PhD/PsyD Joining a new vs an established lab in grad school?

[Berry0770]

Hi everyone, I could use some advice.

Did anyone go to graduate school in a brand new lab? I mean, only one student in the lab? If so, how was your experience? Did you feel you were at a disadvantage when applying to internship or post-docs?

I was offered admission to a PhD program and it's one of my top choices. The PI's research is in my area and the program is in a large, diverse city with a wide range of clinical practica opportunities, and an established neuropsychology track. I am very excited, however the PI is new and I don't know how much weight I should put on that in my decision making. For context, I just interviewed at a program that has an established lab and a PI that is very well renowned and respected in my field. But there seems to be a lack of diversity at this second program and I would like to be trained in a location where there is more diversity. That said, I have been in not-so-diverse institutions for many many years, so I know that I would be able to get through the second program if I chose to attend for the PI there (assuming I get an admission offer, but who knows!)

School #1 Con: New PI
School #2 Con: Lack of diversity

TLDR: What are your thoughts on joining a new lab vs old lab? And should one of these above cons be weighed more heavily than other?

Any advice would be appreciated. Thank you!

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[szymk1sm]

First - congrats on your offer!

I joined a new lab - 2nd graduate student for my PI. This ended up being very beneficial for me, as I knew I wanted to publish and my PI had data to use. So my experience was one of a PI being generous with their data, which allowed me several first (& other) author publications by the time I left grad school. There were several cons - with the PI being "new" and not having an R01 at the time, this was viewed a significant weakness for my F31 / NRSA submission & resubmission. There were other lab-related things / weaknesses that I don't think would have been present in more established labs. If you're motivated and the PI is generous with authorship, then a new lab can be extremely beneficial (especially if the PI is going up for tenure). Do you have a feel for the PI's stance on publishing / authorship to students (if research is a strong interest for you)? Do they have a grant that you would work on or are they in the process of obtaining one?

I was not disadvantaged applying to internship or postdoc, as my program has a history of strong neuropsych training. Reputation of the program, particularly in a niche area like neuropsych, can supersede (or complement) your PI's reputation.

There is certainly something to be said about diversity experiences in graduate school. The program that "lacks diversity," were you able to assess how they incorporate diversity into their curriculum and practicum experiences? While you may not be seeing diverse clientele, are the supervisors having students read articles on diversity-related topics and / or asking how the assessment / therapy would differ for things like if the patient were a non-native English speaker (or pros / cons of using an interpreter), had significant visual impairment, or minimal resources to incorporate your recommendations?

If there are areas of weakness during your graduate training (e.g., diversity), then you may want to place higher emphasis on internship and postdoc sites with more diverse patients and / or may have to do more footwork incorporating diversity topics into your practicum experiences if the supervisors are not already.

Happy to speak more candidly via DM.

 

[Berry0770]

Thank you so much for your quick reply! I know the PI at school #1 has at least 2 grants in progress so it's possible I can help with that, but I did not ask specifically! I will follow-up via DM, thanks!

 

[Justanothergrad]

Hi everyone, I could use some advice.

Did anyone go to graduate school in a brand new lab? I mean, only one student in the lab? If so, how was your experience? Did you feel you were at a disadvantage when applying to internship or post-docs?

I was offered admission to a PhD program and it's one of my top choices. The PI's research is in my area and the program is in a large, diverse city with a wide range of clinical practica opportunities, and an established neuropsychology track. I am very excited, however the PI is new and I don't know how much weight I should put on that in my decision making. For context, I just interviewed at a program that has an established lab and a PI that is very well renowned and respected in my field. But there seems to be a lack of diversity at this second program and I would like to be trained in a location where there is more diversity. That said, I have been in not-so-diverse institutions for many many years, so I know that I would be able to get through the second program if I chose to attend for the PI there (assuming I get an admission offer, but who knows!)

School #1 Con: New PI
School #2 Con: Lack of diversity

TLDR: What are your thoughts on joining a new lab vs old lab? And should one of these above cons be weighed more heavily than other?

Any advice would be appreciated. Thank you!

There are pros and cons of the new/old lab. None of them are necessarily going to make you more/less competitive for internship in general. There may be some variability in the upper end, but just like anyone else - sites can see what you have done within the context of your work.

New Lab
Pro: you shape the lab culture, which means that if you get along with your PI that the potential of you having the lab of your dreams is really high
Pro: You will be involved in every project you want - there are no turf battles
Pro: Everyone has more data than they know what to do with, so unending opportunities for first authorship. New labs are looking to crank out because job security is a nice thing.
Pro: They don't divvy their time up between a large group of lab members, so you can likely have even more access
Con: They won't know the school or departmental systems as well, so you will need to check those things out and have that initiative (internal grants, requirements for graduation dates/etc.)
Con: You won't have the same 'within lab' emotional support that you do in an established lab with a good culture. You'll have to rely on other labs more
Con: It's a bit of an unknown about what they will actual do as a professor or how they will function (see also the pro about shaping culture as a flipside)

Old Lab
Pro: Easy to jump on projects that are half finished and gain credit/authorship
Pro: Mentoring from other graduate students can help out a lot (not only about local university systems [see above], but also with learning statistical analyses and such). They're more likely to spend a full Saturday with you teaching you IRT or whatever else as you co-lead a paper.
Pro: Tons of data (just like above) but may be less frequent for first authorships on some of those datasets. The flip side is more likely later authorships (see pro above about mentoring as an important synergy for this process).
Pro: depending on who the person is, this may be helpful for some professional connections (Patrick Resick, Aaron Beck, etc may have pull that other, even very well established people don't at the super competitive sites)
Con: there may be a 'way things are' that is hard to change. This can be in terms of a lab pecking order, process for authorship, etc.

Some of the influence of these will depend on the larger departmental culture.

Personally, I would be concerned about a lack of diversity in terms of the experience. You can get a didactic, you can take a course, but in my opinion that offers only so much and not a lot of 'at home' experience. This doesn't mean that everything needs a ton of diversity (the midwest, for instance, is going to have programs that are generally all white or 99.99% white where as the portions differ in other areas), but I would consider what factors led to that. I would think about the value placed on it as well, not just 'how diverse' they are because that matters as well.

 

[Berry0770]

There are pros and cons of the new/old lab. None of them are necessarily going to make you more/less competitive for internship in general. There may be some variability in the upper end, but just like anyone else - sites can see what you have done within the context of your work.

New Lab
Pro: you shape the lab culture, which means that if you get along with your PI that the potential of you having the lab of your dreams is really high
Pro: You will be involved in every project you want - there are no turf battles
Pro: Everyone has more data than they know what to do with, so unending opportunities for first authorship. New labs are looking to crank out because job security is a nice thing.
Pro: They don't divvy their time up between a large group of lab members, so you can likely have even more access
Con: They won't know the school or departmental systems as well, so you will need to check those things out and have that initiative (internal grants, requirements for graduation dates/etc.)
Con: You won't have the same 'within lab' emotional support that you do in an established lab with a good culture. You'll have to rely on other labs more
Con: It's a bit of an unknown about what they will actual do as a professor or how they will function (see also the pro about shaping culture as a flipside)

Old Lab
Pro: Easy to jump on projects that are half finished and gain credit/authorship
Pro: Mentoring from other graduate students can help out a lot (not only about local university systems [see above], but also with learning statistical analyses and such). They're more likely to spend a full Saturday with you teaching you IRT or whatever else as you co-lead a paper.
Pro: Tons of data (just like above) but may be less frequent for first authorships on some of those datasets. The flip side is more likely later authorships (see pro above about mentoring as an important synergy for this process).
Pro: depending on who the person is, this may be helpful for some professional connections (Patrick Resick, Aaron Beck, etc may have pull that other, even very well established people don't at the super competitive sites)
Con: there may be a 'way things are' that is hard to change. This can be in terms of a lab pecking order, process for authorship, etc.

Some of the influence of these will depend on the larger departmental culture.

Personally, I would be concerned about a lack of diversity in terms of the experience. You can get a didactic, you can take a course, but in my opinion that offers only so much and not a lot of 'at home' experience. This doesn't mean that everything needs a ton of diversity (the midwest, for instance, is going to have programs that are generally all white or 99.99% white where as the portions differ in other areas), but I would consider what factors led to that. I would think about the value placed on it as well, not just 'how diverse' they are because that matters as well.

Thank you! These are very good points to add to my pros/cons list!

Yeah, for the old lab, they do not offer any coursework in cultural psych or anything along the lines. There is no diversity amongst the faculty. They say that they value diversity, but I don't see it, and I can't feel it. And yes, it is in the midwest in a 95% white area. The new lab is located in Houston, TX which is way more of a diverse city.

But unfortunately, there is no current data collection occurring in the new lab, and no database for students to pull from :/ The new PI remains productive research-wise through collaborations, and has at least 2 grants in the works - so that could be promising. But the old lab, as you mentioned, has an active, established, database full of research subjects for future studies.

Both schools are great but each of these cons have me a bit tripped up.

 

[Berry0770]

There are pros and cons of the new/old lab. None of them are necessarily going to make you more/less competitive for internship in general. There may be some variability in the upper end, but just like anyone else - sites can see what you have done within the context of your work.

New Lab
Pro: you shape the lab culture, which means that if you get along with your PI that the potential of you having the lab of your dreams is really high
Pro: You will be involved in every project you want - there are no turf battles
Pro: Everyone has more data than they know what to do with, so unending opportunities for first authorship. New labs are looking to crank out because job security is a nice thing.
Pro: They don't divvy their time up between a large group of lab members, so you can likely have even more access
Con: They won't know the school or departmental systems as well, so you will need to check those things out and have that initiative (internal grants, requirements for graduation dates/etc.)
Con: You won't have the same 'within lab' emotional support that you do in an established lab with a good culture. You'll have to rely on other labs more
Con: It's a bit of an unknown about what they will actual do as a professor or how they will function (see also the pro about shaping culture as a flipside)

Old Lab
Pro: Easy to jump on projects that are half finished and gain credit/authorship
Pro: Mentoring from other graduate students can help out a lot (not only about local university systems [see above], but also with learning statistical analyses and such). They're more likely to spend a full Saturday with you teaching you IRT or whatever else as you co-lead a paper.
Pro: Tons of data (just like above) but may be less frequent for first authorships on some of those datasets. The flip side is more likely later authorships (see pro above about mentoring as an important synergy for this process).
Pro: depending on who the person is, this may be helpful for some professional connections (Patrick Resick, Aaron Beck, etc may have pull that other, even very well established people don't at the super competitive sites)
Con: there may be a 'way things are' that is hard to change. This can be in terms of a lab pecking order, process for authorship, etc.

Some of the influence of these will depend on the larger departmental culture.

Personally, I would be concerned about a lack of diversity in terms of the experience. You can get a didactic, you can take a course, but in my opinion that offers only so much and not a lot of 'at home' experience. This doesn't mean that everything needs a ton of diversity (the midwest, for instance, is going to have programs that are generally all white or 99.99% white where as the portions differ in other areas), but I would consider what factors led to that. I would think about the value placed on it as well, not just 'how diverse' they are because that matters as well.

But if you think none of these factors would hugely impact my chances at matching with an internship, then I should just determine which of the factors is more important to me.

 

[Justanothergrad]

But if you think none of these factors would hugely impact my chances at matching with an internship, then I should just determine which of the factors is more important to me.

The largest predictor of internship match is the program's internship match. If the program averages 100% over the last 5 years, it won't matter which advisor you get. Same if the program averages 50%.

Yes, I would pick what matters to you the most with an understanding of what each may mean. Research, for instance, matters most if you want an academic position or academic oriented internship. Not having any your first year certainly won't hurt your ability to get licensed otherwise. The lack of coursework in diversity is super confusing and concerning to me (it's an APA requirement they have to offer, assuming its a clinical/counseling/health service program). Also, I would encourage you to consider the financial impact of both programs.

 

[Berry0770]

The largest predictor of internship match is the program's internship match. If the program averages 100% over the last 5 years, it won't matter which advisor you get. Same if the program averages 50%.

Yes, I would pick what matters to you the most with an understanding of what each may mean. Research, for instance, matters most if you want an academic position or academic oriented internship. Not having any your first year certainly won't hurt your ability to get licensed otherwise. The lack of coursework in diversity is super confusing and concerning to me (it's an APA requirement they have to offer, assuming its a clinical/counseling/health service program). Also, I would encourage you to consider the financial impact of both programs.

Thank you very much, Justanothergrad! It is an APA accredited program so maybe I just didn't see the diversity course. I really appreciate your advice! I enjoy being involved in research and want to be involved in a lot of research in grad school, it's very exciting to me personally. I don't necessarily want a 100% academic career. I see myself working in more of an academic medical center where I can do research, clinical work and teaching/mentoring. You also make a good about finances, very important consideration - thank you!

 

[cara susanna]

I actually think new labs have a benefit in that the PI is recently hired and therefore SUPER motivated to be productive with research. They also likely still have active research with their old mentors and labs.

 

[Ollie123]

Worth noting that diversity issues need to be addressed, but you don't necessarily need a course "called" Multicultural issues in psychology or something like that. We had a two-sequence Intro to Clinical Psychology course that all clinical students took and was probably 80% about multicultural issues. APA had no issue with that, but it wouldn't be readily obvious it was covered if you just glanced at the course list.

I largely agree with the above, I think it really just boils down to what each lab has to offer relative to your goals. This will be (very imperfectly) correlated with whether the lab is new versus established, but its a weak enough relationship I would look for other factors. There is merit to getting in with the junior faculty member vying for tenure. There is merit to getting in with the senior faculty member who has reams of data lying around and gives precisely zero ****s about being first author on anything. Neither is better or worse in absolute terms, its just going to depend on nuance that is tough to assess without knowing them individually. I know plenty of senior faculty with almost no data and some junior folks with access to massive datasets and impressive statistical expertise for doing creative analyses.

I think it all depends on what you want. If you want a primarily clinical career doing work with diverse populations...no question go with #1. If you want a research career, it gets more iffy and depends on specifics we can't easily assess here. Really the only immutable factor here is going to be the location of the school, so if for personal reasons you want to live in a diverse area or for professional reasons you want experience working clinically with population X and population X is 0.03% of the population there....that's not something you can do anything about. On the other hand, it is very easy to collaborate with other people, potentially possible to switch advisors or arrange multiple advisors if there is something you aren't able to get from a given individual and pretty easy to get access to other datasets for secondary analysis even if they aren't necessarily available in your lab.

 

[Justanothergrad]

Worth noting that diversity issues need to be addressed, but you don't necessarily need a course "called" Multicultural issues in psychology or something like that. We had a two-sequence Intro to Clinical Psychology course that all clinical students took and was probably 80% about multicultural issues. APA had no issue with that, but it wouldn't be readily obvious it was covered if you just glanced at the course list.

True. APA doesn't require courses of anything in practicality. I'm not sure of maybe of any programs that don't go the course route for competencies though as the coursework, with syllabus, etc is the easiest way to create measurable benchmarks and demonstrate competent (i.e., passing) in the accred documents. The naming has more to do with license issues (e.g., if your class isn't called "Ethics something something" you can have increased issues in some states") than accredit. Good point to make about diversity.

 

[bcliff]

I started working with a mentor who was new and ended up switching advisors a few years into my program. Many of the "perks" that I anticipated about with working with new faculty were missing (e.g., co-authorship opportunities, unique research opportunities in general), but all of the drawbacks that have already been mentioned (and more; e.g., unknown interpersonal style, limited institutional knowledge, etc.) were present. Feel free to PM me if you'd like to talk more.