I& #39;m going to respectfully disagree. The crux of being a scientist isn& #39;t manual skills earned in undergrad. The real difference is how supportive your group is, and whether it supports the psychological safety to be intellectually vulnerable (e.g. asking "stupid questions") https://twitter.com/JaseGehring/status/1300099339319033857">https://twitter.com/JaseGehri...

Being in an unsupportive lab is incredibly hard. I& #39;ve had that experience and it is ROUGH. But it& #39;s not the universal norm. They do, however, maim the career of grad students through no fault of their own. It makes me sad to hear people have that experience bc it& #39;s UNFAIR

However it& #39;s true that it& #39;s common. So to incoming first years, the basic litmus test should be: would I feel comfortable talking about negative results, asking "basic" questions, etc. Do you feel like you& #39;d be judged. Are there people that will help you?

You& #39;ll grow a lot in your first two years. But whether that growth is exciting or tumultuous depends on the culture of the lab. That is, imo, far more important than prestige or having a "Goldilocks project." Bc as OP points out, you& #39;re being hamstrung if you& #39;re not supported