Choosing Mentor

[nns91]

Hey guys,

 

So I am picking my lab right now. I am stuck in a dilemma. I have 2 labs I am considering right now. Lab 1, I really like the environment (people + PI) and everything about the lab except the fact I might not get to do immunology there . Lab 2, I like that post doc I am working with and the questions. The problem with lab 2 is that they have two 8th-year students (1 just graduated) and the environment is not as nice as the 1st one.

 

The problem is Lab 1 is running low on money so I will be pushing it if I told him I decided to join. So I am thinking to do a co-mentorship between lab 1 and 2 with me being paid by lab 2 while still getting the mentorship from lab 1.

 

What do you guys think about it ?

[ss2player]

Hey guys,

 

So I am picking my lab right now. I am stuck in a dilemma. I have 2 labs I am considering right now. Lab 1, I really like the environment (people + PI) and everything about the lab except the fact I might not get to do immunology there . Lab 2, I like that post doc I am working with and the questions. The problem with lab 2 is that they have two 8th-year students (1 just graduated) and the environment is not as nice as the 1st one.

 

The problem is Lab 1 is running low on money so I will be pushing it if I told him I decided to join. So I am thinking to do a co-mentorship between lab 1 and 2 with me being paid by lab 2 while still getting the mentorship from lab 1.

 

What do you guys think about it ?

 

I always say go for the mentorship over the research, which sounds like Lab 1 in this case. I'd talk to PI #1, get them to spell out the funding situation, it may not be as dire as you are led to believe. Plus, you can always apply for fellowships and help the PI with grants. As for co-mentorship, that can be very messy and I'd avoid it unless the PIs involved are super close and already collaborate. If they don't do that now, it's not likely they'll do it for you; grad students just aren't that important.

 

P.S. - If you hear the words "8th-year student" in a STEM lab, and it's MORE THAN ONE, you run. You run far away.

[nns91]

So I did talk to PI#1 and he said indeed he is running low on money. Unfortunately I am not eligible for any training grant or anything except the HHMI so it is pretty tough.

 

PI#1 was very open to the idea of a co-mentorship and the 2 of them get along very well.

 

I know the 8th year is a huge red flag but will it be ok to know that the post-doc in the lab (who will be there for another 2.5-3 years) told me he would make sure I would do well and get papers out ?

[ERR_Alpha]

So I did talk to PI#1 and he said indeed he is running low on money. Unfortunately I am not eligible for any training grant or anything except the HHMI so it is pretty tough.

PI#1 was very open to the idea of a co-mentorship and the 2 of them get along very well.

I know the 8th year is a huge red flag but will it be ok to know that the post-doc in the lab (who will be there for another 2.5-3 years) told me he would make sure I would do well and get papers out ?

Are the 8th years around for so long because of faults of their own, or is it the advisor? Some people just don't work well/efficiently or have a weird relationship with an advisor. You can try to tell if it's a systemic problem or just these two students in particular.

[ss2player]

Are the 8th years around for so long because of faults of their own, or is it the advisor? Some people just don't work well/efficiently or have a weird relationship with an advisor. You can try to tell if it's a systemic problem or just these two students in particular.

 

Good point, ERR. They might be unfocused and have poor technical skills, though the chances of a lab having two such students seems low. If it *is* their advisor never being satisfied and keeping them there forever, you don't join that lab. Period.

 

So I did talk to PI#1 and he said indeed he is running low on money. Unfortunately I am not eligible for any training grant or anything except the HHMI so it is pretty tough.

 

PI#1 was very open to the idea of a co-mentorship and the 2 of them get along very well.

 

I know the 8th year is a huge red flag but will it be ok to know that the post-doc in the lab (who will be there for another 2.5-3 years) told me he would make sure I would do well and get papers out ?

 

No F31 potential? Departmental money? How does PI #2 feel? You'll have to be very careful about this process. I'd write up some kind of agreement and have them both read and sign it. Not a legally binding document, of course, but it gives you something to reference. Otherwise you are at their mercy.

 

I trust what I see, not "promises". Your advisor holds all the cards on how long you will be there, a post-doc has no clout in this situation. He might train you amazingly well, but if your PI won't let you graduate because you're just that awesome now, then you're screwed. People in the lab will change; maybe this post-doc gets a sweet gig at the FDA and bounces, then what? Your advisor relationship is the MOST important factor, hence why you have to address ERR's question.

[St Andrews Lynx]

Are the 8th years around for so long because of faults of their own, or is it the advisor? Some people just don't work well/efficiently or have a weird relationship with an advisor. You can try to tell if it's a systemic problem or just these two students in particular.

 

I'd only blame the 8 year PhDs students up to a point for their situation. At some point the advisor should be insisting that the students finish up, especially after such a long time. There are stipulations in NIH funding I think that institutions shouldn't be keeping PhDs for more than 7 years, and I think that my university/Dept doesn't financially-support students after 7 years. My concern would be that your potential advisor (i) doesn't really care if their students do good research, defend or not (ii) isn't effectual at mentoring, or is too confrontation-averse to have hard conversations.

 

To the OP, postdoc assurances don't mean much. The PI might decide to assign you to a completely different project, or the postdoc is over-estimating the future successfulness of their work. It's best to search online to find out the track record of publications in this group. If they've been publishing regularly for the past ~5 years (with a spread of names on the publications) then you can assume that the PI is good at getting papers out of their students. 

[Vene]

Are the 8th years around for so long because of faults of their own, or is it the advisor? Some people just don't work well/efficiently or have a weird relationship with an advisor. You can try to tell if it's a systemic problem or just these two students in particular.

I could see that for one student, but two is the start of a pattern. An 8+ year PhD is also the fault of the advisor for not pushing their student to graduate or not recognizing that said student is not cut out for a PhD.

 

If the advisor has had many students graduate in 5 years, that might change the situation, but I do think it's a red flag.

[nns91]

Yeah, I appreciate all the input. I see you guys' points. I think the fault in this case is 50 student/50 PI.

 

I know the PI#2 is much more of a roam-free PI while PI#1 has a more focused approach. That's why people in Lab #2 might be there for long if they get lost while roam-free and don't get the guidance from the PI. Meanwhile, in Lab#1 people get out in 5-6 years.

 

This is why I am thinking of a co-mentorship to have the focused approach of PI#1 while having the freedom/interesting question of Lab#2

 

Both labs are not that great at getting papers out. Lab#1 has been back-logged since 2010 (he is well established in the field but kinda is slow with getting papers out from his lab) while Lab#2 just got the paper of one 8th-year student out as she graduated. 

[Crucial BBQ]

Is being an "8th year" Ph.D. student really a bad thing?  If I remember correctly, according to the NSF the average time to degree for all degrees is just over 10 years with hard sciences being shorter than the humanities and education being the longest; biological sciences ~8 years. 

 

Also for PI/Lab #2; post-docs tend to be on the younger side and as such seem to be more "understanding", forgiving, and less pushy.  The get-in get-out don't-waste-our-time mentality seems more of the older researchers once they have become set in their ways. 

[mop]

For biology bench labs typical times are 5.5-6 years or so, 7 is rare, 8 is mindboggling to me.

[eeee1923]

8 yrs just shows a lack of focus on the student's part. Especially if the student is planning on completing 1 or 2 postdocs afterwards.

[ballwera]

8 yrs just shows a lack of focus on the student's part. Especially if the student is planning on completing 1 or 2 postdocs afterwards.

 

Looks bad for the PI and the student's committee too. Part of their job is to make sure the student is progressing which clearly is not happening. Now their could be extenuating circumstances that we don't know going on as well. 

[nns91]

Apparently, one student had to face a problem of a failing freezer so that could have slowed her down by a year or so ?

 

Thank you all for the input! I am still scratching my head over this. I think my 2nd PI is a great scientist but his style is too "roam-free." I think it is more appropriate for a post-doc but a graduate student still needs guidance to a certain level since he/she is still in training. Therefore, I think adding the "focused-approach" of my 1st PI will create a good balance between freedom and focus. There is plenty of room to bridge HIV virology and immunology together so I think scientifically it should not be a problem.