Relationship with Adviser

[icthere]

Sorry for the title, probably not what you thought!

 

My adviser is one of the most well-known people in his field. He is the chair of the department and a couple of other research organizations, and basically has achieved most of the things he probably could have aimed for. Consequently, he does not really have that "motivation" for research anymore, and as a result, his students are "on their own". This has actually resulted in some not-very-competent graduates (and even a couple of drop-outs) from his group in the past couple of years.

 

Now, two years before I start my PhD this Fall, he hired a student from my country who has absolutely rocked. He has simply outperformed every other student my adviser has had through his years as a professor, publishing about enough papers to graduate in as short as three years! This was I think, one of the most important reasons he chose to hire me as well (me being from the same country and that student recommending me). I felt lucky back then to have the opportunity to have him as my adviser (and I still do) but having to work alongside that student is really frustrating me. I don't feel that I am working any worse than him (I have actually made more progress compared to his same couple of first months), but I feel that my adviser is taking this for granted.

 

I understand that I should be patient, but I am worried that no matter how much I try, I will be at least one step behind him, always in his shadow. Does anyone have any advice or similar experience?

[uromastyx]

This is common, no doubt. My only advice is to use this as motivation to compete (in a healthy sense) and push yourself to the best of your abilities.

[Dal PhDer]

Hey, I think we all feel a sense of competition with other students and lab mates. And I promise you we all have that one student who we secretly hate because they're just (in our minds) out performing us.

 

I think, as uromastx said, you should use this as motivation. Push yourself to meet standards and expectations that you might not have otherwise sought. Considering you say that your supervisor is pretty hands off, this is actually a really great thing! Also, and I'm going to contradict myself in the next paragraph, use it as a way to compare your work/progress to what you know your supervisor likes. What I mean is - I'll use an example - I read a comprehensive project from another student in a different department. This student is like, Einstein. I read their comp and literally needed 2 bottles of wine to calm myself. I was like, "*%^$), my work is WAY below that....I need to pull my shizzle together and up my game". I used their work as a standard that I want to meet...and by comparing my work to theirs, in this sense, I improved my output (or will be...soon....I'm still drinking that wine).

 

One the other hand, and this is where I'm going to contradict myself, your degree is about YOUR progress. Don't compare timelines, amounts, etc. too much...because everyone works differently and has different situational factors that influence their output. And just because their birthing papers left, right and center, doesn't mean they're exceptionally quality- right? It's important to step back and ask yourself: are you meeting YOUR and your supervisors goals/expectations? Have you set a timeline, and met the critical points? At the end of the day, you'll each graduate with the same degree, how you got there and the time it took doesn't really matter - on some levels...there's always a caveat!

[juilletmercredi]

My advice is to stop comparing yourself to other people.

I know, it's inevitable.  We compare ourselves to others.  But there is ALWAYS going to be someone "better" than you.  After grad school, it'll be that postdoc in the lab at the university down the lane who's always scooping your topics and publishing faster than you and has the K award.  If you go tt, it'll be that hotshot new AP who managed to get an R03 while teaching 3 classes a semester and all the students love him.  So on and so forth.

You have to decide on your own personal pace and what you're willing to give up, or how hard you want to push yourself.  If you want to write more papers, you can, but you have to become a machine - live and breathe research most hours of the day and write, write, write like a maniac.  I know some people like that and they are really annoying to me, but they get shit done.  On the other hand, you can choose to be a little more normal.  Most people fall in the "normal" range - they publish okay but not spectacularly, and they also have time to do other things.

It also depends on your goals.  I initially felt a bit inadequate compared to some of my peers.  Then I realized that 1) my advisor adored me and thought I was doing fine and, even more importantly, 2) I just didn't care as much as they did.  I love research but I didn't want to live and breathe it 16 hours a day, and I wanted to end up at a teaching-focused institution anyway.  Once I stopped comparing myself to them and to people who had similar goals to ME, I felt muuuuuch better.

 

Even if you continue to compare yourself to other people, though, don't compare yourself to the superstar.  That's just setting yourself up for insanity.  Compare yourself to the other average joes.  There's always going to be a superstar; you have to decide whether you want to be the superstar, or compete with the superstar.  If you do, power to you, go for it.  Most people don't, though.

[snarky]

I'm in the same boat as you, but I have to say, it doesn't bother me that much. As long as my advisor likes me and my work, will give me a solid recommendation, and provides sound advice, I'm happy. Maybe it would feel better to get the extra back pats that come with being the "favorite"... on the other hand, whenever I talk to my advisor's obvious "favorite", all she does is panic about whether or not my advisor is happy with her. It's insane. 

 

To echo what others said: a lot of misery in the graduate student world comes out of comparing yourself to others and (especially) to others in your lab. A small amount of competition can be healthy, but so often it becomes paralyzing and unhealthy. If you can manage not to worry about it, and instead just focus on doing your best, you'll probably be happier and more productive. 

 

Also, it sounds from your post like you've only been around for a few months (?). If so, you should consider that your advisor knows the other student much better than he/she knows you. It takes a while to forge a working relationship, and a few months is not really long enough to truly know a student or their work. 

 

[Jimbo2]

The TL;DR version: someone is always going to be better than you at everything and grad school is an environment that brings out this reality. Stick to your goals.  

[newpsyche]

My advice is to stop comparing yourself to other people.

I know, it's inevitable.  We compare ourselves to others.  But there is ALWAYS going to be someone "better" than you.  After grad school, it'll be that postdoc in the lab at the university down the lane who's always scooping your topics and publishing faster than you and has the K award.  If you go tt, it'll be that hotshot new AP who managed to get an R03 while teaching 3 classes a semester and all the students love him.  So on and so forth.

You have to decide on your own personal pace and what you're willing to give up, or how hard you want to push yourself.  If you want to write more papers, you can, but you have to become a machine - live and breathe research most hours of the day and write, write, write like a maniac.  I know some people like that and they are really annoying to me, but they get shit done.  On the other hand, you can choose to be a little more normal.  Most people fall in the "normal" range - they publish okay but not spectacularly, and they also have time to do other things.

It also depends on your goals.  I initially felt a bit inadequate compared to some of my peers.  Then I realized that 1) my advisor adored me and thought I was doing fine and, even more importantly, 2) I just didn't care as much as they did.  I love research but I didn't want to live and breathe it 16 hours a day, and I wanted to end up at a teaching-focused institution anyway.  Once I stopped comparing myself to them and to people who had similar goals to ME, I felt muuuuuch better.

 

Even if you continue to compare yourself to other people, though, don't compare yourself to the superstar.  That's just setting yourself up for insanity.  Compare yourself to the other average joes.  There's always going to be a superstar; you have to decide whether you want to be the superstar, or compete with the superstar.  If you do, power to you, go for it.  Most people don't, though.

 

I adore you. This response is literally perfect in every way. Agreed!

[ak48]

I adore you. This response is literally perfect in every way. Agreed!

I agree with your evaluation!