Picking a mentor

[imnotusingmyrealname]

---

Members don't see this ad.

Hello everyone,

I'm a first year MS1 in a top 30 MD/PhD program trying to decide my summer rotations. I know what I am interested in career wise and fortunately, my school has a few PIs who do exactly what I want to do (Biomaterials, drug delivery, and tissue engineering for osteoarthritis). There is one PI who I met who does literally everything I want to do in the future, in terms of both the project itself and its disease applications. But there other PIs who seem like excellent mentors with students who publish a lot, are really challenged, etc. I'm trying to figure out how to balance all these factors when picking a lab. I only have two rotations to use before I choose a lab, but am interested in more labs than just two.

I'm trying to decide between

1. PI who's research aligns perfectly with my interests. Seems like a nice person. Seems to want the best for her students. Smaller lab in the department. She doesn't have a lab website so it's hard to see exactly what her mentoring history is.

2. PI in bigger lab (10 grad students). Amazing track record of both student mentoring and publications. Setting my own research interests aside, which only marginally align with his (biomaterials and immunology), I think in general he has a very creative approach to problems. I feel like it's a great place to be to develop outside of the box thinking and score great publications (Cell, ACS Nano). His students win a lot of awards, go to lots of conferences, etc. However, I didn't feel like I geled with him as well as I did with the others I talked to. It may have simply been nerves though.

3. Ortho surgeon who runs a lab with two other PIs. He also does the research very similar to PI #1, but for a different disease (not osteoarthritis). He has a bit of a mixed reputation. I know one student who finished his PhD in 3 years and loved it and another who hated it and switched labs. I feel like it's worth a shot to at least rotate.

The problem I have is that I have only 2 rotations, but 3 labs I like. I was thinking about just rotating with #3 and #1, but I feel like #2 is worth a shot as well due to how awesome this PI and lab environment is. Also, I feel that the topics of #3 and #1 align very closely, and I'm narrowing my focus.

Also a few other questions.

1. What are your thoughts on biomedical engineering vs a regular biology phd. my program is fine with either, but I always see people talking about how important a hypothesis-driven project is for a PhD student. I think I favor the BME program (even though it has more requirements) since I love math and computers. However, I've heard that these programs are "project-based" and not looked at as favorably.

2. How do you balance between your future goals/interests versus the best PhD project. I was thinking about how just because a PI does what I want to do (#3 and #1), doesn't mean it's the best PhD training environment. Do you guys have any thoughts on this?

 

[TurtleGnome]

As for your "which mentor" question, it depends on what mentoring style you prefer.

I've worked in labs that are quite big (30+ people), mid sized (~10 people), and worked on a 1-on-1 basis with another PI. Do you want your PI to check in with you every week and be around to look at results and give advice routinely? Or are you more comfortable with large independence where you don't meet with your PI as much, and maybe look towards Post-docs more often for advice? Publishing matters, but ultimately you are training to become an excellent scientist, which can be done on many topics that interest you. Your mentor can make or break your science style. For me, mentorship trumps all (within reason). I'd rather have a mentor I love with the style I prefer on a project indirectly related to my career goals, than a mentor who I don't mesh well with and doesn't mentor the way I prefer, on a project 100% aligned with my life goals. Even if I love the project, if I'm not getting the training and support I desire, I'll probably be unhappy, and may be a worse/less creative scientist because of it.

PhD topics don't have to be what you study for the rest of your career, although it certainly can be. And it sounds like all your options are at least somewhat involved in your interests. Remember you will have residency and post-doc to refocus or transition into different research areas. At this point, I'm interested in Derm-onc stuff, and I will definitely try to find something related to that. But if I find an amazing mentor studying Psoriasis immunology or multiple myeloma, you bet I'll be doing my PhD in that lab. Because it still makes sense to transition from either of those into, say, Melanoma research.

I hope my rambling was at least somewhat helpful . Full disclosure, I am the child of a scientist who did really well with crazy opportunities because his mentors were the best they could possibly be.

Good luck!

 

[bluelamin]

As for your "which mentor" question, it depends on what mentoring style you prefer.

I've worked in labs that are quite big (30+ people), mid sized (~10 people), and worked on a 1-on-1 basis with another PI. Do you want your PI to check in with you every week and be around to look at results and give advice routinely? Or are you more comfortable with large independence where you don't meet with your PI as much, and maybe look towards Post-docs more often for advice? Publishing matters, but ultimately you are training to become an excellent scientist, which can be done on many topics that interest you. Your mentor can make or break your science style. For me, mentorship trumps all (within reason). I'd rather have a mentor I love with the style I prefer on a project indirectly related to my career goals, than a mentor who I don't mesh well with and doesn't mentor the way I prefer, on a project 100% aligned with my life goals. Even if I love the project, if I'm not getting the training and support I desire, I'll probably be unhappy, and may be a worse/less creative scientist because of it.

PhD topics don't have to be what you study for the rest of your career, although it certainly can be. And it sounds like all your options are at least somewhat involved in your interests. Remember you will have residency and post-doc to refocus or transition into different research areas. At this point, I'm interested in Derm-onc stuff, and I will definitely try to find something related to that. But if I find an amazing mentor studying Psoriasis immunology or multiple myeloma, you bet I'll be doing my PhD in that lab. Because it still makes sense to transition from either of those into, say, Melanoma research.

I hope my rambling was at least somewhat helpful . Full disclosure, I am the child of a scientist who did really well with crazy opportunities because his mentors were the best they could possibly be.

Good luck!

like parent like child lol

 

[eteshoe]

Pick a mentor that you can deal with on your worst days. Research topic literally doesn't matter w/i reason. You can come to love or at least live w/ a project as long as it is intellectually stimulating, but it's difficult to learn to deal w/ the a mentor that drains the life from you even if the topic is one you love.

 

[Shifty B]

Pick a mentor that you can deal with on your worst days. Research topic literally doesn't matter w/i reason. You can come to love or at least live w/ a project as long as it is intellectually stimulating, but it's difficult to learn to deal w/ the a mentor that drains the life from you even if the topic is one you love.

This.

Mentor and environment are more important than specific topic. Big vs small is more of a preference than definite benefit.

I would stay away from anything you might describe as "hit or miss". The potential downside (6 year PhD, having to change labs, etc) is too high.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

 

[tr]

Hello everyone,

I'm a first year MS1 in a top 30 MD/PhD program trying to decide my summer rotations. I know what I am interested in career wise and fortunately, my school has a few PIs who do exactly what I want to do (Biomaterials, drug delivery, and tissue engineering for osteoarthritis). There is one PI who I met who does literally everything I want to do in the future, in terms of both the project itself and its disease applications. But there other PIs who seem like excellent mentors with students who publish a lot, are really challenged, etc. I'm trying to figure out how to balance all these factors when picking a lab. I only have two rotations to use before I choose a lab, but am interested in more labs than just two.

I'm trying to decide between

1. PI who's research aligns perfectly with my interests. Seems like a nice person. Seems to want the best for her students. Smaller lab in the department. She doesn't have a lab website so it's hard to see exactly what her mentoring history is.

2. PI in bigger lab (10 grad students). Amazing track record of both student mentoring and publications. Setting my own research interests aside, which only marginally align with his (biomaterials and immunology), I think in general he has a very creative approach to problems. I feel like it's a great place to be to develop outside of the box thinking and score great publications (Cell, ACS Nano). His students win a lot of awards, go to lots of conferences, etc. However, I didn't feel like I geled with him as well as I did with the others I talked to. It may have simply been nerves though.

3. Ortho surgeon who runs a lab with two other PIs. He also does the research very similar to PI #1, but for a different disease (not osteoarthritis). He has a bit of a mixed reputation. I know one student who finished his PhD in 3 years and loved it and another who hated it and switched labs. I feel like it's worth a shot to at least rotate.

The problem I have is that I have only 2 rotations, but 3 labs I like. I was thinking about just rotating with #3 and #1, but I feel like #2 is worth a shot as well due to how awesome this PI and lab environment is. Also, I feel that the topics of #3 and #1 align very closely, and I'm narrowing my focus.

Also a few other questions.

1. What are your thoughts on biomedical engineering vs a regular biology phd. my program is fine with either, but I always see people talking about how important a hypothesis-driven project is for a PhD student. I think I favor the BME program (even though it has more requirements) since I love math and computers. However, I've heard that these programs are "project-based" and not looked at as favorably.

2. How do you balance between your future goals/interests versus the best PhD project. I was thinking about how just because a PI does what I want to do (#3 and #1), doesn't mean it's the best PhD training environment. Do you guys have any thoughts on this?

Stay away from #3. The multiple-PI situation combined with practicing orthopedic surgeon (i.e., probably isn't around the lab a lot) sounds like trouble.

Between #1 and #2 I'd lean toward #2 because my impression is that in the long run, connection with big names and publication in big journals, in that order, matter more than anything else. 80% of grad students end up hating their PI by the end anyway so there's almost no point in trying to find someone you 'gel' with, just treat it as a business relationship and try not to take anything personally. But I recognize a lot of people will disagree with me here.

At the very least, for #1 I'd spend a lot more time trying to find out her mentoring history. Find out where her grad students publish and how long it takes them to graduate. Do not join her lab without finding out this information. You don't want to end up in a lab where people take 8 years to graduate and end up self-publishing their thesis research as a book because they have no actual publications. (True story.)

I'll also disagree with the crowd here and say that I *do* think your choice of PhD topic matters, because unlike straight-PhD students you won't get to use postdoc time to refine your interests. Assuming you end up doing a research fellowship, that is much more time-limited than a traditional postdoc and it's important to be productive quickly. I'd say your best shot at making things work is to have a clear, continuous research trajectory that you can continue to build on. Personally I ended up in a PhD lab that didn't align with my interests as well as it could have (for sundry reasons I won't go into), and I regret that choice to this day. But I don't think it outweighs the importance of getting hooked into a big-name lab and publishing in high-impact journals.

 

[dl2dp2]

my impression is that in the long run, connection with big names and publication in big journals, in that order, matter more than anything else. 80% of grad students end up hating their PI by the end anyway so there's almost no point in trying to find someone you 'gel' with, just treat it as a business relationship and try not to take anything personally.

Agree 1000%. Except in very unusual circumstances, go with the most famous person who has the most established track record. If you want to succeed in this game, it’s much bettter if you learned early on how to deal with difficult people rather than try to surround yourself with people who are nice and be protected from the stark reality. If you want to work with the junior person primarily, I would work in a collaborative capacity whereby you receive significant mentorship also from another senior person.

 

[mrbadgradesbut]

This might be terrible way to think about this. But some metrics that I am keeping in mind:


- Interest in their topic

- Publications per year

- Publications per graduate student

- Median impact factor of publications

- How well respected they are

- Lab size

- Positions of grad students after graduating from their lab