This weekend while I was henning with the lovely and brilliant Dr. Free-Ride I received the following email:
Dearest Dr. Isis,
Let me open first with an offering to the Goddess:
I'm entering my junior year at my Big State University and managed last semester to start working with a wonderful professor. He is incredibly supportive and encouraged me to apply for a summer undergraduate fellowship with the big society in our discipline - which I received, and will be presenting my research at the conference next summer. While I never had considered working in the particular field we study in the lab, I find that I'm quite fond of it, and I am excited to continue my studies in graduate school.
Graduate school is where I need advice. See, I'm one of those "non-traditional" students. I'm married, have kids, and a mortgage. While I am open to going to a different graduate school, what I'm hoping to avoid is uprooting my family too many times in the upcoming years (for graduate school, postdocs, jobs).
My current mentor has expressed that I would be gladly welcomed as a graduate student in his lab, and as we work really well together, my kids love their school, I love my house and town, and my husband (whose income pays our bills) has a job, I'm very tempted to stay. I'm just worried about becoming academically inbred. I've heard different opinions about attending graduate school at the same institution that grants one's undergraduate degree, and would like to hear your opinion and those of your readers.
Respectfully,
Nontrad undergrad
It is. She's got an area of research she's interested in, a commitment of from a mentor, and she's in a place her family is happy. Why would she leave?
Our letter's author does express a valid concern -- that of academic inbreeding. More important, there is frequently a perception that someone who remains at a single institution through multiple layers of their training does not receive a diversity of experiences and is less likely to become independent. My feeling is that this is less important when one attends graduate school where they received their bachelors degree compared to later training, but this may be unique to my discipline. I attended graduate school on a different coast compared to where my undergraduate institution is. My labmate in graduate school received his PhD and BS at the same institution. We both now have jobs.
If you have a good relationship with your current research mentor and he has expressed interest in having you as a graduate student, why don't you ask him what he thinks about how your decision to stay for graduate school will be perceived by folks in your field?
But, more importantly, you've got to do the best thing for you, your children, and your family and you will frequently find yourself weighing costs and benefits in your career. I have moved my family a few times and it has sucked every time. This latest move was challenging and Mr. Isis had to go through the process of finding a new job, but he was willing to make the move. If he hadn't been willing my decision might have been very, very different.
None of these decisions are ever easy and there is always some layer of sacrifice. You may find that you accept the stigma of a little inbreeding to keep your children in a good school and your husband happily employed. Or, you may find that you're willing to accept the challenge of a family move because you think it's best to move to a new university. Or, you may find that you talk to your mentor and this is all a non-issue.
Talk to your family. Talk to your mentor. Make the best decision you can.
Most importantly, keep doing the hottest science you can. Be a good student. Think critically. Publish a lot. But, also love your family. At the end of your career you'll have science to look back on, but you'll still have your family to look forward to.
Education
Life Science
Comments
Graduate at the undergrad institution is fine. The more important issue is doing post-doc training at a different institution than PhD, and entry-level faculty at a different institution than post-doc.
Posted by: Comrade PhysioProf | August 16, 2009 11:17 PM
I am with CPP on this, staying at the same school for undergrad and graduate is perfectly fine. It is postdoc that needs to be elsewhere.
Posted by: Coturnix | August 16, 2009 11:25 PM
This is great advice from the Goddess (as usual). In my orbit, I know a lot of students (both traditional and non-) who did their graduate work in their undergrad lab, or in the lab they tech'd in. In all cases, they worked on a different project as a grad student, and in some cases, the projects were designed to involve a second mentor. I even know a few who continued to stay on in the institution as a postdoc (for family reasons), but in a different lab. One who applied for an NRSA was not funded, with a major weakness being that all training was done in the same institution, but three postdocs were funded without comment on the lack of variety. All of the advice I've received emphasized that there are many ways to enhance the breadth of intellectual development - seek out co-mentors, collaborate with a lab in another institution (including short-term sabbaticals in that lab), attend special courses (such as the Woods Hole courses for developmental biologists), etc.
Posted by: studyzone | August 16, 2009 11:30 PM
I am in a somewhat similar situation. I have recently finished my PhD and my undergraduate mentor is working very hard to recruit me to his lab as a post-doc (different institution from my PhD, although my undergrad mentor is a close collaborator with my PhD advisor). The lab has changed quite a bit since I was there and there are quite a few good reasons to go back. If I decide to go this route, how worried should I be about the inbreeding issue?
Posted by: Immunegirl | August 16, 2009 11:59 PM
I did my grad and PD at the same research university, same dept, but in very diff labs. My PD lab would have been a better move had it been at a different institution, but is with major player, so it wasn't a death sentence. The two body problem was key factor in the decision to stay. I landed a jorb after one PD, so it turned out ok. Isis is right about the fam, etc.
Posted by: gnuma | August 17, 2009 12:04 AM
Absolutes such as described by Coturnix and PhysioProf are bullshit and the halls of scientific success are littered with those who's path was the way you are not supposed to do it. There are going to be perceptions issues, true. And going from u-grad through (multiple?) postdocs would really be pushing it, I would think. But I bet you can always find some luminary who started undergrad and finished as greybearded prof at the same institute!
A two-stage stint at any one place is very commonplace, regardless of which stages they are. ugrad-grad, grad-postdoc, postdoc-faculty.
The questioner would just be advised to be aware of the perceptions and work to provide evidence against the perception. Generally, this is going to involve the independence issue...
Posted by: DrugMonkey | August 17, 2009 1:06 AM
There are some 'unique' places where undergrad to grad inbreeding could be a real concern. Caltech (my alma) and MIT pop to my mind. Probably doesn't matter one whit most places, though going from a small to a big institution can cause one hell of a culture shock. Small resource rich to big public was a nightmare (thank god for a great departmental secretary.)
Posted by: travc | August 17, 2009 4:26 AM
I think the Goddess has given very wise advice, in this situation. I would listen to her and think about what she has said.
'Specially the bit about doing the hottest science you can. This is really what matters in the end, in your career. If this can be achieved while also keeping an even keel, calm and happiness within your family, it is a good situation.
All the best with the PhD, whatever you decide. Not easy as a mature age student, but possible, and well worthwhile. (From one who knows the agony and the ecstasy of doing it that way).
d.
Posted by: d. | August 17, 2009 6:01 AM
How legitimate is CPP's statement that post-doc training should be elsewhere than entry level faculty training? I am in a long distance marriage now while I finish my Ph.D. and my husband is in residency. My husband has every intention of settling down and staying where he is and not moving again -- his residency feeds directly into a fellowship in the same area, so regardless, he is tied to the area another 6 years. We would like to have children at some point during my post-doc, which will ideally be in his location. Is it really vital for my career that I uproot myself from my husband with a 1-2 year old child and move away again to start as faculty?
Posted by: Disgruntled Julie | August 17, 2009 6:39 AM
Great post, Isis.
Answering Julie: No. It is not vital for your career to move geographically between post-doc and faculty. A faculty position is NOT training anymore - it is the real game, and if you can get a position in a region or at an institution where you already live, more power to you. If you are at a place that emphasizes research, then it may take a bit more work to show independence, but of course it can be done. The only problem with your plan is how limited your job search will be - even in the largest metropolitan area there are unlikely to be dozens of jobs in your specialty every year, and you'll still be competing with applicants from all over the world. But I think CPP is being an asshat.
Posted by: ScienceWoman | August 17, 2009 7:02 AM
My view is that it's definitely a good idea to have a move SOMEWHERE in the BS-PhD-Postdoc-faculty job chain, because there's nothing like working in a different context for making you challenge your basic assumptions, and because it does add credibility to your claims of independence when faculty-job-hunting. There is nothing, in my field at least, wrong about only moving at one or two of those points, not all three. Upheaval of family, learning a new place and a new system - you DON'T need to add these stresses to all the usual grad school fun and games.
Starting grad school is not the best time to make the decision that a PD then a faculty job is the only life for you - moving in pursuit of this goal in a way which inconveniences your loved ones makes it even harder to say a couple of years in 'actually, I've changed my mind - I really want to be an industrial-ologist/a high school ology teacher/work in an ology museum/run a therapy practice specialising in stressed-out academics'. You have great reasons to stay, and without very compelling reasons to go, I see no reason to worry. Doing great science, with a supportive mentor and a happy, solvent family, will get you the great papers and conference slots you need to succeed, wherever that happens. Good luck!
Posted by: JaneB | August 17, 2009 7:42 AM
I don't know if this is possible in Nontrad Undergrad's field, but maybe later in her grad career she could think about collaborating with other scientists outside of her lab on a project/publication. This would demonstrate that she can work independently of her advisor.
I'm inbreeding right now, I guess, working as a post doc for a few months in the same lab I got my Ph.D. in. I felt guilty about it at first, but now, just relieved. I don't have to move my husband, find new daycare for my daughter, etc. just yet.
Posted by: ajo | August 17, 2009 7:57 AM
Most of the advice given (do great science, be aware of inbreeding, but its ok if you find a way, generally inbreeding is worse from GS to PD than from UG to GS, but even GS to PD, there are ways to make it work) is spot on, and I don't have much to add.
But I wanted to bring up one note from my experience on an NRSA study section which (I think) helps shine a light on the issue. In response to studyzone (#3), "still at the same institution" is one of the standard complaints of NRSA study sections (like "overambitious" is for R01s). While it is possible to get an NRSA at the same institution you did previous training, the reviewers will look very carefully at "training potential". I think that's the key question here. Is there still good "training potential"? If so, then go ahead and get the good training. Do be aware of the issues raised by Dr. I and the other commentators, and find a way to interact outside of your lab. If you've already tapped out the training potential, then that could be a problem. (This is why staying in the same lab from GS to PD is more problematic than UG to GS. Generally, UG does not tap out a lab's training potential, but GS does.)
Hope that helps and good luck!
Posted by: qaz | August 17, 2009 8:13 AM
I'm in favor of doing postdoc training at a different institution than where the PhD was obtained as this gets you out of your grad advisor's shadow, helps you shed the grad student tag and, more importantly, expands your network of colleagues and potential collaborators.
Posted by: Professor in Training | August 17, 2009 9:10 AM
I concur with what many above have said, with the need to further emphasize how much this whole process is institution-, department-, mentor-, and trainee-specific. Having gone from postdoc to research-track faculty/'super postdoc' to winning independent funding and the chance at tenure track all at one institution, I say it can be done. There are days that it sucks and you feel undervalued. But if you are in a supportive department where you are allowed to shine and butt-busting work is recognized and appreciated, you can make it.
Posted by: New Asst. Prof. | August 17, 2009 9:16 AM
Make sure you do plenty of networking and collaborating with people outside your university. If you can spend a few weeks working in an outside lab or going to a workshop, it'll help you with contacts, but it will also give you a feel for how people outside your university and lab think and talk about your study field, how other groups work together, and you might be able to get trained using newer technology that your lab has.
Posted by: jc | August 17, 2009 9:31 AM
Nothin' to add. But in the absence of a Google app that distills the essential information present in a long list of comments...
1) Fambly matters matter, and increasingly (at last) this is beginning to be understood throughout greater parts of the academic establishment
2) The path less travelled is actually becoming increasingly worn as the academic career track evolves (and will continue to evolve)
3) Networking is vital.
4) Networking is vital.
5) Networking is vital.
4) Maintaining a high level of happiness and awesomeness helps, too.
Posted by: DSKS | August 17, 2009 10:35 AM
Being able to count, otoh, is overrated.
Posted by: DSKS | August 17, 2009 10:37 AM
As the MD in the group, I would like to put in a word for your spouse considering a move. He may be very, very happy in his department and geographic location, but I have seen similar problems with people attending the same institution for medical school, then residency, then fellowship, and then becoming faculty there (less of an issue for private practice).
Just as inbreeding is bad in research, it is bad in academic medicine. I learned about so many new things just by moving around the upper midwest. Diseases have different geographic mixes, and approaches to care vary as well. What is dogma in my current location was BS in other departments.
I'm not saying he has to move to be good; I'm just saying that he should think about it and you both should discuss these issues.
For the record, I don't care if Carlos Santana designs his shoes or not (I believe those are his in the photo). I'm wearing a pair of his faux snakeskin peek-toe platforms today, and I will be seeking out those in the photo as soon as I can get to the mall...
Posted by: Pascale | August 17, 2009 10:56 AM
While there are exceptions, ComradePhysioProf is correct: It is almost imperative that you do postdoc training at a different institution (or at least with a different mentor) than your GS training. Indeed, staying in the same lab draws the inevitible criticism of NRSA and other fellowship applications: "What will he/she learn as a postdoc under Mentor X that he/she could not learn from from the same mentor during 4-5 yrs as a grad student?" Also, please be aware that training under different mentors as a GS and postdoc will give you exposure to different approaches to science -- and that is an outstanding way to expand your horizons.
The situation is also problematic when transitioning from postdoc to faculty, but for a slightly different reason: Grant proposals from young faculty working in the same department as their postdoc mentor will ABSOLUTELY be criticized for lack of independence. No matter how independent you really are, if the grant reviewer perceives that you are not independent, your grant will not be funded. Typically, reviewers are skeptical in this "same institution/department" situation, fearing that the young faculty member's grant proposal is merely a ploy to get additional funding for the postdoc mentor's growing research program (or, even, the reviewer might suspect that the mentor actually wrote the proposal!) This is never a problem if your first faculty appointment is at a different institution. Bottom line: Staying at the same place for these career transitions is not a kiss of death, but it absolutely places obstacles in your career path.
Posted by: Glfadkt | August 17, 2009 11:01 AM
I have no idea what is does to your career, but I do know what it does to your kids. I was uprooted at every single step in my father's academic career, including the, not getting tenure, and leaving academia step, which actually involved 3 moves. I was 14 before my parents settled down and I made them swear that we would not move again before I finished high school. I wanted it signed in blood and notorized, which for some reason they wouldn't agree to.
Now I am not one of those people who say that kids can't surivive moving around a bit. My sister and I did and are happy functional adults. We also experienced significantly more of the US than we would have otherwise.
Moving as a child just is very stressful. Being
"the new kid" is hard. Being some combination of ahead and behind in school is hard and mind numbingly boring. Making new friends is hard. It is also very easy to make "the wrong kind of friends" early on as teenager.
Think about what ages you kids would be when you move. Younger kids have an easier time than older kids. Moving kids in middle school or high school will mean drama. That's just the way it is. I was a cranky door slamming teenage girl, who told her parents regularly they were ruining her life. (My parent's being apparently insane moved when I was 11 and when I was 14) A friend of mine who moved in 10th grade "punished" his parents by not doing any school work that year.
I would try to limit the number of times you relocate your family and I would do it when your kids are younger, not older if possible. If you can't avoid relocating when they are older, realize that there is a good chance that it will be a very rocky settling in period. They are going to need more supervision and support when you and your spouse might feel like you least have the time to give it.
Posted by: katydid13 | August 17, 2009 12:30 PM
Where I grew up (literally and academically), it was impossible to become tenured at the same university where you did you tenure track time. As a result, there were regular "swaps", where young professors got "tenure" at another university, taught for a year and then came back home for their true tenured position. See, no inbreeding, we hired a bright young man from another university.
Posted by: Mu | August 17, 2009 12:39 PM
"(or, even, the reviewer might suspect that the mentor actually wrote the proposal!)"
Well, clearly that's outright fraud (unless the old mentor is listed as a co-PI). However, inre the following:
"Typically, reviewers are skeptical in this "same institution/department" situation, fearing that the young faculty member's grant proposal is merely a ploy to get additional funding for the postdoc mentor's growing research program"
I've always been a bit baffled by the "conventional wisdom" here (but I'm more than willing to be educated). Whom does it serve? One would suppose that the purpose of submitting an application for research funding is to allow quality research to be undertaken that will impact its relevant discipline. The obvious issues would be the competence of the applicant and the institutional support, which determine whether the proposed work can be feasibly addressed with the funds and time to be allocated.
(Incidentally, the proximity of potential collaborators and the research pedigree of the applicant are often factors that can potentially enhance an applicants chances. "Proteges" who remain in exactly the same fields and often doing exactly the same research as their mentors are not rare, particularly in Europe))
Now, from the subjective career perspective of new investigator it is clearly not desirable to continue working under the shadow of a former mentor, and such a set of circumstances will potentially bite them in the rear down the line when, inevitably, that shadow removes itself. But I'm not sure I understand why the NIH bean counters should give a shit about that. After all, there is currently no concrete policy on limiting R01s to large labs that hold multiple grants, is there (and I don't think there should be)? The only institution that could potentially lose out is the research institution that invested startup into the semi-independent new investigator in the first place, should that individual later burn out for want of direction.
Is it preferable to deny a semi-independent new investigator a grant under the suspicion that he might continue to collaborate with an old mentor, or to hand over yet another project grant to add to several already active in that same mentor's own lab instead?
Posted by: DSKS | August 17, 2009 12:41 PM
I was told by the folks at my undergrad alma matter that they didn't think they could teach me much more if I stayed for graduate school but I think that was more specific to my field and the school than a situation that exemplifies a general rule in the various fields of science. Luckily I don't actually have to move for graduate school, but I do have a hell of a commute (I don't have children, but I do have a breadwinner who's supporting my academic career & who wants to be close to his job) It seems like everyone here is giving very logical, clear, and similar advice (mostly, do what's right for you, which is usually an encouraging thing to hear.)
Posted by: Avery | August 17, 2009 12:47 PM
COCKDOUCHEWEASELMONKEY!
Posted by: Comrade PhysioProf | August 17, 2009 12:54 PM
you also have to consider the timing of a move with respect to where your kids are developmentally. Based on my own experience, it's not so bad to move a pre-schooler, but moving a first grader is a disruption. Moving at the time a kid transitions from elem to middle school is less bad than moving one year later. It also depends on the kid. My first child didn't tolerate moves well (hard time making new friends, depended on predictable routine at school...) whereas my second was much more adaptable.
and it depends on the spouse. your correspondent didn't describe the spouse's job. Some spice are easy to relocate; others aren't. How often does the spouse have to relocate to follow your career path? What's your long-term understanding with the spouse about whose career merits the sacrifice and who takes the sword? In my family it's sort of alternated. What's the long-term financial plan? If you relocate the spouse does it impact your family income now? in 5 years? What fraction will each of you contribute 10 years from now? You have to be clear up front with the spouse about expectations, or there may be trouble.
and, it depends on where the parents and in-laws are.
and, it depends on how much job security & geographic flexibility you can anticipate in your chosen academic specialty. How often do you anticipate imposing a move on your family?
my vote: consideration of the kid's mental health comes first and can veto any move plans. if that doesn't present an overwhelming issue, then there are more considerations to take on than the letter-writer addressed.
Posted by: David | August 17, 2009 2:29 PM
In my opinion staying at the same institution for undergrad and grad school is not a big deal at all. I did, I even stayed in the same department (chemistry) although not with the same research mentor, and it did not stop me from winning an NSF predoctoral fellowship. I never felt it put me at a disadvantage when seeking postdoc positions later, either. If you manage to publish some good science in a reasonable journal as a student, and show that you can articulately present your research both on paper and in a seminar, you will probably find plenty of postdoc offers where you seek them.
Posted by: Crystaldoc | August 17, 2009 3:08 PM
IMHO, the "academic inbreeding" mantra is a vestige of the bachelor roots of academia, and a time when most sharing of ideas occurred in-person, and not online. Keep in mind that until the early 20th century, virtually all professors were not just men, but were *unmarried* men, as until that time most colleges actively discouraged their professors from marrying. In a society where virtually all university scientists were unmarried men, it was reasonable to expect scientists-in-training to move at the drop of a hat. In a society where most ideas were propagated face-to-face (and getting a copy of an article a colleague at another institution had written would take weeks or months), it made sense that staying at one institution for one's whole career could inhibit original thinking. Even as college profs started marrying, a cultural expectation that families should drop everything & move for the sake of the husband's career (as exemplified by katydid13 @ 21) remained until as late as ~30 years ago.
But we live in a new world now (over half the membership of the professional society to which I belong, the American Society for Microbiology, is female; I exchange ideas and bacterial strains easily with colleagues around the world all the time), and hide-bound academia is beginning to accept that reality. As a result, there is less of an insistence that one must hopscotch from institution to institution at every stage of one's career to avoid "academic inbreeding."
Btw, Nontrad Undergrad, I was also a nontrad undergrad considering the same issues 10 years ago. My husband & I have only had to move once, for the tenure-track job I now enjoy. Just make sure you take as many opportunities as you can to network with folks at other institutions, go to conferences to hobnob as much as you can, keep your nose clean and your science smokin', and you'll be fine. Best wishes.
Posted by: Bacterial Girl | August 17, 2009 3:49 PM
DSKS: I'm not saying that it's logical or fair -- and, of course, it is neither; however, I cannot begin to estimate the (substantial) number of times that I've witnessed grant reviewers kill a proposal by levying the "lack of independence" criticism, and this criticism primary targers young investigators who have their first faculty appointment at the same institution where they did their postdoc training. If you don't think this really happens at NIH, try telling the guy in the office next door to mine, whose R01 was just slammed by all 3 reviewers for that very reason -- even though his new faculty appointment is in a different department from that of his postdoc mentor (but same university).
Posted by: Glfadkt | August 17, 2009 5:15 PM
well said. and well evaluated, in terms of staying grounded in the things that matter most, especially on those rainy days of writing/science-induced bruxism
Posted by: gabe | August 17, 2009 6:02 PM
Glfadkt,
"If you don't think this really happens at NIH, try telling the guy in the office next door to mine, whose R01 was just slammed by all 3 reviewers for that very reason -- even though his new faculty appointment is in a different department from that of his postdoc mentor (but same university)."
Oh, believe me, I know it happens. I was inquiring as to the validity of that prevailing view, is all. The most compelling aspect of which is the idea that a mentor might try to exploit the lower percentile score bar that a new investigator receives to bulk up the research purse.
But when you look at the payoff for such a conspiracy, it ceases to look so compelling and begins to look a little ridiculous. The payback is, at best, an author credit second-to-last on any resulting manuscripts (w00t!) The disadvantage is diluting the impact of one's own lab in the field by introducing someone who, despite being a collaborator, is still knocking one off the sweet spot for a portion of research in that field.
I suppose I'm asking whether a mentor really gains material advantage out of grooming a new PI for those purposes. Because if not, then the presumption of guilt is surely inappropriate and the burden of evidence should be shifted towards proving that the investigator is the lap-dog of a senior colleague, rather than towards the investigator proving that they are not.
The message gets even more mixed when one considers that, increasingly, faculty are recruited based on skill sets and field-specific research in order to join preexisting groups. Well, what's the purpose of a "group" if it isn't a collaborative endeavour in which a certain degree of "independence" must be sacrificed in order to pursue a set of shared objectives?
Posted by: DSKS | August 17, 2009 6:39 PM
Hi nontrad undergrad,
I am another nontrad postdoc and a molecular ecologist. I had all my kids before or during my PhD.
I largely agree with Jane B, and also Physioprof. Where I live, people who do either a PhD or postdoc in another country (probably the equivalent of another prestigious institution in the US) basically are seen as 'better' than others who do not. Of course this disadvantages women, and especially women with families. At undergrad and graduate level, a change of institution is not important.
However, as others have said, if you are unable to move, there are other important ways to assert independence, build networks, and show that you are a capable and exciting researcher. If you are determined in your choice of career, I am sure you, or you and a mentor, will be able to develop a strategic plan to help you achieve your goals. As Isis says, doing and publishing the best science you can is critical. And you can do it while valuing your family, their needs and desires.
On the subject of children and timing moves, I have learned that it is not always easy to predict the 'best time'. I have a child who moved aged 15. For him, this was a highly successful move as he was in a social situation at school which needed to be changed, and he went on to excel in his new school. Our previous thinking had been that we would really try not to move kids in high school, but in this case it was the best thing that could have happened.
Best of luck.
Posted by: anon | August 17, 2009 7:58 PM
Isis,
Great advice, the most important part of which is "At the end of your career you'll have science to look back on, but you'll still have your family to look forward to."
Dear nontrad undergrad, Remember whatever decision you make, it has to be one that works for your family. No matter how happy you are in your research, if your family isn't happy, you will ultimately find yourself to be miserable. Enjoy the opportunity to work in a place that works for your entire family. Consider moving when you are ready for a post-doc, or stay and work in another lab at your current institution. Good luck.
Marty
Posted by: Marty | August 17, 2009 8:34 PM
Thanks to everyone for the advice. My kids are young - in elementary school - which makes me think moving them now might be better than moving them after grad school. They are at an age when moving somewhere new sounds like an adventure, rather than a burden.
It's a huge choice, and I appreciate everyone's thoughts. It helps to take one factor out of the decision.
Posted by: Nontrad Undergrad | August 19, 2009 10:06 AM
I was a nontrad undergrad (family ties, full-time job, going to school at night) before that term was invented (we called ourselves "lifers"). After the MS, I decided to go to school full-time, and switched schools on the principle that it was a good thing to do. In retrospect, I don't think it mattered.
The really big question is the quality of the lab nontrad is in. There are many genial professors that are going nowhere. And many schools that are likewise. The pinnacle of my education was post-doctoral work at a world-class university. Some years later, I spent time as a visiting scholar at my friend's lab in a fourth-rate institution. I could not believe the place- the whole department did not have the intellectual horsepower of my post-doctoral lab. Seriously.
The doctoral students at Underperforming U were mostly locals and were happy with their lot; but they weren't studying science, they were training to be technicians. They did not attend seminars (unless there was food) and they did not read the current literature. At a good school, the grad students conduct their own seminar series.
I also wonder about your genial professor. Sorry Isis if this relects on you; but I recommend working with a full professor, or an associate who is still active 5 years post-tenure and has grant support for post-docs. Your career is to important to invest your time with someone who is, and will remain, obscure.
Since you mention post-doc in your future, I assume you want a serious career. In that case, you have to take a sober look at the nature of the institution you will attend. One option, if you decide your school is nice, but not top-notch, is to make one move to an area with several great schools (such as Boston).
Posted by: Joe | August 20, 2009 9:44 AM