<p>So I've pretty much narrowed my choices to 2 schools and I've decided that both are pretty much equal in all things except for the labs I'm interested in. One school has the labs that I want to rotate in that are well established and with some pretty famous PIs. In fact one of the PIs there trained the guy who then later trained the PI at school B. All 3 labs at school B that matches my research are new but doing some great work. But is it too risky? One PI is a new hire and has been running his own lab for only 2 years. None of them have a history of graduated PhDs just yet and who knows if they'll have money for my entire duration there. School A's labs have tons of money. My current mentor tells me to go for the famous labs but personality wise I think I gel more with the younger ones at school B. I guess my question is is it just too much if a risk to join new labs?</p>
<p>hey, i tink we have the same situation. im a final yr undergrad and thinks of pursuing grad school. I am deciding whether choosing a young/new PI would be a gd choice or not.
What i feel is that famous labs means that the PI are already very established and no longer does benchwork and are more likely to be involved in committee work duties. of cos this also means the prestige of the PI will also gel off your CV.</p>
<p>Young PI would probably still be at the bench and grad students can work directly alongside them. and also the field the young PI specializes in is probably still new and tats why the school hired him/her. on the other hand, there is the lack of funding to fund grad students. so I m choosing between the 2 too.</p>
<p>Every professor has to do a lot of committee work. The real issue is whether they are still publishing their research, and that’s easy enough to check.</p>
<p>Izzie, in general, you do want to go with the “name” researchers, not only because their research is topnotch but also because they have the connections and reputation to help begin your career. But there’s a lot to be said about young researchers as well: they are hungry for graduate students and may be more involved mentors; they must publish so their research is likely geared toward results; and they are likely to be attracted to new, hot (though sometimes untested) research. The risk is that your (young) advisor will be denied tenure and be forced to leave the university before you finish your thesis. Some people say that as long as you pick an advisor who has not been there more than two years or has already started the tenure evaluation year (you’ll know in time to pick another advisor), you should be fine. Look at their publications, though. If they are publishing regularly and in prestigious places, then they are more likely to get tenure than a researcher who has just a few publications. You might also want to look at their grant history. If they have major grants, that also says a lot about their research ability.</p>