"I've worked in four labs..."

[lewin]

Throwing out some food for thought.

 

 

I had an interesting conversation with my supervisor this week where she was talking about how it's becoming more difficult to get her preferred type of research assistant. We run many, labour-intensive, in-lab studies. She wants people who can volunteer or work 8-10 hours a week. Lately, however, students don't want to commit to more than 4-5 hours/week because they're often volunteering for or working in 3 or 4 labs.

 

Her attribution for this change is that students think they need more experience for grad school, which might be true, but that they're over-emphasizing "lines on their CV". According to her, what they don't realize is that detailed, enthusiastic reference letters are much more important than CV lines. To get those superior letters, RA's need to have personal contact with their referees so it's better to have one detailed letter than three short ones. Spreading oneself too thin produces thin letters.

 

Any thoughts? I worked in a single lab for three years as an undergraduate, about 10-20/hours week, and got into a great PhD program. Here I sometimes see people saying, "I've worked in three different labs...." etc. and I wonder where they find the time! People who have worked in multiple labs: How many hours did you put in? How long were you there?

Edited September 24, 2013 by lewin

[BeingThere]

There may be another value (other than CV items) in working at multiple labs: knowledge of various subfields and different lines of research. Many undergrads don't know what they want to research and exposure to different topics in a hands-on kind of setting may help undergrads develop their research interests. If an undergrad felt bound to just work in one lab, then how would they know that is where their interests lie versus other research areas? There is probably a balance between many labs and one lab. And this would be found at a different point for each student.

Another consideration is quality over quantity. Not only in the way you point out, Lewin, but in terms of skills developed. Think of the skills developed by someone who enters data for a lab for two semesters versus someone who does an independent research project over those two semesters.

If grad programs want students with research skills, an important consideration for the student is "how will this research experience help me develop research skills and what skills will I be able to develop here?" A detailed letter of recommendation is vital, but skills are highly valued too.

Edited September 24, 2013 by Bren2014

[TakeruK]

I worked in 3 different groups/research projects during undergrad but not at the same time. I worked on each of the first two projects about 40 hrs / week for 8 months and then my final project was an honours thesis, about 10hrs/week (I arranged my courses so that I would have a lighter load in my final year). I was able to do full time research/lab work for 8 months on each project because I was in my school's co-op program -- so I took 3 years of courses, then 1 school year and 2 summers off to do research, then my last year of school. I'm not in Psychology but the Psychology program also had the co-op option too. I honestly think this is the best thing that I could have done to help me get into grad school, win fellowships etc. Also, working full time in each lab allowed me to get publication-quality work accomplished!

 

PS: Other perks of doing co-op if it's available: paid research work (I earned enough to pay off my tuition) and it's a nice break from having a ton of courses to going to a job where you didn't have any homework -- when you're done for the day, you're free to do what you want!

Edited September 24, 2013 by TakeruK

[Monochrome Spring]

When I was getting my first research experience, I was working 5 hrs/wk in one lab, 5 hrs/wk in a second lab, and 6 hrs/wk at the arboretum. But all of that was to have a range of experiences to built up my CV for applying to a better undergraduate lab position. At a research university, it can be hard to get a good undergraduate research assistant position, because you lack experience. So, I did a variety of work the quarter leading up to when I wanted to start research in a lab that I would be willing to dedicate 10+ hours to each week. I had to do the grunt work and it wasn't necessarily what I want to research in graduate school, but I had a more competitive application for my current lab. That said, now that I'm in that main lab, I definitely agree that you need to dedicate more time to one than a little time to many. I do 10-20 hrs/wk in this lab now, and see a big difference in my relationships with my labmates and advisor.

[stereopticons]

I worked in three labs in undergrad.. I worked in one for one semester, 10 hrs a week, then got a paid summer internship with a different lab (less relevant to my interests, but I knew the PI), so I worked in that lab 40hrs/week for the summer, then 10hrs/week during the school year for class credit. During the same time I was working in the second lab, I had a paid job in a lab for 15hrs/week.

 

I'm not sure what my thought process was in taking these positions, other than "I need money and also research experience." But I definitely think that if you can't commit at least 10 hours per week in a lab, you probably aren't going to get that much out of it. 

[kaister]

I think it's good to get a variety of experiences, but scattering yourself too much will look unorganized. I also don't like the idea of working more than 2 labs at a time, you cannot possibly devote quality time to more than that, at least in my opinion.  I also believe the quality of the experience and the letters they produce  mean more than lines on a CV. Though, I can feel your supervisor's frustration, my lab RAs can't/won't always devote the 8-10 hrs/week we want either because of their loaded schedules, but I doubt they're getting good experience if they are here less than that...I see them less, they learn less skills, aren't give responsibilities because they're not here enough where I can depend on them or train them properly with their time restraints.  I've met undergrads with a lot of short term experience in various labs, and they don't seem any more qualified than other RAs who have been in less labs. I encourage people to get experience in various labs, because it's a good way to figure out what you like, but once you find one you sort of like enough, you should definitely stick with it, it affords you more quality experiences.

[gellert]

Question:  If I've worked in >6 labs over a 7 year period, but 2 of those labs were full-time 50-60 hrs a week and one of them was an undergrad lab in which I worked 40 hrs a week in addition to classes, will that look disorganized?  I mean, my thing was that I just loved research and couldn't get enough of it.  I did spend less time in my non 40-hr a week undergrad labs, but I still value those experiences (although I'm not requesting LORs from any of those PIs, just the PIs from labs in which I worked 40 hrs/week or more).

Edited September 25, 2013 by gellert

[Guest joshw4288]

In my opinion, the real key is producing something substantial from your experience. You worked in X number of labs? Great. Demonstrate to me that you were doing something more productive than just data entry. It's easy to claim lab work, write all these things that you did such as "analyzed data in SPSS" but if there is no product from that analysis then there is no demonstration of that analysis taking place. You need things like independent research credit, an undergraduate thesis, an MA thesis if you are in a masters program, a poster or paper at a conference, or a publication. Even if the publication is in something small like the XXX University Undergraduate Research Journal, it demonstrates that you did something productive and meaningful during your studies. I have also seen some undergraduate CV's with more publications than I can count on one hand and yet they only have 2 years of research experience. If you have a number of publications without a corresponding number of years of research, admissions committees will notice. You're not going to trick the admissions committees into thinking you produced all these publications if in reality your research advisor wrote the publication and put your name on there as an author to help you out because you entered data. Don't make the mistake of thinking that the admissions committees are naive. Finally, as mentioned previously, working in one lab for an extensive number of hours is much more useful than working in 3 different labs for a few hours each week. A recommender can say much more about you and your accomplishments in the lab if you worked 20+ hours per week than if you work 5+ hours per week. 

[gellert]

^ I have three publications (one first-author) in top tier journals and >10 posters as well as some talks/symposia and an honors thesis (+ several hours of independent research credit).  Most are related to the 40+ hr undergrad lab.  I'm not on any publications in the other labs (except those in preparation), as I was mostly exploring other interests to refine my research goals.  I suppose explaining that in the SOP is all that is necessary, really.  The most important thing, I suppose, is my writing experience in addition to the fact that I designed several of the projects, programmed them, ran the participants, analyzed the data, worked on a meta-analysis, etc.  I definitely wasn't dicking around.  :3

Edited September 25, 2013 by gellert

[Guest joshw4288]

^ I have three publications (one first-author) in top tier journals and >10 posters as well as some talks/symposia and an honors thesis (+ several hours of independent research credit).  Most are related to the 40+ hr undergrad lab.  I'm not on any publications in the other labs (except those in preparation), as I was mostly exploring other interests to refine my research goals.  I suppose explaining that in the SOP is all that is necessary, really.  The most important thing, I suppose, is my writing experience in addition to the fact that I designed several of the projects, programmed them, ran the participants, analyzed the data, worked on a meta-analysis, etc.  I definitely wasn't dicking around.  :3

Point being, no that will not look disorganized. You have plenty to demonstrate that your time in those labs was spent productively. Sorry if my post appeared to be directed at you. It was written as a general insight to the "How many labs should I work in and do I have enough research experience?" questions. In three words:

Quality over quantity. 

[gellert]

^ 
Ah, gotcha.  Yes, well, either way your point was well-taken, and is wise.  Thank you for sharing your expertise!