Research / LEARNING STUDIO
Rankings and posts do not tell me how to evaluate a group.
A research interest, two possible supervisors and personal constraints.
Start with diagnostics; skip explanations you can already apply independently.
Read two relevant recent papers per candidate and connect their questions and methods to your possible contribution. Check training, allocation, supervision, data, resources, funding and development. Publication counts do not establish supervision quality; authorship alone does not establish experience. Separate public facts, direct communication and anonymous reports.
Ask what new students deliver, how feedback works and how independent questions develop. Speak with students at different stages while acknowledging sampling limits. Do not turn rumors into rankings. Confirm new appointments, retirement arrangements, joint supervision and funding with authorized sources.
Worked example · fictional
Fictional: A publishes more but supervision is unknown; B is relevant and describes fortnightly log reviews.
The table separates research, training and resources, with a conditional choice and no admission prediction.
Convert an anonymous allegation into a factual rating.
Identity, context and accuracy are unverified.
Turn it into a question about observable practice and retain source limits.
Find the target program's requirements, documents and schedule; personal email does not replace formal admission.
Output: Record program, year, original rule and questions to confirm.
Public guidance; application systems and some documents may require an account. · Source checked 2026-10-26
A researcher's perspective on problem choice and the experience of doing science.
Output: Compare three questions by existing answers, uncertainty, discriminating evidence and resource bottlenecks.
Lab reading list is public; the paper may require institutional access. · Source checked 2026-10-25
Use writing as part of research thinking, organizing around contributions and readers' questions.
Output: Draft a one-page argument: problem, gap, contribution, evidence, strongest objection and scope.
Author page provides video and slides; original video linked below. · Source checked 2026-10-25