Rotations and Thesis Lab

[StilgarMD]

Hey Everyone

The time has come for picking a 2nd rotation, and subsequently I've spent a bunch of time thinking about what is important when considering potential rotations and thesis labs. I have a handful of potential labs, each with pros and cons. I'm looking for some insight on which would be good ideas. Below are brief descriptions.

1. New PI, started a year ago (will be 1.5 years by the summer), Does work that I find very interested in. Also an MD/PhD himself, finished very quickly. Neuro.

2. A little bit of an older PI (~2/3 years), doing really cool work, turned down an MD/PhD student about 3 years ago since he didn't agree with the "5 years max" philosophy behind the program, a PhD takes as long as it takes in his eyes. That may have been a mentality that was made "worse" by the fact he was just beginning, and any guarantees at that phase are hard to make. He's on my list to talk to. Neuro.

3. Older PI, have heard unequivocally good things about, has had many MD/PhD students (not sure what his time line is for graduating them, will investigate), but not working on anything I find deeply interesting (maybe If I learned more, I would). Cancer

4. Very similar to PI 3, working on stuff I find more interesting, but haven't heard as unequivocally positive stuff about, also working on Comp bio/Bioinformatics stuff I have interest in learning. Cancer

5. Senior-ish guy, has one student who I've spoken to, is having difficulty hiring quality Post-docs, may not have room for a graduate student. "Famous", doing a really cool technique, excellent mentor, also the president of the institute. May rotate and not be able to join the lab in the future. Neuro.

In the background of this conflict, there are some questions.

1. Residency consideration - I've heard conflicting info on how much congruity there needs to be between your PhD and your Residency. Some people say when you apply for residency, you are presenting a story, and your PhD is a part of it. I'm currently leaning toward Psych/Neuro as a residency, though I have some interest in Heme/Onc. the Cancer PIs are strong, but if I do want to pursue Psych I think I'd be better off doing a Neuro PhD. Others suggest there is no relationship - its all about learning to do science under the guidance of a good mentor.

2. One person whose words I weigh heavily has suggested that one of the things which makes faculty more hireable is the ability to fill a niche in a department that the chair feels the need to fill. They have also said it is helpful to become skilled in tools that will be the future of medicine that older investigators are less prone to take up - Bioinformatics as an example. this person is much closer to graduate, so I appreciate the long view perspective, and want to see what you guys think.

So of those PIs I've described, are there any obvious red flags or huge pluses? also, does your PhD topic matter for your residency? Does developing a unique skill set make you better off in the future? All input is appreciated.

Other Threads which have commented on this topic:
http://forums.studentdoctor.net/thr...n-a-timely-manner-advice.506773/#post-6414325
http://forums.studentdoctor.net/threads/things-you-wish-you-had-done.696698/#post-9183819
http://forums.studentdoctor.net/threads/how-to-pick-a-thesis-lab.677325/
http://forums.studentdoctor.net/thr...-of-my-md-phd-experience.725387/#post-9651634

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[Fencer]

You can turn Cancer PhD into a neuro residency indicating your interest for a career in neuro-oncology, once into residency, anything is fair play. It is a bit more difficult to bring a Neuro PhD into IM/Hem/onc residency but doable.

Option #1 is good for rotation, and if productive, it might be a home-run as the PI has pressure for getting pubs. Option #2 and 5 don't sound good. Option #3 and 4 might be good choices. There are many key issues that are not described.

 

[URHere]

So of those PIs I've described, are there any obvious red flags or huge pluses?

I agree with Fencer - 1, 3, and 4 are the only good options on this list, although I would say that option 3 may be your best bet.

In my experience, the new PI is very hit or miss. There is immense pressure for them to publish, so these PIs tend to be productive, but the downside is that they can be hands-on to the point of being overbearing. Picture things like weekly written progress reports. Everyone I have known in a brand new lab has at some point complained about these progress checks interfering with their ability to do actual work. You need to know yourself well enough to determine if something like this would be a problem.

The PI who seems to collect MD/PhD students does so for a reason. These PIs are generally wonderful mentors who understand the MD/PhD path and timeline. They also usually have a very good relationship with the MD/PhD program director and can often help their students balance basic science work with clinical/translational opportunities. Look into this lab more. If you really have no interest, that may be a deal-breaker…but there's a reason why multiple MD/PhD students have chosen that PI in the past, and you shouldn't ignore that fact.

As for everyone else, if someone complains about a 5 year max, take them off your list IMMEDIATELY. Five years is the upper limit of reasonable. The PI you want will have you aiming for 3 from the beginning, with the ability to overflow to 4 years if necessary. Also avoid people who may not be able to fund or accommodate you as a student.

hey have also said it is helpful to become skilled in tools that will be the future of medicine that older investigators are less prone to take up - Bioinformatics as an example.

I agree that the best skill set you can have is a unique one, but remember that this also includes combinations of skills. Team science is flourishing right now because everyone wants to do work that spans multiple disciplines. If you can be the person capable of spanning fields, you are a ready-made translator between these groups, and I think that's one of the best things you can do for your career.

 

[Neuronix]

1. New PI, started a year ago (will be 1.5 years by the summer), Does work that I find very interested in. Also an MD/PhD himself, finished very quickly. Neuro.

Risky. I'm a risk taker, so I'd strongly consider it. Make sure the PI has funding for the next 5 years, and has a stable job with real protected time from the clinics. A backup plan might be helpful--if they fail or move, is there another lab you can transition the same techniques into? Maybe a collaboration between #1 and #5? I don't know how related they are.

2. A little bit of an older PI (~2/3 years), doing really cool work, turned down an MD/PhD student about 3 years ago since he didn't agree with the "5 years max" philosophy behind the program, a PhD takes as long as it takes in his eyes. That may have been a mentality that was made "worse" by the fact he was just beginning, and any guarantees at that phase are hard to make. He's on my list to talk to. Neuro.

Would nope that right off the list. I actually had a similar PI when I was picking rotations that I disregarded for the same reason. Another MD/PhD did join that lab and I think got out in 8 years. Still, I'm a believer in either working for MD/PhDs or sympathetic PhDs.

3. Older PI, have heard unequivocally good things about, has had many MD/PhD students (not sure what his time line is for graduating them, will investigate), but not working on anything I find deeply interesting (maybe If I learned more, I would). Cancer

Gotta get interested. Might be a good fit if so. If not, what's the point. Cause believe me, you're going to get very UNinterested when things fail. If you never had that spark to begin with, you're going to get unhappy.

4. Very similar to PI 3, working on stuff I find more interesting, but haven't heard as unequivocally positive stuff about, also working on Comp bio/Bioinformatics stuff I have interest in learning. Cancer

Depends what hasn't been positive.

5. Senior-ish guy, has one student who I've spoken to, is having difficulty hiring quality Post-docs, may not have room for a graduate student. "Famous", doing a really cool technique, excellent mentor, also the president of the institute. May rotate and not be able to join the lab in the future. Neuro.

Could also be a good fit but no point in doing a rotation in a lab you can't join.

In the background of this conflict, there are some questions.

1. Residency consideration - I've heard conflicting info on how much congruity there needs to be between your PhD and your Residency. Some people say when you apply for residency, you are presenting a story, and your PhD is a part of it. I'm currently leaning toward Psych/Neuro as a residency, though I have some interest in Heme/Onc. the Cancer PIs are strong, but if I do want to pursue Psych I think I'd be better off doing a Neuro PhD. Others suggest there is no relationship - its all about learning to do science under the guidance of a good mentor.

In rad onc I think it's important to do a PhD in research related to the residency program. For rad onc, I think a PhD that isn't directly related to rad onc isn't even a net positive factor. The people picking residents generally care about two things: 1. How easy is this person to train (this is most important and based on grades, step scores, and personality) and 2. How well does their research experience/interest mesh into the department. If #2 isn't there, you can pretend there's interest as much as you want (and you should), but it won't be much of a benefit. You can still get in based on #1 though. In other specialties I'm not sure. I think a PhD related to the department will help you get any residency. It's just one factor though.

2. One person whose words I weigh heavily has suggested that one of the things which makes faculty more hireable is the ability to fill a niche in a department that the chair feels the need to fill. They have also said it is helpful to become skilled in tools that will be the future of medicine that older investigators are less prone to take up - Bioinformatics as an example. this person is much closer to graduate, so I appreciate the long view perspective, and want to see what you guys think.

I'd agree with that. It's just one thing to consider though, and there is no one right way to do this. At this point, the lab environment is far more important than the specific techniques you're going to learn and use.

In my opinion, the best advice about setting up your career is going to come from research-oriented junior faculty and people around that level (early associate professors or maybe fellows and senior residents). This might make PI #1 a good person for you for a lot of reasons. Anyone who became faculty in the 90s simply trained in a completely different environment. Senior MD/PhD students can be helpful, but you have to respect that only a small proportion are actually going to become majority researchers, so their advice has limited validity beyond how to navigate the program and get a good residency. I speak from experience here. I'm a senior resident and I have no clue what I'm going to be doing in 2 years or whether I've been making the right choices over the past 15 years. Still, it seems to me that the common thread to success is that there is no common thread, and a lot of factors are out of your control. Hope for the best, plan for the worst.

 

[StilgarMD]

You can turn Cancer PhD into a neuro residency indicating your interest for a career in neuro-oncology, once into residency, anything is fair play. It is a bit more difficult to bring a Neuro PhD into IM/Hem/onc residency but doable.

Option #1 is good for rotation, and if productive, it might be a home-run as the PI has pressure for getting pubs. Option #2 and 5 don't sound good. Option #3 and 4 might be good choices. There are many key issues that are not described.

I've spoken to the guy who rotated in PI #2's lab and he seems to think it had more to do with the PI being in the starting stages than an actual philosophy problem. I will be setting up a meeting with him to find out what his exact attitude is. PI #1 is a really great person and seems to have the potential to be a great mentor, but since his lab hasn't even been set up a year it may not be good for this summer from what one student has told me. I'll follow up with him on his own idea on whether its suitable for a rotation at this point.

Also, something you seem to be saying is essential - "Yes, the topic of your PhD matters quite a bit for your residency". Its really tough to get a handle on this, since I've heard others say they are just going to pitch it as "I learned to do science and think scientifically." If this is what you are saying, then I may have to rule out the two cancer PIs since as of now I don't find myself interested in Heme/Onc more than Psych/Neuro. my experience is very limited, so I'll have to follow up with more clinical experience (I'm in the process of getting it) and see what I can do to line up my PhD with my residency. Thanks a lot for the insight.

I agree with Fencer - 1, 3, and 4 are the only good options on this list, although I would say that option 3 may be your best bet.
In my experience, the new PI is very hit or miss. There is immense pressure for them to publish, so these PIs tend to be productive, but the downside is that they can be hands-on to the point of being overbearing. Picture things like weekly written progress reports. Everyone I have known in a brand new lab has at some point complained about these progress checks interfering with their ability to do actual work. You need to know yourself well enough to determine if something like this would be a problem.

The PI who seems to collect MD/PhD students does so for a reason. These PIs are generally wonderful mentors who understand the MD/PhD path and timeline. They also usually have a very good relationship with the MD/PhD program director and can often help their students balance basic science work with clinical/translational opportunities. Look into this lab more. If you really have no interest, that may be a deal-breaker…but there's a reason why multiple MD/PhD students have chosen that PI in the past, and you shouldn't ignore that fact.

I will inquire more from current grad students about overbearingness of the first 2 PIs, and I'm definitely not crossing 3 and 4 off the list just yet (Unless the PhD/Residency link is crucial, in which cause, depending on my clinical affinity, I may have no choice).

1.Risky. I'm a risk taker, so I'd strongly consider it. Make sure the PI has funding for the next 5 years, and has a stable job with real protected time from the clinics. A backup plan might be helpful--if they fail or move, is there another lab you can transition the same techniques into? Maybe a collaboration between #1 and #5? I don't know how related they are.

2. Would nope that right off the list. I actually had a similar PI when I was picking rotations that I disregarded for the same reason. Another MD/PhD did join that lab and I think got out in 8 years. Still, I'm a believer in either working for MD/PhDs or sympathetic PhDs.

3. Gotta get interested. Might be a good fit if so. If not, what's the point. Cause believe me, you're going to get very UNinterested when things fail. If you never had that spark to begin with, you're going to get unhappy.

4. Depends what hasn't been positive.

5. Could also be a good fit but no point in doing a rotation in a lab you can't join.

In rad onc I think it's important to do a PhD in research related to the residency program. For rad onc, I think a PhD that isn't directly related to rad onc isn't even a net positive factor. The people picking residents generally care about two things: 1. How easy is this person to train (this is most important and based on grades, step scores, and personality) and 2. How well does their research experience/interest mesh into the department. If #2 isn't there, you can pretend there's interest as much as you want (and you should), but it won't be much of a benefit. You can still get in based on #1 though. In other specialties I'm not sure. I think a PhD related to the department will help you get any residency. It's just one factor though.

I'd agree with that. It's just one thing to consider though, and there is no one right way to do this. At this point, the lab environment is far more important than the specific techniques you're going to learn and use.

In my opinion, the best advice about setting up your career is going to come from research-oriented junior faculty and people around that level (early associate professors or maybe fellows and senior residents). This might make PI #1 a good person for you for a lot of reasons. Anyone who became faculty in the 90s simply trained in a completely different environment. Senior MD/PhD students can be helpful, but you have to respect that only a small proportion are actually going to become majority researchers, so their advice has limited validity beyond how to navigate the program and get a good residency. I speak from experience here. I'm a senior resident and I have no clue what I'm going to be doing in 2 years or whether I've been making the right choices over the past 15 years. Still, it seems to me that the common thread to success is that there is no common thread, and a lot of factors are out of your control. Hope for the best, plan for the worst.

#1 is a rock star of the program, and everyone loves him. I don't see his funding as an issue during my time here, its more the concern that the best MD/PhD student may not be the best mentor, and I'd certainly be part of his learning to be a good one, though I don't see that as all that bad. I'm going to make sure #2 is unsympathetic before crossing him off, because everything else I've heard is great. Talking to a student from #3 this week, so maybe I'll hear something that catches my interests. #4's unpositive point was more a personality thing, he may be quirky, though I've heard he is unyieldingly supportive. #5 I have to email and talk to, since maybe the lab will be in a different place in a 1.5 yrs when I join. I have noticed there are no "right answers" in many of the questions I've got, and I accept that risk. What I'm attempting to do is avoid major pitfalls, like doing a PhD in something unrelated clinically when it would benefit me to have done something more related, or working a PI who isn't cool with graduating fast.

Thanks for the info everyone, I'll see what more I can gleam from other students and the PIs themselves before making a choice.

If anyone has any experience with applying to a residency (Psych/Neuro or Heme/Onc) without having done a PhD in that field, I'd really appreciate any insights you can offer based on your experience.

 

[Neuronix]

What I'm attempting to do is avoid major pitfalls, like doing a PhD in something unrelated clinically when it would benefit me to have done something more related

That is not a major pitfall. It's just a consideration. Other things being discussed here are more important.

 

[gbwillner]

gonna disagree with some opinions here. I think 2-4 are acceptable, and I would avoid 1 an 5.

#1- new guy, meaning no track record of grant support or mentorship. You will be a guinea pig, AND there is a good chance they can't obtain an R01 and are shown the door.

#2- still youngish, but has a track record of mentorship, at least. I see no problem with hesitance to guarantee graduation times to an arbitrary date- in fact I see it as a strength. It DOESN'T mean you can graduate on your timeline, it means you won't get out without anything to show for it. Newsflash- finishing a PhD without any good work doesn't get you far in the real world when that is your primary objective post residency.

#3- sounds like a good mentor, which is probably the most important factor. However, if you don't want to be a cancer biologist... probably better to stick to someone in at least the right field.

#4- may or may not be a good mentor, it seems like your interests are all over the place if you are considering neuro/cancer/bioinformatics. Sure they can mix somewhere... AND there is no harm in exploring as part of your rotations

#5- "Famous" guy without any post docs and grad students sounds like they're either a total jerk or have no funding. Go elsewhere.

 

[StilgarMD]

gonna disagree with some opinions here. I think 2-4 are acceptable, and I would avoid 1 an 5.

#1- new guy, meaning no track record of grant support or mentorship. You will be a guinea pig, AND there is a good chance they can't obtain an R01 and are shown the door.

#2- still youngish, but has a track record of mentorship, at least. I see no problem with hesitance to guarantee graduation times to an arbitrary date- in fact I see it as a strength. It DOESN'T mean you can graduate on your timeline, it means you won't get out without anything to show for it. Newsflash- finishing a PhD without any good work doesn't get you far in the real world when that is your primary objective post residency.

#3- sounds like a good mentor, which is probably the most important factor. However, if you don't want to be a cancer biologist... probably better to stick to someone in at least the right field.

#4- may or may not be a good mentor, it seems like your interests are all over the place if you are considering neuro/cancer/bioinformatics. Sure they can mix somewhere... AND there is no harm in exploring as part of your rotations

#5- "Famous" guy without any post docs and grad students sounds like they're either a total jerk or have no funding. Go elsewhere.

#1 is seen as sort of a hot shot, so perhaps It is foolish, but I don't doubt the stability of his funding. He is great on a personal level, but as you said, I would be a guinea pig for many of his skills. I'm sure there are + and - associated with that. I'll be meeting with #2 soon, and I totally agree with what you're saying. I hope it goes well. #3 and #4 feel like safe bets, but depending on this Residency PhD link, they may not be viable. I have all the reason in the world to believe #5 is a great guy, the PhD student was very honest with me. He has post docs that are moving on, and he has interviewed many many post-docs and not offered them positions - its not a shortage of willing people. I'm not sure on the grad student count. I'll be investigating him more soon, but the main concern was is if he doesn't find quality post-docs, he wouldn't want to take on more grad students.

That is not a major pitfall. It's just a consideration. Other things being discussed here are more important.

In light of what you've said below

In rad onc I think it's important to do a PhD in research related to the residency program. For rad onc, I think a PhD that isn't directly related to rad onc isn't even a net positive factor. The people picking residents generally care about two things: 1. How easy is this person to train (this is most important and based on grades, step scores, and personality) and 2. How well does their research experience/interest mesh into the department. If #2 isn't there, you can pretend there's interest as much as you want (and you should), but it won't be much of a benefit. You can still get in based on #1 though. In other specialties I'm not sure. I think a PhD related to the department will help you get any residency. It's just one factor though.

It seems like its more than just a consideration. Fencer has also hinted at the need to spin a story. I understand its one of many factors, but If I can help it, I'd rather this factor be a net positive in my efforts. If I misunderstood the 2nd quote, elaborate if you can. So far I'm getting the impression it matters a good deal. I don't know whether it would matter more or less in Psych.

 

[tr]

1. New PI, started a year ago (will be 1.5 years by the summer), Does work that I find very interested in. Also an MD/PhD himself, finished very quickly. Neuro.

Avoid. New PIs don't know how to supervise grad students effectively, are under a ton of pressure (which will transfer to you, not in a good way), and may well be gone in a few years as noted by other posters.

2. A little bit of an older PI (~2/3 years), doing really cool work, turned down an MD/PhD student about 3 years ago since he didn't agree with the "5 years max" philosophy behind the program, a PhD takes as long as it takes in his eyes. That may have been a mentality that was made "worse" by the fact he was just beginning, and any guarantees at that phase are hard to make. He's on my list to talk to. Neuro.

Bad sign but not an unequivocal no. I would talk to his previous students to see how long they have been taking/expect to take to graduate and how they feel about working with him.

3. Older PI, have heard unequivocally good things about, has had many MD/PhD students (not sure what his time line is for graduating them, will investigate), but not working on anything I find deeply interesting (maybe If I learned more, I would). Cancer

I'd go for this one except the whole not-in-your-area-of-interest thing will make things difficult later.

4. Very similar to PI 3, working on stuff I find more interesting, but haven't heard as unequivocally positive stuff about, also working on Comp bio/Bioinformatics stuff I have interest in learning. Cancer

Same assessment as for #3

5. Senior-ish guy, has one student who I've spoken to, is having difficulty hiring quality Post-docs, may not have room for a graduate student. "Famous", doing a really cool technique, excellent mentor, also the president of the institute. May rotate and not be able to join the lab in the future. Neuro.

I'd go for this one if you have any chance of getting into his lab. Famous PIs count for a *lot*. A *lot*. They will burnish your resume and pull strings for you for years and maybe decades to come.

1. Residency consideration - I've heard conflicting info on how much congruity there needs to be between your PhD and your Residency. Some people say when you apply for residency, you are presenting a story, and your PhD is a part of it. I'm currently leaning toward Psych/Neuro as a residency, though I have some interest in Heme/Onc. the Cancer PIs are strong, but if I do want to pursue Psych I think I'd be better off doing a Neuro PhD. Others suggest there is no relationship - its all about learning to do science under the guidance of a good mentor.

I think you will be much better off with a neuro/psych related PhD if you are looking to enter a neuro or psych residency. Not only are you trying to present a coherent story (true), you are also going to acquire a ton of very detailed scientific information along the way. You might as well spend that time acquiring knowledge that is more likely to inform your future research directions. When I interview residents for our research track, non-neuroscience-related PhDs raise questions for me about how useful that training is going to be for them going forward. Computational training does translate across fields better than molecular/cellular training, but a clear investigational trajectory is always a plus.

2. One person whose words I weigh heavily has suggested that one of the things which makes faculty more hireable is the ability to fill a niche in a department that the chair feels the need to fill. They have also said it is helpful to become skilled in tools that will be the future of medicine that older investigators are less prone to take up - Bioinformatics as an example. this person is much closer to graduate, so I appreciate the long view perspective, and want to see what you guys think.

Totally agree

 

[Erufaelonion]

I would rank your alternatives thusly: 3 > 4 > 5 > 1 > 2.

1. Risky. If he doesn't get money, you're screwed. If he leaves, you're screwed. And you will more than likely work like a dog only to suffer one or both of these outcomes.
2. Do not want! He should understand you are on a time schedule.
3. This is your man/woman. Your current interests are secondary. You can always have new interests. You can try to spin the research to fit your agenda.
4. This is okay. Computational stuff is a lot less messy and you will get out sooner.
5. You can try this one.

 

[StilgarMD]

I would rank your alternatives thusly: 3 > 4 > 5 > 1 > 2.

1. Risky. If he doesn't get money, you're screwed. If he leaves, you're screwed. And you will more than likely work like a dog only to suffer one or both of these outcomes.
2. Do not want! He should understand you are on a time schedule.
3. This is your man/woman. Your current interests are secondary. You can always have new interests. You can try to spin the research to fit your agenda.
4. This is okay. Computational stuff is a lot less messy and you will get out sooner.
5. You can try this one.

Judging by what Tr, Neuronix, and Fencer have said, I can't really reconfigure my interests that easily at the residency stage if I want a good research track one. I'm leaning more towards 5 if the PIs standing matters significantly.

 

[Overanxious]

Take it with a grain of salt obviously...it's the interwebs but as a reference 11 plus years of research here.

Some things i think you should consider when choosing a lab to avoid the major pitfalls. They are VERY important in my humble opinion. Picking a lab based on the project and the feel goods of the PI is a bold strategy and a bad bad bad move. That project will change and interest will decline fast. Chances are the PI that presents himself as your future mentor isn't the PI you will get to know. In no particular order but some thinking points to help you sus out where YOU think is best.

1. Do you like the people in the lab? (the obvious factor)
You better get to know these people before you commit. You'll be with them for hours and hours on a daily basis for 5 years. Some will come and go but what are the dynamics like? If you don't mesh well that's 5 years of hell that no amount of liking the project or the PI will make up for. Things to look out for: Do they like each other? Do they work well together? Are they a highly social lab or feign politeness and professionalism?
2. Does the learning style of the PI fit you?
Some PI's are very hands on peering over your shoulder while you piss while others are very hands off to the point that they are not even present for more than a couple weeks out of the year. Who needs help pissing? (not me) But the latter means your meetings and presentations etc. take back burner and can be a major problem if you're monitoring the clock and especially bad when things go wrong. Typically this fits the older more "famous" mentor. They have way more important responsibilities... Do you need to work closely with a mentor? Do they have junior faculty that can assist you? Maybe they have post docs that could help you...maybe... but for the most part post docs don't give a **** about your project or taking time away from theirs to help you. On the other hand a PI that works one on one with you in the lab (maybe on a weekly basis depending on what you need and what they need from you) is invaluable, there is no doubt you will be better trained in my humble opinion.
3. Small or large lab?
Smaller labs tend to be more hands on and close nit and the feel goods are super important here. Many times though this can mean less resources, not just funding but collaborators, equipment, tech's etc. When you have 1000's of samples to prepare for UPLC/mass spec etc. and no techs this is a whole other realm of hell...not to mention a major amount of your time spent on repeat that could be put to better use.
Larger labs tend to be more autonomous which makes the necessity for structure extremely important here and not as important to love everyone...you'll find your group. They also tend to have more resources which you will thank god for at times. On the other hand you may end up twittering your thumbs for a while "learning" while actually not getting anything done because you are just not that important in the grand scheme of things...they'll get to you and your project when they get to it.
4. What are the hours like?
Is this a 9-5 type? It should be clear this lab isn't going to get much done. On the other hand are they working 7 days a week till the wee hours in the morning? Those people are just scary...there is a life to be had outside of the lab. What do you want? And how efficient are you?
5. What has the PI published recently?
In what journals...what's the impact factor? How many per year? Don't you dare count reviews! Yeah..a "senior" PI might be famous with tons of contacts but if he hasn't published much recently chances are he's on the way out the door. Also, is the PI publishing once a year in phenomenal journals? Well...let's just say you won't have a first author paper here. Is there a pecking order for authorship? In other words do post docs get the credit regardless if you put more work into the project. Will they take your results and smash them into their paper and bump your first authorship to...who knows where you are in the order if you're on it. Will you take a stand with a major fµck you brah if they try? It may come to that but in the end your PI has final say and chances are you are not as important to him as they are.
6. Funding
Yeah funding is important. They have to support you for 5 years and reagents etc. etc. Don't let newb status scare you here...some newbies come with some saweeeet start up packages that's more than plenty to get you through. And they are thirsty...you will get **** done and probably know more about what you are doing. Don't be afraid to ask the PI about funding...you need to ask...just ask already.
7. Do you like the PI (you may right now and you may later too)
More importantly do the people in the lab like him? Don't you ask them in a group setting...not everyone has balls. Better yet don't ask them in lab...go out for a few beers get to know a few one on one, find out what they really think. Few things in lab were more entertaining than the newbs who walk in asking everyone about what they think of the PI when no one wants to be that guy (honest). Eyes usually fly all around with meaningful looks while mouths spit the same old politically correct jargon. Another thing, what do his colleagues think of him? You'd be surprised how vocal this lot can be...at the same time you need to be smart enough to read between the lines and pick up on what they mean and not just what they say. And they are crafty...they've made their career out of wording things just right.

I'm sure there are more things to think about but that's all i'm coming up with now. But side note...don't be that guy who comes in with a powder puff project lined up spouting off about being done in 3. Chances are the majority will not like you...you will be shunned, sabotaged, and i've even seen it lead to being kicked out a couple times(as a combination of lies and sabotage). You want out in 3 that's fine, who doesn't...keep that tid bit to yourself and work hard.

If it doesn't help you (though i hope it does) maybe it will help somebody avoid some mistakes.

Good luck!

 

[Fencer]

You need to have a frank discussion with your program director (or associate director) about your choices. There are many additional issues to consider that are not been discussed. In addition, your perceptions might be different than program leadership.

 

[StilgarMD]

Take it with a grain of salt obviously...it's the interwebs but as a reference 11 plus years of research here.

Some things i think you should consider when choosing a lab to avoid the major pitfalls. They are VERY important in my humble opinion. Picking a lab based on the project and the feel goods of the PI is a bold strategy and a bad bad bad move. That project will change and interest will decline fast. Chances are the PI that presents himself as your future mentor isn't the PI you will get to know. In no particular order but some thinking points to help you sus out where YOU think is best.

1. Do you like the people in the lab? (the obvious factor)
You better get to know these people before you commit. You'll be with them for hours and hours on a daily basis for 5 years. Some will come and go but what are the dynamics like? If you don't mesh well that's 5 years of hell that no amount of liking the project or the PI will make up for. Things to look out for: Do they like each other? Do they work well together? Are they a highly social lab or feign politeness and professionalism?
2. Does the learning style of the PI fit you?
Some PI's are very hands on peering over your shoulder while you piss while others are very hands off to the point that they are not even present for more than a couple weeks out of the year. Who needs help pissing? (not me) But the latter means your meetings and presentations etc. take back burner and can be a major problem if you're monitoring the clock and especially bad when things go wrong. Typically this fits the older more "famous" mentor. They have way more important responsibilities... Do you need to work closely with a mentor? Do they have junior faculty that can assist you? Maybe they have post docs that could help you...maybe... but for the most part post docs don't give a **** about your project or taking time away from theirs to help you. On the other hand a PI that works one on one with you in the lab (maybe on a weekly basis depending on what you need and what they need from you) is invaluable, there is no doubt you will be better trained in my humble opinion.
3. Small or large lab?
Smaller labs tend to be more hands on and close nit and the feel goods are super important here. Many times though this can mean less resources, not just funding but collaborators, equipment, tech's etc. When you have 1000's of samples to prepare for UPLC/mass spec etc. and no techs this is a whole other realm of hell...not to mention a major amount of your time spent on repeat that could be put to better use.
Larger labs tend to be more autonomous which makes the necessity for structure extremely important here and not as important to love everyone...you'll find your group. They also tend to have more resources which you will thank god for at times. On the other hand you may end up twittering your thumbs for a while "learning" while actually not getting anything done because you are just not that important in the grand scheme of things...they'll get to you and your project when they get to it.
4. What are the hours like?
Is this a 9-5 type? It should be clear this lab isn't going to get much done. On the other hand are they working 7 days a week till the wee hours in the morning? Those people are just scary...there is a life to be had outside of the lab. What do you want? And how efficient are you?
5. What has the PI published recently?
In what journals...what's the impact factor? How many per year? Don't you dare count reviews! Yeah..a "senior" PI might be famous with tons of contacts but if he hasn't published much recently chances are he's on the way out the door. Also, is the PI publishing once a year in phenomenal journals? Well...let's just say you won't have a first author paper here. Is there a pecking order for authorship? In other words do post docs get the credit regardless if you put more work into the project. Will they take your results and smash them into their paper and bump your first authorship to...who knows where you are in the order if you're on it. Will you take a stand with a major fµck you brah if they try? It may come to that but in the end your PI has final say and chances are you are not as important to him as they are.
6. Funding
Yeah funding is important. They have to support you for 5 years and reagents etc. etc. Don't let newb status scare you here...some newbies come with some saweeeet start up packages that's more than plenty to get you through. And they are thirsty...you will get **** done and probably know more about what you are doing. Don't be afraid to ask the PI about funding...you need to ask...just ask already.
7. Do you like the PI (you may right now and you may later too)
More importantly do the people in the lab like him? Don't you ask them in a group setting...not everyone has balls. Better yet don't ask them in lab...go out for a few beers get to know a few one on one, find out what they really think. Few things in lab were more entertaining than the newbs who walk in asking everyone about what they think of the PI when no one wants to be that guy (honest). Eyes usually fly all around with meaningful looks while mouths spit the same old politically correct jargon. Another thing, what do his colleagues think of him? You'd be surprised how vocal this lot can be...at the same time you need to be smart enough to read between the lines and pick up on what they mean and not just what they say. And they are crafty...they've made their career out of wording things just right.

I'm sure there are more things to think about but that's all i'm coming up with now. But side note...don't be that guy who comes in with a powder puff project lined up spouting off about being done in 3. Chances are the majority will not like you...you will be shunned, sabotaged, and i've even seen it lead to being kicked out a couple times(as a combination of lies and sabotage). You want out in 3 that's fine, who doesn't...keep that tid bit to yourself and work hard.

If it doesn't help you (though i hope it does) maybe it will help somebody avoid some mistakes.

Good luck!

Excellent post. Though I understood most of these things as considerations, its good to have a reminder.

You need to have a frank discussion with your program director (or associate director) about your choices. There are many additional issues to consider that are not been discussed. In addition, your perceptions might be different than program leadership.

I'm scheduled to meet with them in the coming weeks to discuss this, hopefully I'll gleam what I have to from that meeting.

 

[SynBio]

Curious, who did you end up picking and did you join that lab?

 

[StilgarMD]

I am actually rotating with #1 now. I rotated with #2 last summer and it was a great experience during which I learned a lot. I'm unlikely to join his lab though, since it is Neuro, but not really working directly on a problem I'm motivated to tackle (not really translatable enough). I decided to stick to my interests in Neuro so I won't be rotating with #3 or #4. #5 is leaving the University, so I'm glad I didn't push too hard to rotate there. the "Not be able to rotate in the future" line I wrote in the OP didn't have anything to do with his leaving, but I guess that is how it goes. Would have been an interesting experience. I will likely join a lab that I didn't mention in the original post. Though I'm not familar with the techniques there and have little of the required background (computational stuff), I know it is something I want to learn so I'm diving in.

 

[SynBio]

Cool, thanks for the response.

Interesting set of posts. Especially reading this before any of my rotations, and now at the end of my second one.

Good luck with your lab!