cambridge phd interview reddit

Timothy Lambden

• Jul 27, 2021
• 13 min read

My PhD interview at Cambridge

Updated: Aug 26, 2021

An inside look at applying for a PhD at Cambridge University

Background:

I applied for a graduate MRes + PhD program at the NanoDTC at Cambridge University in Nanoscience and Nanotechnology . My application was accepted for the 2nd round of interviews, where I would have my interview on the 31st January 2020.

For context, I was in my last year studying for an MSci in Natural Sciences at UCL and heard about the PhD program through recently finishing a science-based internship in an electron microscopy lab in Cambridge over the summer where I took part in a Nano Ambassador program run by the NanoDTC.

Interviews:

I had stayed overnight with Nordin, a PhD student (and amazing photographer ) I knew in Cambridge the day before my interview who was kind enough to host me. I was going over my application with him and some last minute practice the night before going over any potential questions I would be asked.

In the morning, I cycled to my interview, locking up my bike in the bike sheds outside the Maxwell centre. I arrived and registered along with 13 other students. We were all quite clearly nervous and no one really spoke to each other in the waiting areas, at least at the beginning anyway.

We were brought into a meeting room and given a quick talk about the planned schedule for the day and left our bags in an office as we wouldn’t be needing them. Everything was meticulously planned, and we would be continuously supervised from 9am-5pm, by both course administrators and current PhD students who would give us guided tours and chats about their research. We were ushered off sporadically for our interviews, and would have 2 interviews, each for 20 minutes.

Interviews are very sciency, as you’d expect. I don’t go into heavy detail such that the article is accessible to people without a formal science background but left in it for those that are interested. Feel free to skip reading these sections.

1st interview:

I was called into a small room, I sat down and opposite me were my 2 interviewers.

At Cambridge, One-to-one interviews are no longer conducted, so you tend to have 2 people, sometimes 3 people interviewing you at a time as opposed to one person like most other interview scenarios.

Of the two people, one of whom was a co-director of the program, and the other was a reader with her own energy storage/applications lab whose research I was less familiar with. The interview began with them briefly asking me about my master’s research project and previous research project on electron microscopy from my written application. They gave me the option of picking which one I wanted to discuss further which was nice. Given I knew the co-director uses electron microscopy in her own research I suggested we should talk about my project in that area.

We began by mentioning the need for research in this area. We discussed the history and evolution of using electron vs light microscopes and the need for electron microscopes for imaging at high resolution and more recently the need for electron microscopes for imaging biological molecules.

We then discussed difficulties using electrons for imaging different specimens. She wanted me to give a general answer about the difficulties associated with using electrons compared to light/photons for imaging (as they have a charge and hence an electron charge build-up on the sample can deflect the beam). But I didn’t answer this well, and mentioned in regards to imaging something polar and with a partial charge, although I got to the answer in the end with a little help from them.

I could tell my answers weren’t what they were looking for as they both started writing things as I answered the question. It’s not that my answer was wrong per se, just wasn’t specific enough and wasn’t following the correct line of thinking to reach the answer.

We then discussed radiation damage of biological specimens in electron microscopy, and how samples degrade overtime, compared to other more stable materials, e.g. metals. We then spoke about 3d imaging by stitching together different orientations of 2d images (specifically single particle cryoEM).

Fun fact: This work would be responsible for multiple Nobel prizes. Aaron Klug won the nobel prize for chemistry in 1982 for first demonstrating this. He was supervised by Rosalind Franklin before she passed away. She played a key role in the discovery of DNA, but the discovery was ultimately made by Francis Crick and James Watson at the Cavendish laboratory , which I could see from the window of the building where my interview was taking place, which was rather inspiring.

We then spoke a little more about my research, and why open-source research is important in science, and potential future work for the project. Coronavirus was mentioned at one point. Which looking back was eerily foretelling for the next few months which followed.

I began going off on a tangent in relation to one of the questions she asked. At one point, I stopped myself, and pointed out that I hadn’t actually answered her question, and asked her if she could repeat it. I felt rather embarrassed, but they didn’t seem to have a problem with it and asked me to continue on my train of thought, before going back to their initial question.

Towards the end I was asked why I applied to this program specifically given my background and not any others. Although I had already answered this in my submitted application, I gave a more natural answer in the interview. I mentioned advice given to me by different academics/scientists along my journey in science, and felt the NanoDTC was the best natural fit given both its interdisciplinary nature and my own experience and interests. I knew I wanted more experimental/entrepreneurship experience which was offered during the first year masters, and I could continue with the science outreach work done building upon the Nano Ambassador program.

They asked me if I had any questions for them, and I asked about the current/previous students of the course and what they are doing now, which was a terrible question in hindsight. I wish I asked them about the big picture of nanoscience research , and how it’s changed in recent years.

At the end I mentioned how I felt the interview didn’t go well, but they didn’t give anything away. I always enjoyed speaking about science and given how nervous I was at the beginning, I actually enjoyed the experience looking back, despite my initial reaction of thinking the interview went terribly. I thanked them and pushed my chair under the desk and left the room.

I joined the rest of the group, and breathed a sign of relief now that my interview was over. It wasn’t as daunting as I made it out to be in my head leading up to it.

We then had a tour of the chemistry department in Cambridge ( which I now work in funnily enough ) by a PhD student who was researching hydrogen gas extraction from waste to be used as fuel. None of us were particularly talkative, so I asked her why she applied to the NanoDTC over other programs, borrowing the same question the interviewers asked me which was a little cheeky of me since technically that’s plagiarism and very much frowned upon in the academic community. Unfortunately I can’t remember her answer, but I do remember her saying she loved the NanoDTC, but misses the Californian weather back home.

We eventually made our way back to the nanoscience department where we had a buffet style lunch, with a few PhD students, some on whom I had met previously from my Nano Ambassador program. One of them had pointed out to me “ Noticed how you have been supervised all day ”. It dawned on me then that it was clear that we didn’t just have 2 interviews, but the whole day was used to assess us, even outside our interviews on our tours, PhD students could be giving feedback of the candidates and get a feel for what they would be like on the course. Like a secret interview, an interview you’re unaware of.

After lunch I had another tour of the Cavendish department. The Cavendish has arguably the richest history of any research laboratory . In other words, I was geeking out rather heavily. After the tour I had my second interview.

2nd interview:

My 2nd interview was a blur, as I sat down I felt my mind go blank, as if I had forgotten everything I knew. I had read up that It’s somewhat common in interviews, and just tried to relax the best I could and not panic about it.

After the introductions they asked me about my research topics, and focussed on my master’s research project on ferroelectric materials. They asked me to explain it, and then what experiment’s I have done to investigate various properties. I spoke about some experiments I had done and what I can deduce from them, namely x-ray diffractions, atomic force microscopy, electrical measurements and thin film deposition.

They asked me to speak more about the electrical measurements I had done, and to draw a circuit for them in the paper in front of me. They then asked me about the electrical circuits and whether current flows through a capacitor in an oscillating circuit. I said I think so. They then asked me not to guess and further questioned why I think it does.

I needed a few prompts as I was stuck. I struggled to reach the answer in the interview, my mind was simply blank. In hindsight it was a very straightforward question and answer. Current is the rate of change of charge with time, since the charge changes on the capacitor plates, that must mean that current flows between them.

They then asked me about hysteresis , and to draw a diagram for hysteresis for both ferromagnets and ferroelectrics.

They asked me how I conducted the experiments, as there is much debate in the field in regards to how these measurements are taken and how the results are interpreted. My favourite paper is on this topic , where a professor was so frustrated with people constantly misinterpreting these experiments, he had one of his students perform the same experiment on a banana to show that it too showed the same phenomena, despite clearly not being a ferroelectric material and hence the interpretation was incorrect. It’s cited over 600 times despite only being 2 pages long. The student who conducted the experiment on the banana would go onto run his own research lab, and eventually be my supervisor for my masters research project. Although thankfully he didn’t get me to do any electrical measurements on bananas that he had to do as a student.

When explaining the hysteresis electrical measurements, I fumbled heavily. I had missed out on a key initial step of the process to ensure a good electrical contact, usually done by sputtering gold onto the sample as gold is a very conductive material. I knew I had missed a step, but wasn’t sure which one. I wasn’t sure about the specific experimental details as I was yet to do them at this stage of my research project, instead focussing on conductivity/bandgap measurements. I told them how I wasn’t sure on the experimental steps as I was yet to do them, and they decided to move onto experiments I had done.

They then decided to ask me about atomic force microscopy. I explained how an AFM machine works, and using it to measure the surface topology. They quickly moved onto a different topic.

They don't care what I knew, they cared more about how I think

This is really important to emphasize. They didn’t seem to care if I knew how an AFM machine worked. They would always skip over and dismiss questions/topics I could answer easily and instead focus on questions and topics I didn’t know or wasn’t aware of. They wanted to see how I would approach a problem I was unfamiliar with, and how I would reason my thoughts and ideas.

They then asked me more about why I’m investigating Hafnium Dioxide compared to other materials. I spoke about how previous perovskite ferroelectrics suffer from size defects and lose their ferroelectric properties, whereas hafnium dioxide doesn’t follow the same issues, and has the added benefit of being compatible with silicon, compared to traditional perovskites, and hence use in microelectronics.

They then asked how I measured the thickness of my samples given how small they are (40 nanometres, which is around 1000 times smaller than the width of human hair). I spoke about my experiments of measuring and fitting laue oscillations to the x-ray diffraction patterns to deduce the thickness.

They then asked me about volatile/non-volatile memory systems, and whether hafnium can be used as a non-volatile memory system. I said yes, but asked them to clarify what a non-volatile memory system is. I knew it was as I attended a talk 2 weeks prior where they mentioned it. I knew the answer, but not the understanding why. They emphasized that I should always ask for clarification if you don’t understand something.

A non-volatile memory system is one that retains its information (i.e. a 0 or a 1 in the case of a bit e.g. transistor) while it’s not powered and retains it’s information. This has many benefits. Namely, you can turn your computer on and off without losing your data, but also you have massive energy savings since it doesn’t need to be constantly powered to retain it’s information.

They finally asked me about my interest in science entrepreneurship. They asked if I was given £1 million to invest into an area nanoscience that would yield the greatest return of investment, what it would be?

I was put on the spot and I mentioned I would invest in drug design, as I had misinterpreted the question as to which area of nanoscience was the most profitable.

They told me that a £1 million investment is nothing to pharmaceutical giants such as astrazenca and GSK, and if maybe I had other ideas. I mentioned investing in new types of ferroelectric memory systems, given they are quite new promising technology and I as familiar with them from my own research, but it was clear my interviewers were quite dismissive of the idea, saying there are better/more promising memory systems than them.

Looking back I wish I mentioned one of the spinout companies my interviewers were part of. Not only would it show I had read up on them, but they would clearly have to agree, and hence make me (and them) look good. It’s a win win! If you wouldn’t invest money into your own company, is it reasonable to ask someone else to? But alas I was put on the spot and my answers were pretty abysmal. Predicting future companies/technologies to invest in turns out to be quite difficult, even for venture capital companies.

It was a bit of a blur, but just like that the interviews were over.

My 1st interview didn’t go great, this one went even worse. I decided to just forget about it, since being annoyed would only be wasted energy, as I can’t change anything now. I joined the rest of the candidates and spoke about their own research projects which was far more welcoming since everyone was less stressed now we had all finished our interviews. Most candidates told me that their interviews went well. I’m not sure if they were lying, telling the truth or I was simply more self-aware.

Socializing with other students:

They had organised a visit to a Mexican restaurant for all the candidates which was awesome of them to do, including a few of the master students on the program. As I knew Cambridge quite well, I told them I’d meet them there, and decided to get some space, it had been a long day. As I left to pick up my bags from downstairs, I saw all the interviewers in a room downstairs chatting. I couldn’t hear what they were saying, but they looked very serious indeed, likely discussing who they would give offers to and who they would reject. I was wondering if they were chatting about me.

I went back to Nordin’s flat as he gave me the key. He came back from his lab, and we chatted about how my experience was. I told him how I felt I hadn’t done well enough and it showed me I didn’t belong there. He was rather shocked saying I’m sure it couldn’t be that bad. I told him how both my interviews went terribly, and he did a great job reassuring me, telling me that even his interviews didn’t go great.

We chatted for around 30 minutes before I headed to the Mexican restaurant to join the rest of the group. I spent most of my time chatting to another candidate who was working in industry for an energy company in Birmingham where he had done his undergrad/masters degree, but that he wanted to return to academia. He also mentioned how his interviews didn’t go too well which we bonded over, so I was somewhat relieved knowing I wasn’t alone.

I chatted to a current masters student on the program about his own experience, and how much he loved his course. He was currently doing a biophysics placement on tissue stiffness so we got chatting about biology/biophysics and how to alter tissue stiffness and how tumours tend be stiffer than their surrounding healthy tissue . I found myself naturally speaking about science even outside the lab or interview setting, and it reinforced the idea that science is for me. Because I really do enjoy it. Just maybe not the interviews.

I finished my dinner early, and had to head off as I was going to a formal at St John’s College with Nordin which he kindly planned for me after I finished the interview. Nordin doesn’t drink, so I ended up drinking his alcohol too. In hindsight alcohol is probably not the best way to deal with the rejection, but one that is all to frequently used. Both for relationships or PhD interviews in my case.

After the formal I headed with Nordin to the Clare College MCR bar for post formal drinks. I visited Clare college when I was 11 as part of an outreach program to encourage applicants from under-represented backgrounds . Now 11 years later I’m getting drunk in their MCR celebrating me finishing my PhD interview. How times have changed. I guess the outreach program worked?

When Midnight struck, it was 1st Feb 2020, and it marked the UK leaving the EU. To celebrate the occasion a few white upperclass students in the bar burst into singing “rule Britannia . It remains as one of the most elitist things I think I have ever witnessed. Cambridge can be quite the bubble for elitism, and has arguably been a breeding ground for the elite for the last 500 years, but that’s slowly changing. Increased diversity along with record levels of state school educated students and new scholarship opportunities means often the impression of Cambridge university is very different to what it actually is.

The MCR bar closed and I went back to Nordin’s to sober up. I travelled back home the next morning.

On the journey home I reflected on my experience and came to the conclusion my performance wasn’t good enough to merit me being accepted. Fortunately for me, Cambridge had other ideas.

Response from Cambridge

On the Monday 3rd of February, I was in UCL’s canteen having lunch after a lecture. I checked my emails on my phone and saw I had an email from Cambridge, which I assumed would be their rejection email. But I was shocked to realise I was given an offer which was fully funded. I had the interview on a Friday, by Monday I heard back that I had been accepted. Within one working day. Although given what research is like in Cambridge, it’s more like 3 working days.

I looked around me, but didn’t have anyone to share it with. I gave myself a little fist bump and messaged Kou to tell him the good news. He was the first person I told and It seems rather fitting that he was also the same person who inspired me to write this article based on him writing about his own interview which you can read here .

I guess the main takeaway I have is that it’s impossible to judge for yourself how well you did in your interview. It’s easy to doubt yourself in situations like these and suffer from imposter syndrome for thinking you’re not good enough and that you don’t belong. My advice would be to trust the process and do the best you can. Besides, you definitely won’t get in if you don’t apply, so why not try?

I’d like to thank Kou for the inspiration of the article, as well as Nordin and Tom for reading the first draft.

If you’d like advice on PhD interviews, please read my following article!

Recent Posts

Lessons on a PhD

The Knife Crime epidemic in London

PhD interview advice

• International edition
• Australia edition
• Europe edition

'People are always too cold': How to survive a Cambridge interview

As the deadline for Oxbridge applications looms, Sam Lucy, director of admissions at Cambridge, shares her advice for students

The application deadlines for Oxford, Cambridge and medical school courses close in mid-October – and the interview process that follows is shrouded in mystery and nerves, for those invited to take part.

Sam Lucy, director of admissions for Cambridge colleges, talks about the interview process at Cambridge university, the pitfalls that applicants can fall into – and even what to wear.

“There is quite a lot of over-thinking about the process and trying to interpret what we’re looking for. We’re looking for people who are extremely enthusiastic about the subject they are applying for, have got the right aptitudes and, if necessary, prior knowledge for it. Everything we do in the process is about trying to identify those things.

“Are you going to be that person who turns up and has done the work and has really thought about the subject, and comes to [tutorials] and engages with us so that we can teach effectively? And that’s really all there is to it. It’s not something secret.”

How does nerves affect applicants at the interview stage? “Often, in relation to the interview, [applicants] do get very very nervous because obviously they are placing a huge amount of weight on it, even if we are not placing so much weight.

“You find people coming along with rehearsed answers to things, so they are predicting what the questions might be and trying to learn a response – and that never, ever works. Because if we spot that being delivered to us, as trained interviewers, we tend to gently stop that answer and move on to something they haven’t thought about before.

“The thing you are trying to do at the interview is to understand how somebody is approaching a problem and how they are thinking their way through to a potential solution or a series of ideas.”

How much can candidates prepare in advance for their interview? “If somebody is giving you something they have already prepared, it doesn’t come across well at all. I think it’s just nerves. We all do it, we’re going for a job interview, what shall I answer if somebody asks me this question, I’ll have something ready to go, and actually that’s the wrong advice.

“One of the bits of advice I give to applicants is to pretend that you are already a student and you are just turning up for a supervision.

“Just turn up ready to engage, ready to talk, happy to discuss anything that comes up in course of a conversation. So think about it as more of a teaching session and less of a job interview.”

Can interviewers tell if the candidate is giving a prepared answer? “Yes, the tone of voice changes. There is absolutely no point in doing it. It is immediately apparent. We will just stop that particular answer, and say ‘You’ve clearly thought about that before, can I ask you something that you haven’t thought about before?’.”

Some companies offer interview preparation. Are they a waste of time? “Absolutely.”

Should candidates worry about what they wear? “You see people every year who are too cold. They are actually cold and shivering. It’s December, you could be waiting in a very cold corridor and come into an overheated room.

“My advice would be to dress in layers, so that you can take things on and off as you need to. Dress so that you feel comfortable. If you feel comfortable wearing a suit and tie, good for you, if you feel comfortable wearing jeans and a t-shirt, that’s absolutely fine as well.

“The funny thing about interviewing is that you don’t actually remember what people wear. I sometimes remember 20 people across the course of a day. I’m making notes about what they’ve said, I don’t make notes about what they were wearing. It’s the quality of their answers and how they are approaching a problem that you record.”

Keep up with the latest on Guardian Students: follow us on Twitter at @GdnStudents – and become a member to receive exclusive benefits and our weekly newsletter.

• Guardian Students
• Higher education
• Oxbridge and elitism
• Access to university
• University of Cambridge
• University of Oxford
• Advice for students

Comments (…)

Most viewed.

Advice for STEM PhD interviews and common questions

PhD interviews are part of almost every PhD application process, and they are an opportunity for you to get to know the faculty of the institution/university you’re applying to, and to demonstrate your potential to embark on a research project. This blog post provides examples of some of the most common interview questions, and advice on how to prepare a presentation on either a research project you’ve done (e.g. during an internship, bachelor’s thesis, or a master’s programme). I am currently doing a PhD at Oxford in Genomic Medicine and Statistics, and I applied to several biomedical science, biochemistry, and genetics PhD programmes in the UK in 2022 - below are questions taken from interviews at Oxford, Cambridge, and Imperial College.

At the start of the interview, you will often be asked warm-up questions such as “tell us about yourself in 2 minutes”, “why do you want to do a PhD?”, “what experiences have you had that could help you during a PhD?”, and “what makes you different compared to other candidates?”. It’s a good idea to brainstorm answers to these questions in advance, which should help to calm your nerves, and help you communicate to the panel why you’d make a great PhD student on their programme.

Often PhD programmes will ask you to present a previous research project for 5-10 minutes, either with or without slides. If they ask you to make slides, they will often specify the maximum number of slides: keep to the slide count, but you can use animations. Your slides should be simple and uncluttered and don’t have anything on your slides that you don’t talk about. Make sure you explain enough background so that someone from a general science background can understand you - your interviewers are very unlikely to have experience in your current field. Furthermore, explain why you are doing/did specific experiments or made particular choices - this needs to come before the “how”. You can end with the implications of your findings and why they are important, along with possible future directions for your work. Practice the presentation in front of friends, family, and members of your current research group if you have the opportunity, and if your interview is over Zoom, it’s a good idea to have a rehearsal with a friend to make sure you’re as confident as possible for the real thing.

Your interviewers are very likely to ask you some questions about this presentation. They may ask why your experimental setup is a good model for what you’re investigating, what previous findings your work relies on, what other labs are doing research in your current field, or what is new in your current/previous research field(s). They may also ask how you ensure that you generate high-quality data, what your controls were (positive and negative), or how a particular technique you used works. Another interesting question I was asked at one of my PhD interviews was “what would you include in a grant based on your current findings?”. Alongside these technical questions, your interviewers may ask what you found challenging in your project, and what you enjoyed the most. One of the best things to get across in your answers to these questions is how they have prepared you for a PhD - how did they help you become more resilient, acquire problem-solving skills, or learn a particularly useful technique?

Aside from your scientific abilities, they may also want to know what you do outside the lab for work-life balance, how you deal with any conflict in the lab, and what you’re looking for in an ideal PhD supervisor. The interviewers also often ask students to tell them about a time you failed or troubleshooted, alongside “what are you doing to work on your weaknesses?”. The purpose of these questions is to find out whether you’re prepared for the challenges that arise during a PhD.

Some PhD programmes will send you a paper in advance of the interview to present to them. If this is the case for you, it’s a good idea to present the knowledge gap this paper was trying to fill, how they solved it, and what this means. They may also ask what you liked/didn’t like about the paper, whether the authors make unsupported claims in the discussion, and what further work could be done to build on the findings.

Interviews often end with the panel asking whether you have any questions for them - remember, this is your opportunity to see if the programme is a good fit for you! Examples of questions you could ask are: “what surprises PhD students when they start a PhD?”, “are there opportunities for teaching?”, and “what do you like about working here as a group leader?”.

I hope this information was useful, and further information can be found on the Find a PhD website 🔗 and the YouTube channels of Dr Andy Stapleton 🔗, Hira Javaid 🔗 and Dr Amina Yonis 🔗.

Study at Cambridge

About the university, research at cambridge.

• Undergraduate courses
• Events and open days
• Fees and finance
• Postgraduate courses
• How to apply
• Postgraduate events
• Fees and funding
• International students
• Continuing education
• Executive and professional education
• Courses in education
• How the University and Colleges work
• Term dates and calendars
• Visiting the University
• Annual reports
• Equality and diversity
• A global university
• Public engagement
• Give to Cambridge
• For Cambridge students
• For our researchers
• Business and enterprise
• Colleges & departments
• Email & phone search
• Museums & collections
• Applying to Cambridge

What happens after applying?

• Postgraduate Study
• Why Cambridge overview
• Chat with our students
• Cambridge explained overview
• The supervision system
• Student life overview
• In and around Cambridge
• Leisure activities
• Student unions
• Music awards
• Student support overview
• Mental health and wellbeing
• Disabled students
• Accommodation
• Language tuition
• Skills training
• Support for refugees
• Courses overview
• Course Directory
• Department directory
• Qualification types
• Funded studentships
• Part-time study
• Research degrees
• Visiting students
• Finance overview
• Fees overview
• What is my fee status?
• Part-time fees
• Application fee
• Living costs
• Funding overview
• Funding search
• How to apply for funding
• University funding overview
• Research Councils (UKRI)
• External funding and loans overview
• Funding searches
• External scholarships
• Charities and the voluntary sector
• Funding for disabled students
• Widening participation in funding
• Colleges overview
• What is a College?
• Choosing a College
• Terms of Residence
• Applying overview
• Before you apply
• Entry requirements
• Application deadlines
• How do I apply? overview
• Application fee overview
• Application fee waiver
• Life Science courses
• Terms and conditions
• Continuing students
• Disabled applicants
• Supporting documents overview
• Academic documents
• Finance documents
• Evidence of competence in English
• Terms and Conditions
• Applicant portal and self-service
• After you apply overview

Confirmation of admission

• Student registry
• Previous criminal convictions
• Deferring an application
• Updating your personal details
• Appeals and Complaints
• Widening participation
• Postgraduate admissions fraud
• International overview
• Immigration overview
• ATAS overview
• Applying for an ATAS certificate
• Current Cambridge students
• International qualifications
• Competence in English overview
• What tests are accepted?
• International events
• International student views overview
• Akhila’s story
• Alex’s story
• Huijie’s story
• Kelsey’s story
• Nilesh’s story
• Get in touch!
• Events overview
• Upcoming events
• Postgraduate Open Days overview
• Discover Cambridge: Master’s and PhD Study webinars
• Virtual tour
• Research Internships
• How we use participant data
• Postgraduate Newsletter
• How do I apply?

Once you've made your application, this is how it's processed.

You can track the progress of your application via the Applicant Portal .

Receipt of your application

After you've submitted your application and supporting documents via the Applicant Portal, you'll receive a confirmation email from us.

Remember, your application will not be considered until it is complete, and it's not complete without both references, so please ensure these are submitted by your referees.

Assessment of your application

Your completed application will be assessed in sequence by up to four different offices.

The time it takes to consider and process your application varies for each office.

1) Department/Faculty review

The department or faculty where you wish to study will consider your application first, including (where relevant):

• assessing all the materials you've submitted as part of your application
• finding an appropriate supervisor
• ranking you for funding
• inviting you for an interview

If your application is unsuccessful, it will not progress any further.

For information on how a particular department processes applications, check the relevant course entry in the Course Directory . Please note that if a potential supervisor says they are willing to supervise your topic this does not mean you have been offered a place.  Your proposal needs consideration by a range of academics and the offer of a place can only be made by the Postgraduate Admissions Office.

How long does it take?

• Around 90% of applications are considered by the department within 12 weeks. Many applicants will receive a decision earlier than this.
• For those applicants who do not receive a decision within 12 weeks, it is likely your application has been placed on a reserve list and you should contact your department to check its status.
• Some departments wait until the course deadline has passed and then consider all applications together, while other departments will consider applications as soon as they are received.

2) Degree Committee review

If the department decides to recommend you for admission, the Degree Committee will then consider your application.

If they approve it, they will then make a recommendation of admission to the Postgraduate Admissions Office.

• It takes approximately ten days from departmental approval for your application to be considered by the Degree Committee.

3) Postgraduate Admissions Office (PAO) review

PAO co-ordinates the admission process, and will assess the application following the Degree Committee’s decision to admit.

If PAO approves your application, you will then receive an offer of admission.

Only PAO can issue your official offer of admission on behalf of the University.

PAO will also assess the documents submitted for meeting the conditions of your offer and confirm your admission.

If your admission is confirmed, PAO will process your CAS, if you require a Tier 4 visa.

• It takes approximately ten days from degree committee approval for you to receive a decision from the Postgraduate Admissions Office (PAO).
• If you are made an offer and provide documents to meet the conditions of your offer, these documents take around ten days to process.

The decision

A final decision on your application will be sent to you by email. You can also track the progress of your application via the Applicant Portal .

Decisions on admission to the University are made on academic merit, the availability of places on a course, and the availability of an appropriate supervisor.

If you submitted your application before the general funding deadlines in December or January, you should receive a formal decision on your application before the end of March. The majority of offers are made in February and March .

If your application is unsuccessful, you may receive notification of the outcome sooner than those who receive an offer. This is because the process for establishing all the components of an offer is more time consuming.

If you receive an offer of admission, please see the Your Offer section of our website for what happens next.

Please note there is a deadline to accepting your offer, which is different from the deadline to meet your offer conditions. You can find the deadline for accepting your offer in your Certificate of Offer.

The Postgraduate Admissions Office cannot provide feedback on admissions decisions, give reasons for not offering admission, nor advise you on how to improve your application.

Faculties or Departments may agree to provide feedback (though they are not obliged to do so and may choose not to as a matter of policy) and should be contacted directly.

College membership

Your application will only be sent to Colleges if and when a formal offer of admission has been made by the Postgraduate Admissions Office (PAO).

How long does the process take?

• You should normally receive notification of your College membership within three weeks of receiving your formal offer of admission from PAO.

If you are made an offer of admission, this will be conditional, and your admission will only be confirmed once you have met all the conditions of your offer.

For more information see the Confirmation of Admission page .

Immigration requirements

Applicants requiring a Tier 4 visa to study will receive a Confirmation of Acceptance for Studies (CAS) once their admission has been confirmed. These are usually issued by the Postgraduate Admissions Office in June for admission in October.

For more information see the Immigration pages .

Equal Opportunity

The University of Cambridge is committed to equal opportunity and adheres to the University's policy in relation to all admissions processes.

Related Links

Related documents.

Postgraduate Admissions Office

• Admissions Statistics
• Start an Application
• Applicant Self-Service

At a glance

• Bringing a family
• Current Postgraduates
• Cambridge Students' Union (SU)

University Policy and Guidelines

Privacy Policy

Information compliance

Equality and Diversity

Terms of Study

About this site

About our website

Privacy policy

© 2024 University of Cambridge

• Contact the University
• Accessibility
• Freedom of information
• Privacy policy and cookies
• Statement on Modern Slavery
• University A-Z
• Undergraduate
• Postgraduate
• Research news
• About research at Cambridge
• Spotlight on...

Approaching the question “Why MD-PhD”

The “Why MD-PhD?” question should be approached thoughtfully and well in advance in order to best explain your career aspirations and unique journey. Let’s dive into some dos and don’ts about approaching this classic interview question!

DON’T say you couldn’t choose between science and medicine

If you’re applying for an MD-PhD program, it’s clear that you are passionate about both the lab and the clinic. With that said, an MD-PhD program is not only about pursuing both science and medicine, but also about actively finding ways to integrate them through your education and the years beyond. Interviewers want to make sure that you will take advantage of an interdisciplinary MD-PhD training by finding ways in which your research can influence your interactions with patients, and vice versa. 

DO focus on describing what you think the benefits are of an integrated physician-scientist training program

For example, you might discuss your excitement about being able to draw off your clinical experiences to inform how you prioritize designing new therapies for heart disease, as you will be able to directly learn which symptoms patients' find most debilitating. Alternatively, perhaps you will talk about how you wish to utilize artificial intelligence to enhance clinical decision-making, both for other physicians and for yourself. Regardless of your exact interests, make sure you convey how passionate you are about obtaining an MD-PhD, and not just a MD and PhD, individually. 

DON’T say you want to pursue an MD-PhD to pursue a career of 50% research and 50% clinical responsibilities

As mentioned above, an MD-PhD program provides amazing opportunities to grow as a physician, scientist, and, most importantly, physician-scientist. Applicants to MD-PhD programs should be genuinely passionate about pursuing a career that combines both science and medicine. With that said, it is also important that applicants recognize that the traditional MD-PhD research/clinical split is 80-20, respectively. After all, it takes time to dive into the science, apply for grants, and manage a lab! Now, that’s not to say that every MD-PhD follows this split, or that you have to. However, you should make sure that you are able to cogently express that you are aware of what an MD-PhD career path looks like and the demands both research and science will place on your time. An MD-PhD program is a long commitment, and interviewers want to ensure that you have a good understanding of the career trajectories most MD-PhDs take before offering you a spot in their program. 

DO discuss how you plan to integrate research and medicine in your career

This is an excellent opportunity to not only discuss your long-term professional aspirations, but also to show you have a firm grasp of what an MD-PhD program is for. Talk specifically about how you envision balancing science and medicine in the future. For example, perhaps you hope to see patients once a week in the psychiatry clinic while primarily running a lab that researches neuropsychiatric disorders. You might envision your time split 80% research and 20% clinical, as you follow the traditional physician-scientist path. On the other hand, maybe you see a slightly different vision for your MD-PhD. Some students, for example, are extremely passionate about surgery and hope to unite both surgery and science, while also recognizing that this means they will spend more time in the clinic than a non-surgical physician-scientist. It is totally okay, and even encouraged, to discuss these interests. The point here is not to force yourself to fit into some mold of what you think a physician-scientist should be, but rather to show that you clearly understand the demands and training path of an MD-PhD program and have also given serious thought to how you see balancing science and medicine in your future career. 

DON’T just discuss abstract reasons for wanting to pursue an MD-PhD

All people applying for an MD-PhD program have many shared reasons for doing so, especially in regards to the general theme of uniting science and medicine in order to further human health. This is great, and a key reason why MD-PhD programs are so unique in terms of the education they offer. However, remember that your interviewer is probably interviewing many of these other students as well. If your answer to why MD-PhD only hits on the broad training goals of their program, it will likely blend together with that of many other students, costing you a valuable opportunity to stand out.

DO focus on unique and specific experiences you’ve had that have motivated your decision to pursue an MD-PhD

Rather than saying that you think MD-PhDs are able to translate research from the bench to the bedside, discuss how you have personally united your research and clinical interests. How have you personally seen the power of bridging medicine and clinical work, and how would you like to continue this journey? This is also a great time to briefly mention why you are excited about interviewing at a particular program. For example, you might begin by discussing your experience both volunteering with patients on dialysis and doing research on the kidneys, ending with a segue to your excitement about the opportunities to further explore renal pathophysiology with Lab X at the institution you are interviewing at. This is also a great time to reflect on how your personal traits and philosophy might fit in well with an MD-PhD program. If you’re drawn to science because you love problem-solving or want to pursue medical school because you believe in the power of personal interaction to advance human health, say so! This is a great chance to show how your interest in an MD-PhD is motivated by both professional and personal desires.

The “Why MD-PhD?” question is a great chance to display your knowledge of the physician-scientist training path, your motivations for pursuing an MD-PhD in the present and future, and why you are excited about the opportunity to train at a specific program. By taking the time to craft an authentic and polished response to this classic interview question, you’ll be well on your way to becoming a MD-PhD trainee!

Cambridge Coaching has the most qualified team of medical school writing coaches available anywhere.  Our team is composed of MD, MD-PhDs, and professional writers because we understand that the best coach is going to help you produce a dazzling AMCAS essay, as well as a suite of supplementary materials that provides a persuasive, integrated argument for why you belong in medical school.

The challenge of the medical school application process isn’t just due to the workload, either. It has to do with the sheer competitiveness of the system. You can’t take anything for granted; every aspect of your application has to be solid - your GPA, your MCAT, your recommendations, your interviews, your activities, and your personal statement. That’s why we go beyond the usual options and offer coaching that covers the entire application, not just your personal statement. While we are happy to work with clients on a single essay or drafts, we find that we achieve the best results with clients who work with us throughout their application process - from the MCAT through to the admissions deadlines.

Maya graduated Columbia University with dual degrees in Biology and Computer Science. She began her first year at the Harvard-MIT MD/PhD program (Health Sciences and Technology MD track) in 2020.

Related Content

Advertisement

Supported by

What We Know About the Protests and Arrests at Columbia University

After nearly two weeks of protests, demonstrators seized Hamilton Hall. By the end of the night, the police moved into to arrest them.

• Share full article

By Alan Blinder

Columbia University is grappling with the fallout from its president’s promise to Congress that she would crack down on unsanctioned protests, and her decision to ask the police to clear an encampment on campus, resulting in the arrests of more than 100 students earlier this month.

On Tuesday, after protesters seized Hamilton Hall overnight, Columbia called in the police again and asked officers to remain on campus until May 17, after commencement.

“The events on campus last night have left us no choice,” Nemat Shafik, Columbia’s president, said in a letter to a New York Police Department official on Tuesday.

Police officers in riot gear made dozens of arrests and removed banners from Hamilton Hall’s facade overnight. An encampment near the building was cleared, leaving behind square indents on the grass on Wednesday morning. The campus was still closed on Wednesday to everyone but students who lived there and employees who provided essential services.

Dr. Shafik’s plea for the police presence came after almost two weeks of protests rocked the university, with demonstrators building (and rebuilding) an encampment, recriminations over the initial summoning of the police to campus on April 18, and accusations that Columbia has effectively allowed protesters, in some instances, to celebrate Hamas and target Jewish students for intimidation.

Last week, the university started offering hybrid classes, an acknowledgment that the disputes at the center of campus tension were unlikely to be resolved before the end of the school year. Commencement is scheduled for May 15.

On Friday, university leaders signaled that they were not eager to call in the police again.

“We called on N.Y.P.D. to clear an encampment once, but we all share the view, based on discussions within our community and with outside experts, that to bring back the N.Y.P.D. at this time would be counterproductive, further inflaming what is happening on campus, and drawing thousands to our doorstep who would threaten our community,” Columbia leaders, including Dr. Shafik, wrote. “Having said that, we also need to continue to enforce our own rules and ensure that those who violate the norms of our community face consequences.”

Columbia said Monday evening that it had started to suspend students who remained in the encampment, after they effectively declined an offer from the university to limit discipline. The Hamilton Hall occupation began hours later.

At around 9 p.m. on Tuesday, the police returned to Columbia and began arresting protesters.

How Columbia got here

Since the Oct. 7 attack by Hamas on Israel, American college campuses have been hubs of increased protest and debate. The scene at Columbia has been particularly contentious, with protests drawing hundreds of demonstrators, and some faculty members drawing attention for statements that critics considered to be antisemitic.

Columbia administrators, like their counterparts on campuses across the country, have struggled to fine-tune a response that balances discipline, free speech, academic freedom and institutional and national politics. For example, Columbia suspended two pro-Palestinian student groups after a walkout, and it has rewritten its protest policies, suspended some students and moved to cut or reduce ties to some faculty members.

The university’s approach was the focus of a congressional committee hearing on April 17. Over more than three hours in Washington, Dr. Shafik and other Columbia leaders tried to placate Republican lawmakers by acknowledging that they had been unprepared for the tensions of recent months and promising new crackdowns.

Although their answers appeared to please some lawmakers on Capitol Hill, they stirred unrest on campus, where protesters had built an encampment in the hours before Dr. Shafik’s testimony.

Columbia called in the police twice in April.

Less than 24 hours after the hearing adjourned, New York City police officers in riot gear entered the private campus at the request of Dr. Shafik and Columbia leaders. The police swept into the encampment to arrest defiant protesters and dismantle the demonstration, which was calling for the university to eliminate its financial ties to Israel. The authorities reported more than 100 arrests .

Many people welcomed the decision to call in the police to remove the tent protest in mid-April, and said that Dr. Shafik was well within her power to shut down unauthorized protests on private property. But the decision also provoked fresh outcry from students, faculty members, free-speech groups and critics of Israel, who argued that it was counterproductive to shut down a peaceful protest, particularly on a campus that is supposed to be a marketplace of ideas.

By the time many of the critiques rolled in, protesters had already started gathering again, chanting some of the same slogans — “We don’t want no Zionists here” and “Israel is a racist state” — that Dr. Shafik had suggested were creating “a harassing and intimidating environment for many of our students.”

Protesters pitched tents again, but this time the administration sought to negotiate with them.

Within two weeks, however, the negotiations broke down and protesters took over Hamilton Hall, an administrative building that has a long history of student takeovers. Columbia lost patience and brought the police back to campus. Dr. Shafik, in her letter to the Police Department on Tuesday evening, said the university had made its decision “with the utmost regret.”

Some protests unnerved Jewish students

Columbia cannot control what happens off its property, and the neighborhood around its campus has drawn significant attention in the aftermath of the arrests, with some reports of antisemitic harassment. School officials have said much of the incendiary language has come from outside protesters.

“Go back to Poland!” one masked protester who clutched a Palestinian flag shouted outside the Columbia campus gates, according to a video posted on X . Elsewhere online, a Columbia student said protesters had stolen, and then tried to burn, an Israeli flag, and that Jewish students had been splashed with water.

The Columbia chapter of Chabad, an international Orthodox Jewish movement, said that protesters targeted Jewish students with expletives as they left campus.

The White House condemned the episodes of antisemitic protest. A spokesman, Andrew Bates, said that “calls for violence and physical intimidation targeting Jewish students and the Jewish community are blatantly antisemitic, unconscionable and dangerous.”

Elie Buechler, an Orthodox rabbi who works at Columbia, said that campus and city police officers had failed to guarantee the safety of Jewish students “in the face of extreme antisemitism and anarchy" and suggested that the students return home “until the reality in and around campus has dramatically improved.”

That view was not universally shared. Hillel, the Jewish student organization on campus, called for increased security and said it was not urging Jewish students to leave.

Some on-campus activists distanced themselves from the agitators.

“There’s so many young Jewish people who are, like, a vital part” of the protests, said Grant Miner, a Jewish graduate student at Columbia who belongs to a student coalition calling on Columbia to divest from companies connected to Israel.

That group said in a statement, “We are frustrated by media distractions focusing on inflammatory individuals who do not represent us,” and added that the group’s members “firmly reject any form of hate or bigotry.”

Reporting was contributed by Liset Cruz , Colbi Edmonds , Luis Ferré-Sadurní , Erin Nolan , Sharon Otterman and Lola Fadulu .

Alan Blinder is a national correspondent for The Times, covering education. More about Alan Blinder