Myth Busters: Top 10 Sci Prog Horror Stories

[NsciApp]

Everyone seems to have a story about "X grad student" who had her "data destroyed" at [Harvard, Yale, Stanford, etc]...

I want to know REAL INSIDER info about what it's like to be a grad student at a top 10 science program. I'm particularly curious about the ivies, where competition may be more fierce if only for the name-seeking people they tend to attract (yes, yes, I know there are good reasons why the top schools are top and it's not just a name thing). Ultimately, I want to know if I have the option between an ivy and non-ivy top 10'er, which way should I go?

Specific info on the following topics would be appreciated:

-someone in specific program/dept and school who had data destroyed

-malicious intent or really negative vibes from other students

-lack of support from mentors or "sink or swim" program attitudes

-demanding unreasonable hours, say while a student is still in classes

-working weekends

Please, I want the real deal...not "I've heard that..." thanks

[cogneuroforfun]

I'm at Yale INP.

-someone in specific program/dept and school who had data destroyed: No

-malicious intent or really negative vibes from other students: No, not at all. Everyone helps each other out, especially in classes.

-lack of support from mentors or "sink or swim" program attitudes: Not that I've experienced. Some mentors are more "warm" than others, but I haven't heard anyone complain about a lack of support from their mentor.

-demanding unreasonable hours, say while a student is still in classes: It depends what you think is unreasonable. Some people put in 10 hour days in the lab + classes, others can do 6 or 8 hours. It depends on the field you're in and the techniques you use.

-working weekends: Some people/labs do, some don't. This more depends on the experiments you're doing. Do you have some technique that you have to do for 14 days straight, everyday? Obviously you'll be going in for some time during the weekend. In general, though, it seems like it is a minority of people in the program that go in on weekends.

[Aceflyer]

Everyone seems to have a story about "X grad student" who had her "data destroyed" at [Harvard, Yale, Stanford, etc]...

I want to know REAL INSIDER info about what it's like to be a grad student at a top 10 science program. I'm particularly curious about the ivies, where competition may be more fierce if only for the name-seeking people they tend to attract (yes, yes, I know there are good reasons why the top schools are top and it's not just a name thing). Ultimately, I want to know if I have the option between an ivy and non-ivy top 10'er, which way should I go?

Specific info on the following topics would be appreciated:

-someone in specific program/dept and school who had data destroyed

-malicious intent or really negative vibes from other students

-lack of support from mentors or "sink or swim" program attitudes

-demanding unreasonable hours, say while a student is still in classes

-working weekends

Please, I want the real deal...not "I've heard that..." thanks

I'm at Yale also and can second cogneuro's post. I just wanted to add that if you are deciding between an "ivy and non-ivy top 10'er," you should attend the program that you feel offers the better fit - and this is something that you can get a good sense of at interview/recruitment visits. What are the current students in the program like? What are the faculty like? What do the students love about the program, and what do they dislike about it? Would you feel comfortable spending ~5 years of your life around these people?

[LadyL]

I don't really get why you are looking for such specific, negative information. The part about data being destroyed (as opposed to lost, which is FAR more often the case) makes you seem a bit paranoid.

That said, having worked at an Ivy affiliated lab for a few years, I will tell you this: there is egotism and stupidity everywhere you go. At first it's more shocking to see it in the Ivies because of the reputation, but then you realize that people are people. I think a lot of amazing professors choose smaller schools because they care more about work environment than name branding. And a lot of brilliant but dysfunctional people end up at Ivies and then go even more nuts when they're tenured.

Things I have personally experienced include researchers who are protective of their data to the point of paranoia- demanding excessive reimbursement to particpate on a grant, and actually dropping out of large grants because of petty ego driven feuds. Also, researchers who want to get into the latest sexy new method but have no idea what they are doing and outsource the actual work but then take first authorship on papers. This is pretty common - appropriating the work of collaborators and/or grad students and post docs and submitting grants, papers, etc. with your name on it. I think it is most common with professors who also have administrative responsibilities that don't allow them to actually be hands on about research.

There is also more high level political crap in the Ivies regarding fights about money and resources, because these schools actually have a lot of both and everyone wants a piece.

[cogneuroforfun]

There is also more high level political crap in the Ivies regarding fights about money and resources, because these schools actually have a lot of both and everyone wants a piece.

While I'm sure there is plenty of high level political crap here, I doubt it has much to do with funding. Everyone here is funded through NIH, NSF, and smaller institutes/funding bodies, so faculty are not competing with each other for the university's funds. And because they're at a top school and are already pretty well-respected researchers, most labs don't really have to scrounge for grants too much. It's more like submitting grants is a necessary hassle you go through every so often, not that the next grant they put in absolutely has to get funded or the lab will be out of money.

[NsciApp]

@cogneuroforfun & aceflyer for your replies! They're especially valuable to me as I'll be interviewing for Yale Neuroscience (I was intrigued by INP) next week. Oh, and working weekends isn't a big deal if your experiment demands your attention, I just wasn't sure how many hours were expected as a routine or "face time" thing. As far as fit (suggested by acefyler) I'm having a hard time--I've enjoyed all my interviews so far!

@LadyL: thank you for your insights. To clarify, no, I am truly not a paranoid person. What I am is an outsider (I live in the midwest, I went to a small liberal arts college) who is looking to many sources for information. A LOT of people outside of the internet forums, including my current boss/PI and profs I've interviewed with at other institutions, have nasty things to say about "the ivies" or "people on the coasts" (since I've only been at midwest schools so far). I wanted insider perspectives from people beyond interview weekend schmooz.

I hope more people respond to this thread, since n = 3 can't be very representative of N

[LadyL]

While I'm sure there is plenty of high level political crap here, I doubt it has much to do with funding. Everyone here is funded through NIH, NSF, and smaller institutes/funding bodies, so faculty are not competing with each other for the university's funds. And because they're at a top school and are already pretty well-respected researchers, most labs don't really have to scrounge for grants too much. It's more like submitting grants is a necessary hassle you go through every so often, not that the next grant they put in absolutely has to get funded or the lab will be out of money.

I am not talking about Yale but where I am there is internal funding to squabble over . Resources are really a more precious commodity though - access to large longitudinal databases, equipment, etc. causes a lot of conflict at least from what I've seen.

[tepidtenacity]

I did a summer stint at a top 10 ivy, and out of the 3 research labs I was in contact with daily, none seemed like bad people. Really, when you're at somewhere great like that, you really don't have to worry about funding, and all the PIs I met were extremely supportive of PhD candidates being first authors, etc. Same goes for resources; they have so many instruments, clusters, etc. that there is not too much competition for them. In fact, I'd say there is a bit of camaradarie when discrediting another top 10 ivy's research, etc.

I'd say the biggest thing you have to worry about is face time with the PI. I have to say, I saw my PI maybe 2 days out of 3 months simply because he was flying around the globe giving conferences, and when he was back, he would be holed up writing grant applications. I guess if you're a superstar you're in demand.