Better to work with a postdoc or a graduate student? (Research)

SDN Members don't see this ad. (About Ads)

Would an undergraduate be better off working with a postdoc or a graduate student? Under which one would the undergrad have a better chance of being published? I'm guessing it's better to work with a postdoc since he/she will have likely had more experience, but what do you guys think?

Postdoc.

Originally Posted by xXIDaShizIXx

Postdoc.

+1. This because postdocs are basically "judged" by how many and quality of their publications. Not that grad students aren't but it is more of "serious business" for a postdoc since the next step is getting a job. Also, like you said, experience is another important factor. Almost all the time, a postdoc knows more than a grad student on how to work through obstacles, make something (like a reaction) work where a grad student usually needs help from the advisor or the postdoc.

Definitely postdoc. He or she will be more knowledgeable and will probably have more to teach you, as well as fewer other commitments (TA'ing, courses, etc).

Postdoc, no question. They know more (fewer failed experiments, better experimental ideas, etc.), they have a lot of incentive to publish as much as they can, and most importantly they can actually write you a LOR. While a grad student can too, letters from grad students are looked down upon unlike those from PhDs.

Originally Posted by OCDOCDOCD

Postdoc, no question. They know more (fewer failed experiments, better experimental ideas, etc.), they have a lot of incentive to publish as much as they can, and most importantly they can actually write you a LOR. While a grad student can too, letters from grad students are looked down upon unlike those from PhDs.

Good point, but it's better to have the post doc coauthor with a head faculty member, which would give the LOR more street cred.

I'm going to be the contrarian in this thread and say "It depends." There are horrible post docs and great graduate students, and vice versa. The division between post-doc and graduate student, especially 4th/5th year grad students, is sort of nebulous when it comes to actual quality of work too. I would much rather jump on board with a graduate student who's finishing up a paper (and potentially nab a second or third authorship), then go with a brand new post-doc who's just starting their work. But maybe that grad student is a jerk, and the post-doc seems cool, so maybe I'll switch to the post-doc (I'm prejudiced against jerks and working for them, it saves me a lot of storm and stress and I recommend it!). Like life, it depends enough that making generalizations is difficult.

Post-docs in general will be somewhat more knowledgeable than graduate students, and beyond that they will have a knowledge base that's different from the typical grad students in the lab (because they probably earned PhDs at a different university under a different PI). That's the one benefit I'd say there is to working for a post-doc over a grad student. They'll also usually have better new/weird ideas, especially because their different knowledge base and skill set is often leveraged into weird collaborative projects with their current lab. I guess I agree with the LOR thing too, but most undergrads just get it from the PI anyways and bypass whoever their mentor was. Post-docs aren't really regarded much better than graduate students when it comes to that.

Trust me, having a PhD does not suddenly make you a thousand times harder working or smarter than anyone else in a lab. The difference between a 5th year grad student and a 1st year post-doc is incredibly small.

When joining a lab, I recommend instead of worrying about superficial things like this that have no clear answers, you should look directly at the projects being offered and the personalities of the people offering them. You'll be miserable if the guy or gal you work for is a jerk that just treats you like a lab monkey and doesn't give you ownership in a project, whether or not they have a PhD after their name. Look for projects that seem to be going somewhere (though this can be nearly impossible to judge sometimes until you're actively working on them). Ultimately, remember that research is just one (small) part of the application to medical school, and most people understand that undergrads are almost never the ones solely in control of whether or not their work gets published. I didn't have a paper until the fourth year of my PhD. Sometimes projects just take longer or have more complications than you expect.

Originally Posted by Benedictus123

I'm going to be the contrarian in this thread and say "It depends." There are horrible post docs and great graduate students, and vice versa. The division between post-doc and graduate student, especially 4th/5th year grad students, is sort of nebulous when it comes to actual quality of work too. I would much rather jump on board with a graduate student who's finishing up a paper (and potentially nab a second or third authorship), then go with a brand new post-doc who's just starting their work. But maybe that grad student is a jerk, and the post-doc seems cool, so maybe I'll switch to the post-doc (I'm prejudiced against jerks and working for them, it saves me a lot of storm and stress and I recommend it!). Like life, it depends enough that making generalizations is difficult.

Post-docs in general will be somewhat more knowledgeable than graduate students, and beyond that they will have a knowledge base that's different from the typical grad students in the lab (because they probably earned PhDs at a different university under a different PI). That's the one benefit I'd say there is to working for a post-doc over a grad student. They'll also usually have better new/weird ideas, especially because their different knowledge base and skill set is often leveraged into weird collaborative projects with their current lab. I guess I agree with the LOR thing too, but most undergrads just get it from the PI anyways and bypass whoever their mentor was. Post-docs aren't really regarded much better than graduate students when it comes to that.

Trust me, having a PhD does not suddenly make you a thousand times harder working or smarter than anyone else in a lab. The difference between a 5th year grad student and a 1st year post-doc is incredibly small.

When joining a lab, I recommend instead of worrying about superficial things like this that have no clear answers, you should look directly at the projects being offered and the personalities of the people offering them. You'll be miserable if the guy or gal you work for is a jerk that just treats you like a lab monkey and doesn't give you ownership in a project, whether or not they have a PhD after their name. Look for projects that seem to be going somewhere (though this can be nearly impossible to judge sometimes until you're actively working on them). Ultimately, remember that research is just one (small) part of the application to medical school, and most people understand that undergrads are almost never the ones solely in control of whether or not their work gets published. I didn't have a paper until the fourth year of my PhD. Sometimes projects just take longer or have more complications than you expect.

This. It depends. I've worked with both.

Awesome! Thanks for the replies everyone.

eh... pick the one with the friendliest personality.

In addition to Benedictus' post, keep in mind both have a similar goal but in different career stages: publications. So, in that aspect, they can be similar. However, on one hand, a graduate student can graduate with a PhD without publications (ie submitted not but accepted). On the other hand, a post-doc is essentially in a must-publish-as-high-impact-journal scenario since they're attempting to land a decent job (eg any tenure track with decent funding,industrial position, etc).

In a lab with great,constant communication (usually is roughly around a size of around 4-8 people) among all the members including the PI, the PI should be probably give you much insight while either post-doc or grad student can help. In a bigger lab with not so constant communication, perhaps you'll be delegated to work with one, which I'm guessing is your scenario... in this case, your technician would probably help you out more along with general tips regarding troubleshooting or methods, the graduate student probably is helpful in arriving at basic, experimental conclusions (on an experiment by experiment basis, mind you), and then the post-doc will give you a little insight on future direction. Finally, the PI should really be able to talk to you with ideas and goals along with a bigger future direction.