Northeastern University · Mechanical and Industrial Engineering
匿名 · 审核后公开
2.0分均分 · 1 条公开评价
公开评价概览
评价数
1
均分
2.0 分
点赞/踩
0 / 0
匿名表态 · 每个导师仅一次
学生评价
2.0分
# PI Review
***The PI advertises research areas that he has no expertise in, and you only discover the gap after you're invested in the program. Before joining, watch one of his recorded presentations on his website — especially the Q&A portion. You'll see him not being able to handle technical questions and dodging them. That is what your experience will be like having him as an advisor. Most important warning is that he has no working knowledge of electrochemistry, batteries, and machine learning. What follows describes my experience as a PhD student in this group.***
## Advisor Style & Mentorship
The advisor's style is hands-off, but not the productive kind, where the advisor deliberately steps back to let students develop independence and engages substantively when needed. This is checked out style because the technical capability to engage isn't there.
Early in my time in the lab, I asked him in individual meetings about the P2D model (which any battery modeler knows), phase separation, Voronoi tessellation, EIS, and other basic battery modeling and electrochemistry concepts. His responses were consistently along the lines of "oh, I learned this but I forgot" or "go ask the postdoc." I came to realize this wasn't selective forgetting. He doesn't have the technical foundation to guide students in these areas. Due to this lack of technical expertise, the lab advertises strangely broad, irrelevant areas as their research work. He uses the group size as an excuse for his inability to guide students and defining a research topic for them. However, the group had only 2 PhD students and no MS students during that time.
- **In individual meetings, the PI cannot give substantive input on student work.** He cannot help with derivations, evaluate whether a modeling approach is correct, suggest debugging strategies when research is stuck, or push back on assumptions. As he has said a lot of times in the group meetings he has already stopped learning and thus, cannot provide any feedback. Meetings function as administrative status checks rather than supervision. He mostly has absolutely no idea what you are working on. His contributions to students' papers are limited to suggestions in changing colors of plots rather than scientific input.
- **Routine deflection on technical questions.** When asked technical questions in group meetings or presentations to industrial partners, including about the lab's own published work and simulations, the PI routinely responds "go talk with the student" who did the work. This is consistent across topics — he cannot independently engage with the technical content under his name.
- **"I stopped learning."** The PI has stated in group meetings: "I've already got my PhD and stopped learning" and "I am not going to learn new things." These were not jokes; they are presented as part of his stated approach to academic work. While he advertises batteries, electrochemistry, and machine learning as his research area, he lacks the fundamental, basic knowledge in any of these areas to be able to guide students and provide feedback on their results.
- **Performance over substance.** After delivering a polished presentation to a major industrial firm, the PI disclosed to the group that the entire presentation had been taught to him by a PhD student and a postdoc — he had memorized the material rather than developed it. Again, the pattern of not being able to answer technical questions is the warning sign for this.
## Expectations for PhD Students
- **Your thesis serves his career, not yours.** The PI does not provide a clear thesis direction and is unable to define a research topic. Whatever your project is, it should be defined such that it helps the PI's career, not yours. He has stated this openly in group meetings — telling students they are "serving my big vision" and that "everyone in our group should explore" directions that align with his trajectory. Group focus and research topics shift every few months with his interests and with whatever postdoc is hired in the group, since there is no focused, well-defined research area in the group. In my experience, the PI uses the possibility of dismissal from the PhD program as leverage to keep students working on topics he dictates.
- **Peer review delegated to students.** Manuscripts sent to the PI for confidential peer review, especially those in electrochemistry and battery topics, were, in my experience, passed to students to evaluate, with the review then submitted under the PI's name. This breaches the confidentiality norms of peer review and misrepresents who actually did the work. Crucially, he uses these review works to show he has expertise in electrochemistry while the review is actually done by someone else for him.
- **You're expected to arrive trained.** The implicit expectation is that you join the lab already trained in your area and use that existing expertise to advance projects under the PI's name. The lab is structured to extract expertise from students, not to develop it in them. You will not graduate having developed new technical depth here — you will graduate having spent your existing skills on someone else's research portfolio.
- **Self-teach everything.** Because the PI cannot supervise electrochemistry, EIS, multiphase flow, machine learning, or other advertised areas, students must teach themselves the relevant science. However, when you are struggling with a topic and ask him to connect you to an expert, in my experience he does not. The pattern suggests image management is prioritized over student development.
- **Be ready to teach the PI.** In group meetings, the PI has asked students to explain fundamental concepts to him, including overpotential and OCV — basic concepts for anyone familiar with electrochemistry. Despite this, "electrochemistry" appears as a research interest on his group website and Google Scholar. **Knowledge flows bottom-up in this group, not top-down.**
- **Don't engage with depth.** If you try to develop real technical knowledge in your area, the group will attack you for "showing off your knowledge" (see Lab Culture below). The implicit expectation is to keep engagement at surface level the way the PI has done it.
## Funding & Support
The lab has funding from various sources, and students are typically funded — that part works.
Funding chases drive research direction. The lab name has changed three times in approximately two years, and project topics shift to match whatever the PI is currently pursuing for grants.
Read the research statement the website **carefully**. The repeated use of "multifield" framing is worth examining critically. It is exactly representing the unsystematic and directionless nature of the group hiding under multifield framing. It spans areas (mass transfer, electrochemistry, machine learning, biophysics, and control theory) where the PI does not have demonstrated expertise. His limited expertise lies in the narrow area of mechanics of crashworthiness and plasticity of cell casings under loading.
## Research
**The expertise gap.** The PI's genuine expertise is very narrow: mechanics of crashworthiness, plasticity of cell casings under abuse loading. That's a real and respectable field. However, the lab markets a much broader portfolio that does not match his actual training or working knowledge. He uses hot topics such as Batteries and AI4Science to advertise the group but cannot answer the simplest technical questions in these areas and does not have familiarity with the literature.
On electrochemistry and battery research specifically, despite extensive marketing of battery research:
- The PI cannot discuss electrochemistry beyond surface terms *"memorized"* - No demonstrated knowledge of Cahn–Hilliard or Allen–Cahn frameworks - He lists electrochemistry as a research area on Google Scholar but in my experience cannot interpret electrochemistry or EIS data and models - Communications about multiphase flow drew on Wikipedia-level material on Darcy's law, Kozeny–Carman, and Hagen–Poiseuille relationships - He was repeatedly unable to answer technical questions about his own published simulations, routinely responding "go talk with the student" who did the work
The lab does produce papers in these areas. But you have to know that the electrochemistry expertise comes from his collaborators, not the group itself. The substantive technical content comes from students, postdocs, and external collaborators. The PI's role is administrative and promotional rather than technical. He cannot explain any technical detail in papers with his name on it.
**Networking as career strategy.** The PI has mastered the art of academic networking, and his career rests heavily on it. He publishes with major groups and the lab's publication list looks impressive from outside. His major concern is to make the group famous in the energy storage field but he does not understand that the fame comes from real scientific contributions. What prospective students need to understand: the network is real, but the technical substance in these papers belongs to students and mostly collaborators not the PI. The PI's contribution is the relationship, not the science.
## Lab Culture
**Cultural hostility to intellectual depth — the most important warning.**
If you try to gain real technical knowledge in your area (specifically if it is outside mechanics), the group will attack you for "showing off your knowledge to them." The implicit norm is clear: don't engage with technical depth, don't bring your own analytical capacity, don't push yourself intellectually. Showing critical thinking and probing works of peers is considered as a negative. These are all skills that are required to be developed in a PhD student. The lab is structurally hostile to the kind of engagement that good research requires.
**Bait-and-switch on student ideas.** The PI will initially hype any ideas you bring and let you explore them. But as soon as your direction drifts from his stated career path (electro-chemo-mechanics), he becomes a critic of your work — calling results "stupid," dismissing them as having "no real meaning," and degrading experimental work in particular.
**The "modeler" self-image vs. reality.** He positions himself as a modeling-focused researcher, but in my experience he cannot describe the boundary conditions or governing equations used in his own published papers. The modeling credit belongs to students and collaborators; the modeler identity belongs to the PI.
**Postdoc warnings to new students.** On my first several days, a postdoc told me directly: *"no one teaches you anything here."* A year later, a second postdoc independently said the same to me and warned me that the PI's technical expertise is not what he advertises. He explicitly told me that staying in this group does not add anything to me.
**Group meetings are just paper sharing.** Students take turns presenting papers. There is no substantive technical discussion led by the PI or the students. He does not understand most of the content in the papers.
## Bottom Line
This is anything but a research group where students come to learn and grow into independent researchers. The group does not train and develop skills in students. It functions more like a firm: you're hired to arrive already trained, and your skills are spent advancing the PI's career rather than building your own. The more capable and ambitious you are, the worse this lab is for you since it cannot give you anything. Your skills become his output, and your ambition becomes the thing the group punishes. The group objectives changes every few months to match new buzzwords without having a real technical understanding in the advertised areas.
In the beginning, he is nice and may give you the freedom to work on the topics you are interested in. His true self only shows later, once you are more invested in the program and harder to extract. The PI markets battery research and lists electrochemistry as a research area, yet cannot interpret a basic cycling curve, modeling with NP and BV, or define overpotential — concepts known to any first-year student in the field. **Due to his lack of technical knowledge and incompetency in the advertised areas, he is not able to define a research topic, discuss results, and guide students.**
If your project is specifically on mechanics and crashworthiness, the PI's real expertise area, **and you don't expect any useful mentorship**, you may survive. For anything else the lab advertises, batteries broadly, electrochemistry, EIS, multiphase flow, and machine learning for batteries, **look elsewhere. This is not a group that will help you develop expertise in these areas.**
***The PI advertises research areas that he has no expertise in, and you only discover the gap after you're invested in the program. Before joining, watch one of his recorded presentations on his website — especially the Q&A portion. You'll see him not being able to handle technical questions and dodging them. That is what your experience will be like having him as an advisor. Most important warning is that he has no working knowledge of electrochemistry, batteries, and machine learning.
What follows describes my experience as a PhD student in this group.***
## Advisor Style & Mentorship
The advisor's style is hands-off, but not the productive kind, where the advisor deliberately steps back to let students develop independence and engages substantively when needed. This is checked out style because the technical capability to engage isn't there.
Early in my time in the lab, I asked him in individual meetings about the P2D model (which any battery modeler knows), phase separation, Voronoi tessellation, EIS, and other basic battery modeling and electrochemistry concepts. His responses were consistently along the lines of "oh, I learned this but I forgot" or "go ask the postdoc." I came to realize this wasn't selective forgetting. He doesn't have the technical foundation to guide students in these areas. Due to this lack of technical expertise, the lab advertises strangely broad, irrelevant areas as their research work. He uses the group size as an excuse for his inability to guide students and defining a research topic for them. However, the group had only 2 PhD students and no MS students during that time.
- **In individual meetings, the PI cannot give substantive input on student work.** He cannot help with derivations, evaluate whether a modeling approach is correct, suggest debugging strategies when research is stuck, or push back on assumptions. As he has said a lot of times in the group meetings he has already stopped learning and thus, cannot provide any feedback. Meetings function as administrative status checks rather than supervision. He mostly has absolutely no idea what you are working on. His contributions to students' papers are limited to suggestions in changing colors of plots rather than scientific input.
- **Routine deflection on technical questions.** When asked technical questions in group meetings or presentations to industrial partners, including about the lab's own published work and simulations, the PI routinely responds "go talk with the student" who did the work. This is consistent across topics — he cannot independently engage with the technical content under his name.
- **"I stopped learning."** The PI has stated in group meetings: "I've already got my PhD and stopped learning" and "I am not going to learn new things." These were not jokes; they are presented as part of his stated approach to academic work. While he advertises batteries, electrochemistry, and machine learning as his research area, he lacks the fundamental, basic knowledge in any of these areas to be able to guide students and provide feedback on their results.
- **Performance over substance.** After delivering a polished presentation to a major industrial firm, the PI disclosed to the group that the entire presentation had been taught to him by a PhD student and a postdoc — he had memorized the material rather than developed it. Again, the pattern of not being able to answer technical questions is the warning sign for this.
## Expectations for PhD Students
- **Your thesis serves his career, not yours.** The PI does not provide a clear thesis direction and is unable to define a research topic. Whatever your project is, it should be defined such that it helps the PI's career, not yours. He has stated this openly in group meetings — telling students they are "serving my big vision" and that "everyone in our group should explore" directions that align with his trajectory. Group focus and research topics shift every few months with his interests and with whatever postdoc is hired in the group, since there is no focused, well-defined research area in the group. In my experience, the PI uses the possibility of dismissal from the PhD program as leverage to keep students working on topics he dictates.
- **Peer review delegated to students.** Manuscripts sent to the PI for confidential peer review, especially those in electrochemistry and battery topics, were, in my experience, passed to students to evaluate, with the review then submitted under the PI's name. This breaches the confidentiality norms of peer review and misrepresents who actually did the work. Crucially, he uses these review works to show he has expertise in electrochemistry while the review is actually done by someone else for him.
- **You're expected to arrive trained.** The implicit expectation is that you join the lab already trained in your area and use that existing expertise to advance projects under the PI's name. The lab is structured to extract expertise from students, not to develop it in them. You will not graduate having developed new technical depth here — you will graduate having spent your existing skills on someone else's research portfolio.
- **Self-teach everything.** Because the PI cannot supervise electrochemistry, EIS, multiphase flow, machine learning, or other advertised areas, students must teach themselves the relevant science. However, when you are struggling with a topic and ask him to connect you to an expert, in my experience he does not. The pattern suggests image management is prioritized over student development.
- **Be ready to teach the PI.** In group meetings, the PI has asked students to explain fundamental concepts to him, including overpotential and OCV — basic concepts for anyone familiar with electrochemistry. Despite this, "electrochemistry" appears as a research interest on his group website and Google Scholar. **Knowledge flows bottom-up in this group, not top-down.**
- **Don't engage with depth.** If you try to develop real technical knowledge in your area, the group will attack you for "showing off your knowledge" (see Lab Culture below). The implicit expectation is to keep engagement at surface level the way the PI has done it.
## Funding & Support
The lab has funding from various sources, and students are typically funded — that part works.
Funding chases drive research direction. The lab name has changed three times in approximately two years, and project topics shift to match whatever the PI is currently pursuing for grants.
Read the research statement the website **carefully**. The repeated use of "multifield" framing is worth examining critically. It is exactly representing the unsystematic and directionless nature of the group hiding under multifield framing. It spans areas (mass transfer, electrochemistry, machine learning, biophysics, and control theory) where the PI does not have demonstrated expertise. His limited expertise lies in the narrow area of mechanics of crashworthiness and plasticity of cell casings under loading.
## Research
**The expertise gap.** The PI's genuine expertise is very narrow: mechanics of crashworthiness, plasticity of cell casings under abuse loading. That's a real and respectable field. However, the lab markets a much broader portfolio that does not match his actual training or working knowledge. He uses hot topics such as Batteries and AI4Science to advertise the group but cannot answer the simplest technical questions in these areas and does not have familiarity with the literature.
On electrochemistry and battery research specifically, despite extensive marketing of battery research:
- The PI cannot discuss electrochemistry beyond surface terms *"memorized"*
- No demonstrated knowledge of Cahn–Hilliard or Allen–Cahn frameworks
- He lists electrochemistry as a research area on Google Scholar but in my experience cannot interpret electrochemistry or EIS data and models
- Communications about multiphase flow drew on Wikipedia-level material on Darcy's law, Kozeny–Carman, and Hagen–Poiseuille relationships
- He was repeatedly unable to answer technical questions about his own published simulations, routinely responding "go talk with the student" who did the work
The lab does produce papers in these areas. But you have to know that the electrochemistry expertise comes from his collaborators, not the group itself. The substantive technical content comes from students, postdocs, and external collaborators. The PI's role is administrative and promotional rather than technical. He cannot explain any technical detail in papers with his name on it.
**Networking as career strategy.** The PI has mastered the art of academic networking, and his career rests heavily on it. He publishes with major groups and the lab's publication list looks impressive from outside. His major concern is to make the group famous in the energy storage field but he does not understand that the fame comes from real scientific contributions. What prospective students need to understand: the network is real, but the technical substance in these papers belongs to students and mostly collaborators not the PI. The PI's contribution is the relationship, not the science.
## Lab Culture
**Cultural hostility to intellectual depth — the most important warning.**
If you try to gain real technical knowledge in your area (specifically if it is outside mechanics), the group will attack you for "showing off your knowledge to them." The implicit norm is clear: don't engage with technical depth, don't bring your own analytical capacity, don't push yourself intellectually. Showing critical thinking and probing works of peers is considered as a negative. These are all skills that are required to be developed in a PhD student. The lab is structurally hostile to the kind of engagement that good research requires.
**Bait-and-switch on student ideas.** The PI will initially hype any ideas you bring and let you explore them. But as soon as your direction drifts from his stated career path (electro-chemo-mechanics), he becomes a critic of your work — calling results "stupid," dismissing them as having "no real meaning," and degrading experimental work in particular.
**The "modeler" self-image vs. reality.** He positions himself as a modeling-focused researcher, but in my experience he cannot describe the boundary conditions or governing equations used in his own published papers. The modeling credit belongs to students and collaborators; the modeler identity belongs to the PI.
**Postdoc warnings to new students.** On my first several days, a postdoc told me directly: *"no one teaches you anything here."* A year later, a second postdoc independently said the same to me and warned me that the PI's technical expertise is not what he advertises. He explicitly told me that staying in this group does not add anything to me.
**Group meetings are just paper sharing.** Students take turns presenting papers. There is no substantive technical discussion led by the PI or the students. He does not understand most of the content in the papers.
## Bottom Line
This is anything but a research group where students come to learn and grow into independent researchers. The group does not train and develop skills in students. It functions more like a firm: you're hired to arrive already trained, and your skills are spent advancing the PI's career rather than building your own. The more capable and ambitious you are, the worse this lab is for you since it cannot give you anything. Your skills become his output, and your ambition becomes the thing the group punishes. The group objectives changes every few months to match new buzzwords without having a real technical understanding in the advertised areas.
In the beginning, he is nice and may give you the freedom to work on the topics you are interested in. His true self only shows later, once you are more invested in the program and harder to extract. The PI markets battery research and lists electrochemistry as a research area, yet cannot interpret a basic cycling curve, modeling with NP and BV, or define overpotential — concepts known to any first-year student in the field. **Due to his lack of technical knowledge and incompetency in the advertised areas, he is not able to define a research topic, discuss results, and guide students.**
If your project is specifically on mechanics and crashworthiness, the PI's real expertise area, **and you don't expect any useful mentorship**, you may survive. For anything else the lab advertises, batteries broadly, electrochemistry, EIS, multiphase flow, and machine learning for batteries, **look elsewhere. This is not a group that will help you develop expertise in these areas.**
No, I don't recommend this PI.