I can’t stress this enough. I’ve worked loads of jobs - there’s nothing quite like academia. This is something you want to do to see if you like it, you won’t know what it’s like until you try. In and outside of academia, experience can often be a thorn in your side when applying for positions. Don’t treat it as a hoop to jump through, treat it as an opportunity. Here are some more reasons why you should:

Research experience at any stage of the process will give you greater insight into how to actually test out a hypothesis
Experience will help you to think about what you can do when you begin your own research projects
You will likely need to talk about it in a PhD application, so it may make you more competitive

I should note here that a lack of experience doesn’t mean you won’t make a good researcher. Your ability is just not as easily evidenced without experience. Having experience can make it easier/more concrete for people to see how good you are, especially when the people reviewing your application are reviewing so many of them.

I would say that any kind of research experience is a great starting point. You’ll be surprised how much you absorb even just sitting in lab meetings. Ideally, you want experience actually running an experiment, but this may not be possible. Here are a few points about how to get this initial experience:

If you’re an undergrad, ask around to see if anyone knows of any internship positions, some labs will advertise (see here if you’re worried about emailing academics).
Lots of people will be busy and won’t have time for undergrads. Don’t be disheartened, you can only ask.
If you’re looking for a research assistant post, ask around too (again, see here if you’re worried about emailing academics). You should also keep an eye on places like X/Twitter/BlueSky, jobs.ac.uk etc.
Commit when you eventually get into a lab. Try and go to as many meetings as possible. It might make a good impression, but more importantly you definitely absorb more about the field by sitting and listening to people talking about it for a few hours a week.
Contribute. Doesn’t matter if it’s one word at first. Even as an undergrad, if you don’t understand something, you have the right to ask for it to be explained. Suggest an interesting idea if it comes to you. Everyone has said things in lab meetings they wouldn’t say again; it’s all an exchange of ideas. Some will be good some will be bad. Getting confident in these settings will allow you to get more out of them.
Try formalizing your ideas for experiments. Formulate some hypotheses and show you would test them. Show your supervisor if you want to. This will be good practice and shows you can think through the scientific process.
You should definitely help out on some testing/run your own experiments if there is scope. This will be the most help to you when it comes to applying for further academic positions.
If relevant, learn to code.

What’s in a PhD application?

Let’s say by this point you’ve had some research experience, you might even have done some testing for a researcher in a lab you’ve been a part of, and you’re committed to research going forward. The next step is to apply for a PhD. In my field, there are a couple of routes to a PhD. I’ll focus on 1 and 3 in this post. Most schemes are one of these:

A doctoral training partnership, centre for doctoral training, or 1+3 scheme. These schemes do not necessarily specify a supervisor to work with or project to work on. There may be a range of possible projects, from which you can choose if successful.
An advertised project from somewhere like FindaPhd.com. These schemes specify a project (to varying degrees of flexibility) and a supervisory team.
Funding for your own proposed PhD project. This is an application for you, your proposed project and your supervisor for some of the money kept in university pots. Funding can come from charities (such as the Wellcome Trust), industry partnerships, UK Research and Innovation (overarching body containing MRC etc) or you can self-fund your research.

You can apply for a mix of all of these, and consider all options you apply to (and don’t apply to anything you wouldn’t consider). The following sections contain a rough summary of my experience with these types (Option 1 and 3) of applications. Some initial tips for ANY application:

Make sure you understand the application procedure. I very nearly missed out on being considered for my PhD funding because I misunderstood when my references needed to be in. There’s not much point having the world’s best application only to not get it funded because you missed the deadline.
If you’ve got multiple options for referees, have a think about who might be best to write you one. Make sure all elements of your application are covered. Make sure your academic potential, research experience, commitment etc can all be covered fairly by your referees. Your undergraduate dissertation/current supervisor may not be able to comment on your academic ability, and your tutor from university can’t comment on your research experience.
You do not need to continue previous research themes or work with the same supervisor if you feel you would be happier doing something different.
If there is anyone listed as a potential supervisor/you know who you are hoping to work with - get in contact with them immediately. See the just do it for tips on how to. They will likely know the application process better than you do.
Do not forget that you (usually) have to live where you do your PhD. If you have seen a great PhD in Leeds, but don’t want to live north of Birmingham, you might struggle. Don’t throw yourself at a project if you’re not sure that the whole package (life too!) works for you.

A couple of things to be aware of when you’re thinking about submitting your application:

Keep abreast of any changes in funding schemes and the impact that might have on where you apply.
Interviews can come at short notice after an application.
If you’re lucky enough to get more than one interview, you may not have much time in between.

Option 1: DTP Applications

Expanding on Option 1 above, we come onto some brief notes on doctoral training partnerships (DTPs) or centre for doctoral training (CDT) applications. The freedom of being able to choose your own supervisor (and to some extent project) is competitive. Compared to other routes, you should also focus on trying to sell yourself, as opposed to a particular project/supervisory team.

Apply for as many as you like, but remember they’re extremely competitive and numerous different applications can be time consuming.
Make sure you read up on the scheme. For example, think about whether it offers rodent work (and your views on that) or whether certain imaging modalities are available.
Chat to potential supervisors (if listed on the website) at a minimum, ideally post docs/lab visit if you can. See this note on what to ask.
There will be hundreds of applications, so yours needs to set you apart. Try and come up with a personal motivation, but keep it relevant. You’ll likely have limited space, don’t use it all poetically describing your passion. Use it to show why you’re great. What you’ve done and what you want to do, etc.

Option 3: Proposals

You are selling yourself, the project and the team. You may be applying with your current supervisor, someone at your institution or someone at a different institution. Hopefully the following tips will be of use in these cases:

PhD applications take a long time initially. They just do, so add time on to whatever time frame you’re thinking. You can finish early but not late. You should allow enough time to go back and check over it a few times, but not so much time that you’re over thinking about every detail. Once you’ve written one, it’s like riding a bike.
Applying with a supervisor has a lot of advantages. It is much clearer what should be included in the application, your incoming supervisor can help direct it (listen to what they have to say), and importantly if you’re carrying on work you’re already doing – no one knows the project like you do. This gives you the opportunity to explain it as well as possible.
Ask your incoming supervisor if there are other funding options and what you would have to do to the proposal to get them. Cast your net out widely to maximize the number of pots of funding available to you. Once the core proposal is written, a few adjustments for specific schemes none withstanding, you’ve done most of the work. Check in with your supervisor to see if any of their collaborators to see if you could apply on a joint project with them (assuming it’s mutually beneficial).
If you get an interview, keep everyone in the loop. Your supervisor may not have been told, or it may be buried in an email somewhere. It’s okay to check that someone more senior than you is on the same page.
Of all my applications, I found applying with the supervisor who I was working with at the time to be the most supportive. This is testament to how much information you want to get from a supervisor who you aren’t currently working with. Reach out and ask these questions.

Remember that you’re putting forward your own project and associated team (yourself, your supervisor and your institution), there are lots of things to write about.

Yourself – why are you a good fit? Try and talk about your academic background, relevant experience, and passion.
Project – make it fundable and coherent. Once you get the position and funding, as long as your supervisor is alright with it, you can make changes. A PhD is as much about learning and developing as it is the initial research premise. No one will expect you to have exactly the same research interests at the start and end of your PhD, so you don’t have to worry about doing the same experiments. (This is less true for projects which fall under Option 2).
Supervisor – why is your supervisor the best person to get you through this project? Do they have expertise in the field you’re interested in? Are they experts in the methods you want to use? These are all important decisions. The best PhD applicant in the world with the most watertight proposal may not do well under an ill-suited supervisor.
Institution – why is it essential that your project takes place at your chosen institution? Is it because of their facilities? Will you have access to the expertise of other people in the department? What is the department known for? For example, if you’re applying to do magnetoencephalography (MEG, a brain imaging technique) and there’s no MEG facility at your chosen institution, that won’t look great.

See here for an example proposal structure. Full disclosure: most of my proposals went to Oxbridge and funding bodies/charities. I think the tips should also be applicable for other universities.

Some tips for PhD interviews

The next stage (hopefully) will be reaching a PhD interview. If you’re already there, congratulations! The next sections hone in on the specifics of interviews.

Presentations for interviews
Interviews
Specific interview questions

Presentations for PhD interviews.

Preparation is key. This is the only aspect of the interview you can totally prepare. Take advantage of it.

Prepare your presentation thoroughly. Practice it in front of people and make it word perfect.
Explain it to people who aren’t in your field. You’ve pitched it too high if they don’t understand it. You’re probably onto a winner if it makes sense to them and isn’t too simple. Layman’s terms is often much simpler than you think - just convey the basics.
If you practise your presentation in front of people in your lab/field, they will know much more than you might think about your topic, even if they don’t directly work on it. You cannot bank on a panel knowing as much as your colleagues when you get to interview.
Have a think about follow up questions. If you say X and Y, and think they might ask Z, prepare an answer for Z. This is covering your bases, not guess work. I’ll talk more about interview preparation later.
Keep improving your presentation based on previous questions you received on it in previous interviews. Don’t assume the audience didn’t understand it or that they weren’t receptive. If it didn’t work, fix it because you can.
Make sure you can explain everything on the slides (if you get them). Don’t put anything into the interview that you couldn’t reason through. This includes figures and equations.
It’s a true skill (which you should work to refine) to explain complicated things simply, and make these things accessible for anyone. This should be your focus in a presentation. Not whether or not a complicated answer “sounds smart”.

Interviews

Next, we get into the bulk of the interviews. These can feel extremely nerve wracking. I feel a lot of stress in interviews, but the following viewpoint made me a bit more at ease.

Interview questions are there to test you to make sure you’re a good fit for the position. That’s all. Part of that means that the panel need to understand why you did what you did. Crucially, they need to make sure you that understand.

Your interviewers don’t know as much as you do about your research or background. Every word you say could prompt a question they ask you. This is an opportunity to make sure that you can back up/reason through anything you say. Question yourself on why you did what you did or plan to do etc. The interviewers aren’t trying to catch you out or expose gaps in your knowledge.

If you get asked ‘why did you use X and not Y’, no one is necessarily telling you that you should have done Y. But there will be a reason you did X, and you should know that. The interviewers just want to check both you and they understand. Show them you understand, and help them so that they can.

Other non-specific tips for interviews:

General interview mentality can be really important. Try and leave any feelings prior to the interview outside (not easy). When you’re in there, from my experience, the most important thing is to try not to go to pieces. You don’t have to sink when if you feel yourself bobbing. Treat each question as a new chance to impress. That one question you didn’t think went well is unlikely to spoil your interview if the rest of it was otherwise good.
Make an effort to come across positive, passionate and confident. Don’t feel the need to shake everyone’s hand on a big panel; just go for whatever you feel comfortable with. Try and make eye contact with everyone at some stage, particularly when they’re speaking to you.
If you don’t know, be honest and say you don’t know, but have a go. It may not scupper your whole interview. Tell the interviewer you genuinely haven’t thought about the question before. ‘I hadn’t thought about that before, it’s a great question…’ is a great way to begin an answer.
Check out the panel if you know who they are in advance. You may have to start simpler in your explanation if they are all from fields outside of yours. Even if a panel member is an expert in your field, they don’t know might not know your experiment, but you might get away with less guesses.
Show that you’ve thought about why you’ve been asked the question when responding. For example, sometimes the question may sound like something obvious has been left out. Whatever that obvious thing is, the interviewer probably wants you to acknowledge it. In a previous role I worked with patients with Parkinson’s disease, who can sometimes experience tremor. If I was asked in an interview ‘Can you think of any issues around doing tasks with finger movements with this cohort?’, the kind of reply I’m talking about might be something like ‘Yes we did consider the impact of tremor on the task, however…’.
If you get given a data-based question in the interview, such as ‘interpret this graph’, focus on giving a convincing and clear argument. Don’t panic and try guess the correct answer right away.
Think about/prepare simple explanations - layman’s terms is often much simpler than you think.
Don’t read into timings. An early or late finish probably has no bearing on your performance.
Put a bit of your personality in.
Always have a question at the end – ideally one which will make you look good.
Learn from each interview.

Specific interview questions

Broadly speaking, you can expect three types of questions in a PhD interview

Your research experience so far
- Prepare an elevator pitch talking about what you did, why you did it, what you found etc – there is nothing wrong with rehearsing this.
- Think about what you might have done differently and next steps for it
The project you’ve proposed
- Again think about next steps
- Be prepared to justify everything you say
Your motivation/life outside of academia

I’ve compiled the questions I can remember being asked over the years.

‘What experiment you would do to test X?’ or ‘What experiment you would do to carry on your current research? Try to answer the research question fully, i.e. methods not just hypotheses/questions . Think about the experiment itself, the cohorts, the data analysis, and the potential pitfalls alongside the hypothesis.
‘Tell us about a paper you’ve read recently?’ The question might specify a paper outside our your field. Make sure it’s a paper you’re confident in explaining. Summarize it clearly and concisely. Try and remember where and when it was published to add some credibility.
Why academia?
Why not industry/public health? If when asked ‘why academia?’, you say make a difference, you might get asked this as a follow up.
Why are you good for the job/PhD position?
What’s your worst quality?
What have you learned since you started?
Why this project specifically? Be mindful that some of the panel may have no idea what the project is, so if they ask, they’re not trying to catch you out, they’re just genuinely not sure! Make sure any answers to questions about the experiments are bulletproof (e.g. why that method or sample size)
Why do you want to do a PhD, and why now?
Why the institute/department?
What will you learn from this PhD?
What will you do after the PhD? (POSTDOC AND PI)
Tell us about a project you’ve worked on. Understand the question you were trying to ask, how you answered it, how you analysed the data, and how you interpreted the results.
PhD’s can be challenging, how do you manage your stress?
Tell us about a time you were resilient (and what did you learn from that)
What skills will you bring to the PhD? Mention your attributes and skillset. This is to say talk about being hardworking AND the fact that you have used method X before.
It can be difficult to manage your time in a PhD, how do you manage your time?
What is your 5 year plan?
What have you learned and overcome since you started research?
What do you do outside of research? Balance is best!

Harsh realities

This is probably the right time to discuss some of harsh realities of this application process. Applying for PhD’s is difficult enough. The rejection can be tough, and a lack of feedback can be challenging. I don’t mean for this to put you off. These are things that I’ve had to process and get through, and hopefully it saves you some of the undue stress.

Be realistic about your motivations for academia. You probably won’t change the world in one PhD. You can lay an idea down and build on it for years, and it still might not go anywhere. This is part of the frustration which academia can bring.
It is unlikely that you will get feedback on your PhD applications/interviews. Not knowing where to improve your application can be difficult. That is why you should chat to as many people (supervisors etc) as possible to try and determine some competitive criteria before you send the application in.
Anyone looking to hire someone will likely have to interview more people than the slot is for. This number is probably less than the number of people who applied. So when you get to interview, you will have already done well to get there. However, there will be an ideal candidate or set of attributes in mind. Sometimes the ideal candidate is in the shortlist. Thus the unfortunate reality is that to some extent, you will be making up the numbers in some scenarios. It is no skin off a universities nose to invite more applications, but you shouldn’t take it to heart if you get rejected after interview.
Most RA/PhD adverts will say that you can apply which a 2:1 or a 2:2 and a good Masters. This does not mean by any means that once you have the minimum your grades won’t be considered. If you’re reading this as an undergrad, you should focus on getting the best grades you can for your own sake. But when it comes to academia, you don’t want your grades to be the thing which can be used to stop you from getting a PhD. This is not to say that if you have a 2:1 you won’t get a PhD, many students with this grade are accepted on other merits. Undergraduate exam performance is largely unrelated to the day to day process of research and shouldn’t be holding people back. The point I’m making here is the unfortunate reality of having to score applicants objectively.
Place does not equal funding. They cannot fund everybody. As a result, they need some sort of objective criteria against which people can be scored. This may feel like you’re being asked to jump through hoops. This is just the way it has to go. Certain things which aren’t listed as essential application criteria (e.g. a Masters degree, research experience, publications) may well become relevant.

It’s okay to

After the doom and gloom of the harsh realities, I wanted to finish on something more upbeat. It can be difficult when starting out in academia to make your own life easier because you’re worried about how it might come across to your seniors. I’ve come up with a few things which you should know from the beginning that it is okay to do. It’s okay to:

Say that an interview date doesn’t work for you. I’ve had to do this a couple of times. At first, it’s tempting to think that you should take what you’ve been given. I’ve found this particularly difficult when communicating with my supervisors. This is not the case. People will always under a legitimate reason, i.e. one that would affect either your performance in the interview or your availability.
Apply to other options. Just because you are applying with one supervisor doesn’t mean that you can’t think about applying with another. PhD’s are hard enough to get. If it gets to the point where you have to choose between some, cross that bridge when you come to it. It is not an insult to either party that you’re considering other options. Just be honest with everyone involved.
Wait for other options if you get offered something. It is okay to think about what benefits the opportunity gives you, or to keep your ear to the ground. Just be honest and communicate with everyone.
If you’re not sure about it, you can refuse something you’ve been offered. The application process is as much about you liking “the deal” (course, place, supervisors etc) as it is “the deal” liking you. If you don’t think you’ll like the place, don’t go. If you get an offer from an institution where you had a bad feeling on a lab vist/interview, then don’t go.

Concluding remarks

Harsh realities aside, the outcome of these interviews tends to come sooner rather than later. Funding decisions might take a bit longer. Keep your eyes and ears open – things move fast and can change frequently in academia. New opportunities can present themselves at any time. If your application hasn’t gone how you and your supervisor hoped, don’t be disheartened. Another opportunity may be around the corner. Also, be sure to update your referees on the outcome of your applications (since they took the time to write it).

Overall, applying for PhD’s can be extremely rewarding. You’ll pick up lots of skills useful for applying for other grants, you’ll start to be able to explain your research goals and aims more clearly, and hopefully you’ll get a PhD. I hope this post sheds some light on the process.

Footnotes

Coding

This section will probably only be immediately relevant if your field of interest has a computational element. Going forward, it seems like students in most scientific disciplines will benefit from coding or mathematical computing. Try to learn to code as soon as possible, you’ll likely have to at some point. It’s not an insurmountable task.

The way in which I think this type of learning is maximized is when you’re using it to work towards something important and relevant to you in your studies or research, e.g. if you can complete a piece of university work using code.
Another option is to use a course to help with a particular project, for example using an online data science course to help predict who might win the next Premier League season.
Overall, you should try and make problems for yourself that are important and valuable for you to solve.

I now enjoy writing (average) code, but I learned the hard way on the job over a very gruelling couple of weeks, and wish I’d invested the time earlier.

What you want to know from a lab visit/chat with lab members?

Try and meet with potential supervisors face to face or on Zoom/Skype at a minimum. Capitalize on in person communication as much as possible as opposed to emails, for the sake of ease and clarity. Whilst the travel/ the cost may not be feasible, you cannot underestimate the value of showing proactive interest. You want to know the following things from the lab group/supervisor:

How busy is the supervisor? How likely are you to see them and for how long? This doesn’t have to be a good or a bad thing, but it is worth knowing. This may not be an issue if you’re someone who is self-directed, but may not work for you if you need lots of input.
Are there people around you, who may not even be on the same projects, who you can either chat to or work with?
Do the lab members all come from the same academic background? As I came from an interdisciplinary background, I’ve always enjoyed working in interdisciplinary teams, but it may not work for you.
How much empirical testing is done? If you want a theoretical lab that does a lot of experimental work or vice versa, you should check this.
What’s the freedom like? I’ve been extremely fortunate to have supervisors who have allowed me a great deal of freedom. If you would rather work through a list of things to do, this is something you want to know.

Just do it

The number one thing I found very difficult starting off in academia is emailing academics. I hope this short footnote clears up any worry you have about doing it.

Just email the supervisor/principal investigator. Just do it. Show that you’re interested, but don’t overly flatter them. There is nothing embarrassing about approaching someone and telling them that you are genuinely interested in their work. Make sure you actually know what they research, as generic emails probably won’t be that well received. If you reach out to them sensibly, you’re unlikely to make a bad impression, and you’ll gain a lot. Ask for more information about the post, whether you might be a good fit for the project etc. Don’t read into the replies. Academics (like everyone) are busy people. If you get a reply that seems short, like any working human, they may have a lot on. If you get a really encouraging reply, that’s good news, but doesn’t guarantee you the position.

Please also see these tips from Dr Edwin Dalmaijer for some tips on how to email academics, from the academics perspective.

Possible proposal structure

Why is what you’re doing important?
What has been done in the field leading up to your project?
- Build this up sentence by sentence into a story. It should be obvious to anyone reading it what your project will test
Present your aims/overall hypotheses for the project clearly
Have sections for each experiment
- Experiment X: examining Y in Z for example
- Add a sentence or two about what is known so far if you haven’t covered it in the intro
- What you will do, how you will do it (methodologies), note that task figures can be helpful here
- Specific predictions for each of these experiments
Conclude if you’ve got the space, but remember the other things you want to try and fit in

Aesthetics are very important. Make it stand out. Get some high quality figures ready (PowerPoint could work, but something like Inkscape gives you a bit more control) – they say a thousand words. You can use figures to convey a lot of information, particularly for applications with word limits. Don’t feel like you can’t use bullet points, text boxes, indentation etc. Colours can work, but don’t go overboard. For example, summarizing the aims of the project in one paragraph can look nice in a semi-transparent coloured text box. Splitting the sections of the application up with a colour consistent border would also work with the text box. But you want to resist anything gaudy.