How to choose an advisor

[hejduk]

If you've starting this fall, you're freaking out trying to schedule classes and navigate the nightmare of moving, etc. If you're already attending, then you're enjoying your summer, and probably have a trusted advisor already.

What are your tips for learning how to find the perfect advisor? I'm guessing a great advisor should be a full-professor, be quite established in your research field, and have proven success in graduating scholars? Definitely correct me here, and let me know your insights.

[Eigen]

Those three are things that I think are important, but none of them would make my "top things to look for" list- especially not the full-professor part.

I'd say the absolute most important thing is to find an advisor that you get along with- someone that you think you'll enjoy working closely with for the next 4-6 years. No matter how good the advisor is, no matter how good you are, if the two of you don't get along/are so different that you end up at odds every time you work on a project together, you won't get much done.

As to the other things you mention: established in their field has pros and cons. On the plus side, recs from them carry more weight, and they usually have better funding. On the downside, established professors often have a lot less drive to publish and make a name for themselves. Attaching yourself to an up-and-coming researcher can be a lot better for you than someone that's too entrenched. Younger professors are likely to give you more responsibility, treat you with more respect, and are more likely to be working really hard to get their work out there. That can immensely benefit you, as every paper they push to publish with your name on it is a publication for both of you. Older professors can be a lot more nit-picky about their work, because they have the luxury of not being in a hurry.

I think success in graduating students is important, but unless you're talking about huge groups, success in graduating students is a very complex thing to look at- are they not graduating students because of how they are, or have they had some really lackluster students lately? Ask around the department and talk to current graduate students.

Rotations, both formal and informal, in the sciences are a great, great thing- they give you a chance to work with 2-3 different faculty for long enough to see whether you really fit with the PI/group or not. I'm not sure what similar opportunities exist in your field, however.

There's an informative (if quite scary) post on the CHE forums about a graduate student who's advisor (well established, big name in the field) is essentially "stealing" their students work- downplaying the students involvement in the planning, implementation, etc. There are quite a few other stories of advisors (established and not) who have used their graduate students dissertation ideas to get publications, books, etc. for themselves. An advisor that you trust and have a good relationship with is really important, imo.

[cogneuroforfun]

My top criteria: interest in the lab's research, the degree to which I meshed well with the PI's personality and mentoring style, quality/prestige/popularity of work done in the lab (well-respected, solid projects on a hot topic means more high impact work, better career prospects, etc.), prominence of the PI (but up-and-coming and recently tenured are both great; mainly, I didn't want an assistant prof. who had three years til tenure review and hadn't done much, or a professor who'd been tenured for 20 years and had checked out).

[rising_star]

If you've starting this fall, you're freaking out trying to schedule classes and navigate the nightmare of moving, etc. If you're already attending, then you're enjoying your summer, and probably have a trusted advisor already.

What are your tips for learning how to find the perfect advisor? I'm guessing a great advisor should be a full-professor, be quite established in your research field, and have proven success in graduating scholars? Definitely correct me here, and let me know your insights.

1) Summer hasn't started yet.

2) None of those things. Seriously. My MA advisor was a tenure-track assistant professor and she was fantastic. We didn't do research in the same subfield but had similar theoretical interests. She had no proven success in graduating scholars (but does now that she's finally graduated 2 students, one of which is me). She was hands-on when necessary and otherwise let me do my own thing.

My PhD advisor is a full prof, well-established in the field, and has several former students that now hold tenure-track jobs at Research I institutions. He is far more frustrating to work with/under, damn near impossible to meet with, and often has no clue what I'm doing or working on. Based on your criteria, he is a great advisor. I, and many of his students, don't feel that way.

3) Best advice I ever got: Interview potential advisors and their current students once you get on campus. It's as much about them as it is about you. If you can't work under a micro-manager and Dr Superstar is a micromanager, you will be miserable working under her. If you need someone to set deadlines and force you to adhere to them, then Dr Couldn't Care Less isn't the right advisor for you. A great advisor is the one that will get the best out of you and push you to do and be your best. That's likely different for everything single person reading this.

Good luck!

[hejduk]

In making my criteria for a good advisor, I was going on what I've been told and read! What I wanted, and what you all did, was obviously prove me wrong. Continue on scholars!