Recruiting and group expansion plans

[PI]

I posted this in jobs and interviews section. Realized this might be a more appropriate place.


Our group  (R1 University, STEM) has received several large grants - so we plan to expand. I have a student graduating who might be interested in continuing. Any advice on good and bad experiences from having students continue in the lab as postdocs? I hear from colleagues that it is best to recruit postdocs from other labs. One big benefit of student continuing could be faster publications. However, I also strongly feel that having fresh eyes on problems can have benefits as well - even if they take some time to catch up.

Having said that, some of our past postdoc hires have taken longer time to catch up in the lab and did not turn out to be as effective as the people we trained here. The pandemic is adding a new layer of complexity in expansion plans. Aside from this, I am considering external offers which may be decided sometime next year. It may be too early to share these with potential postdocs.

I would be interested in hearing experiences from those with labs where it can take some time to train someone to work on projects.

[fizzycist]

What are your options? Do you have multiple ppl from outside with suitable background that are ready to start?

My lab is always looking to hire postdocs, but we sometimes don't have great options. E.g. right now, where I have room for at least two postdocs but struggling to recruit. So if a student were graduating and wanted to continue I'd say yes. But, for their sake, I'd encourage them to treat it as a short 1st postdoc and look for something external in 1-2 years if they want to go on R1 faculty market.

[Durchlässigkeitsbeiwert]

Is it detrimental for the student (not the lab) to continue as a post-doc in the same lab? If yes, the student definitely should be informed about this.
I have repeatedly heard the notion that "continuation" post-doc makes applicants less competitive later (though, this may be field-specific).

[research_prof]

Is it detrimental for the student (not the lab) to continue as a post-doc in the same lab? If yes, the student definitely should be informed about this.
I have repeatedly heard the notion that "continuation" post-doc makes applicants less competitive later (though, this may be field-specific).

Same here. I suspect some Profs do that because they do not want to spend time recruiting and training a new PhD student. It is detrimental to the student, however, you will be surprised how many Profs do not give a f**k about that, but they rather care about their own convenience.

[PI]

Yes, This is something I am worried about. I discuss with each of them their career goals. Some of them wish to get an industry job related to our work. For them continuing is a good option. While it may be convenient to have some students continue, personally I prefer to see new people coming to the lab. I am also worried about the lack of motivation when students continue in the same place for way too long. Any experience with this?

Fizzycist: I have some good international candidates, but it is difficult for them to travel due to the pandemic.

[doc700]

Where are your international candidates coming from?  I have a postdoc from Europe who arrived in Sept.  He had his consulate meeting in August and almost immediately received the visa as well as a waiver to fly directly from Germany -> the US (ie bypassing the travel ban).  This is not uniform internationally but at least from Europe there actually wasn't any challenge in getting someone on board.  In some sense it might actually be faster right now as so many other visas have paused.

Yes, This is something I am worried about. I discuss with each of them their career goals. Some of them wish to get an industry job related to our work. For them continuing is a good option. While it may be convenient to have some students continue, personally I prefer to see new people coming to the lab. I am also worried about the lack of motivation when students continue in the same place for way too long. Any experience with this?

Fizzycist: I have some good international candidates, but it is difficult for them to travel due to the pandemic.

[fizzycist]

Is it detrimental for the student (not the lab) to continue as a post-doc in the same lab? If yes, the student definitely should be informed about this.
I have repeatedly heard the notion that "continuation" post-doc makes applicants less competitive later (though, this may be field-specific).

Same here. I suspect some Profs do that because they do not want to spend time recruiting and training a new PhD student. It is detrimental to the student, however, you will be surprised how many Profs do not give a f**k about that, but they rather care about their own convenience.

I do not think it is detrimental, just not optimal from a purely professional point of view.

Look, a 2nd-yr postdoc is going to get invited to a bunch of faculty interviews (and industry offers, for that matter) if they have, e.g., a first-author paper in Science and a few other strong first-author papers. That's not gonna change if they did all that work in the same lab.

And likewise a senior postdoc without fancy 1st-author pubs is gonna have a hard time getting R1 interviews regardless of how many labs they worked in.

But if there are two applicants with identical pub record and one has done a postdoc in a new field, then sure they are going to have a better chance of getting an interview. And maybe more importantly, while at the interview they have a higher probability of impressing more ppl because they have a broader range of experiences.

But ppl choose to stay put after graduation for a lot of reasons (many of them family related), so I don't think you can judge an advisor merely for having a student to continue on as a postdoc. If anything it could be viewed as a good sign--jerk advisors don't let their senior grad students advance to postdoc, it's cheaper to keep them on an RA salary.

[polly_mer]

Having a professional place to be productive during a pandemic is going to be better for someone than wasting a lot of time applying for jobs that are not available.

Yes, being the new fresh eyes to be productive somewhere new is better long term than just grinding out more articles in the same area.  Increasing one's network by making new day-to-day contacts is better than hanging out with the same people for even longer.

But, having a gap in one's professional career for being unable to get a job is much worse than a productive year or two working in the field doing the activities of a professional in the field.

[Hibush]

One of the reasons that changing labs is good for the student is that they get much more autonomy when they switch labs. If they stay, the advisor-advisee relationship tends to remain similar. That autonomy is crucial for demonstrating the ability to develop research strategies, supervise group members and other things that are sought in new faculty.

If you keep one of your former PhD students as a postdoc on this grant, be really explicit about giving them autonomy on things (even if they end up making mistakes that you would not have). Be prepared to document that autonomy in recommendation letters.

[nonsensical]

In my field, this matters differently depending on the prestige of the institution. Staying at the same place as a grad student and post-doc is relatively normal at the top places but raises more questions at places that are less elite.

In my own work, one benefit of hiring post-docs who did their graduate training elsewhere is that they have a different perspective on the work than I do. If you hire post-docs who did their graduate training with you, it may be helpful to try to get some of that perspective some other way, though I'm not sure how exactly. I've benefitted much more from working together closely with someone than, for instance, talking about the work during Q&A at talks or even during one-on-one meetings at conferences. I'm not sure how to replicate that benefit without bringing in external people, but maybe that's less important to you. I agree that there's a benefit of continuity for productivity, and it makes sense for that to potentially outweigh the benefits of an outside perspective.

[PI]

Has anyone faced the dilemma of whether to let postdoc candidates know that the group may move? This may be positive news for some candidates (either better location/change) or negative if they have family in the current location. An issue with disclosing this is that they may talk about this to others or the move may never happen. The location for the move is not decided 100%. Considering disclosing it to a top candidate whom we may hire but ask her to not discuss this with anyone else.

The move may happen next year or latest the year after. There is also a small chance we may just stay here based on retention and other considerations for the family. The move will be to higher ranked places (which some may consider as positive).

Any suggestions?

[fizzycist]

Has anyone faced the dilemma of whether to let postdoc candidates know that the group may move? This may be positive news for some candidates (either better location/change) or negative if they have family in the current location. An issue with disclosing this is that they may talk about this to others or the move may never happen. The location for the move is not decided 100%. Considering disclosing it to a top candidate whom we may hire but ask her to not discuss this with anyone else.

The move may happen next year or latest the year after. There is also a small chance we may just stay here based on retention and other considerations for the family. The move will be to higher ranked places (which some may consider as positive).

Any suggestions?

Don't talk about a move until you're sure it will happen.

1) postdocs talk, so now be prepared to have this convo with all your students.

2) from many postdocs' perspective, moving is a bad thing. no time to set up expts twice and who knows what other non-science things they may have to deal with. So if there is a reasonable chance it won't happen (or could happen far enough in the future that postdocbwill already have moved on), no need to scare them off.

[Vkw10]

Don't talk about a move until you're sure it will happen.

Agree! Until you have official offer letter, the only people who get told you are considering move are (1) your spouse/partner, and, (2) your references. Spouse/partner gets told, "we've discussed possibly moving to better location. I am starting to apply, but it may take several years. Don't get your hopes up or mention to family, but how do you feel about living in City?" References should be selected both for their ability to talk about your work and their ability to not gossip. You want to minimize chance for news that you're looking to spread, because you don't want to waste energy fielding questions and anxieties.

When you have official offer letter, you call a meeting, preferably for same day you notify chair. You ask chair to keep quiet "until 2:00 today, when I will be meeting with my lab group to inform them." Your goal is for group you supervise to hear from you before word spreads. But you ALWAYS wait for the official letter to tell anyone connected with campus.