Choosing the right graduate school / professor?

[Genecks]

I've been talking to a graduate student as of late, and she advised that I find a professor and/or graduate school with a decent amount of money. Sure, that'd be nice, but I'm uncertain of how feasible that is or how well I could pull it off.

 

In summary, I talked to her, and she described her experiences so far with not having a lot of money for her research, having to do and make her resources by herself, and saying that some things that getting done an experiment that might take her a year or two could be done at a different school under a different professor for perhaps 6 months. Furthermore, she mentioned that getting a Ph.D would be much easier and faster with a professor with more funding. I'm totally game for a Ph.D that will take 4 to 5 years rather than 7 or 8.

 

I've often questioned what helps a person get a Ph.D faster than usual. I've seen unusual cases where it can take a person 4 or 5 years. I can't tell if it is the topic they pick, the amount of funding they get, or __blank___. My best guess is that since people need to take a few years of courses while going for a Ph.D, then the remaining years would be pushing forth the thesis topic and getting done with the dissertation. So, people who graduate in 4 or 5 years are either fortunate or extremely die-hard individuals who can function on very, very little sleep for very long times.

 

Does that sound right to you?

 

Personally, I don't know what kind of experiments in science take six months. I could see the necessity of repeatability being a time-consuming tasks. And I could also see the process of tissue development being a timely nuisance, too. However, I'm not sure what goes into making one's own resources. I figure if I had to make everything I use in experiments right now, it might take me a week of time to pull it off.

 

How much of a pain is it to make one's own resources while a graduate student?

 

Furthermore, should a person really choose a professor with more money and perhaps a slightly different field of focus than a professor with less money and the focus you want?

 

I mean, I could probably study the biological mechanisms of learning under different professors and to different degrees. And I suspect those professor would have different focuses, as such many of them would have varying levels of funding. I figure even if I studied under one professor, I'd still gain some skills that the others would have taught me.

 

Any input?

Edited July 11, 2010 by Genecks

[CharonY]

Let me start by saying that there are plenty of experiments in biology that take at least 6 months. In biological areas one can expect, as a rule of thumb, one publication per year past the first year, which is used to establish the basics. If it is supposed to be sold higher it can take longer. If everything works. If you are not working on a project that is funded, it can be way longer, that is true.

 

However, this is only the technical side. Even a well-funded prof may put you on an infeasible project or does not let you get your PhD.

While funding is important, it is also necessary to figure out how committed the PI is to help you get your PhD.

This, unfortunately, is not easy and I have no direct advice I could give you. You can always ask whether and how your PhD project is going to be funded (and see if he simply dismisses your worries or if he tries to alleviate them and how).

Be aware that undergrad lab experience rarely prepares oneself to what one has to do in gradschool and above. You should also realize that you are not really just studying under the prof anymore. You are entering your first job position, which means that the prof expects you to deliver results, usually either to advance a project or to provide a data that can be used for a project. If you do not propose something that can bring in money (and the prof likes it) you will work on something he/she thinks that may be beneficial for her. In the latter case you will have little say on what you do (I am talking about the US system, btw).

 

Also note that, depending on whether you really want to aim for an academic career (which I rarely advice students to take as first or even sole choice), pedigree can also become a factor.

[Genecks]

... If you do not propose something that can bring in money (and the prof likes it) you will work on something he/she thinks that may be beneficial for her. In the latter case you will have little say on what you do (I am talking about the US system, btw)...

 

Personally, I see the whole opportunity of working with a certain professor as a form of apprenticeship. In other words, I'm there, because I want to be doing research with that professor and what he/she is doing. I have some research ideas of my own (unfortunately, not neuroscience-related which is the down side), but I rather be training under someone with a game plan. Moreso, a game plan in neuroscience.

 

Of the time I have spent around the neuroscience graduate students at UIC, I often notice that many of the students are doing something similar to the professor but different from the professor's main topic. At other times, the graduate students are working on what the professor is doing. If anything, however, the students seem to be doing a form of apprenticeship.

 

If there is this side project the professor has on the backburner that he/she hasn't been doing but will get money? Well, I'm guessing that's related to the professor's speciality, right?

 

Otherwise, the professor more than likely wouldn't have that on his/her to-do list?

 

For how I've grown up and understood graduate school and getting a Ph.D, two things can occur:

 

1. You have your own topic and you attempt to get a degree based on pursuing research with your topic

2. You act as an apprentice under a professor and do research with him/her in order to push out his/her research goal; and you're allowed to get your Ph.D this way.

 

I see problems with such ideas with universities that make students rotate amongst the professors, thus never having a main professor to train under.

 

I truthfully don't have a thesis topic or very narrow research idea for neuroscience at the moment. I think if I take some time off, then I'll have a better idea of who I want to work with and why. I think if I were to just drop everything right now, then it might take me a month and a half to figure it all out. I attribute my indecision to the fact that I haven't been keeping up to date with many things in neuroscience for the past few years (I've been trying to survive this @#$$^#$%@!# recession).

Edited July 12, 2010 by Genecks

[CharonY]

All projects will be in the area of his/her interest. Depending on the need, availability and your abilities you will either work on a granted projected, work to establish something that may become grant worthy or just do something of interest. Especially in smaller, non R01-unis it is possible that there will be less focus on grants, though.

The best thing to do is just to talk to them.

[AlphaSheeppig]

It's a good idea to pick a prof who has a huge reputation, i.e. someone that reviews for several established journals in your field. Also, when you first speak to him, don't be embarrassed to ask him outright about funding. Access to a big grant is a good focus.

 

In terms of how long it takes, most people I know who have or who are currently working towards Ph.Ds say the most important factors that determine how long it takes depend on your field, but include factors like how long it takes for your test equipment to be built; waiting for simulations to run; waiting for funding to continue research; your prof asking you to focus on something you hadn't even considered; and most importantly, the amount of work you do unrelated to your research for your school. Most people who take 7 or 8 years at my school take that long because they keep being asked to do lecturing jobs on the side. But, if you can secure a good grant and a solid income, does it really matter if it takes a year or two extra?

 

 

When I took over my office, the previous student left up a sign on the door with Newton's 3 Laws of Graduation:

1. "A student in procrastination tends to stay in procrastination unless an external force is applied."
   
2. age of a Ph.D candidate = Flexibility of prof / motivation of student, or a = F/m... or, F = m a
   
3. "For every action towards graduation, there is an equal but opposite distraction."
   

[CharonY]

Depending what you plan to do afterward and the competition in your job, too long of a PhD can reflect negatively upon you. Unless you can compensate it with a huge output.

There is usually a certain amount of expectation of output and time. Biomedical stuff tends to result in less papers than most experimental physics and chemistry fields (excluding big projects like anything CERN related), for instance. But it can really vary a lot from sub-discipline. The point is that one should not be below the average expectation too much.