Yes. One of my mentors was a leading researcher in social science disaster research. He told me the secret to the quality of his career was never getting a grant above 250k – maybe 500k. He never wanted to be responsible for having to get funding to pay someone else’s rent.
I know several people in the same research area with large labs but they ask complain to me about heavy the responsibility is.
I imagine natural science labs being an even heavier burden.
Most professors if you ask them will have an ideal lab size. I’ve never heard anyone say “as big as possible”. My ideal is 12, based on how I manage my team. You raise funding to reach your ideal – if you are short you run a smaller lab, sometimes you do go over because there are opportunities hard to turn down. Some places have a hard limit. But generally, most professors will have a figure that they want to cap out at, which you may or may not personally consider to be “small”
I’m Canadian so perhaps this is the nature of our granting system (which has very clear distinctions between big, competitive high impact grants and small but accessible operating grants) but we have a lot of PIs who tend to the latter and are more interested in the craft of science than being massive big name types. The department I did my PhD in was mostly small labs with typically two or three grad student. Fantastic experience, but it also means the high power world of academia I see on these forums feels pretty foreign.
Yes. I currently have 2 PhDs and 3 MScs. I have time to meet and discuss work with everyone on a regular basis. Funding is available for everyone to publish on contribute to conferences.
It’s actually a very good thing. One random morning I was walking from the parking garage and was in the elevator with another older faculty member. We had a chat about each other’s research. She said something very wise:
I try to keep my lab (mice and obesity) under ten including research assistants because the productivity asymptotes and even starts to decrease if your lab is too big. It’s just too much effort to keep up on everyone’s tasks, and things fall through the cracks.
Yes, as other have said it’s about funding and mentorship. I only take on as many students as I can fund fully unless I feel that number exceeds the number I’m comfortable mentoring.
You mean if we ever chose between having one more student to publish more papers, and not having one more student and working less than 60 hour weeks to preserve our sanity?
I hate it when professors have least favorite students to whom they give their shittiest project ideas. Also it depends how much time you want to do the research vs. guide the research. I like doing research myself and have a lot of collaborations outside my university, which aren’t always easy to bring students in on. When I have too many students I feel like I never get to do research. I keep my group small for this reason.
But yea if you gave me a million dollar grant then I would def hire more postdocs. Which is, for the record, better for the health of the field. Having a huge fall off from student -> postdoc means it’s pretty random who survives and who doesn’t, as students don’t really have a track record that’s independent of their advisor by that point.
The more interesting question is “what is an ideal lab size?” Personally I try to have 1 new PhD student per year, so that my group has around 4, plus a postdoc and a few MSc students. Almost never manage to achieve exactly that — tends to be more lumpy.
My advisor had 30 students. It was divided into 4-5 groups and he would have a lot of funding. But he couldn’t mentor all of us and it all depended on the willingness of the senior phd on his group. I would not advise joining a group like this.
Yes. My pi is one. Our lab is the smallest in the department. To my knowledge, he has always had 2-3 full time maybe plus 1-2 undergrads. He is a senior faculty. This is how he’s done his entire career by choice. I’ve never asked exactly why he does it, but I imagine it’s so he can really invest in the people he has both personally and monetarily. He is also selective who he takes.
The small lab (especially plus senior faculty combo) is sometimes mentioned as a red flag, and I just want to take this opportunity to say it’s not always the case. My pi is amazing. He just wants a certain type of lab environment, and he’s achieved it.
If you don’t have the space or money your lab must stay small. Also some people are ok leading small research groups. They might have gotten into it for the love of the field and not to have a humongous group.
Yes, I have 4 graduate students, and run about 3 undergraduates. This is the best size for my productivity. I love to be hands on with the writing and statistics. It’s very hard to be that into it any bigger than that. I came from labs with 13-16 people and each one struggled with productivity aside from 1-2 rockstars that rose to the top. So many people go through not publishing anything. However, each uni did different. I don’t have any “free” students tenure 100% funded by grants
The appalling new reality is that anyone who has run their lab on NIH or NSF money will have to downsize for at least the next few years unless they just received a new 5 year award. And even so, no guarantees that the new award won’t be cut.
Yes…I wouldn’t want to risk a student’s future due to a lack of funding.
That said, there definitely are people who just keep growing their lab and would tell you keeping it small is a mistake. Not sure how many, but I’ve had some tell me haha
Absolutely. I do not want more people in the lab than I can manage effectively, and I only pursue enough funding (which carries many commitments) to support their projects.
Yeah, my supervisor does, because he doesn’t like that he wouldn’t be able to give attention to them if he had too many. He’s already so busy too, and frankly scatterbrained 🤣. He actually got told his lab is too small during his annual review lol, but he’s tenured so he doesn’t care that much.
We’re only allowed (co-) supervision of up to four PhD students at a time where I am based. I wonder if they’d reconsider if somebody faced the choice of giving a prestigious grant back because they couldn’t use it.
Comments
Yes.
yes
Yes
Yes
Yes. One of my mentors was a leading researcher in social science disaster research. He told me the secret to the quality of his career was never getting a grant above 250k – maybe 500k. He never wanted to be responsible for having to get funding to pay someone else’s rent.
I know several people in the same research area with large labs but they ask complain to me about heavy the responsibility is.
I imagine natural science labs being an even heavier burden.
Yes. I’ll only take on the number of students I can properly support with mentorship and funding.
Most professors if you ask them will have an ideal lab size. I’ve never heard anyone say “as big as possible”. My ideal is 12, based on how I manage my team. You raise funding to reach your ideal – if you are short you run a smaller lab, sometimes you do go over because there are opportunities hard to turn down. Some places have a hard limit. But generally, most professors will have a figure that they want to cap out at, which you may or may not personally consider to be “small”
I’m Canadian so perhaps this is the nature of our granting system (which has very clear distinctions between big, competitive high impact grants and small but accessible operating grants) but we have a lot of PIs who tend to the latter and are more interested in the craft of science than being massive big name types. The department I did my PhD in was mostly small labs with typically two or three grad student. Fantastic experience, but it also means the high power world of academia I see on these forums feels pretty foreign.
When a lab is almost, but not quite, big enough to support a lab manager, the PI’s life becomes hell
The smart ones in my opinion
Yes. I currently have 2 PhDs and 3 MScs. I have time to meet and discuss work with everyone on a regular basis. Funding is available for everyone to publish on contribute to conferences.
Yes
8 was good.
It’s actually a very good thing. One random morning I was walking from the parking garage and was in the elevator with another older faculty member. We had a chat about each other’s research. She said something very wise:
I try to keep my lab (mice and obesity) under ten including research assistants because the productivity asymptotes and even starts to decrease if your lab is too big. It’s just too much effort to keep up on everyone’s tasks, and things fall through the cracks.
Yes, as other have said it’s about funding and mentorship. I only take on as many students as I can fund fully unless I feel that number exceeds the number I’m comfortable mentoring.
Yes
You mean if we ever chose between having one more student to publish more papers, and not having one more student and working less than 60 hour weeks to preserve our sanity?
Yes. Of course.
Personnel cost is no joke.
yes
Absolutely not.
I allow mine to grow to their full size, and take them on two walks a day, followed by a generous helping of Pedigree Chum.
Yes. I know a very prolific person in my former field who only takes on one PhD student, and maybe a postdoc, at a time.
Yes? I mean:
I hate it when professors have least favorite students to whom they give their shittiest project ideas. Also it depends how much time you want to do the research vs. guide the research. I like doing research myself and have a lot of collaborations outside my university, which aren’t always easy to bring students in on. When I have too many students I feel like I never get to do research. I keep my group small for this reason.
But yea if you gave me a million dollar grant then I would def hire more postdocs. Which is, for the record, better for the health of the field. Having a huge fall off from student -> postdoc means it’s pretty random who survives and who doesn’t, as students don’t really have a track record that’s independent of their advisor by that point.
Yes and sometimes that’s a good thing.
My postdoc PI had 14+ people at the start and everything was a total shitshow. No mentorship, no money for experiments, absolute chaos.
We shrunk down to about 5 (lost some funding, but have proportionally more per researcher) and things work WAY better now.
The more interesting question is “what is an ideal lab size?” Personally I try to have 1 new PhD student per year, so that my group has around 4, plus a postdoc and a few MSc students. Almost never manage to achieve exactly that — tends to be more lumpy.
My advisor had 30 students. It was divided into 4-5 groups and he would have a lot of funding. But he couldn’t mentor all of us and it all depended on the willingness of the senior phd on his group. I would not advise joining a group like this.
Yes. My pi is one. Our lab is the smallest in the department. To my knowledge, he has always had 2-3 full time maybe plus 1-2 undergrads. He is a senior faculty. This is how he’s done his entire career by choice. I’ve never asked exactly why he does it, but I imagine it’s so he can really invest in the people he has both personally and monetarily. He is also selective who he takes.
The small lab (especially plus senior faculty combo) is sometimes mentioned as a red flag, and I just want to take this opportunity to say it’s not always the case. My pi is amazing. He just wants a certain type of lab environment, and he’s achieved it.
If you don’t have the space or money your lab must stay small. Also some people are ok leading small research groups. They might have gotten into it for the love of the field and not to have a humongous group.
of course
Yes, I have 4 graduate students, and run about 3 undergraduates. This is the best size for my productivity. I love to be hands on with the writing and statistics. It’s very hard to be that into it any bigger than that. I came from labs with 13-16 people and each one struggled with productivity aside from 1-2 rockstars that rose to the top. So many people go through not publishing anything. However, each uni did different. I don’t have any “free” students tenure 100% funded by grants
The appalling new reality is that anyone who has run their lab on NIH or NSF money will have to downsize for at least the next few years unless they just received a new 5 year award. And even so, no guarantees that the new award won’t be cut.
Yes…I wouldn’t want to risk a student’s future due to a lack of funding.
That said, there definitely are people who just keep growing their lab and would tell you keeping it small is a mistake. Not sure how many, but I’ve had some tell me haha
Absolutely. I do not want more people in the lab than I can manage effectively, and I only pursue enough funding (which carries many commitments) to support their projects.
Yes, two UG, two grad, and one postdoc. Much more than that and you’re delusional that you’re serving them all well.
2 amazing students is better than 6 ok ones.
The most productive lab size is limited by logistics. You can only process so much work through your limiting equipment.
Yeah, my supervisor does, because he doesn’t like that he wouldn’t be able to give attention to them if he had too many. He’s already so busy too, and frankly scatterbrained 🤣. He actually got told his lab is too small during his annual review lol, but he’s tenured so he doesn’t care that much.
We’re only allowed (co-) supervision of up to four PhD students at a time where I am based. I wonder if they’d reconsider if somebody faced the choice of giving a prestigious grant back because they couldn’t use it.