Are there any differences in how new vs. well-established professors select students?

Question

For any professors out there, do you feel that there are any differences in how you selected and recruited students from the time when you were newly hired, to a well-established stage (i.e. after getting tenure)? I'm asking this out of curiosity. There are oftentimes questions about whether students should choose a new/old advisor, but I haven't seen any that asked about this from the prof's perspective.

I would assume there are since the challenges and priorities for the two groups are normally somewhat different, but I'm not sure exactly how it would differ. For instance, it might be more difficult for the new PI to recruit students (especially good ones) when they have to "compete" with older, better funded peers. This would lead one to think that new PIs might be more likely to take on students they might not necessarily love, but just need bodies in the lab. However, on the other hand, new PIs are more likely to have limited funding, and if they are on the tenure-track, would need their few students to succeed in order to establish a name for themselves in the industry. In this case, it would be detrimental if they chose the wrong student(s) in the beginning, especially if they are limited to the number of students they can afford due to funding issues. I realize that this is field and situation specific, but I'm looking to hear stories/insights from people who have gone through/know about the process.

Thanks!

Answer 1

This will indeed be highly dependent on field. For instance, in pure mathematics, there's a rather dramatic difference: most faculty don't take on any graduate students at all until after tenure.

The American Mathematical Society has written one of their culture statements about this issue. Generally, (pure) mathematicians have no labs and hence no need for bodies to fill them. And in math, on the time scale of a tenure clock, advising grad students is felt to have a net negative effect on research productivity (in the longer run there can be dividends). So the clear incentive is to wait until after tenure, and departments are usually fine with this.

Answer 2

By contrast to Nate Eldredge's answer about mathematics faculty, for faculty in engineering/science fields at some institutions, graduating Ph.D. students is actually one of the key requirements for obtaining tenure. The theory is that successfully supervising Ph.D. students is one of the primary tasks of research-oriented faculty. As a result, selecting a graduate student is likely to be much higher stakes for such faculty, and they may be either more conservative (i.e., "Can't risk a bad one") or more risky (i.e., "Gotta make sure at least some graduate!") depending on their personality and funding.

Answer 3

In deciding whether or not to take on a graduate student advisee, the main factors are

1. Funding. The student will either need their own or departmental funding (by e.g. a fellowship or teaching assistantship) or the advisor will have to provide it. Conversely, if the advisor has a funded research assistantship position it is often necessary to find someone to fill the position.

2. Fit. Broadly, the student and advisor have to agree on the topic of the student's thesis and if the student will be working on a research assistantship then that topic has to fit with the grant. The project might also require special skills (e.g. knowledge of a particular programming language.)

3. Aptitude or ability. Some students are more capable than others.

For the first two points I don't think there is much difference depending on whether the advisor is tenured or not. With respect to the third point, advisors who are tenured can afford to be more careful in selecting only students that they think will do well.