I found a professor/lab that fits my research interest perfectly. I am planning to apply in a year. Can I ask for tips/insights on how to get into these universities for a PhD program?
Regarding the publications, how many papers are ideal where you are the primary author? How many supporting papers (papers where you aren't the primary author)?
How many wins over top-20 players does one need before beating a top-10 player? The answer is none. It helps one's confidence to move up the ranks gradually, but they can just as well wake up one day and beat a top-10 player without ever having done anything close to it.
The same is true here. There is no recommended number of papers to be admitted into any PhD program in the country, but it certainly helps to have a publication (or three). That said, two papers about mating habits of spotted salamanders will probably count less than a strong peer recommendation and a background in a field that is more relevant to a particular PhD program. You will hear people mention a good fit to the program, and that's definitely one of important considerations. It may sound mythical or hazy, but the truth is that evaluators try to admit students who stand a good chance of a productive scientific career given their background and the available projects. One year we had an absolutely stellar candidate who was absolutely set on a single lab, and that lab did not have anything available. Most academic institutions don't operate like Wall Street and simply go for the best available candidates, as there is no point for them or us in getting a student who will be unhappy in the program.
When reviewing PhD applications, I try to figure out whether the candidate's co-authorship on a paper is substantial or incidental. That is usually clear from the personal statement and letters of recommendation, and I would value more one substantial contribution than two that are incidental. But publications are only a part of the whole story. In addition to the fit I described above, letters of recommendation play a major role, especially if the evaluators know the letter writers personally. It helps if the personal statement is tailored to our departmental research and faculty interests, and that usually takes couple of weeks of going through faculty pages and maybe reading couple of key publications.
My larger point is that most people can't will themselves into publishing a prescribed number of papers, even if such a requirement existed. The best you can do is: 1) make sure that your referees will write not only positive but strong letters - there is such a thing as being damned by a faint praise; 2) do your work in the lab with passion, as that will come through both in your personal statement and in recommendations; 3) carefully research the program of interest and write your personal statement in a way where they can match you with more than one lab.
My final advice is to apply to many programs that are a good match for your scientific interests. One can do good science in many places, and the prestige of Harvard and MIT means only a slightly higher initial baseline than in other places. When all is said and done, in my experience a quality student will succeed in most PhD programs.
Use of this site constitutes acceptance of our User Agreement and Privacy Policy.
version 2.3.6
Just apply and see what comes out. Make a good impression, be prepared, maybe include a properly-organized Github to the application, know what the lab works on, convince them that you're the most motivated guy. Be different than the bulk of people. What does it matter how many publications you "need" (I had none as a Master student, I mean...how could I, they do not just fall from trees during a MSc program) you now anyway will not magically pull papers out of the hat if you have non (which is normal I guess). Just apply if this is the position you want, if this program really focuses on papers rather than interviewing promising candidates face2face then this is the first line of evidence (it would be for me) that this is not a lab I'd want to work in as they may focus more on "externals" and "measurables" rather than really caring about what a student can really bring to the lab.
From a student's perspective, it should actually be more what the lab can bring to me? Will I be properly trained/mentored or will I just be one more pair of hands?
I agree that if a lab is asking for papers before a PhD this should probably be scrutinized.
On the other hand, the requirements to get into a PhD program are often not set by the labs but by the university.
Yes, in this case, it's sort of the same thing. ATpoint's point is to ensure that the interaction is mutually beneficial. The student has something for the lab, and the lab has something valuable for the student. Some labs with checklist pedigree requirements may be more like a factory.
If you've found a professor/lab that fits your interest - hopefully you've been able to form some kind of personal relationship (attend their seminars, ask questions, introduce yourself and ask more questions afterwards, reach out in writing, etc.). This become something you can mention in your application.
Do not delete posts that have received feedback. You've deleted multiple posts of yours - this behavior is detrimental to the site and your account might be suspended if you do this again.
If you'd like all of your content removed and have a legitimate reason, please email admin at biostars dot org.