Deciding on a lab/adviser

[Arcadian]

I have committed to a PhD program, and I am currently in the process of deciding whose lab to join. My program does not allow students to "rotate" in the first year; we are told to choose a lab and stick with it (although it is possible to change advisers if necessary). After visiting both labs and meeting everyone, this is a very difficult choice. On the one hand, Professor 1 is a distinguished professor with more recognition and grant money. On the other hand, my interests are a slightly better fit for Professor 2's lab (and I also find the style and atmosphere to be more appealing). It seems that the former is possibly a better career choice, while the latter is possibly a better personal choice. Do you have any advice for me?

Lab 1

Pros

+Research in same area as undergraduate research

+Distinguished professor, prominent in field (older)

+More grant money

+Supports students as RAs (no TA obligations)

+Newly launched, opportunity to be in the first wave of new grad students (Lab just moved from another state; PI hired as co-director of a research center here)

Cons

-Personality sometimes intimidating and imposing

-High level of control over students

-Relatively limited scope of projects

-Stricter, more uptight atmosphere

-Mostly consists of late grad students and post-docs

Lab 2

Pros

+Broader research interests, better fit

+Personality warm and laid back (younger)

+More established, more faculty and students

+Preferable atmosphere (lighter, better vibes)

+Easier to switch advisers (more flexible)

+Will have another first-year grad student to work with

Cons

-Mid-ranking professors (borderline tenure)

-Support through TAship only (first year)

[Arcadian]

By the way, I am leaning towards Lab 2. I think I will be happier in that situation overall. I'm just curious to see what you all would do in a similar situation.

[LJK]

If what you want from the PI in Lab 1 is association and transfered recognition, you could get that by doing a project with him/her, if that is something your department allows - if you publish with him/her, you get exposure due to their fame without needing to be their exclusive student. While you say that choosing Lab 1 might be a better career choice, that may not be true - the best career choice is working with the advisor that will help you to become the best researcher. Not that extra exposure isn't good, but being in an atmosphere that will allow you to develop your skills and knowledge will provide you with substance that should be there to be seen when you get the exposure. Decide which advisor is likely to challenge, support, and otherwise foster your development as an academic, go with that professor/lab. It sounds like lab 1 will be heavy on the challenge/push and lab 2 will be heavy on the support from the descriptions you give (not that they won't both have some of both) - decide what balance you personally need.

[fuzzylogician]

Personally I'd choose lab 2. It's hard to do research in a lab that makes you unhappy, and if you already know that the prof in lab 1 is not the kind of person you want as your advisor, don't put yourself in that situation to begin with? As LJK suggests, it may be possible to start some kind of collaboration with prof 1 or his lab, which would get you the publication you need without the added stress of having him as your direct supervisor. Otherwise, still, I would choose the place where I thought I fit better.

[Arcadian]

OK, just to clarify, these two labs are located in different centers. While there is a lot of collaboration in the program generally, there is not collaboration between the two centers. (That's just how our program is structured - quite unique, but I like it.) So collaboration between these two labs is probably not an option, but nonetheless I agree with your overall assessments.

[UnlikelyGrad]

Lab 2. I think it's a good idea to do grad work that's different from your undergrad research, if possible, and it sounds like the personality is right for you.