Lab Size

[bsharpe269]

I am a MS student and am currently applying for PhD programs by the Dec deadlines. So far, I have always been part of small research groups. I have really enjoyed the small group environment that gives the opportunity for individual attention from the PI. I do not want a super hands on PI and like being able to pursue my own ideas but I do want someone who is willing to set up individual meetings occasionally or do weekly group meetings or something to give feedback on my ideas and progress.

 

While looking at possible PhD labs, the lab size issue has been in my mind. I have relatively specific research interests and am of course interested in working with the 'big name' professors in my subfield. My subfield is incredibly political. I know that this is probably true across all of academia but my PI makes it sound like the subfield I want to enter is even more political than most and has gone as far as saying that unless I work for the top 5-10 big names, the chance of being accepted into the community is really low later. These big name professors get tons of funding though and have very large groups. This dynamic makes me a bit nervous. Like many science people, Im not a hugely outgoing person. I have really liked working in small research groups so far and dont want to work with a PI who has no time for me since he has so many students.

 

Has anyone transitioned from a small MS (or undergrad) lab to large lab for PhD? How was it and can you offer any advice? Is it worth moving to a big lab given the political nature of my (or all?) research area. Any comments on this are appreciated!

[St Andrews Lynx]

I'd always get a second/third opinion on something as contentious as "politics". PIs don't always know best: they may be basing their advice on how the field was 10 or 20 years ago (i.e. their perceptions haven't caught up with the times), or there could be a degree of resentment in what your PI says (although they might feel like an outsider in the community, there is no guarantee that you or others will feel the same way), or they're just exaggerating (like how back in their days they had to work 100 hour weeks and weren't allowed to leave campus without their professor's permission, yada yada).

 

It also depends on what you mean by "political" and how important that is to you. I think that all fields will have some bias towards individuals coming out of the Top 10 research groups...but if you want to work in industry or pursue an academic career at an undergrad teaching institution, then the snobbiness matters less. 

 

What tends to happen in bigger labs is that you will get supervised by a postdoc/senior grad student and maybe be part of a particular "team"  that all work on a particular thread of research. So in that sense, you do get sense of a smaller community with reasonable supervision, even in a big group. You certainly aren't expected to be best friends with everyone in the lab!

 

The best way to figure out if these big groups are for you is to visit some of them - either on a formal visiting weekend or as a solo visit prior to submitting your application. Ask about how new students are supervised, how the PI manages everyone and what their availability is like. Every single lab has a slightly different personality, so I'm sure you will be able to find one that suits you!

[GeoDUDE!]

Especially in the computational science fields, you will eventually have to join a big lab if you want to churn out high impact paper after high impact paper. Large might be relative. I came from an MS where I was the only grad student working on computational geodynamics, and am now at the biggest, by population, lab in my field with about 6 grad students and 2 postdocs + maybe 5 programmers (and 2 PI's). There just isnt enough time to code all the things you need to code to explore novel relationships, but if each student/programer makes a module, it works out a lot better. Another thing is that even if you are in a field that uses community codes, it often takes a while for those codes to be updated. Also, chances are the community codes will still need heavy modifying. 

 

So in summary, if you want to do more "science" and less "programming" you need to join a bigger group. I hope this makes some sense. 

Edited September 16, 2014 by GeoDUDE!

[lewin]

If your advisor's advice is correct, it sounds like you might have to adapt your working style to succeed in the field. Save the idiosyncratic research for later when you're independent.

 

This is hyperbole but I'm picturing...

 

Student: "I want to go to grad school in chemistry, but I prefer working in the towers of an old castle using my own beakers and chemicals. I have very specific interests, like alchemy."

 

Advisor: "Ummm, that's not really how the field works anymore. We're in labs now."

 

Student: "Not going to change. Is there a program that can accommodate me?"

 

 

[SymmetryOfImperfection]

You can't think about "top 10 or bust" or anything like that, unless you want to become R1 faculty. If you do, then just remember this:

 

The proportion of PHD students that become R1 faculty is similar to the proportion of college basketball players that become NBA superstars.

[bsharpe269]

Thanks for the advice guys. Even though my personality probably fits best with a small lab, I am certainly willing to move to a bigger lab if thats what it takes to acheive my goals. I do want to be a researcher, probably at a university. I dont necesarily have goals to work at a top schools, but I do hope to work at a state school or something along those lines.

 

My PI has been so much help. I definitely wouldnt consider him bitter since he made these comments in a way to encourage me to seek out the top labs, not to say that I couldnt aceive my goals. He isnt your typical, quiet science guy. He is actually one of the lucky few who ended up with briliance and that smooth, likable, political personality. He is very high up in the university so even though it is always worth seeking out a second opinion, I do trust his.

 

It is good to hear that subgroups form within the big labs. That seems like a good way to get a small community and a go to person for questions when you are starting out.

[juilletmercredi]

I find it hard to believe that unless you work with one of 10 people, you will find it difficult to be “accepted into the community” (assuming he means community of scholars).  Let’s even assume that those 10 people each have 5 doctoral students and 2 postdocs.  Are we saying that your subfield is only 80 people large?  80 mostly junior people?  I mean, yes, the students coming from top 5 or 10 research lab groups/programs might have an easier time because of the size of their PI’s network (they tend to know everybody!) and the reputation attached to their program.  But that doesn’t mean that working with the #30 researcher is going to leave you unemployed.

 

That said, though, I wouldn’t assume that a PI is less amenable to meetings because of the size of their research group.  They may be exceptionally good at managing their time, or they may meet less frequently with the advanced students and postdocs and more frequently with the newer PhD students.  I was in a medium-sized research group (2 postdocs, 4 doctoral students, a bevy of undergraduate and master’s level RAs) and my advisor was willing to meet with me biweekly and we had weekly research meetings.  (You don’t really need individual meetings more than biweekly in grad school, IMO, unless you have a specific project).  Large labs can also be filled with friendly, funny people who are warm and open to helping you.  The size doesn't really dictate that.

 

GeoDUDE is also right.  The smaller your advisor’s lab group, the more support work you will do.  I started working with my PI (a different one than above - I had two in grad school) when he was an untenured assistant professor, and didn’t have much of a lab group.  Although I did a lot of writing and analysis early on, I also spent some of my time recruiting participants, collecting informed consent and administering surveys.  As my PI’s lab grew and he acquired more staff to handle those things, I did less of them and concentrated more on writing and analysis.

 

 I dont necesarily have goals to work at a top schools, but I do hope to work at a state school or something along those lines.

 

"State school" could mean the University of Michigan or UCLA; it could mean San Francisco State or SUNY Binghamton or CUNY Grad Center; or it could mean Kennesaw State or Western Washington State.  There's a huge range of public institutions.

[bsharpe269]

 

"State school" could mean the University of Michigan or UCLA; it could mean San Francisco State or SUNY Binghamton or CUNY Grad Center; or it could mean Kennesaw State or Western Washington State.  There's a huge range of public institutions.

 

 

I totally understand that there are a range of instituitions. My point was that I want to work wherever I can do my research. I want to work at whatever school seems to have ideal resources for my work. I dont really care if that is Harvard or Michigan or Western Michigan State. I am open to any of the above.

 

From this discussion, I am realizing that there is also a large difference in the definition of large lab between fields. 5-6 grad students is small in my field. May of the large labs have 10-15 grad students + postdocs, undergrads, etc.

Edited September 19, 2014 by bsharpe269

[biotechie]

I had the opportunity to go from a small lab MS to a large lab PhD, and I chose not to take it. I have a ton of reasons that I personally chose to join a small lab. A small lab in my biomed + biophysics field is 2ish grad students, and large labs are generally greater than 5 (these numbers obviously don't include post-docs, research associates, technicians, etc). Some of these may be things you didn't think of or things you absolutely wouldn't want, so maybe my rationale will help you start thinking about what you need.

 

1. Your post-doc is going to define where you end up if you want to stay in academia, and that's when landing in a big/well-known lab will help you the most. I don't think I'll be aiming for the top 10 labs in my subfield (I am in a biophysics department but not exactly doing biophys), but I'm certainly going to go somewhere that does good science. As long as I generate good data (and I already have a ton), network, and write, I should be in a good position to get into a post-doc at a strong institution.

 

2. I learned how to be a good lab technician in my previous studies in undergrad and my MS. I'm here to really learn science, now. I wanted a PI who could work with me and who would be able to make time for me. I rotated in both small and large labs. For me, it ended with me selecting a small lab with a brand-new PI. He is literally fresh from post-doc, but he does know his stuff. One con is that funding may get tight in 2 more years, but grant writing will continue.

 

3. I wanted a lab where I felt the effort would be more collaborative and where my input would directly contribute. In a way, this is independence to me. I didn't want to feel like a minion with a pipette; I wanted to be able to work out how to think, learn, and run experiments like the scientist I aspire to become. Many PIs have a set agenda they want pursued, first. This is mostly due to what they have funding for or what they need for the next paper or grant proposal. However, working with a new PI, the lab is getting established... and so is my project. Because I was able to bring some skills in from before and have a different background knowledge, we ended up taking the original project and it now goes in a direction much cooler than I could have dreamed.

 

4. In addition to the above, I wanted to work WITH my PI, not under a post-doc. This goal is easier to obtain by joining a smaller lab, less than 10 people usually. I probably see my PI a lot more than you would like (daily, which was unexpected), but I get the hands-on help when I need it and am free to pursue the directions I deem necessary for my project.

 

5. I feel that writing and presentation skills are something that I'm going to need to work up the most. Since this lab is small, I will have more opportunities to contribute to writing things up, and applying for fellowships isn't only a privilege, it is an expectation. The PI also has expressed interest in making sure I present often, and has already held true to that with a local presentation.

 

6. New PIs tend to have an incredible number of collaborators. They have to as their labs are so small! This is really beneficial to me as I get to meet nearly all of the collaborators as the only graduate student. They are familiar with my work, have their students learning a protocol from me while I learn one from them, and I am expanding my network. I'm still working with some of my POIs, but not as their student, which is actually sometimes more fun. Many of these collaborators are also well-known in the fields these new PIs are in. They will become co-authors on grants and will be communicating closely with the labs. 

 

7. Lab space... I love having my own bench to work on as well as dedicated spaces in the lab for some of our protocols. I've seen other labs with the same amount of space with 3 times the number of people working and no space to call your own. Some of the larger labs, even those with really well-known professors, are going to have that problem.

 

8. I wanted a PI who knows what is going on in the lab and can still handle a pipette. You think it won't really matter, but one day, you'll work with someone who hasn't been in a lab for 15 years and gives you advice for protocols which aren't used anymore. Having a PI who likes to pop into lab and help with plasmid preps in between writing sessions is actually pretty fun and I know he knows what he is talking about when he tells me to use concentration A instead of concentration B.

 

Some of this can also be viewed as a con, such as my PI being so new, particularly where funding is concerned. I have confidence in him. It is really going to be up to you to see how you mesh with the labs you are interested in, but I would really make a list of things you think you will value in a lab. If your list is similar to mine, you may do better in a smaller lab. It is a little early for you to be so worried, though. Applications aren't even in! I guess you can pick out POIs, but half of the time, they're not going to be taking students or you will ultimately not like their lab and go for someone not even on your radar.

[bsharpe269]

Wow biotechie, your reasons for staying in a small lab match exactly with my thoughts and concerns! Thanks for that input, it is really helpful. You're right that I still have some time but this is one of the things that has been in the back of my mind as I am applying so it is great to get some different perspectives. A couple of the small labs that I am looking at are brand new PIs that come from the top few labs. I think this option might be a great way to network with some of the more well known professors while getting a small lab environment.

[biotechie]

Keep in mind that I do almost no computational work. You also really need to consider what GeoDude said if you're planning to go that route. I know some computational labs that are small, and they function mostly through collaborators, but the big publishers are huge labs.