Double Dilemma-- Do or Die-- Darned if I Do-- Darned if I Don't

[The_Accuser]

---

Members don't see this ad.

Is it a bad idea to work at 2 labs simultaneously? Obviously, I know it is possible, but the point of my question is to find out whether or not it is worth it, in terms of the quality of my work/experience/relationship with PI or whoever's supervising me, if my time is split between the two.

I am finding it impossible to choose between the two labs that are waiting for my decision. Both study topics I love, yet they are literally polar opposites in terms of the their workplace atmosphere and the type of work I will do.

[Lab A]

• molecular/cell bio
• very small lab
• PI is young and easy to talk to
• will work directly with PI
• the PI is actually the only person I've been communicating with to get the position; I haven't been handed off to a grad student or another undergrad

[Lab B]

• animal trials...super interesting! #animalsurgery
• massive lab
• extremely prestigious PI, lab, and project
• I've never seen/talked to the PI during the time I'm applying, but was rather brushed off to a phd student and faculty researcher

Would the experience I get out of juggling two labs be worth the extra stress/time commitment, or is it better to just stick with one and never look back?

I have asked 3 people for advice in real life already, and I am still nowhere near a solid decision. Time is running out too 🙁

 

[DrShephardWannabe]

I would stick to the one that grabs you most. Quality > quantity will look much better on an app.

 

[kraskadva]

Pick one. My vote would be for Lab A, but that's just me.

I'm working in 2 labs at the moment, and it's madness trying to not only juggle everything, but also be productive enough to move things forward on both projects. Most of the time I end up doing one and letting the other slide for a bit, then swapping.
If you want to actually have something to show for yourself when you get done with all this, then pick one and run with it.
If you just want to dabble around in research and not have much to show for it, then try both.

 

[Finches]

Are you sure you even actually have an option of working in both labs?
As in, do you know whether the two PIs would be ok with you splitting your time like this? Most PIs I know would be against it; not only that, it's pretty faux pas.

 

[ski89]

Definitely pick one. You will likely have more quality work to show for in the end. I too worked in two labs simultaneously in almost the exact same scenario as you (large prestigious lab vs small and intimate). I picked the smaller lab because I liked the relationship I had with the PI. The one upside to a large lab is that they often publish more frequently. If you can get on that publishing bandwagon it might be worth staying (and as long as you can get a good supporting LOR from your PI or post doc, not a grad student). But ultimately I think I would argue that a great letter from a PI (more likely to come from the small lab) trumps a publication with an OK letter (the likely scenario in the large lab)... I would be interested if ADCOMs agree with this statement in general.

 

[Nesmall2]

I remember I tried juggling the entire two lab scenario, and while it was fine initially, my mentor told me I had to choose hers or the other. The more you start to get involved with a project, the less time you will have for the other and you want to put your best effort into anything you do. Again, like other people have said, quality over quantity.

 

[hoihaie]

Lab A.

my research history has been exactly like lab B.

1. WHile animal work may seem cool right now, it will not be later on. It is very tiresome and will get boring.
2-5. It is infinitely better to work with the PI directly than workign with postdocs or grad students. Lab A PI sounds like the type that is willing to teach you, to get to know you. For example This will be extremely important when you ask for LoR for not only med school app, but other scholarships and what not. In lab B, this will be super hard.

 

[Goro]

My PhD thesis advisor, one of the wisest people I ever met, gave this advice once: "Do one thing, and do it well".

Is it a bad idea to work at 2 labs simultaneously? Obviously, I know it is possible, but the point of my question is to find out whether or not it is worth it, in terms of the quality of my work/experience/relationship with PI or whoever's supervising me, if my time is split between the two.

I am finding it impossible to choose between the two labs that are waiting for my decision. Both study topics I love, yet they are literally polar opposites in terms of the their workplace atmosphere and the type of work I will do.

[Lab A]

• molecular/cell bio
• very small lab
• PI is young and easy to talk to
• will work directly with PI
• the PI is actually the only person I've been communicating with to get the position; I haven't been handed off to a grad student or another undergrad

[Lab B]

• animal trials...super interesting! #animalsurgery
• massive lab
• extremely prestigious PI, lab, and project
• I've never seen/talked to the PI during the time I'm applying, but was rather brushed off to a phd student and faculty researcher

Would the experience I get out of juggling two labs be worth the extra stress/time commitment, or is it better to just stick with one and never look back?

I have asked 3 people for advice in real life already, and I am still nowhere near a solid decision. Time is running out too 🙁

 

[snowflakes]

Also, I'd advise Lab A. Better to work with someone who has time to teach you. You'll learn more, have more direct contact with your PI, and probably have a better experience overall. A prestigious lab means you'll be small fry and they probably won't let an undergrad have too much involvement in the intellectual design of the projects. In a small lab, you'll probably get more control over designing your own set of projects, as well as direct guidance from you PI.

 

[The_Accuser]

As in, do you know whether the two PIs would be ok with you splitting your time like this? Most PIs I know would be against it; not only that, it's pretty faux pas.

The chill PI of Lab A said it is completely up to me, that he did it as an undergrad (yes, it was hard etc etc), and that the doability increases significantly if the other lab has a set time-in/time-out schedule, so that whatever I do in Lab A could be scheduled around my stuff in Lab B.
Tl;dr, he is ok with it because he even offered advice on how to make it work.

Definitely pick one. You will likely have more quality work to show for in the end.

I am/will take only 3 classes per quarter for my entire undergrad (except for those rare quarters where I must take 4, due to co-reqs) on purpose, because I decided early on that I want to devote all that extra time to something useful. I know quality>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>quantity. b
Question is, will quality be bad at all if I still spend 3-4 hours per lab everyday? Mathematically, 8 hours of lab plus 2-3 hours of class everyday doesn't seem too bad; it's the same length as a full school day in high school. Or is 4 hours everyday still considered too little/bare minimum for a lab? (I don't have a good sense of how many hours is considered "enough" for someone who wants to be really dedicated. I got the 3-4 hour range from someone who said 20 hrs/week is typical.)

I'm working in 2 labs at the moment, and it's madness trying to not only juggle everything

If it is so crazy, why don't you quit one of them? It's so confusing when people who are juggling tell me not to juggle, yet they continue to juggle themselves. Surely, if it's not worth the headache, you would have stopped long ago. What's compelling you to stay?

I picked the smaller lab

How long did you juggle before having that epiphany and sticking with just the small lab?

The one upside to a large lab is that they often publish more frequently

So true. Ugh Lab B publishes almost every month, but Lab A's most recent paper was from 1 year ago. Oy...

I remember I tried juggling the entire two lab scenario, and while it was fine initially, my mentor told me I had to choose hers or the other.

I'm in a situation where I have more time outside of class than the average SDN user (i.e. I see a ton of you guys saying you take multiple labs courses and 4+ other classes all at the same time. I'm not doing that), so approximately how many hours did your mentor want you to increase to, when she asked you to pick? What was hour original time committment (which your mentor eventually deemed inadequate)?

"Do one thing, and do it well".

Lab A PI sounds like the type that is willing to teach you, to get to know you. For example This will be extremely important when you ask for LoR for not only med school app

This is precisely why I went into my Lab A interview hoping the PI would be an a-hole. (I had my interview with Lab A after Lab B. ) Then the decision would be so easy. But...he turned out to be amazing.

 

[The_Accuser]

Also, I'd advise Lab A. Better to work with someone who has time to teach you. You'll learn more, have more direct contact with your PI, and probably have a better experience overall.

Even if the caring PI has a topic that I am less interested in? I actually have a background for the Lab B research.

But yeah I am seeing that all these responses are really emphasizing that, in research, one must choose between being a carnivore, or an herbivore. Unwise to be an omnivore. <---sorry. I just had to use some kind of analogy there.

 

[snowflakes]

I am/will take only 3 classes per quarter for my entire undergrad (except for those rare quarters where I must take 4, due to co-reqs) on purpose, because I decided early on that I want to devote all that extra time to something useful. I know quality>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>quantity. b
Question is, will quality be bad at all if I still spend 3-4 hours per lab everyday? Mathematically, 8 hours of lab plus 2-3 hours of class everyday doesn't seem too bad; it's the same length as a full school day in high school. Or is 4 hours everyday still considered too little/bare minimum for a lab? (I don't have a good sense of how many hours is considered "enough" for someone who wants to be really dedicated. I got the 3-4 hour range from someone who said 20 hrs/week is typical.)

Better to spend 6-8 hours in one lab. You'll get farther along in your project, and be able to have more comprehensive and compelling results. Or, better to spend 3-4 hours per day in lab, and 3-4 hours per day doing other stuff so you'll have a well rounded app.

 

[kraskadva]

If it is so crazy, why don't you quit one of them? It's so confusing when people who are juggling tell me not to juggle, yet they continue to juggle themselves. Surely, if it's not worth the headache, you would have stopped long ago. What's compelling you to stay?

I started in one lab and had an independent project up and running. Then a different professor asked me to take over another project, because the current person was leaving and nobody else understood it. I didn't want to drop the first one, so I've been doing both for the last year, though I did take on a sophomore to help me with the first one.
It's worth it to me because I'll get 2 pubs out of the whole mess, one as 1st author, and because I now have stellar PI letters to add on to that. Also I'm graduating this semester, so I'm almost done.

But both projects move much slower than they would if I could just focus on one. I could likely have had that 1st author pub already if I hadn't taken on the other project. And there are relatively few things in the lab, for my experiments at least, that can be done in 3-4 hour blocks. I typically need at least 6 to run a single experiment, not counting analysis time, and I can't fit that in every day while also keeping up with classes. Your stuff may be different, but serious lab work is not often quick.
Maintenance work is quick. And if all you're doing in either lab is maintenance, then it's not worth it to do both.
If you have independent work in both, you probably won't have time to do everything every week.

If I tell you to pick one, it doesn't mean it wasn't/isn't worth it for me to do both. Only that I wouldn't recommend that course to anybody else.
However, if you weigh your own self-knowledge and understanding of your situation against the advice of totally random internet strangers and find that it is worthwhile for you, then go for it and best of luck to you. But you came here asking for advice, and that's my $0.02.

Also, I'm spending my spring break right now either in the lab for one project or doing analysis for the other.
So take that as a pretty good indication of what you'll be doing in all your "spare time" if you try to pick up both.

 

[The_Accuser]

$0.02

Thank you for clarifying. Sorry if my question in response to your first post was worded rudely.

 

[kraskadva]

Thank you for clarifying. Sorry if my question in response to your first post was worded rudely.

I wasn't offended. I just get the sense you haven't done much research yet, and wanted to highlight how difficult it is to do multiple projects at once.
The reason PIs can do it is because the have other people doing the grunt work. The only reason I'm close to publishing my first project right now is because I got somebody to do a lot of the grunt work. But if you're the grunt, doing both is going to be painful and frustrating.

 

[Lucca]

Didn't read the thread after the OP: Pick one.

 

[Nesmall2]

I'm in a situation where I have more time outside of class than the average SDN user (i.e. I see a ton of you guys saying you take multiple labs courses and 4+ other classes all at the same time. I'm not doing that), so approximately how many hours did your mentor want you to increase to, when she asked you to pick? What was hour original time committment (which your mentor eventually deemed inadequate)?

You make a very good point about me juggling multiple things. At the time I was juggling two labs, I was also taking 12 credit hours worth of classes. The first lab (Lab A) that I was working in, I was taking an extra 3 credit hours in that lab, so therefore I was required to put in about ~12 hours worth of work in that lab. I was working in the other lab (Lab B) because I had worked in it previously, and he offered me some money doing some work and finishing a project. Now the thing was, I was actually putting in over 20 hours a week into Lab A, and I was putting in about ~10 hours a week in Lab B (While juggling classes, it really sucked, but I loved research and also needed money to eat). It came down to a certain point (Also Lab A mentor was an extreme workaholic) where she said that she wanted take my project to the next level, and I would be allowed to pursue it for a Master's degree. She also wanted me to publish, go to conferences and present, and produce more results. Therefore, she asked me to double the time in the lab (~40 hours a week). She didn't deem my original time inadequate, but made a very good point. Science doesn't care how many hours you put into the experiment, only that it produces results. I was new and trying to learn new methods in molecular biology. Therefore, she said that if I wanted to produce results before I actually graduated, and wanted a good project to pursue if I wanted to join her lab for a Master's, then I would need to produce more results.

 

[Doug Underhill]

Don't juggle two labs, it halves your chances of getting enough data to get a paper.

 

[gooeyzoe]

Pick one!!!

Other important things to consider: (1) the lab's productivity (Recent publications? Can you tell if co-authors are other undergrads that had worked in lab in the past?); (2) face time with his/her mentor (Almost guaranteed a great rec letter if you put in the work!); (3) workplace dynamics (besides the PI, who else would you have to answer to?)

-- I ended up in a lab where I wasn't super interested in the topic. However, I learned how to do research well because I had a great mentor who guided me through the steps and gave me opportunities to publish/present.

DON'T UNDERESTIMATE A GREATER MENTOR!

 

[caffeinemia]

Is it a bad idea to work at 2 labs simultaneously? Obviously, I know it is possible, but the point of my question is to find out whether or not it is worth it, in terms of the quality of my work/experience/relationship with PI or whoever's supervising me, if my time is split between the two.

I am finding it impossible to choose between the two labs that are waiting for my decision. Both study topics I love, yet they are literally polar opposites in terms of the their workplace atmosphere and the type of work I will do.

[Lab A]

• molecular/cell bio
• very small lab
• PI is young and easy to talk to
• will work directly with PI
• the PI is actually the only person I've been communicating with to get the position; I haven't been handed off to a grad student or another undergrad

[Lab B]

• animal trials...super interesting! #animalsurgery
• massive lab
• extremely prestigious PI, lab, and project
• I've never seen/talked to the PI during the time I'm applying, but was rather brushed off to a phd student and faculty researcher

Would the experience I get out of juggling two labs be worth the extra stress/time commitment, or is it better to just stick with one and never look back?

I have asked 3 people for advice in real life already, and I am still nowhere near a solid decision. Time is running out too 🙁

That name on that LOR -- no one will know it, unless your PI has won a Nobel prize. Science and clinical medicine just don't intersect as much as you'd like. Maybe if your adcom has a PhD or two, you might score like 0.05 extra point for a flashy name.

 

[NeuResurgens]

I once tried to join a second lab while in my current one. Moral of the story - both professors will think less of you for it. My current mentor was able to shrug it off as a rookie mistake (which it was) but I'm pretty sure the other guy still thinks I'm a weirdo.

 

[EAB11]

My PhD thesis advisor, one of the wisest people I ever met, gave this advice once: "Do one thing, and do it well".

Goro, your dissertation advisor sounds a lot like mine.

Pick one PI. Also, pick the one who will give a **** about you--it makes all the difference in the long run.