Choosing experience over potential
Anna Kushnir
Tuesday, 05 August 2008 22:47 UTC
When I was looking for a lab to join in grad school, I chose one that was well-established, well-funded, and headed by a very senior investigator. The lab sounded great on paper but in reality, the lab had passed its prime – scientifically speaking. All the great discoveries had already been made, which is how the lab got to be so well-established in the first place.
I am now wondering if I would have been better off joining a younger/newer lab with a junior PI and possibly participate in more exciting and novel research. I guess the question that is still bothering me is, should one choose the safety net and experience of a well-established lab or go for the potential for growth and more interesting work in a newer, and less established lab? Does the name of the PI carry as much weight as the novelty of the work? What do people think?
I can’t turn time back on my own grad school career, but it will be something for me to think about should I decide on a post-doc.
-
Replies
-
According to my experience, well-established investigators usually spend more time travelling than in the lab, also the groups are too big and competitive. You should go to a group in their “logarithmic” period, not too early nor too late…
Good luck with the post-doc!
-
A group in the “logarithmic” period is the holy grail, isn’t it! That really would be the ideal for any grad student. There are many students who prosper in very hands-off labs, in which the PI is often traveling or is not involved in the day to day activities of the lab, but others need more guidance. The prestige of the big name lab is tough to turn down though, even if it comes with less attention.
-
