At the end of last week Dr. Isis received this question. I think in terms of questions I've received, this is one of the more important to the pursuit of a graduate career I have come across and it's a particular line of thinking I engaged in myself earlier in my career. So, let's have a chat about it, dearest readers...
Dear Dr. Isis Goddess of Domestic and Laboratory Awesome,First, you're welcome for the awesomeness. I would like to be able to say that it is a conscious choice, but I really can't help but be amazing. And humble. I am really, really humble.
I've been starring at this screen trying to come up with sufficient adulation for you, but I don't think I have the words; clearly I am not as talented a writer as The Goddess. I am however a great fan of The Goddess with whom I share a love of hot science and ass shaking jams and some experiences of unique hair (ugh). I am a total lurker because I am kind of shy but you have inspired me to try to blog regularly. I often start blogs the same way I started diaries as a girl, "I am going to write in you EVERY day," it goes strong for about two weeks before it's like what blog? When/if I get a good one going I'll let you know, or be way too afraid to let your awesomeness see it...
PS- I didn't de-lurk on your, "who are you" post 'cause of the aforementioned shyness, but I shall answer now. You are the second ScienceBlog I ever read and you immediately became my favorite. The first ScienceBlog I found while googling a book, one day while reading that a post of yours was highlighted on the little ScienceBlogs ticker at the top of my screen. I do believe it was something about women in science careers and I, being a vagina owner interested in one of those, was hooked. I kept coming back to look at the pretty shoes and to hear your incredible knowledge on all things science career, and for little Isis says science, and ass shaking jams, and for the occasional post en Espanol which I attempt to read. You are all around great Goddess. I think I may appreciate the most the introspective posts about your own career and life as a mother, they are beautiful and it is very helpful at this stage in my life to have big kid scientists act like human beings, and pretty cool human beings at that. Oh man how I ramble, sorry Dr. Isis that this is so long, hopefully reading it didn't exhaust you too much, not that you could ever be overwhelmed by anything seeing as how you are a goddess and all, I look forward to hearing your thoughts if you have the time. Thank you for being awesome!
ANYWAY I've been pondering the next step in my education and thought I might take a stab at some advice from Dr. Isis since you are in fact teh awesome. I currently have a BS with okay grades and am working in a lab that has done some big stuff. I want to go on to a Ph.D program but I have too many interests to pick a specific program right now. In the past few months as I work more in the lab I have noticed how much I am lacking in data analysis skills. Why didn't it occur to me when I was still in school that these would be important skills for my future? Hindsight gets clearer everyday! It isn't that I am bad at math, I love math; I just need to get myself more edumucated. I looked into taking courses at the universities near my house and stumbled upon a Masters in Biostatistics at a small state university nearby. It is a dinky masters program with no thesis, only course work and it's fairly cheap. Looking through their course listings I was excited by everything. I really just want to satisfy myself with this, I want to kick ass at the data/mathy stuff so I can focus on doing awesome science in my future. My question to you is if this could make my future grad school applications weaker. Would applying with BS + lab work + dinky MS make me look like I was in fact dinky? Would it be better for me to just be BS + lab work + some post BS classes??? I suppose the best would be BS + lab work + kick ass MS, but I kind of want to do this cheaply on the side to gain the skills while I continue to work in my current lab and figure out my future, I'm not in a full blown big masters program kind of place in my life. Help me Domestic and Laboratory Goddess you're my only hope! Yes I just compared your sage advice to that of Obi Wan, and I'm pretty sure that if anyone were to ever strike you down you would only become more powerful than they could possibly imagine. (Star War references for the win!)
~Just another budding scientist in awe of the goddess
Now, boy, oh boy, oh boy. Where do we begin with this one? I think it is a mark of character to realize the breadth of what you don't know. The question is, how do we deal with it? Let me start by showing you a graphic representation of all the science-y stuff I know and don't know...
It's scary to ponder how much you don't know and to realize that you really don't know how big all the stuff you don't know is. I've gone through periods in my training where I've thought to myself...
Oh crap! I don't know how to cell culture! What if someday I want to start doing cell work?!?! I'm going to be a failure!
If I went and got a master's degree every time I didn't know something, I would have a bazillion masters degrees. Some of the best advice about acquiring new skills I ever received was given to me by a senior physiologist the first year I was in graduate school. He came to MRU to give a presentation and we had lunch afterwards. He asked me about graduate school and what I hoped to accomplish and I offered him the litany of things I hoped to gain expertise in. He told me...
It's wonderful to want to learn new things. But remember Isis, a well-rounded man has no point.
This is not to say that there is not value in learning new skills or techniques. It means that one must assess the cost and benefit of learning and acquiring the new skill or technique. Will learning the new skill or technique at that time advance your work or will it distract you from your end goals or defocus your work? That's where we get back to the original question posed by my lovely reader.
I think that our friend, with a bachelors in something and some lab experience, is concerned that her lack of data analysis skills will hinder her progress as a PhD student. Don't worry about it. I think a fundamental component of any decent PhD training program is teaching a student how to test a hypothesis, analyze their data, and understand and report a conclusion. I guarantee that if I walked into the lab on Monday, handed one of the BS-level folks in there some data and asked them which statistical test would be most appropriate to analyze said data, they would look at me as if they had just swallowed a chicken bone sideways. It's not that they are not smart. It's just that many of them don't have the experience to answer the question. I suspect that is what is distressing our reader -- a feeling that she lacks experience.
One of the most important things I learned as a graduate student was not how to pipet or run a gel -- it was how to ask a question and gather the tools I needed to answer it. A good mentor will not let you leave a lab without an understanding of how to analyze your data. Make sure as you apply to programs that the ones you consider believe that is a fundamental part of your training. In that sense, I would say that paying for a masters degree in biostatistics is not necessary. If you really just want to educate yourself with the end result of entering a PhD program, take the courses locally and keep your eye on the prize.
As an aside, even with a firm foundation in data analysis, there are still a lot of times that I go and consult a statistician for advice.
That said, reading this letter, it sounds like our little muffin is not sure what she wants to study in graduate school. I think that if she is harboring an intellectual interest in biostatistics as a field, the masters won't hurt. I can't say I've ever met someone and thought to myself, "No, no. That person has too much education."
People combine all sorts of fields in order to do their work. It's just gotta be with a purpose.
Education
Life Science
Comments
I took a "You don't pay, I don't play" approach with my MS (with a thesis) degree. They gave me a tuition waiver and a small stipend to TA two classes a year (one each semester), and teach an instrumentation class. I got into the lab to learn, and the TA experience was invaluable as well. Perhaps if someone really wants to get that MS degree, finding a program which will pay a stipend (and they ARE out there) is the way to go.
Posted by: TomJoe | July 18, 2009 12:57 PM
I've been on the graduate admissions committee of our medium-sized biology department for fifteen years, and I can assure the budding scientist that a master's degree in biostatistics, no matter how dinky, won't hurt her application to a biology Ph.D. program (unless she flunks out of it or quits halfway through). But it won't help her application all that much, either, and as Dr. Isis says, taking a bunch of courses in a subject is not the best way for a research biologist to learn a new skill.
Rather than getting a master's degree, I'd suggest working as a technician for a year or two before applying to Ph.D. programs. This will expose the budding scientist to a variety of experiences that hopefully will help her focus her interests. If she gets a technician job at a research university, she can probably take one class each semester tuition-free, and she'll be able to attend seminars in a wide variety of topics. Being in a lab full-time and seeing what life is like for the PI, the technicians, and the grad students will also help her decide whether getting a Ph.D. is really what she wants. And if her B.S. experience would make for a marginal graduate application, the additional year or two of experience would be much more helpful than a master's degree.
Posted by: John H. McDonald | July 18, 2009 1:27 PM
I would also ask what the grades associated with the BS are like. If there were undergraduate science course disasters or a less than optimal GPA, then it may take more than a few upper level science As to get into a hard core PhD program. In that case, a completed MS with good grades and kick-ass GREs might do it.
Start slow. Take one statistics class. If you like it, consider the masters in light of the above. If not, spend your time narrowing your scientific field and taking those types of courses.
Posted by: Pascale | July 18, 2009 1:37 PM
I would never, ever disagree with the Goddess, but I would add that while, yes, learning how to think and learn about science,etc, is key in the PhD, the candidate shouldn't hesitate to go after practical skills during that time. And I don't think there's any field where a strong foundation in statistics wouldn't help you in the long-term. The MS/MA may not be necessary, but consider later, after you've been indoctrinated into the world of the PhD, about the ramifications of a) not being able to perform correlation coefficient calculations, b) the technical staff (with MS degrees) knowing that you don't know and knowing how to do it themselves since you made them do it, and c) writing a paper about the results. I'll give you a hint---the staff members will probably lose some respect for you for making conclusions about things you don't understand. Or don't worry about it at all and just feel all warm and fuzzy about your ability to crush their souls with your tenure. Either way, lots of snickering in the hallway about the sketchiness of your science.
So don't be afraid to take stats courses during the PhD program even if your advisor is down on it. The PhD is not the be-all end-all of your career. It's the beginning.
Posted by: Harvey | July 18, 2009 1:43 PM
I am so relieved to find out that someone else is in this situation! I realised recently (which doing a synthetic biology course with some engineers) that while I am relatively competant at doing actual lab work, my data analysis skills are absymal. It's just something they seem not to have taught us so far at university, we've had practise at getting data, just not doing things with it.
@ John H. McDonald: That was the very same advice my tutor gave me. The more experiance of lab proceedures and protocols you gain before doing a PhD the easier and more smoothly it will run.
Posted by: Lab Rat | July 18, 2009 2:17 PM
the value of the phd degree is in the experience one gains during the process, and the tools one takes along upon leaving.
the experience: learning first hand, with your own hard-earned data, how to analyze it. (trust me. i just spent entirely too long puzzling over the craziest ANOVA i have ever seen.)
the tools: learning how to learn. learning how to seek out and interact with people who can help you develop new skills you need.
looking back, though with entirely jaded eyes at the present moment, the leigh of 5 years ago would have been totally lost should be have been dropped into her present situation. no master's would have replaced the day to day lessons learned in a phd program.
so once you know where you want to go for your phd, just go. you won't make it through without learning those critical skills. at least not in my world, you won't.
Posted by: leigh | July 18, 2009 4:07 PM
Getting a master's degree in an experimental science is a complete waste of time. The overwhelmingly vast majority of science master's programs are nothing more than departmental revenue streams. You're better off getting an MBA or JD.
Posted by: Comrade PhysioProf | July 18, 2009 5:21 PM
As a biology PhD student who was very unsure about what I wanted to do after my B.S., I'd like to add my two cents about the value of a M.S. I certainly agree with the Goddess that if biostatistics is an interest, go for it. However, at least in my portion of the field, if you are not getting paid to do your research, it's probably not good for you (we have lots of undergrads that need general biology TAs).
A thesis-based master's degree is meant to teach the student how to do research, which includes deep thinking about your project and lots of data analysis. This is something you often don't get in undergrad. In addition, you see what it's like to spend 12-16+ hours a day for six days a week in lab, much different from the couple of hours between classes our undergrads get.
A full-time master's also gives you a good stopping point to decide if this is really what you want to do, or if you want to try another track for your Ph.D. It's better to spend two years or so on a project and be really ready for that 4-5 year commitment, then to jump into a 6-year PhD and decide a year or two in that you're miserable. I've seen this happen to too many of my former classmates.
Posted by: MsBothropoides | July 18, 2009 5:32 PM
What is it with these undergrads who think that they need to learn how to do one specific thing (cell culture, biostatistics, whatever) BEFORE they get to grad school? Grad school is where you LEARN stuff!
I've sat on the admissions committee of our graduate program(Major bio program [specific subject redacted to protect the innocent] at BigStateResearchU) for a number of years now and I am now chairing said admissions committee. And I can tell you that a Masters program at DinkyNowhereCollege can definitely hurt you. Especially if you've got a Bachelors from ReallyCoolGreatCollege. At best it shows a lack of confidence. At worst it looks like you didn't really belong at ReallyCoolGreatCollege.
I will also say that additional classes generally don't impress admissions committees. A PhD is a research degree and (we've found that) the best predictor of success in a PhD is whether the candidate has had any research experience before. If you're not ready for graduate school, try to find a technician job where you'll get to get some additional research experience. Or apply for a post-baccalaureate research program.
Posted by: qaz | July 18, 2009 7:00 PM
If your grades aren't very good (and even if they are), then working in a lab that has done big stuff, like you say, is probably your best bet. During my grad school interview process I noticed that most interviewees had worked in a hotshot lab. I think working in a quality lab shows the application committee that you understand what quality research is about, and they know someone who can vouch for your own quality. I would think that getting a dinky MS would make your application weaker, especially if that replaces working full time in a lab. However, if you like the biostats courses, taking one course at a time while working full time in a lab could help your application, and I think it would also help you figure out what you wanted to focus on in grad school. That's what I did and I think it really helped me on both counts, especially because the classes I took were very important for the field I'm in.
Posted by: Sara | July 18, 2009 7:59 PM
Grad school can be its own goal and/or a means to an end.
I'm in grad school because I want the personal challenge of doing a dissertation, and also because you need a PhD to be a faculty person.
It's good that since you don't quite know what to do, you're not trying to jump right into a PhD program. Investigating lots of different things (via reading science literature, perhaps even a conference, classes, whatever) and feeling out the non-academic workplace can help... with the caveat that the consensus I've seen is that 3 years is the max comfortable hiatus between UG and Grad (I waited 5 years which has its challenges).
And if it turns out that your interests lie someplace with no need of a grad degree... then why put off doing what you love just because you "ought" to get more degrees?
Posted by: Dan | July 19, 2009 3:24 AM
Seems to me a number of commenters didn’t bother to read BuddingScientists’s letter before chiming in. From what I’ve gathered, this person: 1) is already working in a good lab; 2) does not want to quit her job but instead, pursue coursework on the side; and 3) is only concerned with whether an MS from DinkySchool will *hurt* her, not help her. In this case, I think there’s little difference between taking classes that she finds interesting on the side vs. getting a degree. And I don’t think that either of these will hurt her chances when she’s ready to apply to PhD programs.
Taking classes – assuming they’re good classes – can be a great way to expose yourself to a new area. I like Pascale’s suggestion of starting slow – a lot of part-time MS programs will give you credit for courses that you take as a non-degree student before formally enrolling in the program. If in the end you wind up getting the MS, it might lead to a higher salary at work. All in all, what BuddingScientist is proposing to do seems eminently reasonable.
And as the recent discussion at Candid Engineer’s shows, it’s possible to graduate from a supposedly good PhD program without adequate data analysis skills.
Posted by: Hope | July 19, 2009 1:38 PM
Qaz said "What is it with these undergrads who think that they need to learn how to do one specific thing (cell culture, biostatistics, whatever) BEFORE they get to grad school? Grad school is where you LEARN stuff!"
Last time I checked, I paid for tuition to learn things in undergrad. Why the heck would I wait for graduate school to learn cell culture and find out that I hate it or have no interest in it? By default, aren't all undergraduates well-rounded? Shouldn't graduate school be the place to hone in on specific techniques and skills?
Maybe I'm just crazy.
Posted by: Eugenie | July 19, 2009 2:19 PM
Jekyll has three posts on the right side of the menu about Grad School.
http://drjekyllandmrshyde.blogspot.com/
She also had this post recently
http://drjekyllandmrshyde.blogspot.com/2009/07/things-i-learned-in-grad-school-4.html
Posted by: jc | July 19, 2009 6:51 PM
Eugenie #13 - You learn lots of stuff in UG. The problem lies in students who don't feel they can go to graduate school until they've mastered all the techniques they might possibly want to use. There's nothing wrong with learning cell culture in UG. But there's also nothing wrong with learning it in grad school. Heck, I didn't learn experimental neuroscience until I was a post-doc. In fact, I'm still learning new experimental techniques even as a faculty member running a large lab (almost 10 yrs now). It's one of the fun things of being a scientist.
As Dr. I mentioned at the top, the most important thing you learn in graduate school is how to teach yourself what you need to know.
Posted by: qaz | July 19, 2009 8:05 PM
@qaz: I've sat on the admissions committee of our graduate program(Major bio program [specific subject redacted to protect the innocent] at BigStateResearchU) for a number of years now and I am now chairing said admissions committee. And I can tell you that a Masters program at DinkyNowhereCollege can definitely hurt you. Especially if you've got a Bachelors from ReallyCoolGreatCollege. At best it shows a lack of confidence. At worst it looks like you didn't really belong at ReallyCoolGreatCollege.
What stupid assumptions to make! Two minutes of additional thought should convince you that there are many other reasons why someone might have a graduate degree from a less-than-illustrious school. For example, that person may have been geographically limited, not wanting to give up a good research job, and pursued additional coursework in order to get a better idea of where their interests lie. (Sound familiar?) If the school wants to give them an MS for completing a set of courses that they wanted to take anyways, where’s the harm in that? Would you really advise someone in that situation *not* to take classes and just apply to PhD programs instead?
I understand your point that additional coursework beyond a BS is not a requirement for applying to grad school, but in this particular situation, you and your cronies would hold it against BuddingScientist? I’d love to hear the logic behind that.
Posted by: Hope | July 20, 2009 6:08 PM
"People combine all sorts of fields in order to do their work. It's just gotta be with a purpose."
Thanks for that, Dr Isis. I needed to hear it, too.
Posted by: Avery | July 22, 2009 3:42 PM