completing MD/PhD in a timely manner...advice?

[heresjohn]

---

Members do not see this ad.

Hi Everyone,

I think this is a topic that alot of my fellowing incoming MD/PhD students will also be interested in...do any current and past MD/PhD students have advice on how to complete the degree in 6-7 years?

If you know people who were able to do that, how did they do it? Is it possible to complete your grad school reqs during MS1 and MS2?

Thanks a bunch

 

[strangeglove]

Meet with your thesis committee early and often and do what they tell you.

 

[delirium81]

I think finishing in 6 years is quite uncommon. If you're really aiming for that then I'd say pick an experimental system that you know will work and work fast. I know one MD/PhD who finished his PhD in under 3 years, he worked in bioinformatics. Don't try to work with mice or anything else that's relatively slow growing unless it's already a well-developed system that you know will be able to generate data quickly. When you're interviewing with potential advisors make sure they're ok with you finishing in 2-3 years. Some people aren't ok even with 4, and I think you'll have a hard time finding many who would be ok with 2. Make sure they have reasonable expectations. If they expect that you should have 4 journal articles before you graduate, that's obviously a red flag. I second what strangeglove said. Get a thesis committee together as early as is reasonable and meet with them often. In your first year, write out a plan for yourself detailing what your goals are for each year of your PhD. Go over it with your advisor and make sure they're on board. Make sure that you both agree on what you need to do to finish. Make sure that your committee agrees with this plan as well. That way, if you've checked everything off they can't spring 10 more experiments on you.

 

[greg12345]

1. 6 years - do a fake PhD where you are held to a lesser standard than normal grad students. This happens at some places. Or don't do a bench-science project, other disciplines may be more suited to an earlier exit with still a quality PhD. Otherwise forget about it.

2. 7 years - the committee advice is all fine and dandy, and you gotta work crazy hours in the lab yada yada yada but let me let you in on the real key to getting out in 7 with a real quality PhD:tons of arbitrary luck.



If you are dead set on getting out as fast as possible here is what I would recommend:

1. choose your rotations wisely and do a real/quality rotation prior to starting MS1 (the sooner you choose a lab, the sooner you start learning techniques/generating data for your dissertation).

2. choose your MENTOR and your COMMITTEE very very wisely (talk with current grad students and MS3/MS4s in order to avoid the bad apples who might hold on to you too long). look at the track record of the PIs you are thinking about working with as far as producing quality PhDs in a reasonable amount of time.

3. let your advisor and your committee know right away what your projected timeline is (i.e. I am planning to go back to med school June 20XX if everything goes according to plan) and remind them of that. Obviously you must be flexible if your data is not up to par, but it never hurts to plant that seed that as of June 20XX you are as good as gone.

4. meet w/your committee q6mo and make yer data SHINE so your committee will feel good about you graduating in 3-4 years. lay out your data as these 6 figs are paper 1, the next 6 figs are paper 2, and the upcoming experiments will be paper 3, etc. meet with your advisor often, especially if you have a laissez faire type PI, let him/her help you avoid the traps/bombs you might walk into that waste time/energy.

5. do not waste time as a grad student trying to keep up your clinical skills/knowledge by volunteering at health clinics, etc. there is a time for that - it's called med school. when you are a grad student you have one purpose in life, to learn how to think like a scientist and generate publishable data. anything that detracts from that, no matter how worthwhile you think it is (in my opinion, totally worthless to do clinical stuff as a grad student) will only add time to your grad years.

6. work hard. typically pulled about 60-70h per week, which doesn't seem so bad. many weeknights and Fri/Sat nights were spent there too, which is a necessary evil. and be productive in the lab - don't be surfing on sd.net while your gel is running, go clone something, set up a transfection, etc. there is a lot of down time in science that can either be wasted or used productively. move your project forward every day, even if it is only by the smallest step.

7. don't wuss out. it will be torture, but get used to that, because that is the life you have signed up for. don't let that affect your work ethic. keep grinding away and you will make it. realize that you get more and more productive the longer you are in grad school - 6mo of work at the end of grad school generates way more data than 6mo at the beginning. the data/productivity ~should increase logarithmically in relation to time spent in grad school. if it doesn't, well you can always forget that research career, go back to med school and become a dermatologist and make 390,000K while working <40h a week according to the NY times. oh, the horror.

8. finally, find out when you want to go back to med school. i recommend starting back at the same time all the other 3rd years do (July). you are already at a huge disadvantage (at least i thought it was a disadvantage) compared to the other 3rd years who are fresh off the boards, and your clinical grades (which are absolutely huge in residency apps) are often heavily influenced by how you did compared to your peers on a particular rotation. now, if you plan to go back in July, set up your defense in april or may b/c INEVITABLY it will get pushed back for one reason or another. realize that all committee members need to be there - get with them way in advance to make sure no one is going out of the country, etc. it is almost impossible to get 5 PIs in one room at the same time for a 2h stretch. defend in april/early may, hang out in the lab for a month tying up loose ends, revising papers etc. and then YOU ABSOLUTELY MUST TAKE TIME OFF BEFORE 3RD YEAR. at least 2 weeks. also realize that as a 3rd year you will have almost no time to work on papers that come back from reviews. try to plan for this by organizing your reagents/notebooks in such a way that a tech can do the necessary experiments.

9. endnote or reference manager - learn to use it, learn to love it. file every paper you read into it. when it comes time to write your papers, thesis, etc. you will think it is the greatest thing since sliced bread. read one paper per day M-F for the 1st 2 years. thats 500 papers. you will know the lit early on, be able to design experiments better, etc.

10. my final advice would be to get out while you still can, the shackles are not yet on. you have no idea what you are getting into.

 

[Picklesali]

Wow, greg, that's really fabulous advice!

Thanks!

 

[pseudoknot]

Or you could take an extra year and not burn out and leave science anyway...

 

[heresjohn]

Thanks everyone for your wonderful advice!

 

[QofQuimica]

Or you could take an extra year and not burn out and leave science anyway...

Agree. Considering that my MD/PhD is taking 14 years in all (separate degrees with some time off), even 8 years total doesn't sound all that bad to me. 😉

OP, I want to second what greg said about choosing your advisor wisely. I really think that's the single most important key to having a successful grad school experience, regardless of how long it takes you. Before you sign on the dotted line, look at their publishing record, and look at their record with graduating PhDs. Also, talk to the students and post docs in the lab to try to get a sense of how things are going in that lab, and talk to recent grads from that lab if you can. If the advisor is malignant, look elsewhere, even if his research is the coolest thing you've ever seen.

 

[pseudoknot]

OP, I want to second what greg said about choosing your advisor wisely. I really think that's the single most important key to having a successful grad school experience, regardless of how long it takes you. Before you sign on the dotted line, look at their publishing record, and look at their record with graduating PhDs. Also, talk to the students and post docs in the lab to try to get a sense of how things are going in that lab, and talk to recent grads from that lab if you can. If the advisor is malignant, look elsewhere, even if his research is the coolest thing you've ever seen.

Of all the good advice in Q's post, this is the most important thing! (This is also why it doesn't matter which institution you choose: the important thing is your advisor, and you can't really evaluate them until you are there.) Just relax. People freak out so much about which school or which program but that's really a pretty unimportant decision.

 

[gbwillner]

1. 6 years - do a fake PhD where you are held to a lesser standard than normal grad students. This happens at some places. Or don't do a bench-science project, other disciplines may be more suited to an earlier exit with still a quality PhD. Otherwise forget about it.

2. 7 years - the committee advice is all fine and dandy, and you gotta work crazy hours in the lab yada yada yada but let me let you in on the real key to getting out in 7 with a real quality PhD:tons of arbitrary luck.



If you are dead set on getting out as fast as possible here is what I would recommend:

1. choose your rotations wisely and do a real/quality rotation prior to starting MS1 (the sooner you choose a lab, the sooner you start learning techniques/generating data for your dissertation).

2. choose your MENTOR and your COMMITTEE very very wisely (talk with current grad students and MS3/MS4s in order to avoid the bad apples who might hold on to you too long). look at the track record of the PIs you are thinking about working with as far as producing quality PhDs in a reasonable amount of time.

3. let your advisor and your committee know right away what your projected timeline is (i.e. I am planning to go back to med school June 20XX if everything goes according to plan) and remind them of that. Obviously you must be flexible if your data is not up to par, but it never hurts to plant that seed that as of June 20XX you are as good as gone.

4. meet w/your committee q6mo and make yer data SHINE so your committee will feel good about you graduating in 3-4 years. lay out your data as these 6 figs are paper 1, the next 6 figs are paper 2, and the upcoming experiments will be paper 3, etc. meet with your advisor often, especially if you have a laissez faire type PI, let him/her help you avoid the traps/bombs you might walk into that waste time/energy.

5. do not waste time as a grad student trying to keep up your clinical skills/knowledge by volunteering at health clinics, etc. there is a time for that - it's called med school. when you are a grad student you have one purpose in life, to learn how to think like a scientist and generate publishable data. anything that detracts from that, no matter how worthwhile you think it is (in my opinion, totally worthless to do clinical stuff as a grad student) will only add time to your grad years.

6. work hard. typically pulled about 60-70h per week, which doesn't seem so bad. many weeknights and Fri/Sat nights were spent there too, which is a necessary evil. and be productive in the lab - don't be surfing on sd.net while your gel is running, go clone something, set up a transfection, etc. there is a lot of down time in science that can either be wasted or used productively. move your project forward every day, even if it is only by the smallest step.

7. don't wuss out. it will be torture, but get used to that, because that is the life you have signed up for. don't let that affect your work ethic. keep grinding away and you will make it. realize that you get more and more productive the longer you are in grad school - 6mo of work at the end of grad school generates way more data than 6mo at the beginning. the data/productivity ~should increase logarithmically in relation to time spent in grad school. if it doesn't, well you can always forget that research career, go back to med school and become a dermatologist and make 390,000K while working <40h a week according to the NY times. oh, the horror.

8. finally, find out when you want to go back to med school. i recommend starting back at the same time all the other 3rd years do (July). you are already at a huge disadvantage (at least i thought it was a disadvantage) compared to the other 3rd years who are fresh off the boards, and your clinical grades (which are absolutely huge in residency apps) are often heavily influenced by how you did compared to your peers on a particular rotation. now, if you plan to go back in July, set up your defense in april or may b/c INEVITABLY it will get pushed back for one reason or another. realize that all committee members need to be there - get with them way in advance to make sure no one is going out of the country, etc. it is almost impossible to get 5 PIs in one room at the same time for a 2h stretch. defend in april/early may, hang out in the lab for a month tying up loose ends, revising papers etc. and then YOU ABSOLUTELY MUST TAKE TIME OFF BEFORE 3RD YEAR. at least 2 weeks. also realize that as a 3rd year you will have almost no time to work on papers that come back from reviews. try to plan for this by organizing your reagents/notebooks in such a way that a tech can do the necessary experiments.

9. endnote or reference manager - learn to use it, learn to love it. file every paper you read into it. when it comes time to write your papers, thesis, etc. you will think it is the greatest thing since sliced bread. read one paper per day M-F for the 1st 2 years. thats 500 papers. you will know the lit early on, be able to design experiments better, etc.

10. my final advice would be to get out while you still can, the shackles are not yet on. you have no idea what you are getting into.

👍

I would also add that it takes LUCK too. Your project has to work, regradless of how hard you try. You have to be good at recognizing when things are not working, and know when to throw in the towel and try something else.

I think it's best to start with 3-4 projects, and follow the path of least resistance.

 

[seraph524]

I think one of the most important things is who you pick as your thesis adviser. Advice I often hear include:

1. Don't pick new labs, or those with assistant professorships. They often are under the pressure to perform/publish, and may trap new graduate students in their labs for prolonged periods of time. (Although, take this advice with a grain of salt...don't stereotype ALL new labs, just be cautious...I actually am interested in new labs at WashU myself)

2. Talk to people who work and have worked in their labs. Talking to current students will only give you all the positives...talking to ex-students will get you the truth. You don't want to be stuck in a lab like Elias Corey's 😵

3. Make sure you get along with your adviser!

 

[pseudoknot]

1. Don't pick new labs, or those with assistant professorships. They often are under the pressure to perform/publish, and may trap new graduate students in their labs for prolonged periods of time. (Although, take this advice with a grain of salt...don't stereotype ALL new labs, just be cautious...I actually am interested in new labs at WashU myself)

2. Talk to people who work and have worked in their labs. Talking to current students will only give you all the positives...talking to ex-students will get you the truth. You don't want to be stuck in a lab like Elias Corey's 😵

3. Make sure you get along with your adviser!

#1 is not necessarily true, I was my advisor's first grad student and the first in my class to graduate. Other factors are more important. It's true that with new profs you can't evaluate them as well so it is more of a leap of faith.

Agree with #2 as I said above.

#3 is nice, but not necessarily important to how fast you finish or the quality of work you do...my advisor and I hated each other.

 

[GWD]

don't suck

 

[seraph524]

don't suck

lol 🙄

 

[Kraazy]

Or you could always that PhD Ms.Chyna Ross says you were "nominated" for. Seriously, I look at these emails now and wonder if I should just jump ship while I still can! 🙂

 

[heresjohn]

#1 is not necessarily true, I was my advisor's first grad student and the first in my class to graduate. Other factors are more important. It's true that with new profs you can't evaluate them as well so it is more of a leap of faith.

Agree with #2 as I said above.

#3 is nice, but not necessarily important to how fast you finish or the quality of work you do...my advisor and I hated each other.

Regarding #3, how much does relationship with your boss affect quality of rec letters?

 

[seraph524]

Regarding #3, how much does relationship with your boss affect quality of rec letters?

I would imagine quite a bit...I know of at least one PI who writes absolutely horrendous "letters of recs" for his students...and given the confidentiality of letters, the student will never find out why they can't get a job/position...

But then again, this isn't the norm...just food for thought...

 

[QofQuimica]

You don't want to be stuck in a lab like Elias Corey's 😵

So true. I remember that not too long after I started grad school (in organic chem, but not working for E. J. Corey!), one of his students committed suicide and left a suicide note that explicitly blamed him. That gave all of us something to talk about for quite a while.

On the other hand, if you do manage to survive getting your PhD with him, you're going to be pretty much set for the rest of your life as far as getting a job in organic.

 

[seraph524]

So true. I remember that not too long after I started grad school (in organic chem, but not working for E. J. Corey!), one of his students committed suicide and left a suicide note that explicitly blamed him. That gave all of us something to talk about for quite a while.

On the other hand, if you do manage to survive getting your PhD with him, you're going to be pretty much set for the rest of your life as far as getting a job in organic.

Ooh...haha I think you just dated yourself, since the last suicide (or at least the last publicized one) occurred in 1998. And yea, you are right, if you happen to be one of Corey's favorites, you will be set for life.

As a side note, the guy who committed suicide wasn't even given first author for the work he accomplished before his death, even though he finished an overwhelming majority of the project. I think he was given 4th author of 5... 😵

 

[pseudoknot]

Regarding #3, how much does relationship with your boss affect quality of rec letters?

Quite a bit, but I don't plan to ever ask him for another letter. My point #3 was at least half kidding but the other ones were serious. I do think you can accomplish great things (not that I did but I've seen other examples) even if you don't like your advisor. However, your life will be WAY better if that relationship is a pleasant one.

 

[QofQuimica]

Ooh...haha I think you just dated yourself, since the last suicide (or at least the last publicized one) occurred in 1998. And yea, you are right, if you happen to be one of Corey's favorites, you will be set for life.

As a side note, the guy who committed suicide wasn't even given first author for the work he accomplished before his death, even though he finished an overwhelming majority of the project. I think he was given 4th author of 5... 😵

Yeah, well, what can I say besides that compared to most of y'all, I'm old--I started grad school in 1997. 😉 I believe that the suicide was a year later, which would be in 1998 like you said. I remember that at the time when it happened, I had already finished all three of my rotations, chosen my mentor, and started working in his lab. So fall 1998 would be about right for the timing.

How did you come to know so much about E. J. Corey? If you're a trad college senior, you must have been like, what, in sixth grade when this suicide happened?

 

[Neuronix]

I would add one thing to Greg's excellent list.

With whatever flexibility you have in this, i.e. picking your graduate program, picking your MD/PhD program, flexibility within that program, try not to teach, try to take fairly relaxed courses, and be done with those things and have your pre-lim defended after year 1 of grad school. Squeezing in grad courses along with med school can help with this.

There are some other tricks I played that let me get out in 7. I did my first rotation before my program started (one of the few in my program) and I technically did 3 rotations, but one of those rotations was working on stuff that was so related it was practically my thesis project. The other PI had no problem with me just getting guidance from the PI I was going to do my thesis with.

As far as advisors go... I think you can just ASK them. What do you think about MD/PhDs? Do you understand we will want to work hard and efficiently to produce a quality thesis but return to clinics quickly? How do you feel about that?

 

[seraph524]

How did you come to know so much about E. J. Corey? If you're a trad college senior, you must have been like, what, in sixth grade when this suicide happened?

I work in an organic chemistry lab, and my PI did his PhD with Woodward. He *almost* joined the Corey group 😵

 

[pseudoknot]

In his wikipedia page there is a whole section called "Graduate student suicides":
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elias_James_Corey

 

[pseudoknot]

I guess I won't complain so much about my advisor now!

 

[Neuronix]

Interesting...

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9D00E5DB1F30F93AA15752C1A96E958260

I went through that article out of my curiosity on this issue.

One possible reason [why Corey did not know his student was having personal troubles], I suggested, was the widespread atmosphere of fear I had encountered in the chemistry building. Almost every student I interviewed for this story was concerned about being quoted by name, even for the most generic or neutral remarks, and when I asked why, the answer was always the same: they weren't sure how their graduate advisers would take it, and it might affect their careers.

and that... has not really changed. It's as true on this board as it is in real life. Everyone wants to protect their anonymity at all costs, and I don't really bother to protect mine and get warned from time to time about how insane that is. In medicine and research too much of your future is dependent on your letters of recommendation and your direct supervisors. You have to please them ALWAYS or you can potentially be screwed. The worst thing that can happen it seems, at least in academics, is to be labelled a troublemaker. For a system that prides itself on pushing the envelope, we sure to do expect the rank and file of our students (unless you're pushing for something PC). At least with a committee you can, in theory, be sure to graduate, but if your PhD advisor takes to not liking you for ANY reason, you can forget about persuing academics. So this guy was very scared of speaking to anyone about his problems. I don't blame him...

I wonder if the suicide rate has really changed with the "broken pipeline" situation? i.e. the job market is so tight right now for PhD students, it really could seem like a dead end pathway.

 

[greg12345]

Neuronix speaks the truth - get your prelim/qualifying out of the way ASAP, i.e. at the end of your 1st year of grad school! Never, ever fail it because that is another 6 week chunk of time that you must sacrifice the next year. And so true about minimizing teaching responsibilities, extra coursework, etc. Do the bare minimum for that non-essential stuff so you can spend as much time in the lab generating data as possible.

Since an incoming MD/PhD student posed the initial question, I will condense my advice to what matters now and in the next several months for an incoming student. Try to do a quality rotation before you start medical school, choose this rotation wisely. Never, ever waste a rotation - if it's not a lab you could see yourself being successful in and being happy in, do not waste a rotation on that lab. To choose a lab now you must do a lot of legwork - look up profiles/pubs on the web, get the contact information of current MSTP students and hit them up for opinions on a select number of faculty that you think you might be interested in, ask your program director for advice and what the funding status of those labs are, and finally contact and talk w/potential mentors. It would be ideal if you could meet with them to discuss potential projects, etc. before you even move down but sometimes this is impossible. If you do meet with them, come prepared - read the pubs from the lab so you know what is going on and what kind of project you might be involved in (many times they will have several different ideas of projects that you might be able to work on - if you know the work they do, you can make an informed choice).

Bang out this rotation, then start med school, BUT THEN START THINKING ABOUT YOUR ROTATION FOR NEXT SUMMER (i.e. between MS1 and MS2). Realize that the good labs often fill up very fast and you will be competing with normal grad students for rotation slots. Again make a list and do some research then go meet w/these PIs in person (again, come prepared). It is hard to find time since you will be busy, but make the effort. I would recommend doing this and having a rotation set up for the summer by early winter at the latest (earlier is better, I set mine up in the fall). Obviously, your program/department may be different but if you are shooting for a desirable lab you want to lock up a spot early.

Finally, a rotation before MS1 is not essential, but if you are absolutely determined to get out ASAP then it helps. Ideally you want to be able to hit the ground running in your thesis lab straight after the boards after MS2 and start generating thesis data right away, rather than rotating through another lab that you may or may not choose for your thesis.

Oh yeah, and take MS1 and MS2 seriously, really try to learn and understand the material and build a solid foundation rather than just memorizing and then forgetting. The further you get in your clinical training the more and more you will appreciate really knowing the details and understanding why we make certain clinical decisions. For example, you could just memorize that the treatment of community acquired pneumonia is ceftriaxone and azithromycin, and you will get through residency fine. Or you could know that the most common bacterial pathogens in CAP are strep pneumo (GPC) and atypicals, and hence you would need GPC coverage and atypical coverage, and if you understand resistance patterns and pharm you will understand why we choose those Abx over others, etc. Then you would be making a rational clinical decision based on your understanding of pathophysiology, rather than making a clinical decision from rote memorization because that's what your upper level told you to do as an intern. Plus if you really learn the material you will do better on Step 1 which is the rate-limiting step for many competitive residencies.

And I reiterate, the most important thing to getting out quickly is getting lucky. I am absolutely not kidding about this. Probably the most important thing you can do now is find a four leaf clover or buy a rabbit's foot from a traveling shaman.

 

[pseudoknot]

This thread has some excellent advice. It should be a sticky or FAQ.

 

[Myempire1]

I agree with a lot that's already been said so will repeat some of it. IMO, grad factors things that increase your changes to get out in 7 years:
1. Pick your mentor wisely and make your aspirations known to him/her before joining the lab.
2. Choose a reasonable thesis committee that would be more inclined to let you graduate if they see you are contributing to science.
3. Don't let your boss keep you around more than you want too (see 1 and 2). You are cheap labor.
4. Work >80 hour weeks pretty often. There were many many occasions where I never left the lab and just worked through the night.
5. On that note... to encourage you to live in the lab and work incessantly, move into the lab. I brought refreshments, a loud stereo system, lots of music, a dart board, snacks, random stuff, hobbies, and even dumbells for a while. In hindsight, it probably looked ridiculous.
6. Avoid making knockout mice. Stick to single celled organisms, c. elegans, flies, proteins, etc.
7. Learn from your own and your senior students' experiences, mistakes and follies.
8. Learn early how to asked focused and well directed questions.
9. Learn how to pick the correct experiments so as to get to the question asked yet cast a wide enough net to point you in the correct direction if you are wrong.
10. Learn how to say NO to you boss early so he/she does not send you off tangents to do random experiment for a grant that has nothing to do with your project. (Or at least figure out how to get your boss out off your back)
11. Take advantage of any resource you have to learn experimental techniques you need to test your hypotheses. If a particular technique looks like it may take too long to learn (e.g. >1-2 years), collaborate with someone you know will get the experiment done.
12. Have committee meetings every 6 months in addition to presenting at meetings and WIPS and journal clubs, etc.
13. Submit your first publication early because it takes forever to get **** accepted for publication these days.
14. A lot of luck.
I loved my grad experience. Went in really focused. Got lucky and out in 3.

 

[heresjohn]

10. Learn how to say NO to you boss early so he/she does not send you off tangents to do random experiment for a grant that has nothing to do with your project. (Or at least figure out how to get your boss out off your back)

Thanks for all your advice. Just a followup on 10, how do you say no to your boss diplomatically to maintain good relations? I would probably be a wet noodle...

 

[JustAdocInBox]

OMG this thread is so good I want to print it and save it. Thank you all very much for your contributions.

 

[seraph524]

OMG long time no see revaldo!

 

[QofQuimica]

This thread has some excellent advice. It should be a sticky or FAQ.

I'll add it. 🙂

 

[Neuronix]

I added it to my FAQ thread. 🙂 I should really add more things to it. It's been so long since I started it (it was the first SDN sticky thread), that I forget it's there If anyone has any suggestions for threads to add to that please feel free to let me know.

 

[OliveOil]

Hi everyone!
I'm totally new to this (website and all) and I stumbled on this site recently while trying to make a decision on a program. I found this to be extremely helpful...especially as finding a potential mentor is of great concern...I wanted to know how one goes about finding recent graduates from a particular lab ...and the most tactful way of gettting desired information without being abrasive or too intrusive...

Thanks...I really appreciate the help 🙂

 

[pseudoknot]

Hi everyone!
I'm totally new to this (website and all) and I stumbled on this site recently while trying to make a decision on a program. I found this to be extremely helpful...especially as finding a potential mentor is of great concern...I wanted to know how one goes about finding recent graduates from a particular lab ...and the most tactful way of gettting desired information without being abrasive or too intrusive...

Thanks...I really appreciate the help 🙂

- see if the lab has a web page with lab members and alums listed
- ask people you met at the lab or school if they know any others from that lab
- PubMed search by advisor, see if you can guess the status of coauthors
- ask the PI -- he or she might not give you disgruntled folks though. It's a very reasonable request and if a PI objected to it that would be a big red flag.

 

[xanthines]

I notice that the concept of luck keeps coming up so I'd like to spout off some BS. 🙂

Without exception, every single student (and I mean EVERY student) who's graduated MSTP in less than the average time at their institution has worked their butt off. Luck was a factor in some cases. In others, they worked like maniacs. My roommate finished his PhD in 4 years and his project involved training chimps (and yes, he did the actual training). He also spent A LOT of time in the lab.

So yeah, I'd rather be lucky than good any day but I'm going to work hard just in case luck doesn't my way. The more likely thing to happen to me is this anyway: http://despair.com/misfortune.html (no, seriously).

-X

 

[Neuronix]

Luck is always involved. The harder you work the higher the likelihood you'll get done in 7, but luck and careful planning is always required regardless.

As for OliveOil's question, our program coordinator keeps a tally of which MD/PhD students have rotated or done a thesis in whose lab. That's where the best advice comes from--the coordinator and those students.

 

[xanthines]

So what's the deal with luck and science? It seems to me like they're at direct odds with each other (you know, rhyme and reason vs mystical forces beyond your control). I'm a little undecided on what view a scientist should have on the topic of luck. Feeling philosophical today... 🙂

-X

 

[mon86]

wow, the advice in this thread is awesome! i'm pretty sure i'll be entering an md/phd program in the fall at a school where i've previously done research. i absolutely loved the lab i was in and the PI was fantastic - and very understanding regarding md/phd students' thesis projects.

ultimately i think this PI would be a great choice for my phd thesis, but I should probably get experience in some other labs, right? On the other hand, if I did a rotation with him (either now before MSI or next summer before MSII), I could be starting preliminary experiments for the phd. How many different labs would you all suggest working in before getting started on the thesis work? How would you decide on the proper balance between the chance to start thesis work early and the opportunity to broaden lab experience by doing a rotation elsewhere?

how do I go about telling my former PI that I might want to do my phd with him but want to get some different experiences first? I don't want to burn any bridges!!

 

[Jorje286]

So what's the deal with luck and science? It seems to me like they're at direct odds with each other (you know, rhyme and reason vs mystical forces beyond your control). I'm a little undecided on what view a scientist should have on the topic of luck. Feeling philosophical today... 🙂

-X

Not to change the subject, but I'm feeling somewhat philosophical too. One way to define luck is catching a low probability event. Research is pretty much about looking for causal relationships so luck and probability are inherently involved in the process. I think what you could do as a scientist is to manipulate parameters in order to make the probability of that event go up. That could be done by increased work or toning your skills as a scientist (making more educated hypotheses, better experimental planning..etc).
Now you could be "lucky", and catch a low probability event without toning your skills but this is not going to help you on the long run. Cause the probability of catching several low probability events is extremely small and very unlikely. That's why my priority if I get accepted into an MD/PhD program would be to develop strong research skills rather than try to finish as fast as I could.

OK enough with my bull****.

 

[pseudoknot]

ultimately i think this PI would be a great choice for my phd thesis, but I should probably get experience in some other labs, right? On the other hand, if I did a rotation with him (either now before MSI or next summer before MSII), I could be starting preliminary experiments for the phd. How many different labs would you all suggest working in before getting started on the thesis work? How would you decide on the proper balance between the chance to start thesis work early and the opportunity to broaden lab experience by doing a rotation elsewhere?

You should talk to your program director, and probably the PI you mentioned, about the rotation issue. They may have a specific number they want you to do.

how do I go about telling my former PI that I might want to do my phd with him but want to get some different experiences first? I don't want to burn any bridges!!

Just tell him and ask for his advice on the issue. If he is a good PI he will want you to be in a lab YOU feel passionate about working in, and he will want you to be able to make an informed decision. Plus even if you were 100% committed to his lab, working in related areas could help in terms of learning about complementary approaches and such. Asking about all this will not burn bridges unless the guy is insane.

 

[QofQuimica]

So what's the deal with luck and science? It seems to me like they're at direct odds with each other (you know, rhyme and reason vs mystical forces beyond your control). I'm a little undecided on what view a scientist should have on the topic of luck. Feeling philosophical today... 🙂

-X

I'd call it opportunity instead of luck, but it's basically a matter of placing yourself in a position where you're more likely to be in the right place at the right time. That, and you must multitask to be successful. If you're working on several projects at a time (I was always working on 2-3 projects at any one time during my PhD), then you are more likely to have at least some work out. Sure, I had a bunch of projects go nowhere. But it was never a big deal and it didn't delay my graduation, because some of the other projects worked like a charm. I think one of the big mistakes that a lot of new grad students make (including myself at first) is to do things linearly, one project at a time. If you spend six months on a single project, and nothing comes of it, then you have nothing to show for all your hard work and effort. But if you've been doing a few projects, you can let that one go and pay more attention to the ones that seem to be going somewhere.

I also think it makes sense to have your projects be of different degrees of likelihood of success. In other words, you should have one project that is almost guaranteed to work, and the other one or two should be a little more exciting and on the edge.

Finally, you must be observant. When things don't turn out how you expected them to, take the time to stop and think about why that is. Many "serendipitous" discoveries were made by people who were simply observant and didn't just trash their failed experiments without thinking about what they meant first. Sometimes you learn something interesting that way and it can move the whole project forward. One of my failed projects settled a technical question we had been wondering about for previous compounds (basically, whether a chiral center had been racemizing, in case anyone cares--turns out that unfortunately it had been). We changed our synthetic route and eventually I was able to re-synthesize the compounds without racemizing them. This worked out to our advantage, because when we submitted the manuscript and a reviewer expressed concern about potential racemization, we had already considered and dealt with that issue. 🙂

 

[pseudoknot]

This French dude once said that "chance favors the prepared mind." 😉

 

[OliveOil]

Thanks guys...asking the program director is definately something that can be done during a revisit...this is definately helping to ease the anxiety of decision making

 

[FoxTrot12]

It's been said before but I'm saying it again... you guys rock! Thanks for the advice! 🙂

 

[pseudoknot]

Interesting...

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9D00E5DB1F30F93AA15752C1A96E958260

I went through that article out of my curiosity on this issue.



and that... has not really changed. It's as true on this board as it is in real life. Everyone wants to protect their anonymity at all costs, and I don't really bother to protect mine and get warned from time to time about how insane that is. In medicine and research too much of your future is dependent on your letters of recommendation and your direct supervisors. You have to please them ALWAYS or you can potentially be screwed. The worst thing that can happen it seems, at least in academics, is to be labelled a troublemaker. For a system that prides itself on pushing the envelope, we sure to do expect the rank and file of our students (unless you're pushing for something PC). At least with a committee you can, in theory, be sure to graduate, but if your PhD advisor takes to not liking you for ANY reason, you can forget about persuing academics. So this guy was very scared of speaking to anyone about his problems. I don't blame him...

I wonder if the suicide rate has really changed with the "broken pipeline" situation? i.e. the job market is so tight right now for PhD students, it really could seem like a dead end pathway.

That was a great article, and thanks for posting it. I read it immediately and didn't really have time to respond. There's a lot I'd like to say about this issue, but for now I'll be brief. At the end I thought that good points were made; advisors do have too much power especially if you want to stay in academia, on the other hand things are a lot better at least in my graduate program than what they described.

Also I really think that people commit suicide because of mental illness and not life stressors per se, and there were a lot of signs of this in the article's description of Altom. Maybe there is a selection process going on with some of these high powered academic places; it's possible to be too focused and driven. I'm pretty sure that at Caltech there was a higher proportion of Axis II diagnoses than in the general population, but I'm not a psychiatrist.

Agree about anonymity but maybe I'll change my mind when I don't match in three years because of stuff I said on SDN

 

[Maxprime]

Also I really think that people commit suicide because of mental illness and not life stressors per se, and there were a lot of signs of this in the article's description of Altom. Maybe there is a selection process going on with some of these high powered academic places; it's possible to be too focused and driven. I'm pretty sure that at Caltech there was a higher proportion of Axis II diagnoses than in the general population, but I'm not a psychiatrist.

Much of the research into depression (outside of an obvious mental illness, this is where I'd look for suicide) has shown that stressful life events trigger depressive episodes, especially in those with susceptible genes (one or two copies of the short 5-HTT).

Intelligence brings with it a higher risk of mental disorder - people with schizophrenia often have high IQs. (I know I'm way off topic now) I think about it like epilepsy and the hippocampus - you want to ramp up excitability as much as possible for memory, but just go a little too far and you get a seizure source.

Almost forgot - a lot of mental disorders tend to first show up in your 20's - schizophrenia, bipolar, etc. It's the only time we don't have to worry about car wrecks and strokes so the brain invents something else to keep us worried. 🙂

 

[pseudoknot]

Yeah, that all sounds reasonable. Except for not having to worry about car wrecks--I'm pretty sure trauma is the #1 or #2 cause of death for young adults!

 

[Myempire1]

Thanks for all your advice. Just a followup on 10, how do you say no to your boss diplomatically to maintain good relations? I would probably be a wet noodle...

It takes some finesse. And really depends on your boss. You don't just say "no;" if you do that you may get fired.

People I know who were "wet noodles" ended up doing grant experiments for the boss, and staying in the lab longer. I am not saying that's bad or wrong. My labmates learned a lot from such experiments, gained more experience, and are probably better scientists than myself. I am just saying, because I said no... and they didn't... they spent a lot of their time chasing ideas for grants rather than their own project.