PI personality - need help.

[SymmetryOfImperfection]

One of my prospective PIs has a personality that I'm not sure if I can deal with.

 

In a research meeting, I asked him about a valid question about his work. Instead of giving me the direct answer, or telling me to look it up on my own because he didn't know, he gave me a very round-about answer that did not answer the question. I said that I didn't understand, and he just repeated exactly what he said before and asked if I understood now. I didn't want to waste his time further, so I said "I sort of get it, I'll just look it up later."

 

Another time, in a class, a student asked him a valid technical question, yet again, instead of directly answering the question, saying I don't know, or telling the student to check up on it himself, the professor answered in a round-about way that didn't answer the question, the student didn't get it, and when the student said that he couldn't get it, the professor did the same thing: repeat exactly what he said before, then ask "so do you get it now?"

 

I am scared that if I pick this professor, when I meet research problems he won't have the patience to guide students through it and won't answer questions directly. Even though I have a MS, this professor's project is extremely challenging and running into both experimental and theoretical difficulties is to be expected. Am I overthinking this? Is this a big deal?

Edited September 20, 2014 by SymmetryOfImperfection

[danieleWrites]

You are not overthinking this. A good adviser is important. You are not saying that this professor is a bad person. You are saying that you don't think this professor is the right fit for your future work. Not every professor is good at teaching. The university has run on the mastery method since the inception of university education, and in most fields, it still does. A professor is qualified to teach because s/he has mastered the field in some way, not because s/he has had any training in pedagogy. Some fields have pedagogy courses, but these vary in scope from program to program, school to school. Even in composition studies, in which pedagogy is half of the field's work, some programs have no pedagogy training available.

 

So you ask a very important question: when it is time for me too choose my PI, which is the best fit?

 

Now, there are ways that you can nudge people into working with you, but it's not your job to teach a professor how to be a mentor/adviser/teacher/whatever. It's his job to teach you.

 

From my unlearned perspective (I'm not in physics), this seems to be an important decision for you to make. I would suggest that you use your usual process for working through multiple options to find the one the best suits you.

[fuzzylogician]

I would take it very seriously if I thought I couldn't get support from my (potential) advisor when I run into difficulties or just had a question about my project. For me, that would be cause for concern. Not everyone is a good teacher and teaching is in my opinion quite a separate skill from advising, so the big question is not whether this person can't do a good job explaining something to students, but how they will handle situations where you come for advice on something you can't look up in a book afterwards. I don't know what kind of relationship you have with this person at the moment, but I'd ask myself if it seems possible to work on a project together through all its stages, from design to implementation to writeup. If you're unsure or think you'll run into similar difficulties that will seriously slow you down or cause frustration, I would probably choose to look elsewhere. Your working relationship with your advisor is extremely important, so I don't think you are overthinking this. 

[SymmetryOfImperfection]

Thank you both for the advice.

 

DanielleWrites: That is true. If the professor does not fit the style that I can learn from, perhaps it is better for to select someone else, even if their project is really good.

 

FuzzyLogician: Unfortunately the department has taken an accelerated approach to advisor selection and requires it before November. I will try to get an extension but an independent study doesn't seem to be an option. I will still try to ask for one though. I was thinking of going to a group meeting and asking pressing questions, and seeing if the response is better in a small setting. I had already obtained permission for that.

[St Andrews Lynx]

Coming into grad school one lesson I learned quickly is (i) PIs don't know everything (ii) for a lot of research-based problems you can get pretty good assistance just from asking your fellow group members - sometimes their advice is even more useful than what your PI would give! 

 

Personally, I wouldn't consider those 2 incidents to be a deal-breaker in isolation. If you have the opportunity to go along to group meetings I would urge you to do so. You don't even need to ask questions - just observe the dynamic between the PI and his students. Watch to see if he gives them a lot of detailed, precise feedback, and see how they present their work (e.g. are they soliciting him for feedback on their research problems? or do they seem to be dealing with any problems themselves?). Then get the group members alone and ask them about the PI - what his advising style is, how they deal with research problems, what his expectations are.

 

There are advantages to having hands-off advisors. I've found that my ability to problem-solve and my self-confidence as an independent scientist have both grown when I've worked with hands-off PIs: when I worked for more hands-on PIs I would end up rushing to them whenever I had a problem, without pausing to think things through for myself (it was so easy, they were always so happy to suggest something). With hindsight (i) I could have solved most of those problems myself if I'd had the time and confidence (ii) it kinda hampered my professional growth, because then my advisor didn't view me as someone who could work independently, and so kept me on the low risk/low reward-type projects. "Hands-on" and "micromanager" are often closely linked terms in the sciences. 

 

I'm not saying that you should bite off more than you can chew when beginning a PhD - just to think about what you want (long-term) from a PI, versus what you need. And don't undersell yourself! 

[SymmetryOfImperfection]

Coming into grad school one lesson I learned quickly is (i) PIs don't know everything (ii) for a lot of research-based problems you can get pretty good assistance just from asking your fellow group members - sometimes their advice is even more useful than what your PI would give! 

 

Personally, I wouldn't consider those 2 incidents to be a deal-breaker in isolation. If you have the opportunity to go along to group meetings I would urge you to do so. You don't even need to ask questions - just observe the dynamic between the PI and his students. Watch to see if he gives them a lot of detailed, precise feedback, and see how they present their work (e.g. are they soliciting him for feedback on their research problems? or do they seem to be dealing with any problems themselves?). Then get the group members alone and ask them about the PI - what his advising style is, how they deal with research problems, what his expectations are.

 

There are advantages to having hands-off advisors. I've found that my ability to problem-solve and my self-confidence as an independent scientist have both grown when I've worked with hands-off PIs: when I worked for more hands-on PIs I would end up rushing to them whenever I had a problem, without pausing to think things through for myself (it was so easy, they were always so happy to suggest something). With hindsight (i) I could have solved most of those problems myself if I'd had the time and confidence (ii) it kinda hampered my professional growth, because then my advisor didn't view me as someone who could work independently, and so kept me on the low risk/low reward-type projects. "Hands-on" and "micromanager" are often closely linked terms in the sciences. 

 

I'm not saying that you should bite off more than you can chew when beginning a PhD - just to think about what you want (long-term) from a PI, versus what you need. And don't undersell yourself! 

 

Thank you. My PI for my MS was very hands off and I didn't bother her much but there were 2 critical differences:

 

1. She was available. Ask a question, reply within 24 hours, even if it was "I don't know". Walk up to her office any time, ask random stuff, and either she saves you time by telling you the answer, or saves you time by saying I don't know, instead of giving a roundabout, long answer that doesn't answer the actual question.

 

2. She had flexible deadlines because she was tenured. Can't finish something? That's fine, give you another 3 days/a week/whatever. No results? That's fine, no results.

 

This PI is a new assistant prof literally straight out of his 1st postdoc. There's no getting around at least a bit of micromanagement and hard deadlines. However, if you have such hard deadlines and micromanagement, then shouldn't you also try your best to help students meet those deadlines?

[juilletmercredi]

Now, there are ways that you can nudge people into working with you, but it's not your job to teach a professor how to be a mentor/adviser/teacher/whatever. It's his job to teach you.

 

I kind of disagree with this a bit.  A mentoring relationship in a doctoral program is a two-way street: both of you get something out of it.  Now yes, it is an advisor's job to teach a doctoral student many things - but they're not really your teacher so much as they are a guide, a master to your apprentice.  Their job is less to teach you specific things and more to help you learn how to teach yourself, and guide you in how to do Science (or Scholarship).  On a more basic level, you do have to teach your mentor how to mentor you.  You are different from everyone else he's ever mentored and will mentor, and in your case OP, your potential PI is brand-new out of a first postdoc.

 

Whenever you select a brand-new PI there is always an element of mutual teaching.  He has not mentored a doctoral student before, and will be learning to mentor on your back.  You have to decide whether or not you are okay with that, and you have to decide whether you want to take the time it will take take to - yes - teach him how to mentor you.  Not in the traditional sense of you managing a class on it and planning a syllabus, but in the more subtle way that you are going to have to ask for what you want, be a bit more independent, and push back a little when you are not getting what you need.  Only you can decide whether you are willing to take that on.

 

I also want to note, though, that you shouldn't assume that a PI is going to be one way or another because of their tenure status.  My PI was not tenured for my doctoral program, and he had flexible deadlines and was generally available (actually, he became less available as he got closer to tenure, not more).  He was also a good mentor, despite being rather new at the whole enterprise.  And he definitely did not micromanage me.  IN fact, his need to publish and produce in order to win tenure, I think, gave him less time and energy to devote to micromanaging me.  A couple of friends with micromanaging adviors actually all work for tenured professors.

[TakeruK]

Picking a good fit PI is extremely important, in my opinion. And getting timely and useful feedback is one quality that I personally really look for in a PI. For me, when I am stuck on a problem that I've worked on for a few days, I would like to be able to come to my PI, sit down, and spend 30-60 minutes working specifically on that problem, instead of the PI just telling me general things like what papers to read. I personally like a slightly hands-on PI--someone who would sit down with me every week and is invested in the project as much as I am, instead of someone that is merely observing me do my work and offering a hint here or there (but without real concern about my progress).

 

In my opinion, I would weigh the PI personality a lot higher than how much I like a project. I find that it's far easier to change my own research interests to fit my PI's than it is to change my work style to fit my PI's, or even harder, to change my PI's work style to fit mine! 

 

But juilletmercredi makes a good point that if this is a brand new prof, they are still learning and can change. My current advisor is a new prof but she was around for a couple of years before I started. 

[fuzzylogician]

In my opinion, I would weigh the PI personality a lot higher than how much I like a project. I find that it's far easier to change my own research interests to fit my PI's than it is to change my work style to fit my PI's, or even harder, to change my PI's work style to fit mine!  

 

This. I'd say having a good working relationship with your advisor is the most important factor in your success and general well-being as a graduate student. 

 

I personally worked with more than one PI during my PhD (my program was structured in such a way that you were never assigned a single PI who was solely in charge of you -- instead, you could work with different people on different projects and you could choose to stay with them or not as you grew and your interests evolved). The thread that unites the people who I worked with is that they were probably fairly hands-on, compared to some of what I read on the board. My advisors were all very much invested in me and in my project(s) and would take the time to talk to me about what I was doing on a weekly basis, help talk through problems and questions (including thinking through solutions together), and generally cared about both my well-being as a person and about my career development as a scientist. This is what works for me, and it didn't suit everyone else, which is fine and normal. Likewise, there are other profs in my program who I personally didn't click with, but some of my friends found them to be great advisors. It's really just about who you are and who they are as a person. 

 

I've worked with very famous professors and also with newer ones. I think my best working relationship was with a prof who was new to my university: started the same year as me and came untenured. He came from an undergrad only institution so I was his first real graduate student and I was involved in all the steps of him setting up a lab and getting started on research projects, as well as his (expedited) tenure process. It was definitely a trial and error process, more so than my other relationships with established faculty where I think a better characterization would be that either I fit with the way they did things or I moved on. With him, there was more room for negotiation and we explicitly discussed different approaches to mentoring and how it's working for us. I think I learned a lot more from that mentoring situation than all my other ones, mostly about myself and what kind of mentor I would like to be. There were also more difficulties and bumps in the road, so it's a tradeoff. As long as you are comfortable talking things out, I think it's worth doing. I would definitely choose to do it again, so no major regrets. 

[Eigen]

I'll chime in for PI's personality and fit with your working style to be more important than the project. 

 

In general, you have a chance to branch your research out post-PhD from where you started, so the exact project doesn't matter as much. Especially in the sciences, you're pretty much expected to branch away from your doctoral research to "distance yourself" from your advisor and show that you're an independent researcher. 

 

Accordingly, finding a project that you can learn a lot from, with a PI you fit with and can learn a lot from is hugely important. 

 

For the lab sciences, I'd also weigh how well you get along with the lab group highly as well- while you need to be able to work with your PI, you'll be working closely with, and ideally learning a lot from the senior graduate students and post-docs in the lab. If you can't get along with them, they're bitter, etc. then you will have a really hard time fitting into the group even if you like the PI. 

 

Also, as mentioned, there's nothing wrong with not getting along with a PI. You're not saying they're bad or wrong, just that you don't work well with them, or the personalities not mesh. I have some PI's that I really like, that I'd say I'm friends with, but our work styles do not mesh at all. I have friends in their research groups who fit with them very well, and probably would have a hard time working with my boss, who I love. 

[SymmetryOfImperfection]

Thanks guys, you've given me alot to think about. I hope other students will learn about selecting PIs from this as well.

[juilletmercredi]

I'm gonna third (fourth?) the advice that PI personality > project.  You do want your dissertation to be a foundation for post-PhD work - so you don't want to do something completely unrelated to your interests - but I think it's better to go a little far afield to work with someone who is going to help you develop as a scholar than it is to work on exactly what you want, but end up doing project management or cleaning pipettes in the lab.

 

Also part of working with a PI is learning that PI's quirks and how to deal.  The longer you spend in grad school the more you realize that your professors are just people with a lot of education.  Them being people, they are also flawed and have personality quirks that might irk you even if you otherwise like them a lot.  Maybe this PI is otherwise amazing but his personality flaw is that he gives vague answers and does not know how to rephrase.  (Maybe, more deeply, this PI has never learned that it's better to say "I don't know" and instead gives some roundabout rambling explanation.  Over time, you may come to understand within a few words that his rambling explanation is really code for "I don't know; look it up yourself.")  You have to decide whether that's a dealbreaker.  Are you prepared to deal with the fact that when he does not know he will not give you a direct answer?

 

FWIW I had another advisor in grad school (I also had more than one) who would sometimes give esoteric and/or long-winded, roundabout answers to questions I asked him (sometimes veering quite a bit off topic).  I found it amusing rather than irritating, and it's a personality quirk of his I'm actually very fond of.  What I also found out, though, is that his answers seemed rambling and indirect to me at the time because I didn't know enough to understand it yet.  It was a pretty common occurrence for me to be reading an article or book trying to find something out and thinking "Oh, that's what Advisor meant by that!"

[Tall Chai Latte]

Your concern is legitimate. I agree with much of the consensus here that personality between you and your advisor should fit to a certain extend. While that is an important factor to consider, you also should look at how well the advisor's expertise fit your projects. I would try to find a good middle ground between personality and expertise. Some advisors are very ambitious and adventurous; they want to try all kinds of new ideas or break into a new field, but could not find the right person to work on those new projects. Pay attention to what kind of projects they are proposing to you, and whether that's something the PI's good at, or there's a more experienced person for help and advice. If you can get no help at all from your own lab, run away and look for another option.

 

This is how my current lab is like. My advisor wants to do everything in her lab-- from structural biology to animal models- while her own training is in traditional molecular biology. I joined because the lab has been well funded (I was looking for a lab to stay in the midst of funding crisis a couple years back) and the proposed projects really appealed to me. It wasn't long before I realized that I could not get any help from my advisor and the lab, nor the help she promised to hook me up with. But I already over-committed to the lab, leaving would cause significant delay to my graduation. I switched projects 3-4 times and caused much unnecessary stress and frustration.   

 

I once read an article on the Chronicle of Higher Education on mentoring. The article concludes with the advice that "never choose an advisor who needs you more than you need him". The existing power imbalance could lead to exploitation, or something that feels like it. 

Edited September 26, 2014 by Tall Chai Latte

[SymmetryOfImperfection]

Your concern is legitimate. I agree with much of the consensus here that personality between you and your advisor should fit to a certain extend. While that is an important factor to consider, you also should look at how well the advisor's expertise fit your projects. I would try to find a good middle ground between personality and expertise. Some advisors are very ambitious and adventurous; they want to try all kinds of new ideas or break into a new field, but could not find the right person to work on those new projects. Pay attention to what kind of projects they are proposing to you, and whether that's something the PI's good at, or there's a more experienced person for help and advice. If you can get no help at all from your own lab, run away and look for another option.

 

This is how my current lab is like. My advisor wants to do everything in her lab-- from structural biology to animal models- while her own training is in traditional molecular biology. I joined because the lab has been well funded (I was looking for a lab to stay in the midst of funding crisis a couple years back) and the proposed projects really appealed to me. It wasn't long before I realized that I could not get any help from my advisor and the lab, nor the help she promised to hook me up with. But I already over-committed to the lab, leaving would cause significant delay to my graduation. I switched projects 3-4 times and caused much unnecessary stress and frustration.   

 

I once read an article on the Chronicle of Higher Education on mentoring. The article concludes with the advice that "never choose an advisor who needs you more than you need him". The existing power imbalance could lead to exploitation, or something that feels like it. 

 

My prospective professor is an expert in optical spectroscopy of solids. He is more into the quantum materials side (so basically, single crystals of complex materials that stuf) since that's his postdoc work, while I want to work with nanostructured semiconductors, which was his PhD project. In addition, he has moved more into using ultrafast lasers to measure the quantum properties of solids (carrier correlations, excited state decay pathways, etc), while I wanted to also work on optical measurements of material properties (thermal dependence of optical/electronic properties, nanomechanics, etc - this was his PhD work) as well as the quantum electronics properties. All these measurements use the exact same machine, it is just that the laser sequence, delay timings, sample stage (cooling systems), etc. are different. The spectrometer has not even been designed yet, much less built - it is hoped for first light by March doing measurements on single electron defects, which requires only the most basic setup, and then to go from there to increase capabilities.

 

When I talked to him, he said that there were already students on the semiconductor materials properties and instrument design projects. He really wants me to do a project on quantum materials and single electron defects. I could do a semiconductor project, but that would be more towards solid state quantum coherence, rather than a more applied project in materials properties. I really want to do an applied project though. He said that if I could think of my own project to do with the machine, he could consider it as well, but I don't know how much this promise will be true. I understand that he needs to get papers out as soon as possible and the single electron project is the easiest to do with the machine and I'm more than willing to spend time on his projects - as long as they don't take away from the ability for me to pursue mine.

 

I don't know if I can actually get to work on my own project; how often is it that a student just follows orders from the PI instead of explore their own project? In my MS I basically took full ownership of a project from start to end and the professor basically just gave me the idea, and that was it. Otherwise, I just emailed my professor when I had trouble, we talked, and I wrote half page monthly progress reports. I know how to work independently and be self motivated. Right now, the other students seem to have less background so the lab has been moving sort of slowly and the machine is not being built at all except by the postdoc - they're just reading.

Edited September 27, 2014 by SymmetryOfImperfection

[St Andrews Lynx]

I don't know if I can actually get to work on my own project; how often is it that a student just follows orders from the PI instead of explore their own project? In my MS I basically took full ownership of a project from start to end and the professor basically just gave me the idea, and that was it. Otherwise, I just emailed my professor when I had trouble, we talked, and I wrote half page monthly progress reports. I know how to work independently and be self motivated. Right now, the other students seem to have less background so the lab has been moving sort of slowly and the machine is not being built at all except by the postdoc - they're just reading.

From what I've seen (in the sciences), most of the time a PI will give their PhD students some sort of order about what they should do, but the amount of leeway the student has to problem-solve/manage the project by themselves varies greatly.

 

One compromise could be that you work on the simple project that your PI asks you to in the beginning. Then later on you develop your own, more independent project. The advantage to that would be that it (a) increases the likelihood of you getting a publication early on ( proves to the PI that you can hack it in the lab, and hopefully they'll come to trust you with solo project management. 

 

Brand-new assistant professors are always a risk, since there's no way of knowing in advance what kind of PI they are, or if their research ideas are any good. You also don't know if their advertised research program is actually going to remain as described: his theoretical projects might quickly turn out to be more successful than the applied projects, in which case he may decide to focus all his efforts onto publishing theoretical papers/writing grants for theoretical projects. 

 

When it comes to making a decision about this PI, always trust your gut. If you think that something isn't right for you...it probably isn't. 

[SymmetryOfImperfection]

From what I've seen (in the sciences), most of the time a PI will give their PhD students some sort of order about what they should do, but the amount of leeway the student has to problem-solve/manage the project by themselves varies greatly.

 

One compromise could be that you work on the simple project that your PI asks you to in the beginning. Then later on you develop your own, more independent project. The advantage to that would be that it (a) increases the likelihood of you getting a publication early on ( proves to the PI that you can hack it in the lab, and hopefully they'll come to trust you with solo project management. 

 

Brand-new assistant professors are always a risk, since there's no way of knowing in advance what kind of PI they are, or if their research ideas are any good. You also don't know if their advertised research program is actually going to remain as described: his theoretical projects might quickly turn out to be more successful than the applied projects, in which case he may decide to focus all his efforts onto publishing theoretical papers/writing grants for theoretical projects. 

 

When it comes to making a decision about this PI, always trust your gut. If you think that something isn't right for you...it probably isn't. 

 

I guess the very fact that I'm asking all these questions about this PI means that it probably isn't going to be a good idea. My plan was to work on his project at first, but then as I get experience building/programming the machine, learning how to design optical instrumentation and interpreting results, he'd allow me some leeway to pursue projects that I can define on my own, applying the skills I previously learned to new problems.

 

The thing with the machine is this: there's no real expendables. All samples are reusable and are cheap/easy to make or buy. The spectrometer itself is basically the main cost to the research - once it is built, the only costs to running the lab will be wages, electricity and minor expendables. There really should be no logical issue with me running my own experiments other than "opportunity cost", but academia is all but logical...

[TakeruK]

The thing with the machine is this: there's no real expendables. All samples are reusable and are cheap/easy to make or buy. The spectrometer itself is basically the main cost to the research - once it is built, the only costs to running the lab will be wages, electricity and minor expendables. There really should be no logical issue with me running my own experiments other than "opportunity cost", but academia is all but logical...

 

I still agree with you that you should not go with this lab/PI if all these signs are showing a personality mismatch! But for another perspective, I do think that "opportunity cost" is really expensive in academia. The prof might see it this way: They just wrote a huge grant (probably) to get the money to buy that machine. It would look bad on their record if they didn't get their "money's worth" out of the last grant by writing up as many papers as they can. This is something that might be considered in their future evaluation by the organization that gave the first grant and by their tenure committee. 

 

So, perhaps this prof is really worried about maximizing return on investment and wants to go through all of his ideas before letting students do their own thing. Or, maybe all of his ideas are on the grant proposal itself and he wants to make sure those projects have priority if there are any reviews or audits coming up etc. 

 

Again, I'm not saying that this means you have to work with someone you don't mesh well with, but I just wanted to point out that "opportunity cost" is a real cost that academics have to worry about!

[Eigen]

I think you're conflating "some leeway" with "running your own experiments". 

 

In most lab sciences, I'd say there's a large part of paying in your dues- you spend at least a few years learning the ropes and putting time in working on already (mostly) designed projects. Then you can start branching off and proposing/running experiments of your own. 

 

Most labs I know will slot new grad students in on an existing project/portion of a project with a post-doc or senior PI for the first year-part of a year, and then start asking for more independence from that grad student- giving them less designed projects, or just a goal and letting them design the idea. 

 

For lab sciences, the major "goals/ideas" of the lab are set when you join- they're the goals stated on the funding that runs the lab. There are deliverables that have to be met to keep the place running, and everyone paid. 

 

As you spend more time in the lab, you'll either get to start coming up with ideas that will be used in the next set of grant proposals, or for things you can do that don't cost much or are tangentially related. But most of your time, if you're paid off a grant and using grant funds, has to be spent doing things that can be detailed in the yearly progress reports for the granting agency, and likely in areas that work towards one or more specific aims for that grant. 

 

Most of your early side projects will likely, in my experience, be "spare time" projects- things you design and run that don't take away from what you're working on for the grant, but you spend some extra time working on. If those turn out to be fruitful, you're more likely to be able to continue them once you have preliminary data. Especially for something like your setup (instrument development) you can do a lot of side projects in your spare time, as supplies are cheap. This is much different than something that requires, say, live animals- those require a lot of cost and IRB approval for projects, so things "on the side" are much more difficult. 

 

I've recommended this book before, and will recommend it again here: 

 

http://www.amazon.com/At-Bench-Laboratory-Navigator-Updated/dp/B0074303Q2/ref=tmm_hrd_swatch_0?_encoding=UTF8&sr=&qid=

 

Is a great read for anyone in the lab sciences, as an intro to lab politics, organization, etc. It's not one size fits all, but it helps. 

[SymmetryOfImperfection]

I think you're conflating "some leeway" with "running your own experiments". 

 

In most lab sciences, I'd say there's a large part of paying in your dues- you spend at least a few years learning the ropes and putting time in working on already (mostly) designed projects. Then you can start branching off and proposing/running experiments of your own. 

 

Most labs I know will slot new grad students in on an existing project/portion of a project with a post-doc or senior PI for the first year-part of a year, and then start asking for more independence from that grad student- giving them less designed projects, or just a goal and letting them design the idea. 

 

For lab sciences, the major "goals/ideas" of the lab are set when you join- they're the goals stated on the funding that runs the lab. There are deliverables that have to be met to keep the place running, and everyone paid. 

 

As you spend more time in the lab, you'll either get to start coming up with ideas that will be used in the next set of grant proposals, or for things you can do that don't cost much or are tangentially related. But most of your time, if you're paid off a grant and using grant funds, has to be spent doing things that can be detailed in the yearly progress reports for the granting agency, and likely in areas that work towards one or more specific aims for that grant. 

 

Most of your early side projects will likely, in my experience, be "spare time" projects- things you design and run that don't take away from what you're working on for the grant, but you spend some extra time working on. If those turn out to be fruitful, you're more likely to be able to continue them once you have preliminary data. Especially for something like your setup (instrument development) you can do a lot of side projects in your spare time, as supplies are cheap. This is much different than something that requires, say, live animals- those require a lot of cost and IRB approval for projects, so things "on the side" are much more difficult. 

 

I've recommended this book before, and will recommend it again here: 

 

http://www.amazon.com/At-Bench-Laboratory-Navigator-Updated/dp/B0074303Q2/ref=tmm_hrd_swatch_0?_encoding=UTF8&sr=&qid=

 

Is a great read for anyone in the lab sciences, as an intro to lab politics, organization, etc. It's not one size fits all, but it helps. 

 

Thanks for the book. I'm not paid off a grant though - I have a fellowship for part of the cost and TA for the rest. Does that give me more freedom, seeing as the professor is actually not paying for me to do specific research? I am more than willing to do what I'm told for the first year or two, but eventually would like to take ownership of a project.

 

EDIT: the book seems to be geared towards biology, biochemistry and wet synthetic chemistry.

Edited September 28, 2014 by SymmetryOfImperfection

[Eigen]

The book is good for all lab sciences, even if that's the general gearing. 

 

Any experimental (non-theoretical) chemistry is pretty much the same, including chemical physics, materials science, etc.

 

Having a fellowship will give you some freedom, but I'm assuming at some point you'll want to move from a TA to an RA (as soon as possible, ideally) so then you'll be paid off the grant. 

 

Either way, the grant is paying for all of your research expenses, so what you do needs to be covered under the aims of said grant. 

[SymmetryOfImperfection]

The book is good for all lab sciences, even if that's the general gearing. 

 

Any experimental (non-theoretical) chemistry is pretty much the same, including chemical physics, materials science, etc.

 

Having a fellowship will give you some freedom, but I'm assuming at some point you'll want to move from a TA to an RA (as soon as possible, ideally) so then you'll be paid off the grant. 

 

Either way, the grant is paying for all of your research expenses, so what you do needs to be covered under the aims of said grant. 

 

Thank you for the advice. I will keep it in mind. Hopefully I get a chance to work on a project of my own, but if not, there are existing grants that can tangentially be related to my interests, so that's always a plus.

 

A question: how often do students actually get to help write a grant?

Edited September 29, 2014 by SymmetryOfImperfection

[Eigen]

I've helped write one major (several million) and one minor (a bit under a million) grants. Lots of work on the latter, help here and there on the former. 

 

For senior graduate students with good ideas who can write well? I'd say it's pretty common. 

 

Sadly, without your PhD, you'll never be officially listed on the grant no matter how much you write, at least with most of the big (NSF, NIH, DOD, DOE) funding agencies. But you can list it on your CV, your letters will mention it, and it's good experience. 

[SymmetryOfImperfection]

I've helped write one major (several million) and one minor (a bit under a million) grants. Lots of work on the latter, help here and there on the former. 

 

For senior graduate students with good ideas who can write well? I'd say it's pretty common. 

 

Sadly, without your PhD, you'll never be officially listed on the grant no matter how much you write, at least with most of the big (NSF, NIH, DOD, DOE) funding agencies. But you can list it on your CV, your letters will mention it, and it's good experience. 

 

That's awesome that you got to write a grant. I thought it was extremely rare and only the most elite graduate students could do it.