One Faculty Member Is Not a Strategy
How to apply to a PhD program with optionality on your side
Most PhD applicants build their entire strategy around one faculty member, and it’s one of the most common mistakes I see. The instinct is understandable. A principal investigator’s breakthroughs catch your attention, their work feels like the reason you want to do a PhD in the first place, and suddenly the whole application becomes about getting into that lab. But tying your future to a single name is riskier than most applicants realize. PIs don’t always take students in a given cycle, funding and timing rarely line up the way you hope, and pinning your decision to one person can quietly close off stronger options. The smarter move is usually to look at the department or program as a whole. A cluster of faculty doing important work in your field opens doors that a single name cannot, and it gives you something every PhD applicant needs more of: optionality.
The applicants who treat optionality as a strength are rare, but they tend to do better once they’re inside. They build multiple strong bridges with faculty, navigate funding with more flexibility, and adapt when the program shifts around them (and it always shifts). Admissions are getting more competitive every year, and grades, test scores, and a recommendation letter from a well-known professor are no longer enough on their own. This is something I tell my clients often: the whole picture matters, but how you position yourself within that picture matters just as much.
Getting noticed sometimes comes from an assistantship before you even apply. Other times it comes from smart outreach, sent at the right time and with the right approach. When you eventually choose a lab, the decision should rest on more than one name. Research alignment, timing, funding, and overall program fit all carry weight, and the applicants who weigh all of them tend to land somewhere they can actually thrive.
This doesn’t mean you won’t end up in your ideal lab. It means you’re applying with confidence, and what you bring to the table is valuable to more than one faculty member. A strong way to paint that picture for the admissions committee is by naming multiple PIs in your research statement and showing the committee why you’re a good fit, not just for the work you want to do, but for the curiosity and value you bring to a faculty member’s broader research community. Students who do their due diligence, reach out to faculty, and learn how labs connect across a department arrive at the application with information most applicants never gather. At minimum, identify two other faculty whose work you could see yourself contributing to.
The bigger picture matters too. Find out which faculty are set to take new students that particular year. Are they recruiting on their website or through their professional networks? What does the program’s funding structure actually look like? Who has the PI graduated recently, where did those students land, and what was their experience inside the lab? These questions do two things at once. They help you align yourself with the program before you ever submit, and they give you the language and detail that make your application materials, your interviews, and your conversations with the admissions committee feel grounded and specific.
The applicants who get in are rarely the ones with the most polished version of a single story. They're the ones who walk in already understanding the environment they're stepping into, and who can show a committee they've thought about their future as a researcher, not just as a fan of one person's work. Choose your program the way you'd want to be chosen: with care, with curiosity, and with a clear picture of how you'll contribute to something bigger than one lab.
