Two weeks ago I wrote this thread for advice on applying to research assistant positions - but this was mainly focused on the basics, and would not be enough to get an interview alone (sorry).

Now I've read all 244, here's how to make your application stand out:

[THREAD] https://twitter.com/DrAmyGillespie/status/1278443235078213633

First a note - my last thread ended up being more broadly applicable than I planned which was great. This one is likely to be slightly more specific, but hopefully still relevant to many!

(Let's now watch as it gets 5 retweets)

I would say 80-100 of the 244 applicants made it clear how they met all the essential criteria and gave appropriate space to their relevant experience.

What made me pick the 30 applicants for the long-list?

One of the key over-arching qualities of all the best applicants was that they came across as *highly competent*, all round - I felt I would trust them to work independently and represent our lab, and they didn't just have experience with XYZ but had become really GOOD at XYZ.

This was usually demonstrated via details. Lots of applicants could say "I have experience with participant recruitment". But some could say "For two projects, I have independently recruited over 50 participants from X patient group within 2 months using the following methods".

Similarly, lots of applicants could say "I have experience with managing datasets". But some could say "I have cleaned and merged datasets with clinical information for 100+ participants from three different research sites in different formats using X R package".

It's not about needing to have the fanciest technical skills and or highest numbers (though they don't hurt!). It's about making it easy for me to understand the level of experience and skill you have, and quickly imagine you bringing that to our work.

Similarly, it's really important to make clear what exactly *you* did in each project. Being "involved" in something can mean nearly anything. Make it clear what you did independently, what you lead, what impressive achievements you managed on your own.

Of course we often work in teams, and that's great! So tell me your role - maybe you did all the social media recruitment, or you did a specific part of the analysis. If recruitment was slow/analysis was messy, and you came up with and implemented a creative solution, tell me!

Don’t waste time on experience that every has. Everyone applying has written a dissertation, so while this certainly does demonstrates certain skills, it doesn't tell me about the *specific* skills that you gained during your dissertation which relate to our *specific* role.

Explain how you go above and beyond the person specification, in ways that are still relevant. e.g.

Analysis experience - talk about your open science practices
Participant experience - touch on your public engagement projects
Communication skills - mention your conference talk

Help build this impression of someone highly competent and perfect for the role quickly - don't tell a chronological story starting with your A-Levels and building up to your most relevant experience. Hit me with the most impressive things straight away!

If you're an early career researcher with a publication, please, PLEASE, cite it properly! That achievement deserves more than the vague statement that you have "published your dissertation". This could mean anything. Let me see the evidence you've battled through peer review!

I tried not to let presentation and the odd typo sway me too much - but, a well-formatted, error-free, aesthetically pleasing application *does* help with an immediate good impression. And this is the only concrete evidence I have of how you present your work so *is* relevant.

Another commonality in the best applicants was their clear interest in our research. I used to think advice about this was arbitrary or hoop-jumping - but I want to know you'll be as excited about the studies as I am, and we'll have interesting sciency chats in the coffee room!

(There is also a big difference between being excited about working at Oxford, and working with our team specifically. Both are great! I was excited about both! But the latter is the one that will help me see you fitting into our team)

More pragmatically, if I have to make tough decisions on who to invite for interview, why would I waste a spot on someone who doesn't seem excited about the position and might turn it down?

The above is also worth bearing in mind if you're "over-qualified" or highly skilled in a divergent area, because it might be assumed your application is just a "back-up" compared to the positions you really want. If you're genuinely excited about the role, explain why!

Finally, something to avoid:

If you're only asked for a CV and cover letter, don't send extras (e.g. essays, book proposals). At best, it's pointless (can't be taken into account due to time constraints + fairness). At worst, it's irritating (wastes time + feels like cheating).

Okay, I'll end on this - I had to reject a lot of great applications. But I am confident that the vast majority will go onto fantastic positions, many simply in roles more suited to their skill-set, some after they've built just a bit more experience. So don't lose heart!