How to Pick a Graduate Advisor

[Sunt-ing]

Paper link: https://www.cell.com/neuron/fulltext/S0896-6273(13)00907-0

The talk by the original author at YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=THHkXpORUWo

[Sunt-ing]

Introduction

• Phenomenon: select solely because he or she is the one researcher at your undergraduate university that happens to work on the precise focused topic that you think you are most interested in. In my experience, this is exactly what nearly every graduate student does!
• Critique: If you like solving puzzles, as all scientists do, there will be many different puzzles that you will find equally rewarding to work on. Although I study the brain, I am certain that I would be just as happy working on the kidney (some would argue that glia are the kidneys of the brain).
• Suggestion:
  • Create a list of possible advisors in your general field of interest, broadly defined rather than focused on a highly specific research topic.
  • Judge them by scientific ability and mentorship ability.

Pick an Advisor Who Is a Good Scientist

Importance

Bad scientists or scientists who have no passion for science cannot train you to be a good scientist.

Rule1: A faculty member at a good university doesn't guarantee to be a good scientist.

• Many faculty are not tenure track. This does not mean that they are not good scientists, but it does add to the risk.
• Tenure is by no means a perfect process, and there are good scientists who are not tenured and vice versa.
  • Only some assistant professors will get tenures.
    • However, young faculty are often superb choices for graduate mentors.
    • Working with a young faculty member who is skilled in the latest techniques, still has a small lab, and therefore much time to mentor you, can often be an excellent choice.
  • Some faculty who are not good scientists make it to tenure anyway.

Rule2: Check the publications of your potential advisor.

• Though you just begin the training, check whether the papers published by them are well written, rigorous, and interesting to you.
• Although quality of the research papers is paramount, number is also important
• Large labs should obviously be publishing more papers per year than a small lab, so some normalization for that factor is important.
• If your prospective advisor has not published a good research paper in over 5 years, this is a serious warning sign (what is the chance you will just happen to be the one student in that lab to publish?).

Rule3: Check their H-index.

• Keep in mind that older scientists will have higher H-indexes than younger scientists.

Rule4: Ask senior faculty for their candid thoughts about particular faculty members of interest.

• Such as asking your graduate program advisor or your undergraduate thesis advisor
• Listen carefully to the responses, as a senior faculty member is unlikely to torch another faculty member (after all, they have to work with them for the rest of their careers) but might make gentle comments meant to steer you away from one candidate in favor of others.

Pick an Advisor Who Is Also a Good Mentor

How can a student tell whether a prospective advisor is a good mentor?

• Ask some of his or her current and previous trainees:
  • whether this faculty member spends sufficient time with each student.
  • whether they enjoyed being in that lab
  • whether there is a team spirit in the lab
  • whether everyone helping each other rather than being pitted against each other
  • whether everyone contributes their thoughts and ideas in lab meetings group discussions
  • Bad: only the faculty member dictates to presenters what they should do next?
• determine the faculty member’s track record of mentoring success. (most importantly; not be helpful in vetting junior faculty)
  • obtain a copy of his or her ‘‘trainees list’’
  • Asking potential advisors for their trainees list: might be a tad awkward
  • graduate program offices should keep up-to-date copies of these lists on file for their students
  • if only a very small percentage of trainees go on to have their own labs (whether in academia, industry, or government), this is a warning sign that little successful mentoring is happening.
  • ask whether the students are generally happy. If not, this is a warning sign. I strongly believe that when a talented student is in the right lab, with a good mentor, that going to lab every day should feel almost like being in summer camp.

Good Supervisor Standard

Credit:

• Bad: never mentions his students’ names when he presents their work in a talk or only mentions them in a long list in small print at the end of the talk
• Good: actively credit his student fairly for his accomplishments when giving seminars and bring his student’s name to the attention of appropriate job searches.

Work assignment

• Bad:
  • Inappropriate Manager
    • puts two students in the lab on the same project so that they must compete with each other
    • insists on writing the research papers rather than allowing the student to write it and then editing it with the student
    • fails to make sure they have lots of good starting points for projects in their own labs
  • Micromanagers
    • Root: To make sure that they are successful in renewing their grant funding
    • Sign:
    • dictating to their students exactly what experiments to do
    • tells you what experiments you must do
    • Note: Helpful suggestions are one thing; micro-management is another.
    • Result: Young scientists who are not allowed to be independent as students and fellows are generally not able to successfully achieve this in their own labs.
  • Buzy Managers
    • Root: Some don’t enjoy mentoring, some don’t want to be bothered, and some plain don’t know how.
    • Sign
    • he allows the students’ papers to sit on his desk (sometimes for years, sometimes never even submitting them)
    • he does not practice the students’ talks with them
• Good:
  • help students to formulate a good and tractable question. If student does not address an important question and take it a step forward during their thesis or fellowship years, they will not have the confidence that they can do this in their own lab, and likely they never will.
  • gentlely guide a student to formulate good experiments to address this question while encouraging the student to be increasingly independent over time
  • allow and encourage their trainees to take time away from their research to do other activities that will enhance their training such as TAing graduate courses, attending conferences, and taking special summer courses.
  • spend enormous amounts of time with each of their students discussing science
  • how to design good experiments and interpret and analyze data
  • how to write research papers and grants
  • how to review papers for journals, practicing talks, and providing career guidance.

Help after graduate:

• Bad:
  • compete with him on the same set of experiments
• Good:
  • write strong letters of recommendation for fellowship applications and jobs
  • suggest his previous students as speakers for meetings and authoring review articles
  • make sure the student selects a good next lab or job

Leaving them is OK:

• Most productivity occurs in the last 1 or 2 years of a PhD thesis and usually switching to a new lab, even after a few years in the wrong lab, does not delay a student’s graduation.
• Just think of your time in the first lab as a long rotation that beneficially added to your training.

How to be successful in that lab

• pick a question that is important and interesting but less competitive.
• write one good paper is enough.
  • It probably will take you about 6 years (counting course work).
  • If you can work on an important question as a PhD student (or postdoc) and take it a step forward, you will have the confidence and enthusiasm to do this for the rest of your life.
• do not skip your postdoctoral fellowship no matter how successful your PhD has been.
  • people who skip their postdoc generally fail to broaden as scientists or to achieve the versatility and fearlessness to enter new fields that they might otherwise have achieved.

Others

• M-index: The M-index is the average of the H-indexes of a given scientist’s mentees
• Whenever I meet a great mentor, I always ask them what they do that has the highest training impact. I rarely get the same answer, yet everyone thinks they know what matters. I have made some guesses in this essay, but data are lacking.