Joint Mentors for PhD

[mtlove]

---

Members do not see this ad.

I am currently trying to pick a lab for my dissertation. I found a great lab with a PI that is series about training future PIs. I am strongly considering pursuing a project that would require me to receive joint mentoring by two PIs. My lab does not have the expertise to pursue this project on our own. I would greatly benefit by guidance from the other PI and access to lab meetings and the people in the other lab. My lab does not have the background to critically analyze certain areas of this project, so I need to get feedback from others in that field (the other lab would do this). Puting this other PI on my committee would not be sufficient. If I do not do the joint PI thing, I will need to pick a different project entirely.

Both labs are pretty good about getting students out, so that is not a problem. The PI of the other lab is well known for being a terrible mentor. Students only talk to him every three months at lab meetings. Everyone in the lab hates him and the majority of his students leave science (even though they are good enough to go on). He does not really care about students. I would not have to deal with this guy much if I did the joint lab thing. I would not join this other lab by itself. My other PI is a very big advocate for his students, so he would not put up with crap from this guy. These guys have not worked together much, so I do not know if they will have any conflicts. The worst case scenerio I invision is that if the joint thing did not work out, I would just drop back to the initial lab alone.

Both PIs are very successful (both have HHMI). My PI is very good, but he is not a superstar. His students are very successful, because he trains them well. The other PI is definately a rising super star. Again the real benefit is the access to people/ideas in this other field.

Should I consider doing this joint PI thing? If anyone has done something similar, can you tell me more about your experience?

 

[QofQuimica]

If it were me, I'd find another project. First, if people don't like a PI, there's a reason for it. We're not talking about one or two disgruntled people here. We're talking about a whole lab-full who can't stand him and drop out of science altogether after being in his lab, if what you've described is accurate. Do you really want that to be you in a few years?

Second, you're setting up a scenario where you'll be at the mercy of two different bosses. Dealing with the wishes and whims of one boss as a grad student is frustrating enough. Having to coordinate what two of them want might well drive you over the edge, especially when you know going in that one of them is a jerk. It's naive to think that you wouldn't get caught in the crossfire if and when things get ugly among the three of you. You also can't count on being able to change the rules in the middle of your PhD, because the reality of your situation might not make that so easy. For example, what if the hotshot guy is the one paying your stipend and the nice guy can't afford to pay it? You're screwed, dude. (I'm sure Neuro will have more to say about lab politics.)

Finally, the fact that you know he wouldn't care about you or your career is the worst thing of all. At your point in training (grad school), you don't need a super sexy project. What you need is a mentor who is in your corner and will help prepare you to become a researcher in your own right. There is nothing that will sink a grad student faster than a mentor who doesn't care about him/her, and there is nothing that will help a student make it like a mentor who does care.

 

[Neuronix]

(I'm sure Neuro will have more to say about lab politics.)

Not really, you said everything I would have said 👍. This scenario sounds like problems waiting to happen to me.

 

[mtlove]

Thanks for your responses! I knew that this is a disaster waiting to happen, but I love the other guys lab and research so much that I wanted to just deal with the bad PI! It does not help that I have worked for a "jerk" before and we got along well. This other PI will probably not be the same. This guy does not get along with half of his department, so it probably would not take long for him and my PI to clash.

Neuro, did you do joint mentor? If so can you describe your experience? I may be able to replace the "jerk" guy with someone else in the department, even though the research fit may not be as great. Do you recommend avoiding joint mentoring under any circumstance?

Thanks

 

[Neuronix]

Neuro, did you do joint mentor?

/
No. Because of my technical proficiency I became a consultant for a number of labs in Radiology and Neurology. When push came to shove I was coerced through various means into helping other students and labs with their projects, instead of working on my thesis. I can't complain too loudly in retrospect, as it did yield me two first author publications (one on an unrelated project in my lab and one for another lab).

However, when the time came that I felt I was done with grad school, I was unable to focus on my own thesis project. I was too busy helping other students and labs with their projects. By this point I had four publications on three different topics, but my thesis chair was insistant I get three publications on my thesis topic. This was after the agreed upon aims of my pre-lim (thesis topic and grant) were fulfilled in two large publications! I easily could have had a third publication on my thesis topic had I been allowed to focus on my thesis topic. There was also a lot of political and regulatory nonsense that held the project back many, many months completely unnecessarily. So I had to scramble (read: beg, borrow, steal, and shut out the outside world entirely) to get a fifth publication together, this time on my thesis project, pushing back my schedule by several months.

Now that I'm getting out into the world a bit more I'm realizing that what I went through is quite common for very technical people. Many people in the MRI/MRS community come from non-technical backgrounds and want to answer very clinical or psychological questions. Thus, those who are technical and can acatually set up or troubleshoot experiments are in extremely high demand due to short supply and low academic pay. Many of the good people move off to industry and the MD/PhDs go into private practice. With such demands, you end up typically in the middle of the author lists for other works, which does nothing to further your career or get you grants. Of course, grants are very difficult to get for technical projects anyways. Funding agencies would much rather pay for clinical/psychological questions, but underfund the technical people who can actually get the work done. Hence every MR lab I know is telling me "OH OH PLEASE COME TO MY PROGRAM! PLEASE COME TO MY LAB!" so I can essentially be a low-paid tech for them and further all their projects, and yet, these labs have no say in residency admissions and the residency programs simply don't care about research much. It's an odd place to be.

Do you recommend avoiding joint mentoring under any circumstance?

I think both mentors need to have a clear understanding of what the project is and what your role is. Unfortunately, it doesn't matter what the ground rules are, PIs are likely to change them in the middle of the game. When you have two PIs, that's two sets of expectations you now have to fulfill. PIs can also get greedy and/or demand too much of you. Often you end up being expected to be two people, which you simply can not be. You then get caught between two PIs, which is a bad place to be. It's bad enough being under one! So in theory it could possibly work, but I wouldn't recommend it.