Deciding between two labs/advisers

[mobilehobo]

I've narrowed my adviser/lab choices down to two and I'm looking for some outside perspective in making the choice. We'll assume that either lab will take me if I choose them.

About me: I'm beginning my first year in a PhD program in bioengineering, on rotation. My undergrad degrees were in physics and chemistry, while my research topics during that time focused on biochem, soft materials, and nanomedicine. I have a good amount of experience in these areas. I've always had in interest in nanofabrication and attended programs with opportunities in it, but I've always been shuttled onto other projects that matched better with my background (nanomedicine). I've wanted to go into academia before, but I'm very unsure as of now where I want to end up after.

The labs:

First Lab: DNA technology/circuits. I was invited due to my previous work in DNA. I know the techniques well, and have caught up on reading. Due to the timing of this rotation, I'm writing my NSF GRFP with this lab with no obligation to join. I have more time invested here. The project is interesting, but not what I envisioned doing in graduate school. It's a fast moving field, but still basic science.

Second lab: (current rotation). MEMS devises. Something I've been interested in through my undergrad. My school doesn't have large nanofab facilities, but they have enough to get the job done and access to a facility 3 hours away. I believe I'd enjoy nanofab, but I won't have the chance to experience it without joining the lab due to training. I enjoyed the actual lab space and the lab as a 'group' a lot better. This lab would put me in a good position for industry afterword.

 

Lab 1                                                                  

PROS                                                                       CONS

-STELLAR adviser; lots of potential                          -I'm meh about the project and lab work 

       -Good with grants, has money for supplies        -limited space and no where to sit in actual lab                             

       -Willing to spend a lot of time on students          -Adviser might move to (slightly better) school

-Project has good publication power                         -(some) students seemed stressed/pessimistic 

Lab 2

PROS                                                                       CONS

-Great, more senior adviser                                     -Can't be 100% that I'll like lab work

-I feel I fit better in this lab, they do more together   -low on money (I only have fellowship for two years)

-Industry potential                                                    -My background doesn't fit as well with this lab

-Lab as windows and seating                                  -All dudes right now (I'm female)

 

I feel that I'd enjoy 5 years in either lab. Both labs are in MechE, not BIEN. Both advisers are hands off unless you want the help, which is what I prefer. Both advisers are young and friendly with their students. I'm obviously going to talk it out with other students, but my program hasn't actually gotten going yet and I was just looking for opinions from anyone out there, Thanks guys!

[Eigen]

IMO, I'd go with option 1. You seem to feel better about the advisor, it's work your familiar with, and they have good possibilities for publication/funding. If the PIs are hands off, you might be able to bend the project in a more nano-fab direction (there are lots of possibilities in the area) or even collaborate with lab 2.

[TakeruK]

I think this is a close decision, which makes it tough but that also means either choice could work out well for you.

Addressing some of the cons:

Lab 1:

"Con: limited space / nowhere to actually sit in lab": Will this always be the case? If you joined the lab as a full member, would you be assigned a place? Or is this true for all students, senior or just starting? The one time I worked in a lab field, no one had workspace inside the lab itself--it was very small and we all had desks two stories up and only went into the lab to do our specific experiment. So, this didn't sound like a big deal to me. However, if everyone else is in the lab and you're put down the hall or someplace else, then that would suck.

"Con: Adviser might move": How concrete is this? Is this a concern because the adviser is a stellar researcher and is "overqualified" for the current school? Or, has the professors already said they are considering an offer at another school right now? I would not be worried unless the professor themself said this was a possibility.

Lab 2:

"Con: Low on money": 2 years on fellowship is not a bad start at all. It's rare to know that all the funding is already in place prior to starting in a new lab! I think the lab's general track record of finding funding for its members is more important than the exact status of funding for your future work right now. However, this generally does mean that you might end up having to follow the money and working where the funding applications are successful (whereas in a well funded group, you would generally have more freedom).

"Con: All dudes right now": Can you talk to other women in your department to find out why this lab might be all male right now? It could be "innocent" things like coincidence/low numbers or it could be due to less innocent things. Maybe find out whether other women considered this lab but decided against it and find out why. 

[St Andrews Lynx]

It sounds like a close call, and I think either option could work out OK for you. 

I'm the sole female in a dude-heavy lab, and I guess it depends on the personalities involved just how much of a problem it could be. If you have any experience growing up with brothers, then that will come in useful.  If you seem to get along fine with them right now, then I'd not be too concerned. Also, the presence of you in the lab may help attract more girls later down the line. 

That said, I've noticed that the "intense" labs tend to attract more boys than girls, so it could be a symptom of a demanding adviser. 

 

With regards to funding. A lot of labs go through rough patches: either they miss out on a grant, or there is some uncertainty about whether their grants will be renewed. Some PIs & groups get more anxious about funding than they need to. You can look up the funding history of this group (NIH/NSF grants are publicly listed online) to see how the group has fared in the past. Finding out how your Dept deals with students who don't have fellowship funding is important: are there enough TAships to go around? Is there a limit on how many years you can TA? How are other students in Lab 2 funded?

[mobilehobo]

I think this is a close decision, which makes it tough but that also means either choice could work out well for you.

Addressing some of the cons:

Lab 1:

"Con: limited space / nowhere to actually sit in lab": Will this always be the case? If you joined the lab as a full member, would you be assigned a place? Or is this true for all students, senior or just starting? The one time I worked in a lab field, no one had workspace inside the lab itself--it was very small and we all had desks two stories up and only went into the lab to do our specific experiment. So, this didn't sound like a big deal to me. However, if everyone else is in the lab and you're put down the hall or someplace else, then that would suck.

"Con: Adviser might move": How concrete is this? Is this a concern because the adviser is a stellar researcher and is "overqualified" for the current school? Or, has the professors already said they are considering an offer at another school right now? I would not be worried unless the professor themself said this was a possibility.

Lab 2:

"Con: Low on money": 2 years on fellowship is not a bad start at all. It's rare to know that all the funding is already in place prior to starting in a new lab! I think the lab's general track record of finding funding for its members is more important than the exact status of funding for your future work right now. However, this generally does mean that you might end up having to follow the money and working where the funding applications are successful (whereas in a well funded group, you would generally have more freedom).

"Con: All dudes right now": Can you talk to other women in your department to find out why this lab might be all male right now? It could be "innocent" things like coincidence/low numbers or it could be due to less innocent things. Maybe find out whether other women considered this lab but decided against it and find out why. 

The physical space in lab 1 is shared with another lab, with each lab getting two long benches. There is one stool for the microscope and one or two stools that floats around for other uses. All bench space is only for experiments. All mechE students get assigned a desk outside the lab somewhere. BIEN (my dept) does by priority (TAs and more senior members). I will not get assigned a desk this year. It sounds trivial, but having to constantly move around (10 min each way to the library, setting my laptop back up etc) wore on me during the rotation time. The other lab has both desktops in the lab (one open for me) plus an office down the hall that I would have access to.

As for her moving, it's a rumor from her students. New professors are constantly getting poached from my school. MechE lost three professors this year. It's a rumor that gets thrown around all the time without substance though.

There's just not a lot of women in mechE, and this lab rarely considers BIEN students (where the women are). This isn't a big concern for me, but I went through my physics program as the only girl and have already faced the issues this brings.

 

 

[mobilehobo]

It sounds like a close call, and I think either option could work out OK for you. 

I'm the sole female in a dude-heavy lab, and I guess it depends on the personalities involved just how much of a problem it could be. If you have any experience growing up with brothers, then that will come in useful.  If you seem to get along fine with them right now, then I'd not be too concerned. Also, the presence of you in the lab may help attract more girls later down the line. 

That said, I've noticed that the "intense" labs tend to attract more boys than girls, so it could be a symptom of a demanding adviser. 

 

With regards to funding. A lot of labs go through rough patches: either they miss out on a grant, or there is some uncertainty about whether their grants will be renewed. Some PIs & groups get more anxious about funding than they need to. You can look up the funding history of this group (NIH/NSF grants are publicly listed online) to see how the group has fared in the past. Finding out how your Dept deals with students who don't have fellowship funding is important: are there enough TAships to go around? Is there a limit on how many years you can TA? How are other students in Lab 2 funded?

Thanks for the insight. Both PIs have been awarded NSF career grants, but Lab 1 is newer so she still has plenty of it left while lab 2's is running thin now. Lab 2 has had at least 4 grants awarded since 2010, while lab 1 has 2 NSF grants, but has been here only since 2012. Both have had one NSF fellow in their group. So I guess, Lab 2 has a track record of funding while Lab 1 is new, but known as a great grant writer.

[mobilehobo]

IMO, I'd go with option 1. You seem to feel better about the advisor, it's work your familiar with, and they have good possibilities for publication/funding. If the PIs are hands off, you might be able to bend the project in a more nano-fab direction (there are lots of possibilities in the area) or even collaborate with lab 2.

Thanks! Lab 1 is very flexible with topics. Bringing in nanofab would be difficult, just because of the expense and the nature of the direction of Lab 1, but I'm sure there's always a way to find a connection!