Definition of a good advisor?

[ghostar]

What are some characteristics of good (and bad, for that matter) advisors in chemistry? I’ve heard phrases such as “the most important thing is to find a good advisor”, “person is way more important than project” quite frequently, but I just realized that I don’t know what a good/bad advisor really means. This issue especially surfaced when I talked with some grad students I met this summer who claimed to have significant qualms about their advisors. They mentioned things like expecting weekend work, embarrassing them in group meetings by grilling them (and only them, not other group members) with nit-picky questions, requiring (as opposed to recommending) them to apply for external fellowships, but to me, those things don’t sound too terrible. A common theme in these students’ comments was that their advisors have way too high of an expectation, but I don’t think that’s necessarily a bad thing, as I would much rather have an advisor that expects too much than too little. What these students were describing sounded more like “bad relationship with their advisors” as opposed to “bad advisors,” which I don’t think are the same thing. I’d appreciate any input you guys have on this topic, examples of good/bad advising from personal experiences would be especially helpful. Thanks.

[TakeruK]

I think you already answered your own question. "I have a bad advisor!" generally is a shorthand for "I don't like my relationship with my advisor" or "My advisor and I are not a good fit for each other". In some cases, some profs have reputations for being "bad advisors" because their personality and expectations are such that only a small number of students can actually have a good relationship with them, so most of their students feel like they have a bad relationship. My advice for these cases is to be very careful -- everyone thinks "well, I'm different, I'll find a way to work with Prof. X!" but the stats and reputation are often there for a reason.

 

So, what constitutes a "bad advisor" is completely personal although there are some similar themes that people would look for. For example, I would consider these things when choosing an advisor. Note: Things where I share what I prefer are not meant to be judgements! That is, if the advisor is not what I "prefer", that just means the prof may be a bad fit for me, but not necessarily a "bad advisor" for everyone. Also, when making your own preferences, keep in mind that it will be impossible to find a perfect advisor that fits you in every single way--you should also determine which ones of these you prioritize.

 

1. Availability: how often can you see them if you need help? I prefer advisors where I can just walk into their office if they aren't currently meeting with others. But some profs require appointments.

 

2. Approachability: do I feel comfortable talking to the advisor? I prefer advisors where I can ask questions without feeling dumb, and advisors who have the patience for me to ask the same thing multiple times before I understand it. I also prefer advisors whose personality is welcoming / have a good sense of humour so that I can feel comfortable talking about not-science topics with them as well.

 

3. Expectations: are their expectations in line with yours? I will not work for an advisor that expects more than 40 hours of work per week or expects work on evenings or weekends. Most grad students do work more than 40 hours and also work on holidays and some weekends, but I will only work for an advisor that sees these extra hours the way I do: as extra, not as expected/normal.

 

4. Training/teaching/mentoring style: Is their style a good match for you? As you mentioned, some profs like to grill/embarrass their students. Some people learn well under this kind of pressure. Personally, when I was in air cadets (a youth group trained by Canadian military), I thrived under the high expectations environment. It only pushed me to perform my very best. However, I don't want my career (including grad school) to be like this. Now that I am an adult with a ton of other stresses/responsibilities (family, paying bills, etc.), there's no need to add more stress to my life. So, I would not want to work for an advisor that treats every group meeting (or even individual meeting) as a chance to grill us and make sure we know everything.

 

5. Hands-on / hands-off: How much or little do they micromanage? I prefer a balance: I would not want to have to report to my advisor every decision I make, but I do want an advisor that is personally invested in the project and will occasionally make important decisions on what to do next in the analysis. I don't work well with a completely hands-off advisor (i.e. the type of advisor that only thinks about my project when I am talking to them, then stops as soon as I leave the office).

 

6. Resources available: How much funding does the advisor have for your project? At the most basic level, it's "Can they pay you as an RA or will you be teaching 20 hours per week every year in order to get your stipend?". At other levels, it's also "Can they send me to the conferences I want to go to for career development?", "Can I buy the materials I need for my work?", etc.

 

7. Group size: Is their group size a good match for you? The relative sizes can vary a lot in different fields, but basically, the important thing is whether or not you feel that your prof will have enough time for you. In my field, the average group size is 2 or 3 students and I think the ideal size for me is around 3 or 4 students. But I know that my friends in chemistry have much larger groups.

 

8. Personality fit: Would you get along with this person? For me, I don't need to be friends with my advisors but I think that would be nice. When interviewing for schools (or just visiting during the prospective student weekends), I try to ask them some questions about themselves too. One red flag I received was when I asked about their hobbies, they said "Astronomy is my only passion in life". Again, I am not looking for a BFF (or even friendship), but I want to be working for someone that I get to know beyond just a "boss" and that I can talk to them about non-science things. I guess at the most basic level, I want to work for someone that have other priorities in their life that is not science, which usually indicates they are understanding of the fact that science is just one of the many priorities in my own life, and that I will not always choose to prioritize science/academics/career over all else.

 

This is not a complete list but it's what I can come up with right now. Hope my personal examples were what you were looking for. For the most part, I have picked great advisors. In my program, we do something kind of similar to "rotations" where we work with multiple advisors on multiple projects. For one advisor, I did not feel we were a good fit. It's hard to pinpoint exactly why, but I always felt like crap interacting with the advisor. I don't think there is anything bad or wrong with that particular professor -- if given the chance to change them, I don't even know what I would do to make it different. A few others felt the same way about the prof, but plenty of other students also enjoy working with that prof. 

 

Although there are some traits that are commonly liked or disliked by the majority of students, in the end, what makes a good advisor all boils down to a "good fit", which is very personal and will vary a lot from person to person. The prospective student visits and/or interviews (and/or rotations) are also your chance to evaluate all potential advisors for a good fit with you!

[ghostar]

Hi TakeruK, thanks for your super detailed response! It’s helpful to hear from a current graduate student about these things. I agree that advisor preference is highly specific to the student - I can already see some differences in our preference for advising style Also agreed with your statement that no advisor is perfect.

 

I’m still curious though if there are any definitive characteristics of good/bad advisors that do not depend on student preference. In your case, for example, is it possible that an advisor who meets all the criteria that you listed could still be a bad one for your graduate education? Since the main purpose of grad school is scientific training, and our advisors are supposed to play a significant role in this process, I’m wondering what distinguishes the good/bad advisors in this aspect. What are examples of good/bad advising in scientific training?—maybe I should have phrased the question this way. 

[TakeruK]

I’m still curious though if there are any definitive characteristics of good/bad advisors that do not depend on student preference. In your case, for example, is it possible that an advisor who meets all the criteria that you listed could still be a bad one for your graduate education? Since the main purpose of grad school is scientific training, and our advisors are supposed to play a significant role in this process, I’m wondering what distinguishes the good/bad advisors in this aspect. What are examples of good/bad advising in scientific training?—maybe I should have phrased the question this way. 

 

Sure, there are some obvious definitively bad advisor traits: harassment, discrimination, unethical behaviours etc. Also, the professor can meet all of my criteria above but is a completely incompetent scientist that somehow managed to get a professorship position -- but this is not really something I would worry about. Or, the professor might have some severe personal problem that is now preventing them from actually doing a good job of managing a lab / advising students / etc. But again, this is something out of your control. I would trust the instincts and advice of others you meet in the field though (especially grad students who worked for them or professors who have collaborated with them).

 

But for things like "scientific training", again it really depends on each student and their individual goals. For example, some advisors are going to be really good at training students to become the next superstar in the field. I think if you really do want to be the next superstar, then you probably want someone who will push you to work your very best. But again, different workers thrive under different situations, so I don't know how to describe an advisor who can take a any good student and make them reach their full potential. Also, not everyone wants this -- for example, I have no intention of becoming the very best in my field so I would find grad school miserable if I was working for someone who thought they had my best interest in mind while they try to push me to be a superstar.

 

I can think of a few almost universally good traits though. One is good mentorship / being on your side. They would be there to help you figure out the job market in your field, and help you take on projects that best prepare you for your future goals (whether it's industry, academia, teaching, whatever) instead of assigning you projects that simply further their own goals. They might also talk you up to their colleagues, introduce you to other people that might hire you at conferences and all that stuff. 

 

Another universally good trait is flexibility for emergencies/personal situations. A lot of schools have policies that allow for personal leave or other benefits that are important to keeping us sane. However, a lot of these benefits require supervisor approval. Even if you are someone that want a tough demanding supervisor, there are some limits and it's important to know that your supervisor isn't going to be against you when you really need their signature for something.

 

Some of these universally good traits are not absolutely necessary in order to have a good supervisor. For example, some people prefer the mentorship stuff come from another professor in the department who is not their advisor (or perhaps a co-advisor). 

[Cookie]

TakerUK has great advices!

I would like to add: There is no perfect advisor-student relationship. People change, and their goals/attitudes towards things change. I think it is best to communicate as soon as you feel something is going wrong (slow progress, problems with lab mates etc.), and to remember that advisors are also normal people who have bad days, can be moody. I also learn not to take things personally when being critiqued.

[St Andrews Lynx]

Since the main purpose of grad school is scientific training, and our advisors are supposed to play a significant role in this process, I’m wondering what distinguishes the good/bad advisors in this aspect. What are examples of good/bad advising in scientific training?—maybe I should have phrased the question this way. 

 

With regards to training. You want a PI who will not just say "Oh, you're doing that wrong" but who can articulate why you are doing it wrong and suggest helpful ways to start doing that thing right, not just "Oh, go and figure it out for yourself, don't waste my time". A good PI will be honest when you are doing something wrong - ideally they will also be diplomatic about it. 

 

Honestly, in Chemistry I've seen a lot of advisors who don't think it is their job to train their grad students or to help them procure jobs/strengthen their CV. Good advising = actually trains their students, in that respect. Thankfully, a few questions about "mentoring style" (addressed to the PI, and group members) should make it clear which PIs are willing to train their students, and which aren't. 

[NoOneLikesAs]

Based on experience, a good PI:

 

1) Funding!!! The most important thing!

2) Communiative. Having someone talk too much and keep an eye on your work is better than once a month.

3) Willing to publish papers. Seriously. There are professors out there that will keep your papers hostage.

4) Not lazy.There are advisors out there that are lazy, and will do things as late as possible.

5) If possible, a big name professor helps. Bigger named professors have more funding than newer professors.

 

I myself is currently applying for a second year in a row to PhD programs. I was screwed on every app last year because for every school, they had to send me an email asking for my graduate advisor's recommendation, and he continued to submit them past deadlines for every one of the schools. On top of that, he talked with me only once a month, is holding my first author paper hostage atm (it has been completed since July, and would greatly help my grad apps, as it is suppose to be sent to Chemistry of Materials), and it seems to me he will be late for sending recommendations again this year (others have already sent theirs). Good luck on your app process. I am hoping this year won't end up like last year.

Edited November 21, 2014 by NoOneLikesAs