So I am in the process of realizing that my lab choice as an undergrad may have been a mistake. I have, however, learned a lot, and I would like to share with you some things I've learned so that those of you that have yet to join a lab can perhaps avoid making some of the mistakes I did.
The first mistake I made was joining the first lab that I got an offer at. In fact, it was the only lab I interviewed at. Why was this a mistake? Well, for starters, it gave me nothing to compare it to. I went into it really wet behind the ears ... I assumed that hey, since this is a basic science lab at a med school, they must really have their act together and know how to mentor undergrads. I had no idea of what questions to ask or what I should look for ... so I just interviewed and kind of assumed that since it was (a) paid and (b) in a med school lab that it was a good deal. Interviewing at >1 place enables you to compare amongst them and note their differences.
The second mistake I made was taking the PI at their word. Let me explain. My particular PI has been doing science for quite a while. Her works probably fill volumes by this point. She told me of undergrads she had known that had gone through her lab on their way to Harvard, became world-renowned, etc. Naive as I was, statements like that caused me to leave the interview a little starry-eyed. I thought to myself, surely it couldn't get any better than this. OK... reality check: those people could've left her lab decades ago, and at another institution. In my experience at this lab I haven't even seen undergrads more dedicated than me get included on publications or generally intellectually involved in the scientific work. So - don't make assumptions about how much involvement you will have. Just because the PI's CV is miles long and they've had alumni go on to HMS or whatever, doesn't mean that you will get included in the work and receive a good mentoring experience.
The third mistake I made was I didn't ask any questions. An underlying assumption I made was that the PI knew exactly how to train undergrads correctly so I really didn't need to ask questions. Big mistake. Look... I cannot stress enough the need to be humble. As an undergrad you are really the lowest of the low on the scientific totem pole. So don't go into the interview thinking you're hot stuff and asking about authorship, etc. However - you are potentially about to make a significant investment of time in this lab and you need to know what you can expect to gain from the experience. Ideally this situation is a win-win for you and the PI because the PI gets labor and you get learning experience. You just need to make sure that you will get the right learning experience. I will suggest some questions to ask later.
The fourth mistake I made was not considering the PI's personality. Do not underestimate this aspect. To be frank, I was belittled and humiliated in my interview. The PI made it very clear to me that I was clueless in the ways of biomedical research (which I was already aware of). She also made it clear to me that she could enlighten me and train me into an excellent budding scientist. This gave me the feeling that I had something to prove. I would prove to her that I had what it takes. You need to be very cautious if you notice yourself adopting an attitude like this. You also need to be very, very objective about how the PI acts and talks during the interview. I found the interview to be intimidating and mildly uncomfortable. As I should have expected, during the rest of my time at the lab, the PI was intimidating and mildly uncomfortable to talk to. Definitely not open/approachable. You need to be reasonable with yourself about whether or not you can see yourself working well for this person and eventually getting to the point of asking them for a letter. If you leave the interview having felt belittled and/or put in your place - do not assume that the uncomfortableness will subside with time.
OK ... so as promised earlier, here are some questions that I would highly recommend you consider asking the PI when you meet with them (in no particular order):
1. how many undergrads have you had work for you before? (and how recently). Where have they gone? This is partially self-explanatory. You need to be assured that the PI has some experience with undergrads (specifically pre-meds) and how to mentor them in such a way to benefit their journey to medical school.
2. what kind of time commitment is expected? My PI balked at this (should've been a red flag to me). Look, science doesn't always happen at consistent/regular hours, but you need to have some kind of idea of what is expected of you. You shouldn't be putting in 35 hrs/wk during the academic year unless you have a really light courseload.
3. what will you be doing? cultures? Southern blots? data analysis? maybe the PI will talk with you about some projects they have going on and what kind of techniques you will be able to learn.
4. how involved are the undergrads in the intellectual (reading/writing) work? this may be the most important question in this list. you need to be sure you will get more out of your time here than some Southern blotting skills. You need to learn to think like a scientist. Southern blotting anyone can pick up -- thinking like a scientist is what you're hear to try to learn. if the PI hesitates at discussing how much they will involve you in the thinking portions of the project .... that should give you pause.
5. how many undergrads have published/are authors? this is one of the least important questions but still nice to know. undergrad pubs are rare. you MUST be somehow involved/learning in the thinking part of projects, but for varying reasons undergrads may not be listed as authors and that is OK.
6. have any undergrads taken on their own projects? I would've valued an experience like this so much. If a PI ever mentions the possibility of having your own project after having proven yourself, you may have yourself a very good opportunity.
So why did I write this tome?
In short, I'm writing this because these are some of the things I wish I had realized before I started my research experience. I learned the lessons above the hard way. I snatched up the first paying research opportunity I could find and thought I was golden. The professor is prolific and supposedly well-known ... how could I go wrong? Now looking back, I realize that I have not gained the scientific experience that I should have. I have been itching to learn to think like a scientist, thinking that maybe if I just work a little harder I will have that door opened to me at the lab. The longer I wait, though, the more I realize that this door is very unlikely to be opened to me. The place isn't so glamorous now that I realize that my experience is not that different from the other undergrads I've known to have come through. I've been a glorified technician with little intellectual inclusion in the projects. Now, not only am I left with trying to figure out how to spin this to adcoms as a positive experience, but the LOR I once counted on is beginning to look undesirable.
Lessons learned the hard way, my friends -- don't make the mistakes I did.
tl;dr, some Cliffnotes to summarize:
1. DO interview at >1 lab
2. DO NOT assume that a prolific PI = a great pre-med mentor
3. DO ask good questions about what you can expect
4. DO NOT be intimidated such that you don't ask the important questions
5. DO strongly and objectively consider what the PI's personality was like during the interview and think long and hard about whether you would enjoy getting to know them to the point of asking them for a letter
6. DO make SURE you will not just be a technician - make SURE you will receive some scientific training, not just some technical skills
The first mistake I made was joining the first lab that I got an offer at. In fact, it was the only lab I interviewed at. Why was this a mistake? Well, for starters, it gave me nothing to compare it to. I went into it really wet behind the ears ... I assumed that hey, since this is a basic science lab at a med school, they must really have their act together and know how to mentor undergrads. I had no idea of what questions to ask or what I should look for ... so I just interviewed and kind of assumed that since it was (a) paid and (b) in a med school lab that it was a good deal. Interviewing at >1 place enables you to compare amongst them and note their differences.
The second mistake I made was taking the PI at their word. Let me explain. My particular PI has been doing science for quite a while. Her works probably fill volumes by this point. She told me of undergrads she had known that had gone through her lab on their way to Harvard, became world-renowned, etc. Naive as I was, statements like that caused me to leave the interview a little starry-eyed. I thought to myself, surely it couldn't get any better than this. OK... reality check: those people could've left her lab decades ago, and at another institution. In my experience at this lab I haven't even seen undergrads more dedicated than me get included on publications or generally intellectually involved in the scientific work. So - don't make assumptions about how much involvement you will have. Just because the PI's CV is miles long and they've had alumni go on to HMS or whatever, doesn't mean that you will get included in the work and receive a good mentoring experience.
The third mistake I made was I didn't ask any questions. An underlying assumption I made was that the PI knew exactly how to train undergrads correctly so I really didn't need to ask questions. Big mistake. Look... I cannot stress enough the need to be humble. As an undergrad you are really the lowest of the low on the scientific totem pole. So don't go into the interview thinking you're hot stuff and asking about authorship, etc. However - you are potentially about to make a significant investment of time in this lab and you need to know what you can expect to gain from the experience. Ideally this situation is a win-win for you and the PI because the PI gets labor and you get learning experience. You just need to make sure that you will get the right learning experience. I will suggest some questions to ask later.
The fourth mistake I made was not considering the PI's personality. Do not underestimate this aspect. To be frank, I was belittled and humiliated in my interview. The PI made it very clear to me that I was clueless in the ways of biomedical research (which I was already aware of). She also made it clear to me that she could enlighten me and train me into an excellent budding scientist. This gave me the feeling that I had something to prove. I would prove to her that I had what it takes. You need to be very cautious if you notice yourself adopting an attitude like this. You also need to be very, very objective about how the PI acts and talks during the interview. I found the interview to be intimidating and mildly uncomfortable. As I should have expected, during the rest of my time at the lab, the PI was intimidating and mildly uncomfortable to talk to. Definitely not open/approachable. You need to be reasonable with yourself about whether or not you can see yourself working well for this person and eventually getting to the point of asking them for a letter. If you leave the interview having felt belittled and/or put in your place - do not assume that the uncomfortableness will subside with time.
OK ... so as promised earlier, here are some questions that I would highly recommend you consider asking the PI when you meet with them (in no particular order):
1. how many undergrads have you had work for you before? (and how recently). Where have they gone? This is partially self-explanatory. You need to be assured that the PI has some experience with undergrads (specifically pre-meds) and how to mentor them in such a way to benefit their journey to medical school.
2. what kind of time commitment is expected? My PI balked at this (should've been a red flag to me). Look, science doesn't always happen at consistent/regular hours, but you need to have some kind of idea of what is expected of you. You shouldn't be putting in 35 hrs/wk during the academic year unless you have a really light courseload.
3. what will you be doing? cultures? Southern blots? data analysis? maybe the PI will talk with you about some projects they have going on and what kind of techniques you will be able to learn.
4. how involved are the undergrads in the intellectual (reading/writing) work? this may be the most important question in this list. you need to be sure you will get more out of your time here than some Southern blotting skills. You need to learn to think like a scientist. Southern blotting anyone can pick up -- thinking like a scientist is what you're hear to try to learn. if the PI hesitates at discussing how much they will involve you in the thinking portions of the project .... that should give you pause.
5. how many undergrads have published/are authors? this is one of the least important questions but still nice to know. undergrad pubs are rare. you MUST be somehow involved/learning in the thinking part of projects, but for varying reasons undergrads may not be listed as authors and that is OK.
6. have any undergrads taken on their own projects? I would've valued an experience like this so much. If a PI ever mentions the possibility of having your own project after having proven yourself, you may have yourself a very good opportunity.
So why did I write this tome?
In short, I'm writing this because these are some of the things I wish I had realized before I started my research experience. I learned the lessons above the hard way. I snatched up the first paying research opportunity I could find and thought I was golden. The professor is prolific and supposedly well-known ... how could I go wrong? Now looking back, I realize that I have not gained the scientific experience that I should have. I have been itching to learn to think like a scientist, thinking that maybe if I just work a little harder I will have that door opened to me at the lab. The longer I wait, though, the more I realize that this door is very unlikely to be opened to me. The place isn't so glamorous now that I realize that my experience is not that different from the other undergrads I've known to have come through. I've been a glorified technician with little intellectual inclusion in the projects. Now, not only am I left with trying to figure out how to spin this to adcoms as a positive experience, but the LOR I once counted on is beginning to look undesirable.
Lessons learned the hard way, my friends -- don't make the mistakes I did.
tl;dr, some Cliffnotes to summarize:
1. DO interview at >1 lab
2. DO NOT assume that a prolific PI = a great pre-med mentor
3. DO ask good questions about what you can expect
4. DO NOT be intimidated such that you don't ask the important questions
5. DO strongly and objectively consider what the PI's personality was like during the interview and think long and hard about whether you would enjoy getting to know them to the point of asking them for a letter
6. DO make SURE you will not just be a technician - make SURE you will receive some scientific training, not just some technical skills
Last edited:
