Factors in Assessing Quality of Faculty

[jlamacc1]

---

Members don't see this ad.

It seems that assessing research faculty quality at an institution is one of the most, if not THE most, important aspects of evaluating MSTPs as a whole. Yet, in my experience, it is also one of the least straightforward. Because we mud-phudders are still 2+ years away from entering a thesis lab, it's typically not useful for us to make this evaluation based solely on one or two faculty members in our interest areas (one never knows if these persons will be taking students when we need them to, or if they'll even still be at the school when our time comes). Furthermore, there are many among us (including myself) who are not even completely decided on our future research discipline (my background is in structural bio, but I could see myself diverging as far as immuno or microbio). This complicates and broaden the scope of the inquiry considerably. So, what are some metrics that current and past applicants are using (have used) for this? I'll start with a few obvious ones:

1. # of HHMI investigators (in appropriate disciplines)
2. # of National Academy of Sciences members (in appropriate disciplines)
3. Short-lists of interesting faculty for each institution; comparison of publication records, teaching/research awards, etc.
4. Total and departmental NIH funding for each institution
5. # of Nobel Prizes, departmental histories.
6. Bad-ass affiliated institutions (Sloan-Kettering and Rockefeller with Cornell, etc.)
7. Bad-ass affiliated billionaires (Gates with U Washington, Perot with UT Southwestern, etc.)


Any other ideas? Come on, I know you have 'em.

 

[solitude]

It seems that assessing research faculty quality at an institution is one of the most, if not THE most, important aspects of evaluating MSTPs as a whole. Yet, in my experience, it is also one of the least straightforward. Because we mud-phudders are still 2+ years away from entering a thesis lab, it's typically not useful for us to make this evaluation based solely on one or two faculty members in our interest areas (one never knows if these persons will be taking students when we need them to, or if they'll even still be at the school when our time comes). Furthermore, there are many among us (including myself) who are not even completely decided on our future research discipline (my background is in structural bio, but I could see myself diverging as far as immuno or microbio). This complicates and broaden the scope of the inquiry considerably. So, what are some metrics that current and past applicants are using (have used) for this? I'll start with a few obvious ones:

1. # of HHMI investigators (in appropriate disciplines)
2. # of National Academy of Sciences members (in appropriate disciplines)
3. Short-lists of interesting faculty for each institution; comparison of publication records, teaching/research awards, etc.
4. Total and departmental NIH funding for each institution
5. # of Nobel Prizes, departmental histories.
6. Bad-ass affiliated institutions (Sloan-Kettering and Rockefeller with Cornell, etc.)
7. Bad-ass affiliated billionaires (Gates with U Washington, Perot with UT Southwestern, etc.)


Any other ideas? Come on, I know you have 'em.

For me, it's all about #3. Do they have a bunch of mentors who I would potentially want to work with? Are they publishing well? And most important, when I talk to current students and/or get to meet with a few during my interviews, are they dinguses?

 

[LunderKind]

I know it's everyone's dream to work in an HHMI lab or for a PI with four R01s, but one of the biggest underlying themes I've gotten from current MSTP students and MSTP directors about thesis mentors is that you need to pick someone whom you get along with well. I've heard of a big shot HHMI investigator who actually rips out chucks of his hair (no joke) when his students don't perform to his expectations and, at some point in time, actually makes everyone who works for him cry.

In my experience "collegial" and "collaborative" are buzz words to look for at a school (with supporting publications to suggest that this is indeed the case).

 

[j-weezy]

Yes #3 only. Honestly it might be 'nice' to work with someone who is either HHMI or NAS or NL but the best scenario (in my mind) is to work with a young 'hot-shot' investigator who needs to publish. If you get in on the ground level and can share much of the success of your PI all the better.

Funding is another issue. I want to work in a lab without worrying if I can buy a certain enzyme etc.

 

[Maebea]

From the other side of the fence, I agree with solitude, Ivieschmive, & Weezy. The other stuff is relatively insignificant. Ideally, you should be able to find several PIs that you would be willing to work with. If not, you may be very disappointed two or three years from now.

Also, look for bad-ass students. Seriously, make sure you fit in with the students in the program. You're going to be there a long time.

 

[j-weezy]

Also, look for bad-ass students. Seriously, make sure you fit in with the students in the program. You're going to be there a long time.

quoted for truth.

If you're spending every waking minute around these people for 4+ years it sure would be nice if they were fun!

 

[deleted174262]

This may be helpful in assessing the strength of a school's faculty in a certain area:

http://chronicle.com/stats/productivity/

 

[jlamacc1]

From the other side of the fence, I agree with solitude, Ivieschmive, & Weezy. The other stuff is relatively insignificant. Ideally, you should be able to find several PIs that you would be willing to work with. If not, you may be very disappointed two or three years from now.

Also, look for bad-ass students. Seriously, make sure you fit in with the students in the program. You're going to be there a long time.

I guess the difficulty lies in the fact that there are several programs that have all the above, but at the end of the day, an applicant has to pick ONE. And, being the (aspiring) scientists that we are, I think most of us tend to be hesitant of making that decision on some "gut feeling" or other subjectivity. Eh, I suppose the HHMI, NAS, etc. stuff could be just as subjective; perhaps its more historical than predictive. I do like the idea of latching onto a talented young scientist and riding him/her to Cell, Nature, and Science glory, but, on the other hand, I also see distinct advantages to entering an older, well-established lab. Choices, CHOICES, CHOICES!!!

 

[Neuronix]

If you're spending every waking minute around these people for 4+ years it sure would be nice if they were fun!

How many people at how many programs really hang out with lots of MD/PhDs in years other than their own? I don't think it's very common anywhere. No matter where you go there's probably going to be people you like and people you don't. It's really hard to judge who's going to be in your year too, even from second look... I always thought it would be better to judge the area you're going to be in and opportunities to do other stuff more than try to judge your classmates. I think it's good to stay diversified and well rounded.

That being said, yeah, having a number of PIs you feel interested in working with is key. The more the better. The prestige of the lab is not necessarily key. There are some PIs I know at several institutions who are real big name and a real draw for applicants, and it turns out they're a really poor choice for a thesis advisor for one reason or another. I started thinking I wanted to work in one of three people's labs, and all three fell through For what I eventually ended up doing there aren't a whole lot of institutions that do it well... In this case it's really good that I chose one of the schools near the top than my second choice which wasn't as highly ranked (rankings for what I do pretty closely mirror USNews rankings) and probably would have put me an hour out of the city to do what I'm doing now for a PhD.

Overall, in my opinion, it's far better to work in a lab you ENJOY rather than a lab that is BIG NAME. My experience is these are probably inversely correlated (weakly).

 

[QofQuimica]

Overall, in my opinion, it's far better to work in a lab you ENJOY rather than a lab that is BIG NAME. My experience is these are probably inversely correlated (weakly).

I agree with this; having a good mentor for your PI is *the* single most important thing in terms of your success as a grad student. I'd also add that along with looking at the PI's research, grant and pub record, look at his/her record of graduating students. If you see that this person has been a prof for 10+ years and has never graduated a PhD, run, do not walk, away from that lab, even if that person's research is the coolest thing you've ever seen. I almost made this mistake myself. I wound up deciding to do my PhD with someone else who was less flashy, but several other students who did not get away from this particular PI wound up leaving with just an MS after five years or even worse, no degree at all.

 

[LunderKind]

If you see that this person has been a prof for 10+ years and has never graduated a PhD, run, do not walk, away from that lab, even if that person's research is the coolest thing you've ever seen.

Probably the most useful information can be gained from the history of students who have been in the lab. Another thing to consider may be how helpful the program directors and administrators will be in advising you on your mentor choice, i.e. will they warn you straight out if your planning to work with someone you may not be compatible with. Since your battle of the Washingtons is ongoing, I did get the sense from WashU that the directors and administrators would be very blunt in this regard. I do not know what the situation is for the UW.

 

[j-weezy]

If you're spending every waking minute around these people for 4+ years it sure would be nice if they were fun!

Overall, in my opinion, it's far better to work in a lab you ENJOY rather than a lab that is BIG NAME. My experience is these are probably inversely correlated (weakly).

perhaps I don't understand what you were trying to tell me but in my mind these two quotes are similar. I was merely talking about graduate thesis lab - not MSTP in general.

 

[seraph524]

Going to go with #3.

This is training for our future careers...it would be best to have a PI who is publishing well and fast, and who is also a great teacher. And above all else, someone who is nice and friendly...don't want your life to be like the PhD comics...

 

[Neuronix]

I was merely talking about graduate thesis lab - not MSTP in general.

Oh.... Yeah people in the lab are important too 😉

 

[j-weezy]

Oh.... Yeah people in the lab are important too 😉

I guess we can be friends again...
🙄

 

[meowkat444]

stupid question---how do you even know how many hhmi's there are at a school? i don't think it's a super important consideration but i wouldn't mind knowing.

 

[LunderKind]

stupid question---how do you even know how many hhmi's there are at a school? i don't think it's a super important consideration but i wouldn't mind knowing.

HHMI investigators...sort by institution:

http://www.hhmi.org/cgi-bin/scienti...=&ls=&rs=&ss=&ks=&it=INVESTIGATOR&sf=uni&sd=1

 

[Sinfekl]

Anyone else have the experience that HHMI labs are often post-doc heavy and poor teaching environments?

It's really tough to judge how strong a program's training is before you get there. You have to rely on that ol' gut instinct.