PI vs Institution, which is more important?

[VirologyPhDinTraining]

So, this is an argument I have seen a few places on the internet, but there is never much of a resolution, so I thought I would ask it here: Is it more important to have a PI for your PhD that is top of their field (think hundreds of publications, editor of top level journals, member of NAS or RS, universally respected), but at an institution that isn't consider top of the field? Or is better to be at the top institution (think Ivy or top 3 public), but not necessarily being mentored by the top person in their field? For sake of argument, facilitates, money, etc are if not equal, at least comparable. 

[TakeruK]

I would say that the reputation of the department within the field is more important than the reputation of the institution. So, with respect to the criteria of reputation (only one of many important factors) I'd try to maximize the combination of PI reputation and department reputation.

I also think that the biggest benefits of a top program is not just the direct benefits of reputation, but the reality of what the reputation brings. I wouldn't pick the #1 school in the field because it has the label of #1. But, I would pick the school because its #1 label usually brings tons of donor money, tons of resources, etc. So, if you are comparing two schools with comparable resources, then reputation doesn't really matter as much. Also, if the other school has resources to compete with these top schools, then it's likely highly reputed too. 

Finally, I think some idea of scale is important. The details depend on each field, but in mine (a small field), I would say that the top 5 schools may be in a league of their own, then the schools ranked 6-30 are pretty much all the same. So there's little difference, in my field, between a school ranked 12th and 25th, for example.

[biotechie]

On September 27, 2016 at 11:12 PM, VirologyPhDinTraining said:

So, this is an argument I have seen a few places on the internet, but there is never much of a resolution, so I thought I would ask it here: Is it more important to have a PI for your PhD that is top of their field (think hundreds of publications, editor of top level journals, member of NAS or RS, universally respected), but at an institution that isn't consider top of the field? Or is better to be at the top institution (think Ivy or top 3 public), but not necessarily being mentored by the top person in their field? For sake of argument, facilitates, money, etc are if not equal, at least comparable. 

Actually, I would venture that neither of those are super important for your PhD so long as you pick a good program. What you're talking about seems to be more what you should consider for your PostDoc, not your PhD. Well established PIs that have all of those things also are extremely limited on time to mentor their graduate students. Those are the types of PIs, at least in biomedical sciences, that offer the best place to do a post-doc. They have money to spend on productive postdocs, giving you the opportunity to gain independence and make the projects that will get both of you more papers and move you on to the next step.

Some of my peers in more established labs are not doing well, and some still have no data at the beginning of our 4th year. I chose a brand new PI with lots of projects who I knew would be a good mentor from my rotation. I might even get to graduate early.

Thus, I very highly recommend newer PIs. Often new PIs have the most time to devote to their students, and the earliest students are the generally ones that become the most successful, which makes sense given the extra time that they get from the PI. In addition, younger PIs tend to really be trying to push out papers, which means you'll have multiple projects and have to work hard, but it also means there are lots of options for presentations and papers for you. In addition, you also tend to get more experience in writing. You have to be the one to choose if the PI is going to be the right one to mentor you as you need, but I haven't met very many young ones that are not good mentors where I'm at. I have, however, had students who started after me come back and tell me they regretted choosing a big, gigantic lab where they don't get a lot of guidance. Definitely take those things into account when you're deciding.

In short, you should choose a newer PI that is known in the field, but still working their way up with a small to medium lab for your PhD. This gives you all kinds of necessary exposure, especially if you want to stay in academia. I think rankings systems are crap, but you should be choosing departments that you feel comfortable with and are graduating students at or below the national average (currently over 6 years) and that are able to place their graduates in good postdocs or jobs. Then for postdoc, you should aim for the best place you can get, the highest experts in the field. The postdoc will propel you to where you want to go... if you work hard.

[biochemgirl67]

20 hours ago, biotechie said:

Actually, I would venture that neither of those are super important for your PhD so long as you pick a good program. What you're talking about seems to be more what you should consider for your PostDoc, not your PhD. Well established PIs that have all of those things also are extremely limited on time to mentor their graduate students. Those are the types of PIs, at least in biomedical sciences, that offer the best place to do a post-doc. They have money to spend on productive postdocs, giving you the opportunity to gain independence and make the projects that will get both of you more papers and move you on to the next step.

Some of my peers in more established labs are not doing well, and some still have no data at the beginning of our 4th year. I chose a brand new PI with lots of projects who I knew would be a good mentor from my rotation. I might even get to graduate early.

Thus, I very highly recommend newer PIs. Often new PIs have the most time to devote to their students, and the earliest students are the generally ones that become the most successful, which makes sense given the extra time that they get from the PI. In addition, younger PIs tend to really be trying to push out papers, which means you'll have multiple projects and have to work hard, but it also means there are lots of options for presentations and papers for you. In addition, you also tend to get more experience in writing. You have to be the one to choose if the PI is going to be the right one to mentor you as you need, but I haven't met very many young ones that are not good mentors where I'm at. I have, however, had students who started after me come back and tell me they regretted choosing a big, gigantic lab where they don't get a lot of guidance. Definitely take those things into account when you're deciding.

In short, you should choose a newer PI that is known in the field, but still working their way up with a small to medium lab for your PhD. This gives you all kinds of necessary exposure, especially if you want to stay in academia. I think rankings systems are crap, but you should be choosing departments that you feel comfortable with and are graduating students at or below the national average (currently over 6 years) and that are able to place their graduates in good postdocs or jobs. Then for postdoc, you should aim for the best place you can get, the highest experts in the field. The postdoc will propel you to where you want to go... if you work hard.

This makes me feel better... I'm getting ready to rotate with a brand new PI and I'm really nervous.  I love the energy but I've never worked with one before.

Also, in general, you want 1) interesting research 2) good funding and 3) good environment.  Definitely agree that the famousness of the PI is a better thing to consider in post doc when you'll be more independent and the institution... Well, if you actually look at where the top-notch research is coming from, it's not always the Harvard Yale Princeton Stanford quad-fecta.  Not that there is anything wrong with them, but the best research in whatever field isn't always there.  I would say that you want to look for a place that has a large concentration of PIs that would be good mentors (read: not always gone 3/4 weeks in a month and also won't leave the institution after 5 years because no one gets tenure.) and has research that is interesting to you and has the potential to be publishable and finally is in an environment that makes you feel comfortable and intellectually stimulated.  Finally, you want to make sure that the program and associated faculty generally have funding.

The most famous PIs aren't usually the best mentors.  I can think of a few Ivies that have research holes in areas that I would be interested in (Brown, Dartmouth).  And what's with this binary classification of schools?  Ivy v. top public; there are institutions like Rockefeller, public, private, elite, etc that have EQUIVALENT impact in a common field.  For example, let's look at biomedical research: Rockefeller, UCSF, Harvard, Vanderbilt (ok bias but still) all have same "level" stuff going on.  Stanford, UW, UCLA, MIT, Cornell, Upenn, Emory, UTSW, WUSTL, UW-Madison, University of Utah and so many many more... they are all leaders in similar fields and are all amazing schools.  It's really up to you where you fit in best science-wise and personally.