Research In terms of research, he is unprofessional. He always wanted to join fields without having any deep knowledge of them. All he knew were just a few keywords. He knew many things on a surface level but lacked a deep understanding of the topics. Any expert in the subject would quickly recognize that he didn't know much, yet he acted as if he were the best in the field and considered other professors to be stupid.
Also, he did not publish much after joining hkust. Publishing paper with him is quite difficult.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Funding & Support Funding is usually warranted for 4 years or 5 years (if you have a 2-year MPhil and a 3-year PhD). But his applications for funding don't seem to be going well, because he hasn't produced anything in recent years.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Advisor Style & Mentorship From my experience with different supervisors (four in total), he is the top supervisor for no doubt in the lowest moral category. Lucky that he works in academia with tenure, if not maybe the society has casted him away.
He treats students in a highly discriminatory manner. He judges whether a student is "Good" or "Bad" based on how well their personality matches his own, considering factors like background and communication skills. If he labels you negatively, every time you try to express an opinion, he will not listen carefully to what you have said and give a perfunctory or negative response. However, if you're deemed "Good," he'll invest more time in you, engage in discussions, and allocate more resources to advance your career. So, it all comes down to luck. If you're judged "Bad," my advice is to quit right away. It will be utterly useless to work with him since he'll use you like a tool to support the "Good" students or do other menial tasks. In the end, he will even forbid you from having any ideas, which contradicts the very purpose of a PhD degree, just because he believes any idea coming from you is stupid. The funny thing is, if the same idea comes from another student or even another professor, he will receive it with excitement. For your information, most students will fall to the "Bad" category, while he will just pick one or two "Good" students from each batch. He also like to talk bad about another student or professors.
He has a very short temper. When someone performs poorly in weekly meetings or makes any other "mistake", he will call you to the office, and then depending on his mood he will blame you for 30-120 minutes until he gets tired. He can lose his temper anywhere, even in public place. So you need to treat him like a sensitive explosive that can explode at any time.
He will push you to the point that you will feel yourself worthless. A ton of gaslighting like saying "If you cannot even do this, that is means you are STUPID", he will bully you even for small mistakes unrelated to research.
Taking all of the above together, I don't think you will learn anything useful for your career under his guidance. If anything, perhaps it's learning how to get along with extreme people and how to survive extreme situations.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Lab Culture During my time under his supervision, he encouraged us to work on weekends. Some people were even trash-talked if they didn't come in on weekends.
In terms of research, he is unprofessional. He always wanted to join fields without having any deep knowledge of them. All he knew were just a few keywords. He knew many things on a surface level but lacked a deep understanding of the topics. Any expert in the subject would quickly recognize that he didn't know much, yet he acted as if he were the best in the field and considered other professors to be stupid.
Also, he did not publish much after joining hkust. Publishing paper with him is quite difficult.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Funding & Support
Funding is usually warranted for 4 years or 5 years (if you have a 2-year MPhil and a 3-year PhD). But his applications for funding don't seem to be going well, because he hasn't produced anything in recent years.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Advisor Style & Mentorship
From my experience with different supervisors (four in total), he is the top supervisor for no doubt in the lowest moral category. Lucky that he works in academia with tenure, if not maybe the society has casted him away.
He treats students in a highly discriminatory manner. He judges whether a student is "Good" or "Bad" based on how well their personality matches his own, considering factors like background and communication skills. If he labels you negatively, every time you try to express an opinion, he will not listen carefully to what you have said and give a perfunctory or negative response. However, if you're deemed "Good," he'll invest more time in you, engage in discussions, and allocate more resources to advance your career. So, it all comes down to luck. If you're judged "Bad," my advice is to quit right away. It will be utterly useless to work with him since he'll use you like a tool to support the "Good" students or do other menial tasks. In the end, he will even forbid you from having any ideas, which contradicts the very purpose of a PhD degree, just because he believes any idea coming from you is stupid. The funny thing is, if the same idea comes from another student or even another professor, he will receive it with excitement. For your information, most students will fall to the "Bad" category, while he will just pick one or two "Good" students from each batch. He also like to talk bad about another student or professors.
He has a very short temper. When someone performs poorly in weekly meetings or makes any other "mistake", he will call you to the office, and then depending on his mood he will blame you for 30-120 minutes until he gets tired. He can lose his temper anywhere, even in public place. So you need to treat him like a sensitive explosive that can explode at any time.
He will push you to the point that you will feel yourself worthless. A ton of gaslighting like saying "If you cannot even do this, that is means you are STUPID", he will bully you even for small mistakes unrelated to research.
Taking all of the above together, I don't think you will learn anything useful for your career under his guidance. If anything, perhaps it's learning how to get along with extreme people and how to survive extreme situations.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lab Culture
During my time under his supervision, he encouraged us to work on weekends. Some people were even trash-talked if they didn't come in on weekends.
No, I don't recommend this PI.
经常骂人，情绪极其不稳定，不会指导学生。lab基本全大陆人，懂自懂。
## 对博士生的要求
不详，因为目前没有人成功毕业。
工作时间长。一天来好几次查岗，早中晚，包括周末和节假日。周末开组会，放假照常开组会。假期少，请假难，就算请到了，放完假回来也会被阴阳怪气。
## 经费和支持
科研经费曾经很充足（目前应该也很充足？），被挖来港科时给了一个6年的大grant，一年一千万。但据闻后续已经申不到什么新的grant。
学生补助：正常，曾经因为做系主任组里有部分学生拿hkpfs和red bird。
## 科研
年轻的时候因为时代原因曾经辉煌过（maybe？），直到现在还沉浸在自己过去的辉煌中。假装接受新事物新技术，实际上知之甚少且不愿听取在这方面更专业人士的意见，还是按十几年前的思路做science，迟早会被时代淘汰。跟很多人合作不下去，在PI间也是声名狼藉。最好的实证就是去看看他近好几年来港科后发的文章，最末通讯的只有两篇（都是果蝇），其余都是出于grant原因友情挂了他的名（没有组内其他人的名字），学术水平如何请诸位自行判断。
## 实验室氛围
师生关系差！差！差！巅峰时期一年内离开10余人（自愿+非自愿，包括学生博后和RA）。对博后随意开人，因为有钱经常大批招博后，然后过半年一年再大批淘汰，因此lab永远在招人。对学生极尽拿捏，进来前不会告诉会让学生全部都博转硕，然后不满意的人拿硕士滚蛋，经常以此拿捏学生。对RA更是连人都不做了，把人骗来读博临开学又让做RA，无缘无故开除，搞黄RAs的下家。
就业前景：没什么前景。从业20余年，没培养出几个PI。人脉也不咋地，更不愿意给普通学生提供帮助，不害你已经不错了。
此人之前在美国就是混得招不到学生遂move到香港。这几年在香港名声也臭了（在学生以及PI中），系主任被撤职，据闻很有可能再次跑路。请各位同学擦亮眼睛。
No, I don't recommend this PI.