Insight Please

[Neuralicious]

Do you guys know if it would be better if....

You worked in a lab with all undergraduates with a lot of stress coming directly from the PI where the chances of publishing are low - but you are working independently while the PI gets to know you really well.

Or if it is better to work in a high profile lab learning from a post doc, with little communication with the PI and significantly higher chances of publishing (big wigs)

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[PaperMaker]

Publish or Perish

Learn from the post-doc, impress him/her and your letter will be glittering. They usually write draft it for the PI in most cases.

 

[uniqenam]

Publish or Perish

Learn from the post-doc, impress him/her and your letter will be glittering. They usually write draft it for the PI in most cases.

I can say from the other side that there are benefits both ways (I worked in a mostly undergrad lab (2 grad students) with a new PI). Right now, I feel very unprepared as a scientist, as I didn't have daily post-doc mentoring about how to do everything, from technical proficiency to organizational skills.

HOWEVER, working independently as an undergrad gives you unparalleled opportunity (in my opinion) to be productive, which allowed me to publish a 1st author pub and I think ultimately became a huge aid in applications. Thus, even though I feel less scientifically-prepared, I think it ultimately may have been more useful to show productivity and success in application .So, I don't think it's quite as simple as PaperMaker sounds, as both routes can have their benefits.

 

[mynameistoolong]

I can say from the other side that there are benefits both ways (I worked in a mostly undergrad lab (2 grad students) with a new PI). Right now, I feel very unprepared as a scientist, as I didn't have daily post-doc mentoring about how to do everything, from technical proficiency to organizational skills.

HOWEVER, working independently as an undergrad gives you unparalleled opportunity (in my opinion) to be productive, which allowed me to publish a 1st author pub and I think ultimately became a huge aid in applications. Thus, even though I feel less scientifically-prepared, I think it ultimately may have been more useful to show productivity and success in application .So, I don't think it's quite as simple as PaperMaker sounds, as both routes can have their benefits.

Isn't productivity better reflected by your publications though? I'm in a start-up lab where I get to do my own projects but now I don't have a publication, and I feel like if I'd done what PaperMaker suggested I would've been better off, even though my accomplishments wouldn't have been totally genuine