I got two offers from two academicians to be my supervisor for PhD. One of them is a professor meanwhile another one is a senior lecturer. Who is better to be my supervisor? Professor or Senior Lecturer? If you were to make decision, who would you pick BASED ON TITLE ALONE? Put aside their attitude and etc.

Professor

Excluding other factors, I'll go for Professor. Reason? Availability of research grant perhaps

In what aspect? Is academic title the central importance in every area of scientific research? I'm not sure, but there seemed no causal studies between the academic title alone and the quality of the supervision.

I am thinking a professor might give an advantage for me in term of paper publication in high impact journal since he/ she has more influence in research community compared to senior lecturer. However, the professor might be busy and spend less time to supervise my project compared to senior lecturer. That's all I'm thinking.

FYI, both of them are willing to guide me for my PhD.

Base on the title, Professor shld be good than senior lecturer. BUT, u cant jz make a decision based on the title only, u hv to know which 1 can actually help u and guide u more, their personality and etc.

^Agree

Don't just look at the title.

Choose the one who is willing to help and guide you more and someone who can get along well with you. Or one who knows more on your area of research.

Most importantly, don't choose the lazy "lenggang kangkung" academic.

LOL

I don't quite agree with this as a high impact journal is likely to have a double blind review whereby the identity of the authors is concealed from the reviewer

Going with the higher ranking professor will usually ensure that you have money and expert guidance in your research but in most cases the professor simply won't have that much time for you. He is also unlikely to participate in your lab work at all but will usually allocate someone to help you out (or not). The professor is likely to have quite a few students doing his research so you need to work hard to earn his attention. It also means that if you are not doing well in your research, he can afford to lose you because you really are expendable and he has others who can earn him publications.

The senior lecturer is presumably less busy although, some lecturers have heavy teaching loads. They probably have less research funding but they should be alright. Because they are not that high in the sky yet, some actually teach you first hand in the lab or even run experiments themselves. They will also likely be able to spend more time with you and give you slightly more attention. If you are your lecturer's only student or one of a few... he will definitely do what he can to help you out if you're struggling because he needs you to succeed so that he can publish.

Don't forget this is generalisation but that's because there isn't any other information apart from the 'titles'.

This post has been edited by Farmer_C: May 16 2013, 06:09 PM

^ true

In some universities, one of the promotion criteria is that you must have a certain number of graduated postgraduate students...so

This post has been edited by Human Nature: May 16 2013, 06:13 PM

The dilemma isn't that really of academic ranks, but probably her inability to collect priori knowledge about the supervisor that does the kind of research she is interested in, as well as one that can guide her well and fits her personality.

I realize the fact that we have double blind reviews for high impact journal. However, an influential professor can contact editor of high impact journal to publish his/ her paper without undergoing rigorous and stringent reviews. I learnt this from my friends.

This

How influential is this professor of yours? If a professor needs to resort to such unethical practice, then one may feel that he/she lacks confidence in his/her own research works.

Anyway, I believe the general view is that you need to look it as a whole package, not just title alone. Good luck :-)

This post has been edited by Human Nature: May 17 2013, 02:05 PM

Professor is just a title that is given by the university, accorded by peers. I don't really count it as a significant indicator whether a supervisor is good or not.

My key factors in selecting a project/supervisor:
1. What is the project research of the supervisor- which is more interesting for me?
2. What is the previous published work? Is it quality work? What is the number of publications?

You have to realise that in life science nowadays got lots of scientist who work in research insittutes and not universities. So they have a very good background research but not really any fancy titles.

Compared that to people who go to academia right after phd and has good standing in academia so they move up the ranks.
You will be surprised that some people who work in research centres has better/more papers that professors in universities.

3. Look around the lab and the other students. Try to chat with them to see how the supervisor is. Got money for research? Easy to meet or have to make appointment 6 months in advance and take number along with the other 20 students in the group?

But it all depends on you. It starts to come across that you really just want to get a quick and done deal for your PhD, like some people who just take a 1year master just to get that degree qualification. They are not really keen on learning research or go into full research/academia, but plan to work in the industry.

So just pick which one that you think will serve your aim.

i strongly recommend you to read http://pgbovine.net/

he wrote a book on his phd journey in stanford (in pdf file that is Free)..it is a very good read albeit long

This post has been edited by tortoise_bobo: May 19 2013, 11:43 AM

He knows how to write very well. I am beyond impressed. I wish I could read the book to chronicle experience in Biology field compared to computer science.

ya thats the reason he is from MIT and stanford..LOL. ya i am hoping to read sth related to life science too..maybe i shall pen one down 4 yrs later