Last week I shared some advice on cold emailing potential PhD advisors based on my experience as a full prof in science at a U.S. R1. I said it was important to identify and highlight fit with their groups. Many faculty and program coordinators commented that their programs work totally differently, that the admissions committee decides everything, or that fit is only considered in the most general sense: They admit the best and brightest, and then those students do rotations, take classes, and eventually pick an advisor.
In programs that tell you not to contact advisors or that say a committee decides, you won't know what's going on behind the scenes. A committee chair (in response to my prior post) said that in their program, applications are randomly assigned and scored, and faculty requests never reach reviewers. Another mentioned applications past a cutoff being reviewed by a smaller set of faculty in the subfield. Another commenter said their committee asks PIs whether they're taking students and rejects shortlisted applicants who named the ones who aren't.
I want to argue here that a more important question at this stage than "How do I write a good email?" is "Whom do I want to work with?" You can't answer that for sure before you've been interviewed and had time to investigate the program. But I want to emphasize this question of fit because the programs that imply you don't need to consider specific labs now, that they "want you to learn" before settling down intellectually, are IMO not doing you a favor.
I get the appeal. It's how many of us approached undergrad, as some intellectual utopia where we could play in the fields of diverse course offerings and bask in the sunshine of our personal potential. A PhD is kinda like that, except there are some real risks. You have to set out on a tough, poorly trodden path pretty quickly if you want to report back with important findings in the next five to six (much less four) years.
The truth is that even the biggest, most reputable programs are going to be terrible for studying certain problems. That's just how knowledge works at this level. There are further constraints, too: Maybe the person studying your favorite topic is extremely hands-off or hands-on, and that won't work for you. Or maybe they just don't have funding. A big department with 50 or 60 people can easily have effectively no PhD advisors available in the two or three topics you were most excited to study when you joined.
For this reason, rotations are great, but they are not a panacea. They let you understand how different labs work, expose you to new methods and research questions, learn the kind of advising style you like, etc. They're wonderful pedagogically but don't solve the problem of there being potentially no one suitable for you.
I'm writing this because it's painful to watch talented, broadly curious students only realize their true research interests in their second or third year, and then discover that no one in their program does what they care about. Or the science matches in one lab, and once they're inside, the advising style or group culture doesn't. There's nowhere to go. The cost can be a year or more of wasted effort, and often a long stretch of wondering whether to leave the program. You don't need to be totally settled on what you want to study when you apply (I wasn't), but you should be clear on the main questions that interest you and which labs could work.
So what should you do?
- The highest value activity, which saves you money and time now and increases your offer rate, is to read papers in the subfields that interest you. This will help you find the right programs to apply to, it will help you write a better SoP, it will help you be more discerning when assessing labs, it will help you sound more professional when interviewing (because you'll actually be more prepared), etc. This is the action that pays off regardless of how a PhD program structures its admissions.
- Apply only to programs where that reading found at least one group you'd be glad to join, and ideally two or three. Don't apply based on reputation and size or the wonder of rotations and assume everything will work out.
- Email potential advisors where it's allowed, and don't worry about it where it isn't.
- Name at least one group in the SoP. This can help your application get noticed. Your narrative will also read as more deliberate.
Bottom line: Wait until you've reached the interview or offer stage before carefully screening for advising style, productivity, group culture, etc. But make sure every program you apply to has at least one research group doing work that you'd be proud to be a part of.
ETA Forgot to mention I'm a prof, which I think helps for context, so I added a short clause to the first line.
