How do I assess Program strengths

[The Force]

---

Members do not see this ad.

I keep seeing advice to apply to schools that are strong in areas in which I am interested. How does one go about assessing the strengths of a program? For instance, how would I determine the how strong a schools biochem program is? What types of objective data should I use? I'm not really interested in all the subjective stuff.

 

[tacojohn]

I keep seeing advice to apply to schools that are strong in areas in which I am interested. How does one go about assessing the strengths of a program? For instance, how would I determine the how strong a schools biochem program is? What types of objective data should I use? I'm not really interested in all the subjective stuff.

It's next to impossible and basically pointless to judge an entire program or department. I would look for programs associated with biochemistry (or whatever you're interested in) departments that have three to four PI's that are doing work you find interesting and are publishing more than one or two papers a year. It might be wise to email them and ask if they plan to take new students in the next few years (some will not). The overall quality of a department doesn't necessarily mean much. What really matters is the prestige of the lab you're working in. A full professor at Podunk University who is publishing in major journals (there are plenty of them out there) would be a much safer choice than a new assistant professor with questionable funding and no publications at a prestigious university.

 

[mjs]

1. Strong departments and programs have strong PIs.
2. Strong PIs win grants and awards. They also publish well and work with excellent people.
3. Strong track records of bigger and better things for graduates. Graduates of the program fair well in and after postdoctoral training.

It can be hard work to obtain a balanced picture of a department. They all claim to be "very strong". That being said, there is more parity in graduate training than most folks would own up to. US News and others provide crude estimates.

 

[The Force]

thanks, that's basically what I thought

 

[Neuronix]

2. Strong PIs win grants and awards.

IMO, NIH funding for the department compared across institutions is a good crude marker of how strong a department is. Obviously, it isn't everything and comes with caveats. For example, make up your own mind about what it means when Stanford and Vanderbilt have the same amount of funding, but Vanderbilt has that money spread across more than double the number of grants. Is it good to have a smaller number of big name people or a larger number of not so big names? I'm not sure there's a clear answer, but then again I've never thought the prestige of your PhD mentor is all that important.

http://grants.nih.gov/grants/award/rank/MedSchool_Departments.cfm?Department=BIOCHEMISTRY

 

[tacojohn]

They all claim to be "very strong".

Exactly, try to find a biochemistry department that doesn't claim to be strong in structural biology or enzymology.


The NIH money, while interesting, can be very misleading. Many PIs have multiple appointments and funding is channeled through all sorts of offices and departments for various reasons. Departments also differ a lot in how they manage their facilities and funding. Some departments pool their money into instrumentation and facilities that they share department-wide while others pretty much leave it up to the individual PI to manage their own equipment. From my own experience , this type of thing has varied a lot from department to department and can have a significant impact on how you get your work done.

As for the US News rankings - they're even more worthless than their rankings of undergraduate schools and medical schools.

 

[rodman7383]

Just an idea, but what about # of national academy of science members, Nobel laureates, NIH members and so on?
But really, doesn't it come down to not the department but individual PI's?
After all, you'll be working in one lab and if that's a Nobel-bound lab, who cares if the department has not received a single R01 in the last 5 decades besides the lab you'll be working in?

 

[Neuronix]

After all, you'll be working in one lab and if that's a Nobel-bound lab, who cares if the department has not received a single R01 in the last 5 decades besides the lab you'll be working in?

Never pick a program for just one lab. The PI can leave, not take new students, turn out to be a total ***hole, who knows... You need a diversity of potential labs just in case. This is why it's good to go to a program that has a decent amount of funding to make sure you have a good selection to choose from.

 

[rodman7383]

Never pick a program for just one lab. The PI can leave, not take new students, turn out to be a total ***hole, who knows... You need a diversity of potential labs just in case. This is why it's good to go to a program that has a decent amount of funding to make sure you have a good selection to choose from.

Good point.
Would two labs you really want to work in be enough?

 

[jjmack]

Good point.
Would two labs you really want to work in be enough?

I think more like a handful are a good idea. Since you have to probably do more than two rotations and don't forget your research interests can change during first and second year.

 

[tacojohn]

Just an idea, but what about # of national academy of science members, Nobel laureates, NIH members and so on?
But really, doesn't it come down to not the department but individual PI's?
After all, you'll be working in one lab and if that's a Nobel-bound lab, who cares if the department has not received a single R01 in the last 5 decades besides the lab you'll be working in?

I bet you'd find that most places would fall about at the same level if you measured it this way - though I have nothing to base that on. I can think of about three biological sciences institutions that when I see something from a lab, I usually assume it's pretty good. Pretty much every where else, it depends on the lab. I think the best measure of a lab's strength is the impact factor (as flawed of a measurement as that is) of where they're publishing.