Ward2012 wrote:
Aximili85 wrote:
Can anybody shed some light on their interview experience? Particularly the "topic sharing" portion where they give you a topic on which you have to share your opinion. A current student told me they give you a topic, you have a few minutes to prepare, and then must share your opinion regarding the same in a concise and effective manner. Can somebody elaborate on that specifically?
what you described is pretty much it. You are given a topic that the interviewer has chosen and you need to pick a side and defend it in a presentation.
if you look on the ClearAdmit Wiki, you'll find some mentions of past topics, but in my opinion there's really no way to prepare for it except by just being informed (e.g., reading the paper, paying attention to the news, developing your public speaking skills, etc.)
This area is a bit tricky and different level people will look at different things.
If you are with a lower level people, technical people, 'frog in the well', etc. they will expect so called hard data. These people can not see much beyond what is shown to them. And their arrogance make them believe that their version is the only truth!!
On the contrary, if you are with matured senior level people, they will look at your concept and fundamental knowledge. They are least bothered about what is the NASDAQ today, but they will more look into links between some event at Apple and change in NASDAQ. How you explain, co-relate and argue, basically your intelligence, fundamental knowledge, conceptual knowledge, etc.
It is different levels all together. Second category has the capability to seamlessly move between first and second category .... but the first category can not understand the second category.
In an interviews, you have to very quickly identify which category the interviewer falls and you have to tune your frequency accordingly.
If you fail to identify that, then you are doomed. If the interviewer does not fall in any of the category (i.e. completely dumb!) then also you are gone!!