Read on Twitter
the most successful grad students have tons of experience *before* starting their PhDs. Essentially, they don't need to be trained, and they flourish in a system that explicitly avoids directly training them.
background:
- went from undergrad after 1.5 yrs great training
- trained mostly by grad students during rotations
- switched labs after 4 yrs (to a way better situation!)
- probably would not have been successful as a grad student in my current postdoc lab
- went from undergrad after 1.5 yrs great training
- trained mostly by grad students during rotations
- switched labs after 4 yrs (to a way better situation!)
- probably would not have been successful as a grad student in my current postdoc lab
meaning i did not take the gap years that i would recommend. intellectually i was on par with my peers but my lack of experience was evident once i started my own project.
seems this is being interpreted as "grad students need gap years", and while I think they're good the intended interpretation is "grad school can be a hard place to learn how to do science, and PIs/programs need to refocus on training to make it the best place to learn science"
if you're going straight into grad school, i would recommend: team up! find a lab or project with grad students and postdocs that have already laid the foundation. you can work with them at first, get middle-author on their pubs early on, then take the reins when they move on.
i'd also emphasize choosing a PI who focuses on their lab members. Are they around the lab a lot? do they know the latest on everyone's projects? what do people say about their interactions? Are they scary or are they encouraging and productive?
people pointing out that this implies privilege is built into PhD programs... it is and this tweet brings attention to one way that is manifested. that was the point, i'm glad we agree. let's focus on improving the plight of vulnerable scientists
