Neuropsychologists, did you ever consider pursuing a Neuroscience/bench science PhD?

[gohogwild]

I see a lot of posts comparing different careers, though none comparing neuroscience academia/industry and neuropsychology.

Context:
I originally set out in undergrad to go for a straight clinical psych PhD. Though before that I was pre-med (changed my path due to a positive, but informative, medical shadowing experience) and still hold a love for genetics/endocrinology/biology.

Because of this love, I’ve collected my research experience in a behavioral neuroscience lab for about 2 years now. I love the research process, have had a great lab, and loved the constant learning. I’ve gotten a publication out of it, I’ve been given progressively more resposibility, and I’ve been encouraged to continue paid work past graduation. This good experience and exposure has given me ideas about about pursuing academia and other oppurtunities in neuroscience.

I was wondering if any biology lovers were similarly torn before pursuing their PhD? And what that decision process looked like for you?

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[neurotic_cow]

I was! My bachelor's was in neuroscience and I did three years of neurobiology lab research and I LOVED it. I was torn between neuropsych and PhD in neuroscience. Ultimately went with neuropsych because I wanted to work directly with geriatrics and Alzheimer's disease on the clinical end but I miss my lab work so much. I remember having concerns about the intensity of academia of a PhD in neuroscience as well and thought that being a neuropsych would give me better "work life balance" and pay better, though on the other side now, I don't really know how accurate my thinking was. I had a lot of conversations with my research supervisor (neuroscientist) at the time and her description of academia was terrifying (having to apply for grants, super competitive job market, etc). But at the same time, I didn't have access to a neuropsychologist at that time to paint an accurate picture of what that work is actually like. There are definitely times I regret the path I chose. A few months ago I was tossing around the idea of going back to school to get a master's or doctorate in neuroscience and totally switching careers but I think my partner would leave me if I went back to school for another several years lol.

 

[gohogwild]

I was! My bachelor's was in neuroscience and I did three years of neurobiology lab research and I LOVED it. I was torn between neuropsych and PhD in neuroscience. Ultimately went with neuropsych because I wanted to work directly with geriatrics and Alzheimer's disease on the clinical end but I miss my lab work so much. I remember having concerns about the intensity of academia of a PhD in neuroscience as well and thought that being a neuropsych would give me better "work life balance" and pay better, though on the other side now, I don't really know how accurate my thinking was. I had a lot of conversations with my research supervisor (neuroscientist) at the time and her description of academia was terrifying (having to apply for grants, super competitive job market, etc). But at the same time, I didn't have access to a neuropsychologist at that time to paint an accurate picture of what that work is actually like. There are definitely times I regret the path I chose. A few months ago I was tossing around the idea of going back to school to get a master's or doctorate in neuroscience and totally switching careers but I think my partner would leave me if I went back to school for another several years lol.

A kindred spirit! Thank you for sharing your experience. It sounds like I'm in the same situation. I have not had real-world shadowing experience with a neuropsychologist, only a psychiatrist in my 2nd year of college, he was not a shining advocate for the field. Academia, for me, sounds masochistic, while neuropsych (though a long & challenging road) feels somehow safe, which feels ridiculous to say.

I read a book, "The Unwritten Rules of PhD Research" and something that's mentioned there is that people are not only hardworking, but they also demonstrate that they are hardworking by talking about how busy they are, how much they are working, new projects and connections, etc. The point in the book was to say that it's good to be both hardworking and express that you are hardworking to others, so while I've heard similar things about how taxing academia is, I also recognize that maybe a large part of being a hardworking, stressed out academic is also portraying that you are a hardworking, stressed out academic. Which makes sense, but is also entirely discouraging to students.

I haven't spoken directly to my PIs about pursuing academia, they have some idea that I'm shooting for a clinical PhD. I think that I am hesitant for a couple of reasons, I am aware that professors have a good idea of how capable their students are and I'm afraid of not measuring up.
Pursuing academia feels like code for "I believe I am smart enough to be paid for it", while clinical positions may be stated behind more altruistic motivations. It's tough.

Remember, you can always marry science

 

[Sanman]

I was as well. Though, I was interested in applications to industry more than academia. There are some regrets not going that direction, but I enjoy what I do.

 

[tr]

I have a PhD in developmental neurobiology. Academia is a snake pit. Do not recommend.

The structure of academia is a tournament scheme where the visible success of a lucky few is supported by the cheap labor of an army of graduate students and postdocs who sustain themselves for years in grotesquely underpaid and overworked positions, putting their personal lives on hold for years in the hopes of ultimately landing that professor dream job. Very few of them will make it, but by the time they realize this and bail out to industry, government, consulting, or anything else with a modicum of stability and reasonable remuneration, they've sacrificed their best years to the research mirage.

Academia is crawling with 40 year old postdocs with no families and no retirement savings who are just coming to terms with the idea that that tenured position is not going to materialize.

Thank goodness I did a combined degree and was able to use the MD to carve out a career niche that combines the interesting/engaging aspects of research with the financial and life stability afforded by clinical work.

 

[summerbabe]

I’ve been encouraged to continue paid work past graduation. This good experience and exposure has given me ideas about about pursuing academia and other oppurtunities in neuroscience.

Academia is a really weird thing and for many people, it’s highest level of appeal is when we are in academia since these are the people we are surrounded by and who are giving us direct feedback/evaluation. For most, once we leave academia, there will be little to zero desire whatsoever to return.

My very biased take is that for somebody to pursue academia in a clinical psychology-related field, they probably need to REALLY love research and their topic in a manner that is likely sustainable for decades, REALLY not want to see patients full-time and/or work in a non-academic setting (e.g., 8-5 MF workday, routine micromanagement, dealing with the business of healthcare) and have the spirit of a degenerate gambler (as @tr wrote about).

It’s hard to imagine 25 years down the line but does the image of still doing lit reviews and re-writing manuscripts to submit to journals with a readership in the hundreds immediately excite you?

I think people in this field often get an immediate burst of interest when they are first introduced to the research process, conferences, submitting pubs, etc but for most, I think that effect wears off rather quickly and this process turns into a grind. But I also have a friend from grad school who is in academia and spends some of their leisure time reading journals that aren’t even that related to their line of work so this is obviously a good fit for them.

As you continue deliberating, one thing that might be helpful is to make sure you’re continuing to think about your options broadly (like you’re doing) and to get feedback from a range of sources. If you’re only talking to academics who are successful and fulfilled in their careers, of course they will recommend you to pursue that same path.

 

[gohogwild]

I have a PhD in developmental neurobiology. Academia is a snake pit. Do not recommend.

The structure of academia is a tournament scheme where the visible success of a lucky few is supported by the cheap labor of an army of graduate students and postdocs who sustain themselves for years in grotesquely underpaid and overworked positions, putting their personal lives on hold for years in the hopes of ultimately landing that professor dream job. Very few of them will make it, but by the time they realize this and bail out to industry, government, consulting, or anything else with a modicum of stability and reasonable remuneration, they've sacrificed their best years to the research mirage.

Academia is crawling with 40 year old postdocs with no families and no retirement savings who are just coming to terms with the idea that that tenured position is not going to materialize.

Thank goodness I did a combined degree and was able to use the MD to carve out a career niche that combines the interesting/engaging aspects of research with the financial and life stability afforded by clinical work.

I've gotten similar feelings about academia being 'competitive to the point of corruption'. I worked with a post doc whose wife just had their first child, and while the PI was kind, but still had a stick in his ass about the post doc missing days at the lab.

I think at this point I am just collecting as much information, thank you for your response.

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

Yes. I considered PhD. programs in neuroscience, but I wanted a licensable option, so I looked at MD + PhD programs. Most students I talked to warned me to do something else bc they were usually pushed towards certain types of residencies bc why "waste" the PhD. There were a lot of politics involved of how and where to spend time.

 

[gohogwild]

Academia is a really weird thing and for many people, it’s highest level of appeal is when we are in academia since these are the people we are surrounded by and who are giving us direct feedback/evaluation. For most, once we leave academia, there will be little to zero desire whatsoever to return.

My very biased take is that for somebody to pursue academia in a clinical psychology-related field, they probably need to REALLY love research and their topic in a manner that is likely sustainable for decades, REALLY not want to see patients full-time and/or work in a non-academic setting (e.g., 8-5 MF workday, routine micromanagement, dealing with the business of healthcare) and have the spirit of a degenerate gambler (as @tr wrote about).

It’s hard to imagine 25 years down the line but does the image of still doing lit reviews and re-writing manuscripts to submit to journals with a readership in the hundreds immediately excite you?

I think people in this field often get an immediate burst of interest when they are first introduced to the research process, conferences, submitting pubs, etc but for most, I think that effect wears off rather quickly and this process turns into a grind. But I also have a friend from grad school who is in academia and spends some of their leisure time reading journals that aren’t even that related to their line of work so this is obviously a good fit for them.

As you continue deliberating, one thing that might be helpful is to make sure you’re continuing to think about your options broadly (like you’re doing) and to get feedback from a range of sources. If you’re only talking to academics who are successful and fulfilled in their careers, of course they will recommend you to pursue that same path.

I think that those are great points. Especially since at this point school is all I've really known.

"The spirit of a degenerate gambler" haha, yes, I totally get what you mean. I think it definitely takes a certain level of disagreeableness (or vision?) to want to be in academia.

I think you hit the nail on the head, in that I do find the process exciting, but maybe not career-worthy. I am not someone who reads journals casually, I've met people like that too.

Thank you for your insight.

 

[gohogwild]

Yes. I considered PhD. programs in neuroscience, but I wanted a licensable option, so I looked at MD + PhD programs. Most students I talked to warned me to do something else bc they were usually pushed towards certain types of residencies bc why "waste" the PhD. There were a lot of politics involved of how and where to spend time.

Yes, I'm learning that things are not always as they seem, and that there's usually expectations that the student is entirely oblivious to without digging. Thanks for your response!

 

[Ollie123]

Not a neuropsychologist, but only because I'm more interested in traditional psychopathology (e.g., depression, anxiety, addiction) and have much less interest in things like dementia and other neuropsych bread & butter. Strongly considered neuroscience PhDs (among other things).

To me, its worth the peace of mind a clinical license brings even if you never have to use it. I don't use mine anymore and have been in my current state a year now without even bothering to apply for licensure here as no one cares. Most of my major research projects sit at the intersection of neuroscience and traditional psychology (indeed, specifically aimed at bridging the gap). All my federal funding involves neuroimaging, but that isn't the entirety of what I do - which opens doors. I'm not rolling in it, but earn a pretty solid living as clinical psych goes. Maybe not as much as the top-top tier of clinical neuropsychology but I'm well ahead of what the Sweet salary survey would have me making at my career stage and with significant upward potential.

I'm not as down on academia as some, but I think you need to know what you are getting into and be very strategic from the beginning. The neuroscience path is harder than the clinical psych path. The "wet neuro" (i.e., pre-clinical, very basic mechanism) neuroscience path is harder than the applied/clinical neuroscience path. Nabbing a spot straight out of undergrad as a "default" without a clear plan is a surefire way to end up on a profoundly mediocre trajectory. If you demonstrate you can pull in grants, people will happily give you good jobs just about anywhere because the commitment and risk for soft-money faculty with clinical licenses is negligible. Grant writing is probably 33% effort, 33% luck, 33% strategy with only the remaining 1% reflecting actual scientific competence in my experience.

Worth noting I'm totally one of those people who would read journals and textbooks for fun. In fact, I wish I had more time for it.

 

[cotn_psych]

There are a couple of clinical psych phd programs that have a dual neuroscience focus with some labs combining bench or at least a heavy neuroimaging component (I graduated from one such program). My diploma shows that I got a PHD in both psychology and neuroscience. At the risk of identifying myself, you can DM and happy to share my experience with pursuing joint focus. It was an interesting experience however, in hindsight I could have probably skipped the additional coursework in neuroscience and published a couple more papers/graduated a year earlier with just as much to show for it.

 

[gohogwild]

There are a couple of clinical psych phd programs that have a dual neuroscience focus with some labs combining bench or at least a heavy neuroimaging component (I graduated from one such program). My diploma shows that I got a PHD in both psychology and neuroscience. At the risk of identifying myself, you can DM and happy to share my experience with pursuing joint focus. It was an interesting experience however, in hindsight I could have probably skipped the additional coursework in neuroscience and published a couple more papers/graduated a year earlier with just as much to show for it.

Wow, sounds great. PM'd you!

 

[gohogwild]

Not a neuropsychologist, but only because I'm more interested in traditional psychopathology (e.g., depression, anxiety, addiction) and have much less interest in things like dementia and other neuropsych bread & butter. Strongly considered neuroscience PhDs (among other things).

To me, its worth the peace of mind a clinical license brings even if you never have to use it. I don't use mine anymore and have been in my current state a year now without even bothering to apply for licensure here as no one cares. Most of my major research projects sit at the intersection of neuroscience and traditional psychology (indeed, specifically aimed at bridging the gap). All my federal funding involves neuroimaging, but that isn't the entirety of what I do - which opens doors. I'm not rolling in it, but earn a pretty solid living as clinical psych goes. Maybe not as much as the top-top tier of clinical neuropsychology but I'm well ahead of what the Sweet salary survey would have me making at my career stage and with significant upward potential.

I'm not as down on academia as some, but I think you need to know what you are getting into and be very strategic from the beginning. The neuroscience path is harder than the clinical psych path. The "wet neuro" (i.e., pre-clinical, very basic mechanism) neuroscience path is harder than the applied/clinical neuroscience path. Nabbing a spot straight out of undergrad as a "default" without a clear plan is a surefire way to end up on a profoundly mediocre trajectory. If you demonstrate you can pull in grants, people will happily give you good jobs just about anywhere because the commitment and risk for soft-money faculty with clinical licenses is negligible. Grant writing is probably 33% effort, 33% luck, 33% strategy with only the remaining 1% reflecting actual scientific competence in my experience.

Worth noting I'm totally one of those people who would read journals and textbooks for fun. In fact, I wish I had more time for it.

See, I think you get on a really interesting point about the clinical lincensure being a backup plan, I didn't put that together as a possibility, and I think you're wise for working it out that way.
I think that I was initially pretty dead set on "wet" neuro, but I also realize that I have not read a lot of the clinical/applied neuro literature- and have no right excluding it. I would echo that I would likely not include dementia cases in my preferred population if there were not the incentive of applied neuroscience. Thanks for sharing your experience.

Also, I haven't heard the term "default" before, could you explain that to me? Also, re: grant writing, do you recommend getting experience before grad school? Say w/ a non-profit?

Thank you.

 

[erg923]

Most people entering a Ph.D. program in Clinical Psychology have at least an entertaining and glimmering interest of the academic lifestyle at that level, even if balanced by clinical work/application. But, it is simply not what it was in the 70s and 80s...and academia and the culture in general has been very, very slow to inform and adapt.

The Paul Meehl's of the world cannot exist anymore (in academia), and if he did, he would NOT get tenure. And this went away long, long ago actually.

There is no amount of money between by current salary and the POTENTIAL 300K or so that would convinced me to do and tolerate much of R1 and R2 academic Clinical Psychology at this time, even if I had some of those skills. You really have to want it, and you really have to "work." Alot. Oh, and also, work is called work for a reason, right?

I am more than happy to use clinical science and Clinical Psychology to help out all while working 36-40 hours a week. Have vacations. Play golf on the weekdays, coach youth soccer and swim teams, etc.

 

[Ollie123]

See, I think you get on a really interesting point about the clinical lincensure being a backup plan, I didn't put that together as a possibility, and I think you're wise for working it out that way.
I think that I was initially pretty dead set on "wet" neuro, but I also realize that I have not read a lot of the clinical/applied neuro literature- and have no right excluding it. I would echo that I would likely not include dementia cases in my preferred population if there were not the incentive of applied neuroscience. Thanks for sharing your experience.

Also, I haven't heard the term "default" before, could you explain that to me? Also, re: grant writing, do you recommend getting experience before grad school? Say w/ a non-profit?

Thank you.

By "default" I really just meant people who go on to grad school because they like psychology and think they want to be a psychologist, but haven't really done the legwork to have an in-depth understanding of what that means or a clear plan beyond "I want people to call me doctor." Before getting into this, I think its important to have at least a reasonable understanding of career options, key decision points (e.g., soft vs hard money in academia), etc.

RE: grant writing - absolutely no need to get experience before grad school. Non-profit grant-writing is somewhat different in nature anyways. I mean, if you are working in a lab and have the opportunity to get experience with it as a post-bac I would 100% jump on it but you don't need to make that a focus at that level. That said, you're much better off working in a lab and not getting that experience than working in an unrelated setting just to learn grant writing.

I would say for anyone absolutely deadset on a research-focused academic career, I wouldn't consider applying to any labs that didn't have a track record of NIH (or equivalent) funding. That doesn't mean you should only apply to people with three active R01s and ignore any/all other criteria, but absence of funding is going to create some inherent limitations. For instance, if your mentor has never had large-scale funding you can pretty much rule out getting a dissertation grant from most major funding agencies. While the value of a funding record is universal, I think it is especially so in neuroscience where good work is likely to be really darn expensive. Not totally fair as there are many excellent mentors who - for whatever reason - just don't have that funding record. Its competitive enough out there I wouldn't take the risk though. And again - planning - anyone who does should do so knowingly and be fully prepared to prioritize that on post-doc.

 

[Sanman]

Most people entering a Ph.D. program in Clinical Psychology have at least an entertaining and glimmering interest of the academic lifestyle at that level, even if balanced by clinical work/application. But, it is simply not what it was in the 70s and 80s...and academia and the culture in general has been very, very slow to inform and adapt.

The Paul Meehl's of the world cannot exist anymore (in academia), and if he did, he would NOT get tenure. And this went away long, long ago actually.

There is no amount of money between by current salary and the POTENTIAL 300K or so that would convinced me to do and tolerate much of R1 and R2 academic Clinical Psychology at this time, even if I had some of those skills. You really have to want it, and you really have to "work." Alot. Oh, and also, work is called work for a reason, right?

I am more than happy to use clinical science and Clinical Psychology to help out all while working 36-40 hours a week. Have vacations. Play golf on the weekdays, coach youth soccer and swim teams, etc.

You know, I never had any real interest in academia and caught some flack for not being very interested in the publication treadmill. However, looking at past mentors more than a decade later, they are nearly all gone. The older ones retired and the younger ones all quit for alternative paths. That definitely says something to me.

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

Academia started to really suck when "non-profit" hospitals started acting exactly like "for profit" hospitals. Why deal w unrealistic goals *and* more admin *and* harder to attain grants, etc.

 

[gohogwild]

Most people entering a Ph.D. program in Clinical Psychology have at least an entertaining and glimmering interest of the academic lifestyle at that level, even if balanced by clinical work/application. But, it is simply not what it was in the 70s and 80s...and academia and the culture in general has been very, very slow to inform and adapt.

The Paul Meehl's of the world cannot exist anymore (in academia), and if he did, he would NOT get tenure. And this went away long, long ago actually.

There is no amount of money between by current salary and the POTENTIAL 300K or so that would convinced me to do and tolerate much of R1 and R2 academic Clinical Psychology at this time, even if I had some of those skills. You really have to want it, and you really have to "work." Alot. Oh, and also, work is called work for a reason, right?

I am more than happy to use clinical science and Clinical Psychology to help out all while working 36-40 hours a week. Have vacations. Play golf on the weekdays, coach youth soccer and swim teams, etc.

I agree that there's paths to go with this degree that are more flexible & allow for more money/time/hobbies. I'm just feeling things out.

Thanks for mentioning Paul Meehl, I hadn't heard of him before, just out of curiosity I've been listening to a couple of his philosophical psych lectures on youtube- you don't think he'd thrive in academia now? Or did he have a unique work/life balance? Just curious why you brought him up.

 

[erg923]

I dont think he ever had a grant?

 

[WisNeuro]

I agree that there's paths to go with this degree that are more flexible & allow for more money/time/hobbies. I'm just feeling things out.

Thanks for mentioning Paul Meehl, I hadn't heard of him before, just out of curiosity I've been listening to a couple of his philosophical psych lectures on youtube- you don't think he'd thrive in academia now? Or did he have a unique work/life balance? Just curious why you brought him up.

Meehl was fairly blunt and did not appear to give a **** about validating people's opinions when those opinions were stupid. I doubt he'd do very well in today's culture where people can take offense to anything and hold that grudge forever.

 

[gohogwild]

By "default" I really just meant people who go on to grad school because they like psychology and think they want to be a psychologist, but haven't really done the legwork to have an in-depth understanding of what that means or a clear plan beyond "I want people to call me doctor." Before getting into this, I think its important to have at least a reasonable understanding of career options, key decision points (e.g., soft vs hard money in academia), etc.

RE: grant writing - absolutely no need to get experience before grad school. Non-profit grant-writing is somewhat different in nature anyways. I mean, if you are working in a lab and have the opportunity to get experience with it as a post-bac I would 100% jump on it but you don't need to make that a focus at that level. That said, you're much better off working in a lab and not getting that experience than working in an unrelated setting just to learn grant writing.

I would say for anyone absolutely deadset on a research-focused academic career, I wouldn't consider applying to any labs that didn't have a track record of NIH (or equivalent) funding. That doesn't mean you should only apply to people with three active R01s and ignore any/all other criteria, but absence of funding is going to create some inherent limitations. For instance, if your mentor has never had large-scale funding you can pretty much rule out getting a dissertation grant from most major funding agencies. While the value of a funding record is universal, I think it is especially so in neuroscience where good work is likely to be really darn expensive. Not totally fair as there are many excellent mentors who - for whatever reason - just don't have that funding record. Its competitive enough out there I wouldn't take the risk though. And again - planning - anyone who does should do so knowingly and be fully prepared to prioritize that on post-doc.

Thank you for your advice. I'm lucky that the lab I've been working in is NIH funded.

Also, re: not being a default, I am someone who prepared to apply for a Clinical PhDs by reading a lot of this forum, Mitch's guide, the Sayette/Norcross guide, and asking questions to real people when available (rarely). Would you be aware of similar resources for academia? I'm interested if there are resources for learning rules such as "if your mentor has never had large-scale funding you can pretty much rule out getting a dissertation grant from most major funding agencies", I hadn't heard of that before, and can guess there's a lot more I don't know. Some kind of guide? Policy? Thanks again.

 

[gohogwild]

I dont think he ever had a grant?

Ah, yes. I see what you mean.

 

[texanpsychdoc]

I see a lot of posts comparing different careers, though none comparing neuroscience academia/industry and neuropsychology.

Context:
I originally set out in undergrad to go for a straight clinical psych PhD. Though before that I was pre-med (changed my path due to a positive, but informative, medical shadowing experience) and still hold a love for genetics/endocrinology/biology.

Because of this love, I’ve collected my research experience in a behavioral neuroscience lab for about 2 years now. I love the research process, have had a great lab, and loved the constant learning. I’ve gotten a publication out of it, I’ve been given progressively more resposibility, and I’ve been encouraged to continue paid work past graduation. This good experience and exposure has given me ideas about about pursuing academia and other oppurtunities in neuroscience.

I was wondering if any biology lovers were similarly torn before pursuing their PhD? And what that decision process looked like for you?

I was actually in a cognitive neuroscience M.S./Ph.D. program prior to going into my Psy.D. program. I ended up just having the M.S. in cognitive neuroscience. I often thought about returning to finish out the last 3 years of the Ph.D.

 

[AcronymAllergy]

I wasn't torn in terms of neuroscience vs. neuropsychology (although my original undergrad major was neuroscience, which unfortunately wasn't offered at the school I later transferred to); it initially was medical school vs. graduate school. Which is another debate entirely.

I would agree with many of the folks above that having a clinical license to fall back on can bring a significant amount of professional piece of mind, especially when considering academia as a potential career path.

 

[Ollie123]

Thank you for your advice. I'm lucky that the lab I've been working in is NIH funded.

Also, re: not being a default, I am someone who prepared to apply for a Clinical PhDs by reading a lot of this forum, Mitch's guide, the Sayette/Norcross guide, and asking questions to real people when available (rarely). Would you be aware of similar resources for academia? I'm interested if there are resources for learning rules such as "if your mentor has never had large-scale funding you can pretty much rule out getting a dissertation grant from most major funding agencies", I hadn't heard of that before, and can guess there's a lot more I don't know. Some kind of guide? Policy? Thanks again.

I can't imagine any such thing existing, unfortunately. There is too much and that is just way too nuanced. These are the sorts of things a very good mentor can guide someone on, but I don't even know how one would go about turning all that into written form. Especially given there are always exceptions and it requires some experience to know when those apply. It is fairly common to discuss places you are applying (and potential grad school mentors) with UG/post-bac advisors. Not that its always helpful, but if you have someone like that it is a huge plus, particularly if they are in the same field as the individual. Faculty doing similar work will know which of their colleagues has students/post-docs who are super-productive and routinely go on to great academic careers. They will also know which of their colleagues is a gigantic a-hole they wouldn't want their worst enemy to work for. Just don't ask us to write it down because they still have to review our papers/grants and we have to place nice at conferences/study sections and the like.

Bit of a tangent, but why do all the "How to be a good mentor" discussions/talks/workshops I've seen focus on the generic warm/fuzzy side of things (e.g., "how to support your students" "Respect your student's autonomy and help them grow!")? Certainly all important to do, but I think helping people learn the unspoken rules, strategies and similar sorts of things are what make the difference between a "supportive" mentor and a "great" mentor. Great mentors are inherently supportive, but a supportive mentor can still be awful.

 

[Sanman]

I can't imagine any such thing existing, unfortunately. There is too much and that is just way too nuanced. These are the sorts of things a very good mentor can guide someone on, but I don't even know how one would go about turning all that into written form. Especially given there are always exceptions and it requires some experience to know when those apply. It is fairly common to discuss places you are applying (and potential grad school mentors) with UG/post-bac advisors. Not that its always helpful, but if you have someone like that it is a huge plus, particularly if they are in the same field as the individual. Faculty doing similar work will know which of their colleagues has students/post-docs who are super-productive and routinely go on to great academic careers. They will also know which of their colleagues is a gigantic a-hole they wouldn't want their worst enemy to work for. Just don't ask us to write it down because they still have to review our papers/grants and we have to place nice at conferences/study sections and the like.

Bit of a tangent, but why do all the "How to be a good mentor" discussions/talks/workshops I've seen focus on the generic warm/fuzzy side of things (e.g., "how to support your students" "Respect your student's autonomy and help them grow!")? Certainly all important to do, but I think helping people learn the unspoken rules, strategies and similar sorts of things are what make the difference between a "supportive" mentor and a "great" mentor. Great mentors are inherently supportive, but a supportive mentor can still be awful.

Because no one savvy enough to have the skills at being a great mentor and a successful academic has any interest in teaching a "how to be a great mentor" workshop? I am always amused by the double standards in this field and academia in general. We are told to do XYZ when in reality people only care about ABC. I am old enough to remember when APA had Malcolm Gladwell as the Keynote speaker for the APA convention. Where did he get his PhD again?

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

Slightly off-topic...

I completed a mentorship series (over ~12mon) at my AMC a number of years ago; it was the single best thing I've done to learn about mentorship (both early career mentoring and also identifying and working well w a senior mentor). It was a combination of lunch & learn and some other (usually in the evening) meetings. It was module-based, so they would offer each module maybe 2x per year. It was part of a larger programming effort to support and enhance research efforts (and secondarily likely help w. faculty retention). From what I gathered, more AMCs have been implementing these types of offerings (formalized program or a series of modules/sessions) over the past 10-12 years, with mixed results. I left academia five years ago, so YMMV in regard to how prevalent or not this type of opportunity may be available.

 

[gohogwild]

I can't imagine any such thing existing, unfortunately. There is too much and that is just way too nuanced. These are the sorts of things a very good mentor can guide someone on, but I don't even know how one would go about turning all that into written form. Especially given there are always exceptions and it requires some experience to know when those apply. It is fairly common to discuss places you are applying (and potential grad school mentors) with UG/post-bac advisors. Not that its always helpful, but if you have someone like that it is a huge plus, particularly if they are in the same field as the individual. Faculty doing similar work will know which of their colleagues has students/post-docs who are super-productive and routinely go on to great academic careers. They will also know which of their colleagues is a gigantic a-hole they wouldn't want their worst enemy to work for. Just don't ask us to write it down because they still have to review our papers/grants and we have to place nice at conferences/study sections and the like.

Bit of a tangent, but why do all the "How to be a good mentor" discussions/talks/workshops I've seen focus on the generic warm/fuzzy side of things (e.g., "how to support your students" "Respect your student's autonomy and help them grow!")? Certainly all important to do, but I think helping people learn the unspoken rules, strategies and similar sorts of things are what make the difference between a "supportive" mentor and a "great" mentor. Great mentors are inherently supportive, but a supportive mentor can still be awful.

Thank you, that is still great advice & insight on strategy! Thanks for taking the time to write out all that you have.

 

[gohogwild]

Slightly off-topic...

I completed a mentorship series (over ~12mon) at my AMC a number of years ago; it was the single best thing I've done to learn about mentorship (both early career mentoring and also identifying and working well w a senior mentor). It was a combination of lunch & learn and some other (usually in the evening) meetings. It was module-based, so they would offer each module maybe 2x per year. It was part of a larger programming effort to support and enhance research efforts (and secondarily likely help w. faculty retention). From what I gathered, more AMCs have been implementing these types of offerings (formalized program or a series of modules/sessions) over the past 10-12 years, with mixed results. I left academia five years ago, so YMMV in regard to how prevalent or not this type of opportunity may be available.

Thanks for sharing that! I've never heard of a mentorship program like that!