u/Unusual-Tourist2293

I have my 5th PhD interview coming up this week, and I feel like I'm going to mess it up. Again. Both when they ask me questions and when they get to the "any questions for us?" part at the end.

My CV looks fine. Grades are there, research experience is decent, so I should be okay on paper. But I've done this 4 times now and I keep making the same mistakes. The problem is I'm naturally pretty shy, so the second I'm in that Zoom call, I completely clam up. I rehearse answers, but I end up giving these quiet, awkward, shortened responses because I'm too nervous to actually articulate what I know. I lose my train of thought, mumble my way through, and only think of the perfect thing I should have said like 5 minutes after we hang up.

It doesn't help that I'm trying to pivot into a slightly different area, so a lot of their newer techniques and jargon go over my head. I read their papers but I don't fully grasp everything, which makes me even more nervous when they ask technical questions. And at the end, I don't feel confident enough to ask anything specific without sounding like I didn't understand their work.

When they go "so, do you have any questions for us?" I just... freeze. Every single time. I either ask some painfully generic crap like "what's the lab culture like?" or I just panic and say "nope, I think you covered everything!" which makes me look unprepared and disengaged, when really I'm just too shy and lost to think of anything on the spot.

I know this is why I keep missing out on offers and I'm so tired of it.

How do I actually come out of my shell during these calls so I can give fuller answers? And does anyone have a few solid go-to questions I can just whip out at the end without having to improvise? Especially ones that work when you're still learning the field?

Pls share your scripts or hacks. I'm desperate lol.

I have my 5th PhD interview coming up this week, and I feel like I'm going to mess it up. Again. Both when they ask me questions and when they get to the "any questions for us?" part at the end.

My CV looks fine. Grades are there, research experience is decent, so I should be okay on paper. But I've done this 4 times now and I keep making the same mistakes. The problem is I'm naturally pretty shy, so the second I'm in that Zoom call, I completely clam up. I rehearse answers, but I end up giving these quiet, awkward, shortened responses because I'm too nervous to actually articulate what I know. I lose my train of thought, mumble my way through, and only think of the perfect thing I should have said like 5 minutes after we hang up.

It doesn't help that I'm trying to pivot into a slightly different area, so a lot of their newer techniques and jargon go over my head. I read their papers but I don't fully grasp everything, which makes me even more nervous when they ask technical questions. And at the end, I don't feel confident enough to ask anything specific without sounding like I didn't understand their work.

When they go "so, do you have any questions for us?" I just... freeze. Every single time. I either ask some painfully generic crap like "what's the lab culture like?" or I just panic and say "nope, I think you covered everything!" which makes me look unprepared and disengaged, when really I'm just too shy and lost to think of anything on the spot.

I know this is why I keep missing out on offers and I'm so tired of it.

How do I actually come out of my shell during these calls so I can give fuller answers? And does anyone have a few solid go-to questions I can just whip out at the end without having to improvise? Especially ones that work when you're still learning the field?

Pls share your scripts or hacks. I'm desperate lol.

I'm applying for a PhD in Europe (I am from Asia), and my project idea grew directly out of observations I made during my MSc research. The manuscript is still in preparation, so the findings are unpublished.

I wouldn't be presenting these observations as established evidence, but rather as part of the background and motivation for the project. For example, would it be acceptable to write something like:

*"*Questions arising during the applicant's MSc research motivated this project..."

or

"The applicant's MSc research identified observations that highlighted a gap requiring further investigation..."

Or even briefly mention the observation in the rationale/background section before introducing the published literature?

Alternatively, is it generally better practice to base the entire scientific rationale only on published literature and avoid mentioning unpublished MSc findings altogether?

I'd especially appreciate perspectives from people who have reviewed PhD or fellowship applications!

Thank you :)

Hi everyone,

I’m currently writing my motivation letter for a Marie Skłodowska-Curie Actions (MSCA) PhD position. I’m struggling to decide on the right "voice" and tone to use.

I’ve drafted the same section of my background in two completely different styles. Since MSCA heavily values both technical excellence and personal career development/agency, I’m torn on which approach evaluators prefer.

Could you tell me which of these two styles reads better or fits the MSCA vibe more?

Option 1: I trained as a mechanical engineer in Southeast Asia before pursuing an MSc in Renewable Energy in Taiwan, where my research focused on optimizing wind turbine blade aerodynamics. Through this work, I gained experience in computational fluid dynamics (CFD), structural health monitoring, sensor data fusion, CAD modeling, and high-performance computing. Managing my thesis required coordinating wind tunnel experiments, analyzing large aerodynamic datasets, troubleshooting simulation errors, and completing an independent engineering project within a fixed timeline.

OR

Option 2: I dealt with the realities of grid instability and energy shortages while working as a mechanical engineer in South America. I observed cases where local wind turbine installations repeatedly underperformed or suffered premature structural failures, despite being rated for those environments. This is when I realized that traditional mechanical engineering gave me a strong understanding of physical structures, but not the complex aerodynamic forces acting upon them.

Understanding these real-world maintenance challenges in the field motivated me to transition into research. I pursued a Master’s degree in Taiwan to focus on this gap. Aerodynamic optimization is the backbone of viable wind power, and working on boundary layer control connected directly to what I had seen in the field. For my thesis, I simulated and evaluated design variations of turbine blades, integrating CFD models and structural stress data to understand the bigger picture.

If you have successfully secured an MSCA fellowship, I would love to hear your thoughts! Thanks for the help!

Hi everyone,

I’m currently writing my motivation letter for a Marie Skłodowska-Curie Actions (MSCA) PhD position. I’m struggling to decide on the right "voice" and tone to use.

I’ve drafted the same section of my background in two completely different styles. Since MSCA heavily values both technical excellence and personal career development/agency, I’m torn on which approach evaluators prefer.

Could you tell me which of these two styles reads better or fits the MSCA vibe more?

Option 1: I trained as a mechanical engineer in Southeast Asia before pursuing an MSc in Renewable Energy in Taiwan, where my research focused on optimizing wind turbine blade aerodynamics. Through this work, I gained experience in computational fluid dynamics (CFD), structural health monitoring, sensor data fusion, CAD modeling, and high-performance computing. Managing my thesis required coordinating wind tunnel experiments, analyzing large aerodynamic datasets, troubleshooting simulation errors, and completing an independent engineering project within a fixed timeline.

OR

Option 2: I dealt with the realities of grid instability and energy shortages while working as a mechanical engineer in South America. I observed cases where local wind turbine installations repeatedly underperformed or suffered premature structural failures, despite being rated for those environments. This is when I realized that traditional mechanical engineering gave me a strong understanding of physical structures, but not the complex aerodynamic forces acting upon them.

Understanding these real-world maintenance challenges in the field motivated me to transition into research. I pursued a Master’s degree in Taiwan to focus on this gap. Aerodynamic optimization is the backbone of viable wind power, and working on boundary layer control connected directly to what I had seen in the field. For my thesis, I simulated and evaluated design variations of turbine blades, integrating CFD models and structural stress data to understand the bigger picture.

If you have successfully secured an MSCA fellowship, I would love to hear your thoughts! Thanks for the help!