PhD Interview Series (Day 24/30) Question: “What’s a concept or theory in your field that you disagree with — and why?” This is the intellectual edge question that reveals if you’re ready to challenge the field, not just inherit it. Why This Question Matters PhD programs want thinkers, not followers. This question tests your critical engagement with the literature. Can you analyze dominant paradigms — and propose alternatives? Can you think against the grain, with evidence? How to Craft a High-Impact Answer 1. Pick a Concept That’s Genuinely Debatable (Not Outdated or Ridiculous) You don’t want to criticise something foundational without good reason. Choose a popular but imperfect idea in your field — something widely accepted but still controversial or context-dependent. Example (Psychology): “I think the concept of ‘grit’ is overemphasized as a predictor of success. It’s compelling, but it ignores structural barriers and reduces complex outcomes to individual persistence. I think we need to shift more attention toward environmental and systemic factors.” Example (Computer Science): “The current hype around ‘foundation models’ being universally generalizable is problematic. In practice, they often fail at localized, nuanced tasks, and they reflect deep biases that are rarely addressed.” 2. Respectfully Disagree — Don’t Dismiss This isn’t about tearing someone down. It’s about showing that you can think critically and constructively. Example: “Angela Duckworth’s work on grit opened important conversations about non-cognitive skills. But the way it’s been adopted in educational policy often ignores equity — and that’s where I see a need for more critical evaluation.” 3. Offer an Alternative or Nuance This is where you show depth. What would you do differently? Or what addition would improve the theory? Example: “Rather than replacing grit, I think it needs to be framed within a broader model that includes access to resources, mentorship, and cultural factors. I’m exploring ways to measure those alongside individual traits.” 4. Connect Back to Your Research or Philosophy Finally, link your critique to your own work or way of thinking. This is how you demonstrate scholarly identity. Example: “This perspective has shaped my approach to designing fairer assessment tools in education — ones that reflect not just effort, but opportunity and context. That’s a core goal of my doctoral research.” DM if you want to work with me on your PhD/Master’s applications 📚✍️