How do you know what field interests you?

[MedRower]

Is anyone else upset by how much we have to focus in order to get something done? Am I the only one who has many interests, but no passions?

It is sort of frustrating to think about what labs to rotate through. Is this a lack of experience? Or will I always find it difficult to know what interests me?

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[Ariodant]

Once you forfeit other possibilities and focus on your one lab/interest, you will have passion. Before you are mentally committed, you will always have second thoughts and reservations, and will not be able to fully enjoy and love them. By all means, be ambitious. But also be focused to accomplish your ambition, or you will be poking around with magnificent ideas and getting nothing done. We mudphuds like to be amphibian and keep doors open, but at some point we have to realize we cannot become the pediatric neuro-cardiologist that we always want to be.

 

[GWD]

This is a hallmark of a great mentor.

They have the ability to get you REALLY excited about the work you are doing.

And then you will know it's right.

 

[RxnMan]

This is a hallmark of a great mentor.

They have the ability to get you REALLY excited about the work you are doing.

And then you will know it's right.

I agree. In the best of circumstances, this is true. But in most cases, your choice of field in graduate school should at least:

1) allow you to graduate
2) allow you to publish
3) be funded

Now, this comes from a guy who chose his thesis project on how cool, interesting, and fun it was. But since it was underfunded, my advisor was constantly chasing grants, not teaching, and I didn't get a good learning experience, as I was constantly scrounging for supplies. Never published, never funded, barely graduated.

 

[QofQuimica]

I'd worry more about picking the right mentor than picking the right field. You can always do a post doc in something different if you want. My list of advice for picking a lab--the rest of you can feel free to add to or argue with any of these items:

1) Check the PI's record of graduating students and his/her pub record. Avoid PIs who typically graduate PhDs late (or not at all), and avoid PIs who do not like to give students credit for their work (i.e., don't let them first author articles).

2) Talk to current students and grads of labs that you are considering. Find out about what kind of environment the lab has, and decide if the PI's style (ex. micromanager versus very hands-off) suits your own style.

3) If the students in a lab that you think does the coolest experiments ever all tell you to run for your life, listen to them.

 

[blazinfury]

QofQuimica, a few questions about point #1. How would you know their grad record? Is it posted on their website, if they even have one? If not, then from whom would you find out? Also, when you says pubs, how many is a good amount and how recent should they be? Also how would you know and from whom would you find out if they give credit for work done by their students-- from the other grads working in the lab? Also do you assess a PI's skills based on the # of pubs and the journals in whcih they published? Also how do you know how well funded the lab is?

 

[Rowany]

Definitely agree with QoQ, at least from my post-bacc experiences.

I would first look at the lab's website, which is almost always out of date. This is great, because the members listed have probably moved on, and can give an honest opinion of their experience. E-mail them or call them. Plus, papers take so long to publish that it is more accurate to look at past member's publishing record. I then just look their names up on pubmed and look at 1) their authorship and 2) the rate of publishing (at least 1 every 2 years is good, feel free to disagree on that) .

I would also take a look at the rest of the authorship list. A paper with only 2 authors from an average sized lab is pretty suspicious. In a lab with a lot of member co-authors, it's nice to know that if your own project isn't working, you can at least help out on other people's papers and get co-authorship.

Of course, a lot of this is probably superstition; I've obviously never experienced what it is really like in the labs I passed up.

MedRower-I think of finding the right field is like dating; different people approach it differently. I'm a serial monogamist, really passionate about one thing after another, but always wondering if maybe the next field I'll be even more passionate. For me, what 'clicked' was one that combined all of my previous passions into one sexy science ball. Don't know how long the honeymoon will last though ;-)

 

[QofQuimica]

Good grief, blazin, with the way you fire off those questions, has anyone ever told you that you'd have made a terrific auctioneer???

QofQuimica, a few questions about point #1. How would you know their grad record? Is it posted on their website, if they even have one? If not, then from whom would you find out?

Usually, yes. Some profs will even post their CVs on the web, which are full of a wealth of this kind of info. But nearly all profs will at the very least have a short blurb about what they work on, who is in the lab, and some of their pubs. It's always a good idea to google the profs before you go meet with them.

Also, when you says pubs, how many is a good amount and how recent should they be?

This is going to be highly field-dependent. I did my PhD in organic chemistry, so I'm not going to even try to tell you how many pubs a cell bio lab or whatever other bio field you're likely thinking about should be putting out.

Also how would you know and from whom would you find out if they give credit for work done by their students-- from the other grads working in the lab?

Look at their pubs. If the PI puts himself as first author all the time, that's a bad sign. If the PI writes a lot of articles by himself with no co-authors (not talking about reviews), that's a bad sign.

Also do you assess a PI's skills based on the # of pubs and the journals in whcih they published?

Not sure what you mean by this. What kind of skills?

Also how do you know how well funded the lab is?

If you're lucky enough to get hold of a CV, it will have this info. Otherwise, you're going to have to ask people.

I would first look at the lab's website, which is almost always out of date. This is great, because the members listed have probably moved on, and can give an honest opinion of their experience. E-mail them or call them. Plus, papers take so long to publish that it is more accurate to look at past member's publishing record. I then just look their names up on pubmed and look at 1) their authorship and 2) the rate of publishing (at least 1 every 2 years is good, feel free to disagree on that) .

I generally agree, with the caveat that it depends on the field and the size of the lab for your second point. For example, organic chemists tend to not be as prolific as computational or analytical chemists. I knew people in grad school who finished their PhDs in analytical with half a dozen papers *already published* and more submitted. I can darn well guarantee you that this would be a rare and extremely fortuitous situation to find yourself in as a newly minted organic chem PhD. Theoretical folks totally have it made compared to experimentalists.

 

[blazinfury]

"Also do you assess a PI's skills based on the # of pubs and the journals in which they published?"

- When I say skills, I mean reputation. How prominent and distinguished they are in their field, university, etc.?

 

[QofQuimica]

"Also do you assess a PI's skills based on the # of pubs and the journals in which they published?"

- When I say skills, I mean reputation. How prominent and distinguished they are in their field, university, etc.?

I actually don't think that's a very good way for a new grad student to pick a lab. Assuming the PI is publishing regularly in peer-reviewed journals, graduating students regularly, and has funding, that's prestigious enough at the grad student level. I just had a whole discussion with another student about this by PM. In a nutshell, my opinion is that you should choose someone who will take the time to train you and who is a good person and treats his/her grad students humanely. We had another thread going about this topic a while back that some of you premeds might find useful.

 

[GWD]

"Also do you assess a PI's skills based on the # of pubs and the journals in which they published?"

- When I say skills, I mean reputation. How prominent and distinguished they are in their field, university, etc.?

get familiar with this website: http://pubmed.org

You will find it extremely useful in the future.

I found it useful to research what many of the investigators at my institutions were studying (any school worth going to has a website detailing what their faculty study).

But by carefully choosing my rotations, I discovered the PIs and projects that were right for me.

And in all fairness, I don't know that you will actually connect with a project until you go through your rotations.

Thinking you should is a bit like asking a pre-med students what they want to specialize in before they experience their clerkships

It's very advisable to do your research and have something intelligent to talk about, but I wouldn't commit yourself until you have experienced your rotations.

I found myself increasingly drawn into projects until my final rotation, and that is the lab I ultimately ended up joining.

It's very much a process of discernation. Continuously hone in on what interests you, and what you are comfortable with.