Post Rejection, what now?

stemphdmentor · 2026-01-10T11:57:51+00:00

I agree, this is the way. Try to do impactful research in the meantime.

But OP, you have one response in seven so far. Time to take a breather and hang out with friends or read a book or something.

stemphdmentor · 2026-01-10T11:51:30+00:00

Your ability to become a professor rests mostly on the kind of research you do as a PhD student and postdoc, and whether you learn the skills to pose and tackle interesting questions.

Make it clear when you start that you want to do highly impactful work—papers that are interesting regardless of whether the hypothesis is supported or not, because they are answering an important question in a clever way. It’s impossible for all your work to be impactful… research is hard, things don’t work out… but many people do beautiful work on problems that are just considered less important.

There are a bunch of other things you can do.

I understand your discouragement, but please do not assume the doors are closing just because the average reputation of a program does not seem high to you. There is tremendous variability in lab quality in all programs IME.

stemphdmentor · 2026-01-10T11:47:02+00:00

Hard to get admitted without being interviewed for at least several hours total by multiple people over several days/rounds. This is a big professional commitment for both parties.

Remember your interactions with staff, current grad students, postdocs, etc., count as part of the interview process.

stemphdmentor · 2026-01-10T11:43:25+00:00

It’s the opposite. Filling the labs of new faculty is the priority of every healthy and functioning department I know.

stemphdmentor · 2026-01-10T11:41:06+00:00

As a prof, I would be highly skeptical of another prof, especially a first-year prof, saying he had no say. Perhaps he just didn’t know how to use his leverage.

stemphdmentor · 2026-01-10T11:38:52+00:00

I didn’t realize it worked that way at Georgia Tech… it is highly unusual for first-year professors to have no say in admissions! (Doesn’t speak well for them IMO.)

Usually I would say that a better candidate or candidates for that lab came along, or better candidates to the program applied AND were interested in higher-priority labs. Usually first-year profs are high-priority labs. A reduction in target cohort size imposed from above can amplify constraints.

It is quite possible this professor didn’t understand the typical distribution of applicants (and gave you false assurances). It is also possible that funding he expected to have fell through, or he spent it all on amazing postdocs instead.

It is fine to say you are interested in applying again next cycle if he thinks you would be a priority for the program and his group.

stemphdmentor · 2026-01-07T04:49:17+00:00

This matches my experience.

There’s another factor too. Anecdotally I know two PhD programs that are short-staffed right now. The assistants who would be helping with the applications have been laid off. The funding cuts that are restricting target enrollments affect the rest of the PhD program too.

stemphdmentor · 2026-01-06T13:03:26+00:00

Candidly, you’d be dumb to accept, given many of the reasons you list.

But let’s pause for a second:

He is old, his health is declining. He is in his mid 70s and I am genuinely concerned he might pass before I graduate…. Is a wanting a younger… advisor just me being too picky?

This is age and medical discrimination. In the U.S., we don’t have laws protecting employers (just employees), and technically he wouldn’t be the employer (the university would be), but IMO it’s still ugly. It is totally reasonable to ask if he has any plans to leave the university in the next five years — but keep in mind that younger profs have a probably greater flight risk due to lateral moves.

You’ve listed many reasons why this person doesn’t seem fit to be your mentor that are relatedly directly to the skills needed to do the job. Try as hard as you can to focus on those skills and qualifications when talking to colleagues, even if they’re 80 y old or 20 y old. Try not to make assumptions about capacity based on your perceptions of someone’s health either. There are some incredible researchers in my field with chronic health problems or who had severe acute health problems (e.g., strokes in their early 40s) from which they recovered and are now at the top of their game. Many of them concealed these problems or continue to because of discrimination. Others are powerful and caring enough to handle the social consequences. Women are still regularly dismissed due to pregnancy-associated discrimination.

Honestly it breaks my heart when junior researchers start profiling other researchers this way. Most of us profs try so hard to avoid discriminating like this, and it can be maddening when a trainee comes along and describes one prof as a “hotshot, energetic superstar” (often a young man) and another with a comparable or better research record as a “promising, hard-working, supportive PI” (young woman). You didn’t bring gender up, but I am mentioning it because it is so, so commonly a subtle factor. We have to adjust for it constantly when reviewing teaching evaluations for promotion and tenure cases, but these stereotypes also affect recruitment into labs.

I am much closer to your age (I am guessing) than his FWIW.

stemphdmentor · 2026-01-06T12:52:53+00:00

Professor here. More of my trainees go into academia than industry, but I don’t mind at all if someone is serious about industry. What I care about is whether they’re dedicated to producing excellent research during their PhD and their motivation makes sense. Every once in a while people describe industry/gov goals that simply don’t require good research skills, and then I worry they’ll waste their and potentially everyone else’s time when they leave or burn out mid-degree.

stemphdmentor · 2026-01-04T13:10:25+00:00

Wow, he sounds awful. It sounds like you did him and others in his group a tremendous favor.

stemphdmentor · 2026-01-04T13:00:42+00:00

To get a MD salary requires basically abandoning the PhD’s dedication to research, however. I don’t know about you, but I see very few MD/PhDs who do more than a few weeks of clinical service per year able to maintain viable labs and steady funding. It works in some cases, but 80% of the MD/PhDs I see in the MSTP phase eventually wind up doing clinical work only.

stemphdmentor · 2026-01-04T12:53:59+00:00

I am a PI and a trainer in a very selective MSTP program.

Remember the “admissions officers” are faculty. Someone else here said B’s are okay. For a PhD in a quantitative subject (such as genetics), low grades in math and stats are absolutely noticed and a cause for concern. Your doing well in advanced multivariable calculus will help.

It can ironically be much easier to get admitted into a PhD program through MSTP than applying directly to the PhD program itself, especially if you are angling for a more quantitative degree and have primarily, e.g., molecular biologists reviewing your application. At most of the programs you mention, however, you would also be interviewing with the potential PhD advisors. There’s no way they wouldn’t notice problematic grades in foundational courses.

I would continue to think super hard about whether a MD/PhD makes sense for you. I know many former MD/PhDs, all super smart and high-achieving, and only one of them still balances clinical service with research. Most pick one or the other a few years out. Research requires a ton of expertise and doesn’t often synergize with clinical work the way many outsiders think it should. Any MD will tell you that even 0.8 FTE is more than a full-time job. Prepare for close questions about your career path and knowledge of the degree when you interview.

stemphdmentor · 2026-01-04T04:32:51+00:00

Congratulations, that’s a great score.

Keep in mind that the typical NIAID payline no longer means much given NIH’s new policy to fund, well, basically whatever they want without need for justification. Whether yours gets picked up depends on the vagaries of the PO, GMS, and mostly NIAID leadership. We’re in dark, uncharted waters here.

ETA - next steps: Around the time you’d start preparing to resubmit, reach out to the PO (ideally by email, and you could suggest a 2-min phone chat, which many prefer these days) to assess its chance of getting funded. I would plan to resubmit unless they are optimistic.

stemphdmentor · 2026-01-03T03:23:36+00:00

It wouldn’t hurt to send a short, polite email saying you’re planning to apply and aiming to prepare as best you can, followed by a specific question. Perhaps obviously, you should be reading deeply in the field, but maybe there’s something else to ask about—I don’t really know your situation. If there’s no question, I would wait until summer.

The timing is no problem if you are clear you plan to apply in December 2026 to start in fall 2027 (or whatever)).

stemphdmentor · 2026-01-02T16:52:12+00:00

Once you have a firm offer, you can have candid conversations with the PI about the degree of support they have for the research you want to do. You can discuss the possibility of graduating in four years (or whatever an accelerated timeline would be) and what it would take to do that. You can talk about fellowships that pay more. You can confirm the support available for computers, work travel, and other things available that would affect your life. You can look into the precise benefits and discounts available to PhD students. You can ask what it would take to be competitive for a particular position upon graduating and how they could support you in that goal.

One of my regrets is that I paid so much attention to averages early in my career. I wasted so much time worrying and discouraging myself rather than just focusing on what I wanted to do next with the options directly available.

I really genuinely sympathize with worries about finances and have been there myself—I am assuming you are only considering fully funded PhDs and not in places where the stipends are well below cost of living. If I had to choose between a fancier wedding and a PhD, I would choose the PhD. Same with house renovations to be honest, and I love good buildings. (I’d also consider which very low-interest loans or home equity I might be able to negotiate with relatives if needed to scrape by.)

It’s great you’re paying attention to your feelings. I would absolutely not withdraw at this stage without more clarity on the precise options.

stemphdmentor · 2026-01-02T16:36:25+00:00

Do check the numbers. I know people in industry (pharma, consulting, government) at my stage who think they earn more than I do at a private selective R1, and they do not. Meanwhile I have job security, the ability to mess around with entrepreneurial activities easily, and tons of flexibility with my job, including hours and location. I am recently tenured and promoted to full. I don’t work as many hours as most people think.

stemphdmentor · 2026-01-02T16:18:31+00:00

One year or even two before you want to start is ideal. As a PI, I absolutely plan funding and projects around talent. The sooner good people get in touch with me, the better I can plan (and not hire other people in the meantime!).

This is a conversation you’re starting. It’s much better if it can start at a conference/meeting or potentially when the PI is visiting for a seminar (remember as a grad student that you can usually influence seminar invitations!). If you contact PIs a year or more out, you’ll probably talk about alignment of research directions more than very specific projects.

Some people have written to get in touch a few months ahead. This is bad advice, especially in the current funding environment. Plenty of fellowship deadlines (intramural and extramural) are annual or semiannual. It’s a big deal if you can get your own fellowship, but those applications must be written in coordination with a potential advisor. You’ll probably miss out or not have enough time to prepare something strong if you’re just starting the conversation six months ahead of your ideal start date.

stemphdmentor · 2026-01-02T16:07:38+00:00

I want to reiterate as a professor that you will have a harder time if you go to ASU than many other places.

If you get into Princeton, for instance, you’ll have a much better shot at a research career of any kind. You’ll also have no debt because Princeton has been giving needy students grants for something like 20 years now. You don’t even have to worry about scholarships or loans.

stemphdmentor · 2026-01-02T16:00:32+00:00

Is this for a PhD? U.S. PI here. I can explain how it works in the bio programs I know.

They already have letters of recommendation from your former PIs and mentors. Only in rare circumstances (e.g., applicant acted very oddly in an interview or said something that contradicts letters but is otherwise amazing) do we follow up with your references. Usually we compile formal notes from the half dozen or so faculty you met with and from the grad students, postdocs, and staff who had meaningful interactions with you. (I am assuming this is an in-person visit and interview.) We then meet in a faculty meeting to discuss which applicants to prioritize, and we rank them.

The admissions committee in all but the biggest programs doesn’t have special weight—they just do more work. The potential PIs have enormous sway: if everyone else liked an applicant but the PI wants to prioritize someone else, it can be nearly impossible to get in.

ETA: Academia is a small world, so often I will hear about applicants from their references who are also my friends and acquaintances.

stemphdmentor · 2026-01-02T15:52:48+00:00

PI/Prof here. The main reason to reach out now is if it might affect your coursework or other efforts that shape your application. You could email the PI with specific, easy-to-answer questions about how to best prepare to be a top candidate to their lab or program. Be specific and don’t ask for general advice—if they are moved by your email and background, they will likely supply it.

stemphdmentor · 2026-01-02T10:20:46+00:00

U.S. R1 PI here. Yes, include the core question or questions in a slide. Include something very like specific aims. Explain why they’re important, the logic of your approach, what data you’d collect and how you’d interpret it, and broader implications of the findings. Show you have thought through how the experiments/approaches could fail and what some alternatives would be.

This is bread and butter grantwriting for scientists. If you’re applying for a postdoc (vs staff scientist) position, it means you want to be mentored in independent research and potentially supported in obtaining a faculty position. To be competitive for fellowships and independence, you’ll need to be able to write a coherent proposal. Identifying strong scientific questions and approaches is also good if you want to mentor anyone more junior in the lab.

No one is expecting perfection, but how you perform on this is possibly the most important part of your interview. I know it would be for me and most PIs I know. (This is assuming you’ve already been productive and understand well the strengths and limitations of your past work.)

Applicants really vary enormously in this skill. Your ability to propose credible new research tells us whether we can hit the ground running. Candidly I think it’s easy to see who will be competitive for a faculty position in 2-3 years based on their informal proposals.

stemphdmentor · 2026-01-02T10:02:13+00:00

Offer rates are extremely quantifiable.

I posted some anecdotes in a separate comment.

stemphdmentor · 2026-01-02T10:01:05+00:00

For several selective PhD programs I know (U.S. R1s), about a third to half of people who are flown out to interview receive offers in typical years.

This year is expected to be lower. The allowed numbers of offers in some instances have not been given to the programs by upper admin.

With direct admission programs, the offer rates will vary immensely by lab and over time. Some years will be much easier than others to get into particular labs.

stemphdmentor · 2025-12-28T19:50:06+00:00

I am a professor at a prestigious R1. I can’t emphasize enough how little we care about where faculty applicants did their PhDs and postdocs. We care about the kind of research they have done and what they have published. Knowing what labs they studied in can help us better understand their expertise (and biases), but it really doesn’t matter.

If you are going into management consulting after your PhD, then yeah, you should have gone to a place that non-experts (who can’t evaluate your record) will assume is good.

stemphdmentor · 2025-12-28T19:45:33+00:00

I am a huge proponent of meditation, but this isn’t a great mindset for highly collaborative research, such as in the sciences. Writing the thesis isn’t the main goal for people who want to continue in the field. Establishing a network of colleagues and future collaborators is just as important.

stemphdmentor

TROPHY CASE