Interview Questions

Having graduated this past May with a Master's in Science in Forensic Science from Syracuse University, I have obviously begun my quest to attain a job in the discipline. Most people go out into the working world to get a job in an office, working for a firm or company. If you search "interview" questions, many websites will give you lists of questions that are asked when interviewing for these firm/company office jobs. They include the standard "what are your strengths and weaknesses" and "what do you know about the work we do?" Those questions do not carry over to an interview in forensics and there's nothing on the web about what you may be asked. Here are some of the more interesting questions I've been asked in my search for a career in the profession:

Please describe [an instrumental technique] to a jury: I like this question because I feel I have a good use of analogy and can make the most complicated technique sound like you're building a LEGO set. It is also a very important because as a forensic scientist, you do have to explain how things work to the jury in the courtroom. Maybe one, if that, will have experience in science and have heard of the technique, thus you have to dumb it down. My answers have gotten chuckles out of the panels interviewing me including my analogy of mass spectrometry to a kid knocking over a LEGO castle or IR/GC/LC to shopping in a mall.

Your testimony may send a person to life in prison or even death. How do you feel about that and how would you cope with that understanding?: I feel like this question weeds out the people who do and do not understand what being a forensic analyst actually entails. Yes you do tests and process evidence but obviously that evidence is attached to a criminal case. My answer was "I understand that is part of the job and have no problem with it whatsoever." I feel like that's asking a mailman "You may be bringing foreclosure or credit card bills to people, how do you feel about that?" I didn't do the crime, I'm just asked to analyze evidence. As Sara Scidle says in an episode of CSI, "I collect evidence without emotion."

A police officer is hounding you for evidence that will keep a suspect in custody but your tests are yielding no results that would help. What would you do?: Frankly I would want to punch the officer in the face for bothering me while I do my job, but he has a gun and that wouldn't be a good idea. I was posed this scenario with more extensive wording twice out of three interviews. Obviously the evidence is the evidence and if there's no evidence I can't just make up results. I find this question deals with the problem of the CSI effect on police officers.

You're pressed for time and know another way of analyzing a sample that does not follow the protocol of the lab. What do you do?: Well obviously I would just screw the protocol and do it my way so my evidence can be thrown out of court. This is another question that separates people who do and don't know the profession. If I didn't follow the protocol, my evidence would not be valid. If the evidence is not valid, I can't testify to it. If I don't follow protocol, I GET FIRED! I did extend the question and offer that after the analysis was done by protocol standards, I would suggest the method that I know for development and validation to my supervisor.

Scariest question:

In this profession, one mistake on a case can lead to your dismissal from the position. How do you feel about that?: When publishers make a mistake in a book or journalist in a news article, most people laugh it off as a typo but forensics is a strict discipline. I answered this the same way I answered the "sending someone to jail" question. It's part of the job and I understand that. If I wanted to make mistakes on a job, I would have picked a different course of study, maybe political science.

Dumbest question:

How would your current supervisor describe your work?: Well panel of professionals that took over a month to review my application, resume and transcripts, I am unemployed so I don't have a current supervisor. This question made me very angry as I spent three days preparing for my interview and they obviously couldn't take the time to see if I was currently employed to maybe reword or omit that question. I did turn the question around and explained how my two internship supervisors described my work while at the forensics lab in Syracuse.