"A good fit" - What does it actually mean?

[neur0cat]

Hi All,

I have two parts that are related to this question. Firstly, does having "a good fit" necessarily imply that one has had some prior, concentrated research experience that is aligned to that of the particular lab/adviser that you are interested in? I'm asking this because I have worked on different topics /different populations (e.g. healthy aging, neurological populations, children) in my undergrad thesis, masters thesis, and later on when I took a year off to do research. The skill sets used are pretty similar -- I work extensively in imaging, but the focus of the labs and projects I've undertaken can be quite different. I've always wanted to do a PhD eventually, but I really wanted to expand my horizons and find out what I wanted to focus on for the next few years of my life (i.e. what piques my interest the most, what I absolutely had no interest in etc). I have to clarify that I didn't jump from lab to lab in a few months, but was with each lab for at least a year. I'm not sure if this varied experience may prove to be disadvantageous in any way though.

The second part of my question is: After working on different projects, I have arrived at the realization that I would like to (for a lack of a better word) "go back to my first love", which was the topic/field that I did my undergrad thesis in. Unfortunately, as that was a very early stage in my academic career, I do not have a lot to show for it compared to having 3 publications from my recent work. Does this automatically mean I am a poorer fit for labs that focus on topics I have now identified to be of my interest? Would my research experience and publications in other semi-related fields count for anything? 

Would greatly appreciate any advice or opinions!

Edited April 22, 2016 by neur0cat

[sjoh197]

Good fit often has to do with research interests. Are your research interests a good fit with the current opportunities in your department? That is the question. 

45 minutes ago, neur0cat said:

I really wanted to expand my horizons and find out what I wanted to focus on for the next few years of my life (i.e. what piques my interest the most, what I absolutely had no interest in

This could actually make you a better candidate in some senses. You have experienced different areas of your field, gaining usable skill sets from each one, giving you a much better idea of what you truly want to do. Present it as a useful learning experience that will help you in your future research. 

When I first started doing "research" in undergrad... I was crushing up rocks into powder and centrifuging them. Literally mind numbing work.... but I spun it as teaching me not only valuable lab practices, but also the potential for experimental error far down the line of work... error that one might not consider when looking at "abnormal" results. 

You can always take the work that you have done and find a way to apply it... especially if it used the similar skill sets that you said it did. 

[johnnycomelately]

Fit is used not only in relation to research interests, but is also a concern when it comes to the type of resources that would be available to you at that program/university. This can be anything from primary source material, say for the humanities/social sciences to specialized lab equipment, or even a formal relationship with other centers/programs/universities for resource sharing. The more you show that you are aware of these things, especially in your SOP, the better you demonstrate your "fit" for that particular program. 

Edited April 25, 2016 by johnnycomelately