Choosing a PhD advisor

A recent blog thread prompted me to read an article by Bruce Alberts, Editor-in-Chief of Science "On Becoming a Scientist" and post some thought on choosing a PhD advisor here.

He starts: “The exact project pursued for a Ph.D. degree is not nearly as important as finding the best place for learning how to push forward the frontier of knowledge as an independent investigator.” How true. Some advice summarized from the article:

1) Choose a research group led by a person with high scientific and ethical standards. Have they published frequently and in prestigious journals? Do they have NSF-supported research projects? Search for their name on the NSF awards web site;

2) Find an advisor who will pay close attention to your development as a scientist (a small research group is perhaps better than a large group in which your interests can get lost). Talk to current students in that group and discover whether they have had conversations with their advisor about their future career. Have they been encouraged to present their research at conferences, write papers and grant proposals? Are there multiple faculty doing research in related fields? That could create a supportive community of faculty and grad students in which you might thrive. Are there regular departmental seminars on topics of interest to you by visiting scientists? Does the research group meet regularly to discuss research progress, etc.? The upshot: is there a community that will provide an intellectually-stimulating and supportive environment?;

3) Choose an advisor that will provide you with enough guidance to prevent you from wasting time on nonproductive pursuits, while giving you the freedom to innovate and learn from your own mistakes. How hands-on or hands-off is s/he as an advisor? Is there a chance that you might become enslaved as the mass spec repair dude during your PhD or will you get lots of hands-on experience in the lab while you're doing your research and walk away 5 years later with important skills;

4) Choose your research project well (this is a tricky one as it's hard to see the forest for the trees when you're fresh out of your undergraduate studies): “ambitious enough to be important and exciting, innovative enough to make unique contributions likely, and nevertheless have a good chance of producing valuable results”. Have this conversation with your advisor when you're choosing your project.

5) The choice of a postdoctoral research group is the place to establish yourself with your long-term career in mind – you should choose a lab where you can acquire skills that complement those you already have.

6) Finally, I'll add that you should consider whether the faculty member is near retirement or whether they are just starting to grow their research program (what year did they get their PhD and do some math) - are they actively doing exciting research? have they published recently? do they have active grants through NSF? Some mid- or late-career faculty might drift into administrative roles that take them away from their research. Very new/young faculty might be sinking all of their time into starting up a new lab or teaching brand new courses and not have much time for advising, they might not have external grant funding yet to support their research, or their research groups might be nonexistent or very small (perhaps not the most supportive environment). At the same time, very new/young faculty might feel more energized by their research and still have a fire in their belly that could lead you down exciting research roads (at the very least, if they are pre-tenure [Assistant Professors in their first 6 years of their positions] they will still have to work very hard to be productive...).

There is an awful lot of luck, knowing the right people, and being in the right place at the right time in becoming a successful scientist. You can control who you know - your research mentors. Choose well.

Mentor-mentee relationships

I just spotted this blog on Sciencewomen that discusses the job of a mentor and being a mentee. I like this passage, paraphrased from a talk SciWo attended, in particular:

"Dr. Cassell also talked about the characteristics of a good mentor, qualities that included accessibility, empathy, honesty, savvy, humility (most important), consistency, open-mindedness, and understanding of the current/new research/academic/professional environment. Mentors should be providing networking opportunities, offering moral support, and encouraging creative thinking. In turn, good mentees are proactive, probing, gracious, and humble in accepting critical feedback.

Of course, you are not going to meet all of your mentoring needs in a single relationship, so Cassell suggests to never let go of old mentors, establish both official and informal mentors and also find a set of confidants. She urges mentees to keep meetings professional."

I'll let that speak for itself.