Hi everyone, prospective PhD student here.

I applied for two different PhD projects last month, and have since received offers for both. Both are in the same department, at the same university (Where I currently study), and under the same DTP.

I would have said yes to either if I hadn't known I was guaranteed to have both offers, but am in the fortunate position of being able to choose. However, this has left me really stuck on what to do, because both seem like amazing opportunities.

If I were to choose based on subject, it would be the first one, but if I were to choose based on quality and status of the supervisor, it would be the other. My question is, what is the most important thing to base your choice on when deciding what to do?

It is also worth noting that the difference isn't extreme; both choices have both good supervisors and good subject content.

This is a difficult one. Personally, I think I would go with the more interesting subject. This is something you will be studying for at least three years. Given that you say there isn't too much difference in supervision then it seems that's the best option. Also, as a researcher you are your own person and can make contacts for yourself. A good supervisor is very useful but isn't the only way to a job in academia.

How are you defining 'quality and status' of the supervisor?

Be aware that the higher profile someone is, the less day to day help they will probably be able to give you. I think the extent and availability of good quality supervision can be a major determinant in PhD success.

Seconding HazyJane- for example, the more time he spends on TV talking about Richard III's back, the less of his time he can give to you.

hi, its Satchi. Here is how I made my choice of phd -- I chose to study the subject I liked, I chose the project, and then only I found out which university it was, and where it was that I was going, and fortunately my supervisor has been fantastic!

share your decision with us later?
love satchi

Thanks for everyone's responses!

Socialpolitik and Satchi, you both make good points about the subject being very important. That will probably be the deciding factor!

HazyJane and Eds, I understand that viewpoint, and heard someone say something similar a few weeks ago. I looked into it a bit more, and the advantages the better supervisor has over the other is:

- More experience with supervising PhD students (The other one hasn't seen one through to completion, but has a student in their third year).
- Involved in lots of research. This is the main concern I have about the other one: although I will be working in collaboration with a research-based company, my primary doesn't have much going on aside from teaching.
- Better papers. Some of the better supervisor's papers have been cited a couple hundred times (386 was his most cited one as a sole author, to be exact). It's also evident from his most recent student that he encourages publishing mid-way through the PhD.

The upside to the other one, aside from the content is that I have more access to training facilities (Oceanography based, so there is more opportunity to go on research cruises, collect primary data etc). It will also most likely leave me with more of a "roudnness" about me, as I'll have received more support and training, which may be good for employability.

I have until Friday to officially decide, it''s a very tough one! Although I am very grateful to be in this position.

Academic success of the lab is an important factor but take a look at funding situations of these two labs. When does the grant run out? Does the lab have enough papers to secure the next grant? You need to be sure whatever lab you are going into will be structurally stable and supportive for the next 3-4 years, otherwise no matter how great the supervisor or colleagues seems now, the relationship will likely become strained in the future. If the funds run out then no matter how great the project is it won't be completed.

If there are lots of students in the lab then this is generally a good sign, especially if they get on well with each other.

Then the experience of the supervisor and personalities of the post docs as you have mentioned. Will you fit in? Can you do the work? If not immediately are your superiors patient enough for you to learn and make mistakes?

If the lab is well managed, you will give yourself the best chance of success.

Hi MountainSpring,

Funding for both PhDs lasts between 3.5 and 4 years. The money has already been put aside in a DTP, there is no possibility of it running out prematurely.

The way the departments acts isn't so much in a "lab" as such. It's one of the leading centres for my department of study in Europe, and around 30 new funded PhD students are taken on each year, all working on different projects.

In terms of fitting in; I don't know why I haven't included this before, but with the supervisor I am having doubts about, I am actually currently working with him on my undergraduate project. I get on with him really quite well, it's just that he's a lot less established than the other one. I don't know how much that matters regarding the success of the PhD, opportunity to publish papers etc. (Whether that's more down to myself, or if the supervisor plays a significant role).

The other one has also taught me for several modules already, and I have had a good amount of contact with him.

Thanks for everyone's help :)

I've chosen based on subject, and can't be excited enough to start! (Probably won't be saying the same thing a few years from now though :P )

hi brmgdude
that's great!!! isn't it nice to be excited and enthusiastic!
congratulations on your decision and thanks for sharing

love satchi