Old vs. Young PI

[asaprocky]

So I know this has been talked about on this forum before, but I thought it'd be nice to get some fresh perspectives about this issue.

 

Basically who would you go with and why? The older, more established, larger research group PI or the young, new, smaller group PI. I think both of them have their pros and cons.

 

For the older PI, I would think they would help you a lot when it comes to finding jobs or post-docs (name recognition), easier to push out papers because more people could contribute to your project, and you won't have to worry about them leaving since they have tenure. On the flip side, because they're older and more established, their group is probably large and you could easily get lost within the group and would be less in-contact/connected with the professor. 

 

For the younger PI, you would become very close with them, you'd have more influence regarding the direction of your project, and could be more involved with grant writing and more. Conversely, they don't have tenure, it may be harder to get jobs/post-docs (not known), and may be harder to get some publications out. 

 

I was wonder what everyone's thinking is and what they're looking for? I think this is a topic is pretty important to consider since many people grapple with this issue and is very important for the future of our lives! 

[Eigen]

You're focusing on age when it's rarely the relevant issue. 

 

Pick the PI you fit better with and who's research you like better. 

 

Personality matters far more than age. 

 

The chances that you'll have two PIs doing research you're equally interested in, who you fit with and respect equally as scientists and mentors, with the only difference being age is very, very slim. 

[asaprocky]

I really don't care about strictly age, just what stage they're at in their career and how that'll affect my graduate experience (which I guess can be correlated with age...).

 

Obviously I'm going to pick the PI's with research I'm interested in and who I have a good relationship with, but you can't just ignore how different your ~5 years in graduate school will be different with a pre-tenured faculty member and an established, big shot professor. Basically, depending on where they are in their career, my experience could be different and I'm asking to see what people want and what people value when choosing between the two options. 

[asaprocky]

But I do respect what you're saying @Eigen, don't want you to think that I don't. Personality is definitely something important to take into account and I'll keep that in mind!

[Eigen]

And I gave you my opinion that you're focusing on a tiny factor. 

 

Personal fit matters, research fit matters. Only if you have two identical people in those terms do you look at the rest, imo. 

 

Else, go with the better fit. 

 

In response to your new reply:

 

I'm not saying stage in career has no effect, but I'd consider it minimal to negligible, mostly because there are balanced pros and cons. It won't be the same in either case, but I wouldn't think the career stage would almost ever be a deciding factor for me between two faculty members. 

[Poncho]

Personally, I'd like to work with a younger faculty member who has just received tenure but it still looking to further their career and depending highly on motivated graduate students.  Sort of a cheap way out, but easily the most ideal.  

 

I think too old, and too established groups are easier to get lost in, and I've heard horror stories about being a disposable worker and never have a good connection to the faculty member who will be writing you a very personal LOR once you graduate.

It also scares the hell out of me to pick an assistant professor with some awesome research, only to have him/her leave in the middle of my studies and leaving me struggling to stay afloat.

[Usmivka]

I think the discussion is pertinent to the question of experience that you seem to be focused on. The question was phrased differently, but people got into the pros and cons of joining a prof at various career stages, and I think the whole discussion is generally applicable (and my comments came from the perspective of working in an analytical chemistry lab). I have a PI with a great personality, but in large part because of experience and career stage is a poor fit for me. And both experience and career stage are pretty directly related to age in this case. Knowing what I do now, career stage (and the risks that go with joining a PI at any given stage) would play a significant role in deciding betweeen advisors if I was to have a do over.

Edited January 28, 2014 by Usmivka

[Geologizer]

This is actually something I am grappling with, and can tell you that it is, in fact, at the forefront of my decision on where to go. Very good topic IMO.

I don't want to give specifics, but here are parts of the consideration between young and old PI that I find particularly difficult:

1. Ability to advise/mentor - older PI probably have developed a certain style of advising. Younger PI may be just developing their styler, or perhaps if they're really new May not even have one yet. Whereas with the older PI you may fit well or you may not, with the younger PI you are learning right along with them; for better or worse in either case.

2. Facilities - younger faculty are sometimes developing their labs still. A lot of your time as a student may go into developing the lab. Conversely, an established PI probably already has his lab up and running to his spec. If you like developing and tinkering, the young undeveloped lab might be your speed, who knows.

3. Funding - access to funding. It's no secret that the more established you are, the better access you have to funding, and the more sway you have. Younger faculty may get the short end of the stick sometimes, and that trickles down. No doubt that a bad funding year would really change your grad experience. Older PI sometimes have their hands in so many things that they can bridge gaps pretty smoothly, but younger PI still waiting on their first big grants don't really have that security.

Might come back to this later, but that should be enough to stir the pot for a bit.

[aberrant]

I can't give much value info here but when I was new into the program, I just keep myself opened regarding this particular matter. In the end, I joined a lab where the PI is more established and with some reputation in the field, who is easy going yet determined.

 

So, "too old, and too established groups are easier to get lost in... being a disposable worker and never have a good connection to the faculty member who will be writing you a very personal LOR once you graduate" really depends on the individual, not necessarily the established ones.

 

ps. I did state clearly what my career goal is and addressed my expectation from the lab, my research, and my PI -- when I'm about to join a lab (following the end of my lab rotation in this lab)

[Thecrabman]

There are lots of merits to an older, well established profs.  Younger profs are also more ambitiious though to make a name for themselves, tenure, etc.  Tristan Lambert worked in David MacMillan's group when he was relativitly unknown as an assistant professor at Berkeley.  It probably a mix of name value and school reputation, but also, I think its largely the grad student who shapes their own future.

Edited January 28, 2014 by Thecrabman

[clickclick]

There are lots of merits to an older, well established profs.  Younger profs are also more ambitiious though to make a name for themselves, tenure, etc.  Tristan Lambert worked in David MacMillan's group when he was relativitly unknown as an assistant professor at Berkeley.  It probably a mix of name value and school reputation, but also, I think its largely the grad student who shapes their own future.

While I agree with your argument and believe I would like to work with someone just starting off their career, I think Tristan Lambert was denied tenure at Columbia recently (confirm?/deny?), which highlights the risks of working with a new PI. I was disappointed to hear this as I thought Lambert's work was quite interesting and was one of my POIs.

[Eigen]

If you're worried about the PI not getting tenure, you can always talk to the department. 

 

I asked my chair point-blank before I started what would happen if my PI didn't get tenure, and what the department would do for me.

[Usmivka]

If you're worried about the PI not getting tenure, you can always talk to the department. 

 

I asked my chair point-blank before I started what would happen if my PI didn't get tenure, and what the department would do for me.

Good advice, but young PIs can leave for other reasons: maybe they move for professional or family reasons, or decide they don't dig academia as much as they thought. Depending on where you are in your grad career, you may be expected to move with them, or find a new PI when there are no good options, or try to split time between two institutions. Those alternatives might be worth asking both the PI and department chair about as well.

[Eigen]

Definitely. 

 

I think if it's someone you could see yourself working with, and having a good relationship with, they should be someone you can talk to about the future/options.

[Boron]

This is actually something I am grappling with, and can tell you that it is, in fact, at the forefront of my decision on where to go. Very good topic IMO.

I don't want to give specifics, but here are parts of the consideration between young and old PI that I find particularly difficult:

1. Ability to advise/mentor - older PI probably have developed a certain style of advising. Younger PI may be just developing their styler, or perhaps if they're really new May not even have one yet. Whereas with the older PI you may fit well or you may not, with the younger PI you are learning right along with them; for better or worse in either case.

2. Facilities - younger faculty are sometimes developing their labs still. A lot of your time as a student may go into developing the lab. Conversely, an established PI probably already has his lab up and running to his spec. If you like developing and tinkering, the young undeveloped lab might be your speed, who knows.

3. Funding - access to funding. It's no secret that the more established you are, the better access you have to funding, and the more sway you have. Younger faculty may get the short end of the stick sometimes, and that trickles down. No doubt that a bad funding year would really change your grad experience. Older PI sometimes have their hands in so many things that they can bridge gaps pretty smoothly, but younger PI still waiting on their first big grants don't really have that security.

Might come back to this later, but that should be enough to stir the pot for a bit.

This.

 

I'm currently doing my M.S. in a "younger" lab, and everything you explain is right.

 

First off, funding. The reason I am now applying somewhere else is because the group lacks funding to support my further studies for a PhD. There has actually not been a new PhD student in the past 2 years (possibly next year too from how it seems).

 

Secondly, facilities. Although my current group has funding to have all the instruments we need to do our research, I see the lab have trouble of graduating students, due to the PI's need of the older students to help out with maintaining the instruments (the older students are the ones that started the lab with him, so they know everything about maintenance.)

 

Your point about advising is on point. My PI is still a bit on and off with advising, and it's a bit of a trouble for everyone in my group. Some students have been in the group well over 5 years and still does not seem to have "defending their thesis" in their sight.

 

For the younger PI, you would become very close with them, you'd have more influence regarding the direction of your project.

 

I somewhat disagree with this. My PI is a "younger" PI and I feel nothing about being close to him. He rarely likes discussing with students outside of emails and I personally feel that we ourselves are our own drive in our projects. I feel it is not a question of "younger" or "older" in regards to their influence and being "close"; it's all about their personality.

 

I personally feel that younger PI's may want you to stick around longer, while I've seen older, more experienced PI's have a solid plan for their students and are able to help them graduate in a certain time frame.

 

I know I haven't helped much, but hope I have contributed something.

Edited January 28, 2014 by Boron

[Eigen]

They're good points, Boron, but I've seen all of those things happen in a lab with a senior PI, and not happen at all in a younger PIs lab.

That's why I say personality is the most important. A PI that cares about his/her students careers won't keep them too long at any stage, and one that doesn't will.

[Faraday]

They're good points, Boron, but I've seen all of those things happen in a lab with a senior PI, and not happen at all in a younger PIs lab.

That's why I say personality is the most important. A PI that cares about his/her students careers won't keep them too long at any stage, and one that doesn't will.

 

Eigen, I recall you previously making a long post on the pros and cons of younger PI's vs older PI's (in another forum I think). What made you decide now that personality is more important than considering the young vs. old debate?

[Eigen]

I've made several of those posts- this topic comes up about every 8 mos!

 

I wouldn't say anything has really changed, as I mentioned above there are lots of pros and cons. 

 

But as I've seen more and more PIs of all ages, I'm more convinced that many of the traits that we'd like to attribute to length of service or experience are more personality traits that may or may not be highlighted by experience. 

 

Take funding: In general, more established labs have more funding. But on the flipside, it can be harder to get renewals, and their funding is often more tied to specific projects that they've entrenched themselves in over the years. I know more people in established labs that have run out of funding over the course of their PhD than new labs. 

 

New PIs often will get one or two large grants to start themselves off- a career award, an RO1, etc. In the meantime, they usually have significant startup funding from the department. To them, getting and keeping funding is crucial to their career- if they run out of funding, they won't get tenure. 

 

So you have pros and cons to each situation, and I'd argue that the fit of research and personality is going to be more important than which set of pros and cons you choose based on the situation. 

 

Research space and equipment: Some older labs are in the rut of dealing with arcane and failing equipment that needs lots of babying and expertise. Rarely do you find a new PI with such a situation, because they usually set up their lab when they started. Generally, new faculty are most likely to get renovated lab space in a department, since they don't have to move in order for the renovations to happen.

 

But again, I'd say that it's more of a situational variance than dependent upon the age of the PI. So since your chances of coming across two situations (PIs) that differ only in age and experience is pretty minor, I think it's more important to focus on what type of work environment you want, and choose the one that fits that better, since I'd imagine there will be one clearly better fit in most real-life scenarios. 

[loginofpscl]

Thank you for the insight Eigen, this is really useful.