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.