Blog – PhD Application Advice: Assessing & Approaching a New Lab

This is the second in my series of PhD application advice articles. In my previous article, I discussed the important aspects of laying the groundwork before you start applying for PhDs. Specifically, how to figure out what you actually want to do, and how to set yourself up well to be a competitive candidate. You might therefore think the next step would be to apply for a programme. In fact, the most important next step – finding an appropriate lab and supervisor – is arguably the most important part of applying for a PhD, and still comes before actually applying for anything.

While there are some PhD programmes such as 1+3, masters programmes that can convert into PhDs, and others for which the sequencing here might not be quite the same, the advice contained below about how to approach and assess potential labs and supervisors should be more or less universal.

Assuming that you now know the topics or questions you want to focus on in your PhD, the process of initially searching for a lab and supervisor largely consists of a lot of…searching. Whether by looking at who has written the papers you’ve found interesting, or by searching department websites for people working on your chosen field or technique, or by using some kind of AI search tool, or by asking for advice from colleagues or at conferences, there are myriad ways of going about this.

Once you have a list of potential options, then comes the vetting process. There are many important things to consider when it comes to picking a supervisor and picking a lab, and this is arguably even more important than picking the topic. You are going to be working in this environment for at least the next 3-4 years, forming one of the most pivotal periods of your scientific training. Furthermore, your supervisor, in the best cases, will remain a mentor and reference for you for years and decades even to come. So how do you pick?

First, considerations for supervisors. The classic conundrum is where you want them to be on the spectrum from someone who is a big name and at the peak of the field, or someone who is just starting out as a group leader. Both can have their pros and cons. Big names bring prestige, money, and experience. You may have better opportunities with their access to funds and resources, and may have an easier time publishing with their name. They know exactly how to navigate the system and have supervised plenty of students before you, so you can be reasonably confident of success. However, they are also likely to be very busy, with limited contact or time for you. You may be just yet another student for the vast engine of their lab, and you will have to show a lot of initiative and independence from the beginning, and are unlikely to get as thorough training.

More junior PIs, on the other hand, will ideally have more time to be hands on with you, and may even still be in the lab themselves. They’ll be closer to the experimental data and methodology and you’ll likely have more of their attention, which can make up for the lack of experience they’ll have in supervising students. While a newer supervisor may not have the resources (in terms of equipment or funding) that a larger lab might have, they are likely still striving hard to push big and innovative new research to further their own careers, rather than resting on their laurels as a tenured professor. They need big opportunities and high impact papers in a way that the less precarious PIs don’t, so can be more invested in your project being successful. Your success will have a bigger impact on their career than it will on the career of the tenured PI.

These are, of course, huge generalisations, and both can be right for different people. There are plenty of seasoned professors who deeply care for and prioritise their students, and there are plenty of striving new lab heads who will put themselves first. Older supervisors may be more set in their ways and unable to adapt to new trends or ideas, or may just as easily be in a position where they are happy taking big risks on innovative projects that a junior PI can’t afford. A huge amount also rides simply on the personality of the supervisor and how it mixes and matches with your own. You may want a supervisor who gives you lots of attention and guidance, or you may hate being micromanaged, and prefer greater independence.

Few things matter more than whether you and your mentor get along well together.

These are things, therefore, that you need to suss out before you apply. The easiest and really only way to do this is to try and meet ideally in person but at the very least over video beforehand. This can happen at a conference but is usually easier done in a pre-arranged meeting, for which you will need to do some cold-emailing.

Many people are afraid to send cold emails but rest assured it is extremely normal and often well looked upon to show the initiative to reach out to a professor yourself, and ask for a meeting, even for busy and big name ones. The trick is to do it well. There are four key components to these emails. First is an explanation of who you are – this is where you list a couple of credentials and your background, and gives them a reason to be interested in you. Maybe you’ve done well in exams or won a prize or written a paper – anything that makes you seem legit, and worth their time. You should also explain here what your career context is – that you’re looking for PhD projects.

Second key component is why you’re interested in talking to them. What was it that led you to email them? This needs to be specific and highly tailored. You should refer to specific papers that they have written and research that they have done which you have found interesting and/or inspiring. If it relates to your own work, so much the better. This should be easy to write, because, well, there should be a good reason you’re emailing them in the first place, but you don’t need to be overly effusive. They key is to show  them that you’ve done your homework and are serious about this, and this email isn’t one of 100s of AI generated generic emails that you’ve sent to everyone in the department.

Third key component is a plan of what it is you would like to do with them. This is probably shorter than the previous two and probably simply says something like ‘therefore your research aligns well with my interests and I would love to explore project options with you’. You might suggest specific ideas that you have here (in general terms) for projects or topics that you’d like to investigate.

The fourth and final, but also really first, is to have a call to action that is clear, succinct, and contains all of these together at the very start of the email. 2-3 lines that clearly say who you are, why you’re worth meeting, why you’re interested in their research and working with them, and that you want to meet in time period X. In my experience, cold emails can be surprisingly long and still successful. I’ve had good results with emails 4-5 paragraphs long, and when I receive these emails, I personally prefer getting more information about the person I’m deciding whether to meet in the email, rather than having to search for it myself. However, crucially, this only works if there is a very clear and succinct opening line which means a busy PI doesn’t have to read any of the rest of the email; and if the rest of the email is very clearly laid out. [In the past, I have had paragraphs that start with the bold text “1. Who am I?”, “2. Why I’m Interested in your Research:” and “3. What I would like to do:”].

It is also good and useful to attach an academic CV along with the text of the email. In this sense, you are treating the email like a cover letter that goes along with your CV and introduces yourself.

If you don’t get a reply quickly, don’t be disheartened. People are often busy, and their inboxes are often very full. It’s perfectly acceptable and often appreciated if you send a follow up email in case your email was missed or slipped through the cracks or if they have been busy or away. I often use this phrasing in follow up emails, and it’s fine to do this 2-3 times. More than that might get excessive, though there can be something to admire in the persistent student, and you have nothing to lose. Persistent lack of response may also be a red flag though. If you get rejected at this stage, don’t take it personally, it’s more than likely that the person is simply too busy or doesn’t have the room or funding for a new student in their lab at the present time.

If you are successful in arranging a meeting, that’s great! Treat this like a formal interview.

They might treat it as a casual and friendly conversation to get to know you and your ideas and intentions, or they might rigorously grill you hard-core interview style, but either way, what is going on is the same: you are being assessed on your knowledge, your personality, and your ideas, as how good a fit you will be for the lab. Make sure you come prepared, but also remember that it’s a two-way street. You should also be treating this as your best opportunity to get a feel for the supervisor, their personality, their ideas, how they run their lab, and how you get along.

Therefore, your preparation should include two things. Firstly, of course, know their research well. Make sure you have read several of their key papers, and are across the key themes of their research, and have some level of understanding of their field. Often times they will actually assume you aren’t so familiar with this, but it’s much more impressive if you can appear informed. You are, after all, applying to be a researcher. It’s good to show that you can do your research. Crucially, you should be interested in their work – hopefully this is easy. Have questions about their papers and ideas and what direction they’re taking their research in, to demonstrate this. You should also be well prepared to talk about your own work – details about what you’ve done, how it worked, implications of the research, etc, and your own ideas about what you want to do. The more concrete you can be about your ideas, the better.

Second though, is a list of questions you should have about the lab itself. It’s a huge red flag if you get to the end of an interview, they ask if you have anything you want to ask, and you come up short. There are endless things you should want to know and now is the opportunity, so don’t give it up. Some of these you can get from the supervisor, but many of these you can and should get by talking to other members of the lab. If your initial interview goes well and you continue to be interested in joining the lab, this is an absolute must. Don’t take the PI’s word for it, talk to their current and previous students without the PI in the room. A good group leader will offer this for you; if you ask and they refuse, that should be a huge red flag.

Here are the things you should be considering as you make your decision and some of the things you might ask:

1. How many students have they supervised in the past and what are those students doing now? Do students usually finish on time?

2. What are their career plans? Can you expect them to stay around for the next 4-5 years, or are they about to retire/consider moving institutions?

3. What direction is their research heading in / what ideas and trends are they most interested in? [published papers give you a good idea about what the lab was focused on doing years ago, you need to know where they are headed in the coming years].

4. What are their views on key topics or ideas in the field/related to your ideas?

5. How is the lab funded and how will your work be funded? Does the lab have sufficient funding for consumables and equipment? [You can learn a lot from working in a lab with limited resources but it is also a pretty dire experience].

6. What equipment will you have access to in the lab and through core services? Who will provide training on those?

7. Especially if your project depends on access to particular materials, equipment, or datasets, how secure is the lab’s access to this? How reliable is the method?

8. Who will be involved primarily in your training, other than the PI? How long will they be around for? Can you meet with them?

9. Who do they collaborate with, and what opportunities might you have for working with other labs as well?

10. How do they run their lab? How many people are there and is there a dedicated lab manager? [there is not necessarily any one best system for how to run a lab, but a lack of any system would be a clear red flag. Similarly, a lack of lab manager means that you will be taking on a substantial amount of admin yourself, most likely].

11. What is their supervision style? How often do they meet with their students? What is their availability like?

12. How much freedom will you have over the project to shape its direction?

13. What are their expectations in terms of working hours, working from home, work-life balance in general?

14. What is the culture of the lab like? Is it competitive or collaborative? Social and supportive?

15. How are authorship decisions made in the lab? Do people collaborate on each other’s projects? How often do students publish papers?

16. Are students supported and encouraged to attend conferences, workshops, training courses, etc.?

17. If the opportunity arose, would you be allowed to take time out for internships in industry, or similar?

18. Will you have any administrative or teaching load?

19. How are conflicts dealt with if they arise? What department resources exist for things like mediation, mental health support, accessibility services, etc.

20. Does the supervisor advocate for their students and support them beyond their lab work in applying for funding, jobs, etc.?

21. What do people like/not like about working in the lab?

There are many more you could ask, and some tailoring of these to the particular person you are talking to that you could do, but either way, between talking to the PI and to other members of the lab, it is essential that you gain an understanding of the personality and supervision style of the PI, and the culture and technical operations of the lab. You need to know that you will be supported not just in your research but in your career at large, and allowed to live your life as well. As a third level of due diligence, you may also consider asking collaborators or other people in the same institution what they think of the PI and what reputation the lab has – do they produce good work? Are they well regarded? Are they collaborative? Are they known for being a bully?

Once you are confident that you have found a lab environment and a supervisor that matches your personality and research goals, then the time comes to actually apply for a programme. Helpfully and hopefully now, you can do so with the full assistance and backing of the PI, which will likely make your application all the more likely to be successful. There are many other things you might consider like what the university / institution / city the lab is based in is like, and these will all of course also affect your experience. However, few things are more important than the supervisor who will be your boss for the next several years and mentor and advocate for many more, and the colleagues who will be your friends, collaborators, trainers, trainees, and supporters in the years ahead as well. It is important that you do your due diligence and choose wisely.

Ajantha Abey

Author

Dr Ajantha Abey is a Postdoctoral Researcher in the Kavli Institute at University of Oxford. He is interested in the cellular mechanisms of Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s, and other diseases of the ageing brain. Previously, having previoulsy explored neuropathology in dogs with dementia and potential stem cell replacement therapies. He now uses induced pluripotent stem cell derived neurons to try and model selective neuronal vulnerability: the phenomenon where some cells die but others remain resilient to neurodegenerative diseases.

Follow @ajanthaabey