Study Reveals Lab Size Impacts PhD Students' Academic Careers (nature.com) 13
PhD students trained in small research groups are more likely to remain in academia than those from larger labs, according to a comprehensive analysis published in Nature Human Behaviour.
The study, which examined 1.5 million scientists and 1.8 million mentorships across chemistry, physics and neuroscience, found that trainees from large research groups had 38-48% lower "survival rates" in academia between the 1980s and 1995 compared to their small-group counterparts.
However, researchers from larger labs who do stay in academia tend to achieve greater career success, publishing papers with higher citation rates and more frequently ranking among the most-cited scientists.
The research team, led by social-data scientist Roberta Sinatra from the University of Copenhagen, discovered that successful large-group scientists typically published more first-author papers with their mentors as last authors, suggesting they received substantial attention despite the group size.
The study, which examined 1.5 million scientists and 1.8 million mentorships across chemistry, physics and neuroscience, found that trainees from large research groups had 38-48% lower "survival rates" in academia between the 1980s and 1995 compared to their small-group counterparts.
However, researchers from larger labs who do stay in academia tend to achieve greater career success, publishing papers with higher citation rates and more frequently ranking among the most-cited scientists.
The research team, led by social-data scientist Roberta Sinatra from the University of Copenhagen, discovered that successful large-group scientists typically published more first-author papers with their mentors as last authors, suggesting they received substantial attention despite the group size.
Re: (Score:2)
Hehe. Some self-selection at work, no doubt (Score:3, Insightful)
I picked an advisor with a huge lab, figuring that if I were one of a half-dozen, I'd always be fielding "requests" and following up on "suggestions" instead of working. But if I were one out of a dozen-and-a-half, my advisor would leave me the fuck alone so I could finish on time.
My reasoning was sound. In and out and some extra letters after my name in three years. My sister-in-law had a different experience. She had a "cool" advisor who wanted to be her friend. Six years.
Re:Hehe. Some self-selection at work, no doubt (Score:5, Insightful)
Agreed, and if you want an industry career the network effects will work in your favor in a large lab with larger funding and more connections.
If you want to slowly pursue a special interest in a small lab you're probably a better fit for Academia.
No judgment, and I hope people in both sets maximize the meaningfulness of their work in each approach and that it's a good match for their personality.
Re: (Score:2)
That seems a critical weakness of the summary. Remaining in academia isn't the sole measure of success.
Remaining in academia (Score:2)
Not sure-- is "remaining in academia" really the criterion of interest? What about students that go on to go elsewhere?
On the average, over their career supervising graduate students, each professor needs to produce exactly one PhD student that goes on to become a professor supervising PhD students. Fewer, if the population going to grad school is decreasing.
Selection Bias (Score:2)
Not sure-- is "remaining in academia" really the criterion of interest?
It a criterion of interest but by now means the only one. However, when comparing it to lab size it also produces a strong selection bias. Labs which are extremely large are generally that large precisely because they get a lot of funding either directly from industry or from government funding programs to partner with industry. It's much rarer, at least in my experience, to see large labs that do not have a strong connection to applied science.
That strong connection naturally provides a very smooth tr
Re: (Score:2)
I left academia in 2003 with a "terminal masters" and I've never once regretted it. It was clear to me even 20 years ago that:
a) There was a simple capacity issue - there are far more candidates being generated than there are available slots in academia. The math of post-doctoral jobs and careers is pretty simple: 15% academia, a small percentage to government (getting really small these days), and the rest to industry. That's how the jobs shake out.
b) The established academics - mostly tenured - simply co
Attention (Score:2)
The way it often works in big labs is that someone is appointed golden student and they get a lot of "support" from their labmates. A couple of grad students will do a bunch of experiments then the golden one wil
Re: (Score:2)
Similar thing happens at school. Your success rate in life does not depend on how good you are at school. Instead it depends on how good you are when compared to your class mates. It is speculated that it is just about how much you trust your skills. Similar, but smaller study showed that if kids are told that they are better than others, they get higher scores on tests. And the smaller the group, more likely it is that you will shine. But if the group is large and you manage to shine, well that do the tric
The other selection issue -- (Score:2)
My personal experience:
1) Lower success rate (overall)
If you have a small number of seats in an entering class, as a faculty you are likely to be highly selective for all.
If you have many seats available, it is almost a sure thing that the selection process will be balkanized, with more seats filled by individual faculty members and rela
randomes (Score:2)
If you look at a million parameters, you will find correlations that might actually mean nothing.