The Path to Graduate School Should Include a Ramp (Part 2)

This is Part 2 of a two-part series in which Monica Mesecar reflects on her path to graduate school as a scientist with a physical disability. In [Part 1], she shared the barriers she encountered while pursuing research and preparing for graduate school. Here, she turns to the PhD interview and recruitment process—and what programs can do to make it more accessible.

Reflections on Accessible PhD Recruitment

Of all the advice I could give both students and program staff, the most important is to engage early and often.

Right after I was extended an invitation to interview, I would email the program contacts requesting a meeting to discuss accessibility of the weekend and accommodations that would allow me to engage fully. Six of the seven schools I was invited to responded proactively and with enthusiasm for supporting my full engagement in the weekend.

The one school that did not continually kicked the can down the road despite repeated follow-ups and didn’t engage with me until ~ 1 week prior to my scheduled interview date. At that point, I did not feel comfortable attending because their response differed so significantly from those of the other schools. Their lack of urgency demonstrated to me that they were likely not appreciating the effort and time investment it would take to be fully inclusive and accommodating. Given my experience up until that point, I knew that timeline would not be sufficient to get the necessary accommodations in place.

Therefore, I ended up canceling that interview because if they didn’t take my accessibility needs seriously during recruitment, what would that have meant for my graduate school experience?

A Case for Virtual Interviews Followed by In-Person Visits

Overall, of the six interviews I attended, I concluded that visiting campus at some point is a must for any prospective graduate student in order to assess whether they could really “see themselves there” and gauge belonging. I feel this is especially true for students with disabilities, as you have to get a sense of the accessibility of the campus and whether you could feasibly navigate it successfully. Moreover, a visit gives you a chance to interface with some of the campus’s disability/accessibility resources early to assess how robust the services are, which can factor into your decision.

Yet, I actually found that I preferred the structure of having a virtual interview process followed by an in-person accepted students day.

While I’m sure some readers are recoiling at the thought of coordinating two recruitment events, please hear me out. I found myself interviewing better in a virtual environment because there was less of a physical and mental toll, which enabled me to be more present, coherent, and focused in my responses.

To elaborate, flying is often a nightmare for people with disabilities. You have to get to the airport significantly earlier than your nondisabled peers, often go through additional invasive security screenings, and, in my case, rely on a passenger assistant to escort you throughout the airport. I also elected not to travel with my personal power wheelchair because of the extremely high risk that it would be damaged in transit.

Because I am unable to drive, I also had to rely on the goodwill of friends and family to drive me to destinations or pay for rideshare. All in all, reducing this level of travel as much as possible reduces anxiety and expenses.

If a flight is necessary, I would encourage direct flights if at all possible in order to minimize transitions and interactions with multiple airports and sets of personnel. This gives fewer opportunities for damage and delays.

After making it through the flight, the next hurdle was getting from the airport to the hotel. While airport personnel could get me to the airport doors, the transition from the airport to the curb and vice versa is a “grey zone” where there is no one at the ready to assist. I instead had to rely on Uber/cab drivers or random strangers to help me out of the airport wheelchair and get me and my luggage into the vehicle. For this reason, my smoothest experiences were when the school had sponsored transportation to and from the airport with current students or drivers that were prepared to assist.

After making it to the hotel, I would have to hope that my request for an accessible room was honored and that the room really was, in fact, accessible. Would there be a bench or chair for me to sit on in the shower? Was there a handheld shower in working order? Were there bars in the shower and near the toilet? Was the room large enough to accommodate my mobility aids?

Because I didn’t travel with my power chair, I also asked program coordinators if I would be able to rent one for the duration of the weekend so I could navigate campus. Therefore, I had to hope that the rental chair was operable and manage a device that wasn’t tailored to my needs. If the chair hadn’t been delivered to the hotel as promised, or was broken (rental mobility aids aren’t known for being in tip-top shape) that could have put my entire weekend at risk.

Assuming all of the above went off without incident, I would make my way to the first of many venues, such as a pub for dinner (a staple at multiple visits). Programs needed to take extra care to find venues that didn’t have—or at least minimized—stairs, and for several, this proved a challenge.

Some program coordinators even texted me pictures of venue exteriors and interiors, asking whether they would work. Spoiler alert: these were the programs that made me feel wanted, included, and supported.

At dinner, I would then have to hope there were standard-height tables—not bar tops—that I could sit at with my chair, and that food was either being served, reachable at an accessible height, or that someone was available to assist. If it was going to be awhile, I would also have to investigate whether the restrooms were accessible without stairs and could accommodate me and my mobility aid.

If the restroom wasn’t accessible, I would risk significant discomfort in not being able to relieve myself as needed. I would hope we weren’t planning to be out too late, as late nights prior to interviews pose another challenge. My disability makes my nighttime and morning routines take longer to complete, especially if I am expected to be dressed up. For me, an 8 AM start time would necessitate a wake-up between 4–5 AM, depending on whether I was able to shower the night before.

Therefore, by the time I was able to get to bed, I was getting four to five hours of sleep—or less—the evening before my interviews, which isn’t the state you hope to find yourself in when you’re trying to present yourself and your science well.

For getting to campus, most schools provided transportation to the interviews or arranged paratransit services, which was helpful. Between events, logistics worked best when there was ample transition and break time and when locations weren’t too spread out across campus.

Given the extra time it takes me to navigate spaces with a mobility aid, I can’t really do much with breaks less than 15 minutes. Moreover, locating accessible restrooms, entrances, or routes between buildings often takes longer, so I would be racing against the clock to make it to the next event on time.

On average, I had four to five interviews per school, roughly back to back. It was intense, and given the fatigue I was already facing, they often blurred together. By the time I got to the last one, I was doubting my ability to string coherent thoughts together.

With all of these considerations in mind, my favorite in-person interview structure was having people arrive the night before, come together for a brief dinner to mingle with current students, turn in for the night, have the first half of interviews on one day and the other half the next, while doing activities during the open parts of each day, and finally leaving the following morning.

While longer than most weekends, I felt like this schedule resulted in my best in-person impression because it was less intense and allowed for more preparation It also had the added bonus of allowing me to bond with my prospective cohort on the evening of the second day after we all had finished interviews.

My point in elaborating on my experience to this extent is that you come to the end of this section thinking, Wow, that’s a lot.

Because it is.

While I recognize that interview weekends are difficult for everyone, I paint this picture to highlight the additional burdens that disabled students face and to set up the idea that a virtual interview process eliminates the vast majority of these burdens. During my virtual interviews, I was able to remain in my home, which is already optimized to be accessible, sleep more, and better utilize break periods without the anxieties posed by travel and logistics—all of which allowed me to be able to perform better during interviews.

In addition, most people will end up having more interviews than they do acceptances, so limiting in-person visits to accepted students days minimizes the number of times a student has to work with a school to coordinate these extensive logistics. For example, I met with each school for at least an hour prior to my visit, which is one hour more of planning than most students have to do. Across multiple schools, that really adds up especially if multiple follow-ups are necessary.

Moreover, when someone has been accepted already, it makes that logistical lift feel more worthwhile because you know this visit comes alongside a guaranteed opportunity. The security of having a spot also alleviates the added pressure of having to get in, too, making the overall experience less stressful. This would also pose a cost savings to programs, as fewer students will be accepted than the number who interviewed, and the visit can be more about encouraging to accept.

As alluded to earlier, I feel that the inclusion of an in-person accepted students visit is vital because it disabled students to engage with the campus and disability resources to get a better sense of how they might be supported. To illustrate its importance, one school I had interviewed with had an entirely virtual admissions process with no opportunity to visit campus. This was challenging because while they had a fantastic program, it was in an area I was unsure about, so I had been hoping to visit to assess things for myself. As a disabled student, had I been accepted, I don’t think I would have been comfortable committing to go there without having seen the campus and environment.

That school also had a unique interview process where you scheduled virtual 1:1 interview appointments with five faculty members over a multiple-week period, plus one recruitment day. While at first this seemed appealing, it meant six separate workday disruptions, which ended up being really inconvenient.

To this end, I would optimize how many faculty you need to make a decision about whether or not to make a student an offer. Personally, it felt like there were diminishing returns after 3-4 faculty members. Keeping it to this number also makes it easier to keep recruitment to one or two interview days.

In the end, I felt confident in my choice of school because I had these multiple points of comparison. What made the school stand out was their dedication to supporting their students. They did nearly all of the “best practices” I’ve outlined here, and this support has extended past recruitment and is readily apparent in the program infrastructure. While I know my PhD journey will not be easy, I feel better about the future knowing I’m in a supportive program that cares about providing me with accessible experiences.

To conclude, I feel like I’d be remiss if I didn’t point out the absurdity of having ~5 years of research experience prior to being considered sufficiently competitive for graduate school. While this was my path, I don’t wish this to be the case for others with disabilities. To those of you who are PIs or in decision-making positions, I hope some of these sentiments inspire you to look for ways that you could serve as someone’s “on-ramp” into STEM research and engage in more inclusive recruiting practices.

Best Practices for Accessible PhD Recruitment (Summarized)

• Engage early and often. Reach out to students as soon as they are invited to interview to discuss accessibility and accommodations.
• Consider virtual interviews followed by an in-person accepted students day. This minimizes the burden on students while still allowing them to assess campus accessibility before committing.
• If interviews are in person, minimize the intensity. My preferred structure was arriving the night before, having 1–2 days of interviews and activities, and leaving the following morning.
• Provide an opportunity to describe needed accommodations on RSVP forms.
• Maintain communication throughout the planning process and up until the interview. Provide an emergency contact who can respond quickly if something goes wrong and/or a host student as a general point-of-contact.
• Ask about the student’s preferred airport. Some airports may be more accessible or convenient than others.
• If flying is necessary, encourage direct flights whenever possible.
• Provide school-sponsored transportation whenever possible. If using rideshare or taxis, recognize that accessible transportation may need to be sourced separately and may cost more.
• Connect with university disability services. They may have useful vendor recommendations, paratransit options, or other resources.
• Be mindful of temperature and weather. Transportation that allows students to remain in a comfortable environment can be particularly important for people with disabilities who have difficulty tolerating extreme temperatures.
• Confirm that hotels have accessible rooms and elevators and that accessibility fixtures are functional. “Accessible” does not necessarily mean accessible enough. Historic hotels can be particularly challenging when accessibility has been retrofitted.
• Help source rental mobility aids or durable medical equipment when needed. If possible, identify vendors ahead of time and cover costs up front to reduce the financial and logistical burden on the student.
• Choose accessible venues. Look for minimal or no stairs, including to restrooms; standard-height tables rather than exclusively bar-height tables; sufficient seating; and enough space to navigate around tables and chairs.
• Consider the environment itself. Quieter spaces may be more accessible and comfortable for some students.
• Concentrate interviews and events geographically whenever possible. Reducing the distance between buildings can make a major difference.
• Build in ample transition and break time. Do not allow events to routinely run into scheduled breaks. Some students may need additional time for restroom use, food, water, medication, or other disability-related needs.
• Consider fewer interviews or spread interviews across multiple days.
• If possible, start later in the day. An 8 AM start may require a significantly earlier wake-up for some students.
• Be cautious with outdoor activities. Hikes and similar events are less likely to be accessible and may inadvertently exclude students.
• Recognize that a student may need a companion. This could include a personal care attendant, caregiver, or service animal.
• Know your campus. Familiarize yourself with the locations of accessible entrances, restrooms, and other resources so you can provide this information proactively.
• If your program has supported students with similar disabilities in the past, be prepared to explain how. This can be valuable information for prospective students.
• Check in throughout the visit. Simply asking, “Is there anything else we can do to better support you” can go a long way.
• Be mindful of private residences. Events at faculty homes can pose unavoidable accessibility challenges because private residences are not subject to the same accessibility requirements as public spaces.