Programs to Avoid

[dells_of_bittersweet]

My TA told me to avoid anywhere in the top 10 because it's supercompetitive and you get treated like a number in a huge lab group.

Anyone have anything more useful to say? Which top programs have good cultures and which ones have bad ones?

[phenol]

UC Berkeley chem undergrad here.  

My opinion on the chem department here is pretty stellar.  The culture is (generally speaking) vastly more relaxed than most other similarly-ranked departments, though obviously this depends on the PI you're working for.  The grad students have a pretty strong union (which has some benefits, such as teaching and fellowship income stacking for semesters where you have both) and the department as a whole is pretty social.  As a Bay Area local, the location is definitely a huge plus (good weather, awesome local food and nightlife, easy access to SF).

It really does depend on your PI, though.  A couple of them (especially the ones without tenure, obviously) have a real reputation for ruining their students' lives (though you'll find professors like this at every top-10 institution).  My current boss is incredibly hands-off and in fact parties harder than most of the grad students, while trusting his group members to be responsible enough to get their work done.  As a result, he's not very helpful at providing research direction and the grad students have to take on the responsibility of teaching each other how everything works.  On the other hand, there's tons of freedom to work on whatever project interests you, and you can start interesting side projects whenever you want, without having to tell him about them unless they're successful.

If it weren't so discouraged/actively forbidden, I would definitely consider reapplying here for grad school.  Really, it just makes me wish that I went to another school for undergrad so I could come here for grad school.

Edited February 4, 2016 by phenol

[Eigen]

As a counter to the above, I have a friend that did his PhD at Berkeley and is now happily tenured. 

He says if he had it to do over again, he definitely would not have gone to Berkeley (or anywhere top 10) and would have done a smaller program with a well known PI for PhD, and then post-doc'd at Berkeley (or similar). 

I've had the same sentiment from undergrads of mine that have gone to top-10 schools, as well as colleagues I've met at conferences. I have one friend with a PI who calls the lab at 6 am and 9 pm 7 days a week to get a list of who's in lab.

[KaffeeCafe]

1 hour ago, Eigen said:

As a counter to the above, I have a friend that did his PhD at Berkeley and is now happily tenured. 

He says if he had it to do over again, he definitely would not have gone to Berkeley (or anywhere top 10) and would have done a smaller program with a well known PI for PhD, and then post-doc'd at Berkeley (or similar). 

I've had the same sentiment from undergrads of mine that have gone to top-10 schools, as well as colleagues I've met at conferences. I have one friend with a PI who calls the lab at 6 am and 9 pm 7 days a week to get a list of who's in lab.

Wow, that's crazy. I've heard stories about PIs like that before and that's exactly the type of thing I'm looking out for on visitation weekends.. I just had a visit at a lower/smaller school but with a very open and collaborative department where the students all seemed very happy. A lot of the students warned some schools can really be competitive (as previously mentioned) so that your own lab members might not be much of help if you run into problems. I have some visits to some top schools next month and one thing I've been weary about with some of the groups of interest is those with 20+ members/not getting much individual time from PI/a sink-or-swim cut-throat mentality in some departments. I guess we'll have to see! I think it is definitely very PI based overall. Lab culture and advisor methods are one of the most important things to consider.

[Eigen]

That's absolutely true. 

You can find fantastic groups at top-10 schools, and horrible groups at lower-ranked/smaller schools. 

In general, higher ranked schools have more pressure on the PI to not be in the lab or dealing with graduate students, but rather traveling, getting grants, and giving talks. I just had the opportunity to talk to a faculty member who thought the ideal group set-up (~60 people) was 6 projects, each with 10 grad students managed by a post-doc. I had a friend in a very similar group, and the PI had hired him as a post-doc specifically to buffer interactions with the grad students. 

When you have 60+ grad students in a lab, it runs like a small business. I really like the fact that I talk to my PI daily- I have some friends that are happy with much more autonomy and only talk to their PI's once or twice a year. 

[DrZoidberg]

I'm not in chemistry, so maybe my experiences aren't so relevant, but I am at a top 10 school now and I have honestly never been in such a supportive and encouraging environment. I meet my supervisor weekly, he always has time for me and is as involved in my work as much I want him to be (and will back off if I ask him to). The PIs have max. 5 students and they are genuinely interested in what their students are doing. Everyone helps each other out across department disciplines, I think the students learn as much from each other as they do from their supervisors. It is the least competitive environment I have ever been in, which for me is a huge plus because I can focus on my research and ask for all the help I need without feeling stupid. I would not write off any program based on such a sweeping generalization as your TA gave you.

I am from Europe, and before I came to the US people were warning me against applying for PhDs here and even working here. Everyone had this idea that American work culture was pure madness, working 80 hours a week, having one week of holiday a year. I had a potential (non-US) supervisor strongly discourage me from doing a PhD in the US because she thought supervisors here just take advantage of their students, make them do all the hard work while taking all the credit. She said US PhD students don't publish as much, that they are basically used for TA'ing and left to do their research in their spare time. I am so thankful I didn't listen to her because my experiences are the diametrical opposite of what she warned me about. 

Absolutely apply for the top 10 programs if they seem like a good research fit, and if you get accepted you can try to get a feel for the culture there. It might be everything you wanted, it might be horrendous. But don't let one statement like that discourage you from even considering them. 

[Solaf]

Any opinions on Penn grad program ?

[St Andrews Lynx]

On 3 February 2016 at 6:48 PM, dells_of_bittersweet said:

My TA told me to avoid anywhere in the top 10 because it's supercompetitive and you get treated like a number in a huge lab group.

That's an over-generalisation. From what I've seen, there is a decent mix of lab sizes in the Top 10 Chemistry departments: from 10-40 people is the range. As others have said, you get a mix of very competitive lab environments, as well as ones that maybe work long hours but the people aren't as cut-throat. From what I've seen a single lab can also change its personality over the years: if there were grad students who didn't get along then it turned the whole lab toxic...but once they left everybody chilled out a bit. Or the PI was going crazy trying to get tenure...but ever since they were promoted they calmed down. 

I'll also just say it: it's OK to decline an offer from a Top 10 school in favour of a lower-ranked place (that fits you better). I know of folk who felt strongly conflicted, like they must join the best lab at the best university they were admitted to, even when they could see it was a bad match. There's no point being miserable in a lab, you can't do good science that way.

[Orgo for days]

On February 5, 2016 at 10:02 PM, Solaf said:

Any opinions on Penn grad program ?

I don't know too much about Penn nor the field you want to work in, but I heard Patrick Walsh give a talk and he seemed like a really smart and kind man who helps his grad students achieve great things.

[KaffeeCafe]

3 hours ago, St Andrews Lynx said:

That's an over-generalisation. From what I've seen, there is a decent mix of lab sizes in the Top 10 Chemistry departments: from 10-40 people is the range. As others have said, you get a mix of very competitive lab environments, as well as ones that maybe work long hours but the people aren't as cut-throat. From what I've seen a single lab can also change its personality over the years: if there were grad students who didn't get along then it turned the whole lab toxic...but once they left everybody chilled out a bit. Or the PI was going crazy trying to get tenure...but ever since they were promoted they calmed down. 

I'll also just say it: it's OK to decline an offer from a Top 10 school in favour of a lower-ranked place (that fits you better). I know of folk who felt strongly conflicted, like they must join the best lab at the best university they were admitted to, even when they could see it was a bad match. There's no point being miserable in a lab, you can't do good science that way.

Exactly. Can't overstate the importance of taking advantage of visitation weekends to really get a feel for everything.

[Monstercookie]

I would advice agains generalizations. I'm at a top-10 and find the community incredibly supportive. There are a few professors who aren't the best, but overall it's not bad at all.

Overall, I think most top schools are generally great environments to do a PhD. However, most people at these places will have high ambitions and very high expectations on themselves. A good question to ask yourself is if you fit in with the people at these schools. If you do it can be a great experience, if you don't it might not be the best fit. 

[scientific]

Definitely agree it depends on professor--at my undergrad, the professor I researched with was very helpful and accommodating but driving. However, another professor in the department lost all funding and his grad students were stuck for a long time and forced to mostly TA instead of research (it was a pretty bad situation honestly). 

 

On a related note--how can one tell how a professor is doing? Just research recent publications? For those grad students, obviously it's a bad situation to be in--how do you avoid those?

[phenol]

56 minutes ago, scientific said:

Definitely agree it depends on professor--at my undergrad, the professor I researched with was very helpful and accommodating but driving. However, another professor in the department lost all funding and his grad students were stuck for a long time and forced to mostly TA instead of research (it was a pretty bad situation honestly). 

 

On a related note--how can one tell how a professor is doing? Just research recent publications? For those grad students, obviously it's a bad situation to be in--how do you avoid those?

The best way to figure out things like this is to ask grad students in the department.  Not even just grad students in the lab in question, but some people in other labs might have heard rumors.

Some telltale signs that a PI is in a rough spot funding-wise -- if he's only accepting students with fellowships, if the students in his lab without fellowships are forced to teach far more than the departmental minimum, if he spends far more time than normal writing grants instead of attending conferences.  Consider asking students in his lab how life is for grad students without a fellowship.

[Chai_latte]

On 2/4/2016 at 11:02 PM, Solaf said:

Any opinions on Penn grad program ?

Rather late, but I have a friend from Penn.  She didn't have the best experience ever.  Her advisor wasn't super-supportive & the teaching wasn't great.