Graduate PhD in 3 years vs taking another year to complete a project

[mynameistoolong]

Hi all,

I was a frequent poster way back when I applied to MSTPs but have been laying low since. I have a dilemma that I need help with, especially as I feel like no one around me is supportive or understands my point of view...

I finished 3 years of my PhD and was about to graduate. I have a co-first author paper on a project that admittedly I didn't start, and I have another project I have led that I was writing a manuscript for. My PI had earlier given me the green light to graduate, and I was about to schedule a defense. I have to return to med school in about a month to enter this academic year.

Now my PI suddenly changed his mind and decided that my manuscript is not ready to submit and needs another piece of data. I think he is correct, but this piece of data is an in vitro reconstitution of a protein activity that I had worked for 10 months on since last year and just couldn't get to work. We had come up with an alternative assay which was admittedly weaker, but he earlier said was sufficient. He now initiated a collaboration with another PI at a different institution who is an expert on this protein, and this PI seemed receptive (I had contacted the PI last year but he wasn't very helpful). Now this is all good, but now my PI said that he can't promise that I will still be first author on this project once those experiments are done if I'm not still in the lab. He also basically said he felt I wasn't independent enough scientifically and still could use more training. He will let me go if I choose to graduate, but there's clearly a 'correct' answer he expects.

The other problem is that my committee chair also thinks I should spend another year in the lab. I quote his email:

However, if you are 'done' and have no intention of really digging in over the next year then there is no reason to keep you here. I believe that on paper, you have met the criteria required to graduate. My concern is that you will enter your next research position underprepared - particularly if your goal is to enter a high-profile laboratory in which little direction will be provided.

You also have an all-star committee and a PI with high standards. I am worried they will not provide strong letters of recommendation. Therefore, a choice to leave now will likely limit your future options in research. If your career goals are research-orientated, then you should stay. You are primed to show us your real potential.

I do agree to some extent regarding their scientific concerns, but what I have not mentioned is that I have come to really hate the environment of the lab. My PI is a quite hostile and unreasonable person at times, and it's not just me--two previous MD/PhD students really hated him, and one barely ever spoke to him and didn't acknowledge him in her dissertation. The other one is a 'tough it up' kind of person, but even he was involved in several yelling matches with my PI, and acknowledged that his experience in the lab turned him into a 'toxic waste dump'. They turned out to be excellent scientists, in my opinion, but my PI's behavior basically fostered very selfish behavior out of those two students who otherwise were people I generally liked. Insults and demeaning comments are not rare at lab meetings, and multiple people have been fired for not being productive enough in the last few years. Before joining, I was warned about my current PI by a senior graduate student during a rotation in another lab years ago, but I ignored his advice because I was solely focused on the science. Boy, was he right..

Given these experiences, I really do not want to spend a year in his lab. I feel like I will become a 'toxic waste dump' that the former MSTP student had warned me about if I stay, even if it makes me a better scientist. I am miserable in the lab and just want to get out, but I also do not want to shut the door to one day having a research career as despite all this crap, I still do really love research--just not in this lab. What should I do? Should I cut my losses and possibly have a not great residency PI letter, or suck it up and spend another year?

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[ShinySephiroth]

As someone who has been in the workforce for nearly two decades, my opinion is tough it out for one more year for the better letter of recommendation. For the rest of your life you will have toxic coworkers and superiors and this experience is good to learn how how deal with situations out of your control. I believe if you leave now you might be setting a mental precedence to quit things later... what if your chief resident or attending is a jerk? The ability to cope with that from this experience will be fantastic for those future experiences, imo. Further, in the end it is a choice if you succumb to that toxicity. I've been in plenty of situations like this and, though taxing, I remained level headed and learned to act and not be acted upon.
This is my recommendation, a random stranger from the internet. Congratulations for getting to this point in your career, regardless, and I hope you make the best choice for your life.

 

[eteshoe]

Would you receive weak LoRs from multiple committee members or just your PI? If yes to the committee, I'd say bite down and bear another year. You've been productive and a 4 yr PhD is still very fast. If it's just your PI and you'd get strong letters from committee then it may be worth cutting your losses and graduating. LoRs are gonna be quite critical if you're aiming for research-intensive residencies.

There was a MD/PhD student in my lab who due to some disagreements w/ some lab personnel and my PI, decided to finish their PhD in 3 yrs but since they're aiming for a competitive surgical subspecialty, they decided to do an additional year as a postdoc in a committee members lab to bolster their skills and work on a project that better aligned with their clinical interests. That may be an option you could pitch your committee if the lab environment toxicity is that debilitating.

 

[mynameistoolong]

Thanks for the responses! It would be a letter from just the PI. My committee chair is a PhD and I think doesn't know about the residency application process. There was another previous MSTP student in the lab who had a Nobel laureate on the committee and got a letter from him, but it's wasn't a required letter.

Would be interested to hear from @Neuronix as well.

 

[StIGMA]

Comments from a PI who has been through this:

My concern is a 4th year turns into a 5th year as there's always more to be done. This is a compromise situation no matter how you do it. If you get back into research during/after residency (where youre project will be much more important to your future lab than your PhD project), unfortunately you still will rely on your PI for rec letters if you are applying for certain grants like the NIH K awards (require 3 rec letters).

I would graduate and try to keep on as good terms as possible, including finishing writing this manuscript, specifying when you may be able to contribute to any revisions that could be required, and working very hard for the next month. If you had many more experiments to complete, I could see needing to stay another year- but not for 1 experiment when you could just publish in a different journal.

It's normal to be somewhat antagonistic with your PI as you are about to finish. They are losing talent and you are fighting to get out of what is effectively indentured servitude. It seems you have found a fair compromise. Don't sign up for a year of something that will make others happy but you miserable, when you know it's wrong for you.

You will find the same thing at the residency -> faculty transition at certain top institutions like within the Harvard system. They want to retain their own, but do not want to promote them in order to keep costs down, startup funds/salaries low, and keep you compliant. So they offer instructorship positions to many MD/PhD grads, often with no path to a tenure-track position (sometimes without telling them that is the case, as the # of positions can be capped within a department). I know this directly from one of the Dana Farber department chairs. Good luck out there.

 

[dl2dp2]

Life is too short to waste on toxic people. GTFO. Get some support letters from other experts and you shouldn't have a major loss on future opportunities, especially as your post-residency research program is likely going to pivot from your current. The suggestion w.r.t. working with someone else is also a good one, but isn't necessary. It's more about getting mentorship/relationships.

I know that this will seem like a major decision right now, but trust me in 5 years you'll praying to your lucky stars for doing this. One year of your life is worth a LOT of money to waste on a toxic environment.

 

[sourpatch fetish]

Hi @mynameistoolong , just wanted to say that you were a huge inspiration for me as an international MSTP. I followed your app cycle when I started college, and now am starting 2nd year of MSTP myself.

Others way more qualified than I am have given their take, and I am of the party that thinks you should get out instead of stay another year. Given this PI's sudden change of mind, what makes you think they aren't gonna make you stay for a 5th year? If you're serious about a research career, chances are you're gonna do a postdoc or research in fellowship anyways. Of course, I would try and stay on good terms and if necessary, emphasize the long training period you still have ahead of you.

Best of luck, and please keep us updated!

 

[tr]

Life is too short to waste on toxic people. GTFO. Get some support letters from other experts and you shouldn't have a major loss on future opportunities, especially as your post-residency research program is likely going to pivot from your current. The suggestion w.r.t. working with someone else is also a good one, but isn't necessary. It's more about getting mentorship/relationships.

I know that this will seem like a major decision right now, but trust me in 5 years you'll praying to your lucky stars for doing this. One year of your life is worth a LOT of money to waste on a toxic environment.

In general I agree with this, but speaking as someone who cut-and-ran from a toxic PhD environment with the minimum possible as far as publications, I will say that the low productivity dogged me for *years*. It's hard to be productive with the clinical demands in residency, and then when you start applying for funding, reviewers are comparing you to straight PhDs in their postdoc years who have been doing nothing but racking up publications for 10+ years. If I had been more productive in my PhD it might have been fine but layering the unproductive residency years on top of an unproductive PhD just made me look... unproductive.

I don't know if another year of toxicity would have been worth it for some more publications. Maybe, maybe not. In general I would say I mostly regret not picking a different lab in the first place.

 

[dl2dp2]

In general I agree with this, but speaking as someone who cut-and-ran from a toxic PhD environment with the minimum possible as far as publications, I will say that the low productivity dogged me for *years*. It's hard to be productive with the clinical demands in residency, and then when you start applying for funding, reviewers are comparing you to straight PhDs in their postdoc years who have been doing nothing but racking up publications for 10+ years. If I had been more productive in my PhD it might have been fine but layering the unproductive residency years on top of an unproductive PhD just made me look... unproductive.

I don't know if another year of toxicity would have been worth it for some more publications. Maybe, maybe not. In general I would say I mostly regret not picking a different lab in the first place.

It seems silly to regret something you wouldn't have known beforehand and had little control over later. It's very hard to predict toxicity. Presumably, you picked a lab based on subject matter interest, which is really at the end of the day the only thing that matters. Our lives are all too short to put up with toxicity and do things we aren't interested in when we have more choices--especially when you have resources. A career in science is a good match for some people and a bad match for others, and all of us just make choices depending on the hand we are given. "Low productivity" in the end is your choice to not make certain sacrifices in your life because your life is enriched by other choices you made. I've met people (including straight PhDs) who had plenty of productivity and still didn't have grants scored. Indeed, that is the norm.

 

[Neuronix]

Thanks for the responses! It would be a letter from just the PI. My committee chair is a PhD and I think doesn't know about the residency application process. There was another previous MSTP student in the lab who had a Nobel laureate on the committee and got a letter from him, but it's wasn't a required letter.

Would be interested to hear from @Neuronix as well.

Sorry don't know how I missed this. You can always PM me.

In my mind the questions are:
1. How many papers will you have if you finish in 3 years? That is really fast. Do you have a couple decent papers to stand on?
2. What are your career goals? If you want to keep going as a physician-scientist, do you want to stay there? How important is that PI relationship to you?

I burned the bridge with my old lab over a similar situation, but I didn't stay in the same field. My home institution's department in the field I switched to had no interest in or relationship with the department where I did my PhD. So I don't know that pissing off my grad school PI mattered much. I had and still have a very strong CV to stand on though and other friends at that institution, not that I think those relationships have done much for me in getting a residency, job, or grant funding.

But there are different models here. Some people can really cling onto a mentor or department and ride that through to R01 level, especially if they really want to be in a certain location or institution. Others don't.

Whether you'll be competitive for residency depends on a lot of factors, not the least of which is the residency type itself. Very research oriented residencies will care more than ones that aren't. It also depends on your competition level. So this is hard to know how much it will matter for you. For me I think step 1, clinical grades, and research tangentially related to my clinical specialty were limiting factors, not any letters from the lab. I could be wrong, who knows for sure. But I did get direct feedback at times and was told that.

I've personally always been a fan of moving on as quickly as you can because this training pathway is too long. But, that means putting in high amounts of effort in the time you have, not skimping out to get your one required publication and finish in three years. Still, if you do want to be a physician-scientist there are going to be expectations about your productivity at each level and your need to build on those things as you move up the levels. Whether you are really ready to move on and your goals is only something you can decide. You can always spend more time letter in fellowship too if you really want, if it turns out you need it.

 

[mynameistoolong]

Thanks for the response @Neuronix!

In the end I decided to move on and I've been in 3rd year for almost 2 months now.

1. I already had one decent co-first author paper and we were planning to submit my second manuscript until my PI decided it needed more data. I emailed my PI recently, and it looks like he's now trying to do a lot more on that project with outside collaborators so I wouldn't count on myself being first author anymore, and whether it will be submitted by the time I apply to residency. He was worried about getting scooped 6 months ago so not sure what changed there but whatever.
2. I do want to keep going as a physician-scientist but I'm not actively planning to stay in the institution or field, although it's possible I may have to depending on my S/O's residency/fellowship placement.

Regardless, at this point I'm glad I moved on. 3rd year has its own frustrations but I feel like I'm in a much better place mentally and don't have to deal with any jerks for more than a few weeks. We'll see if I regret it come application time, but I'm not planning to go into a super competitive field (most likely IM, possibly path) so hopefully I'll still be able to match into a decent program regardless of the PI letter. I'll still try my best in 3rd year but at this point I'm tired of prestige-chasing and won't torture myself just to try to go to a top 10 program.