Although first-generation students represent a substantial proportion of doctoral students, few studies have examined their experiences and outcomes. We contribute to this nascent area of inquiry by comparing experiences and outcomes of first-generation and continuing-generation students during the first 3 years of doctoral education. Contrary to expectations, the results based on a national sample of PhD students in biology revealed remarkable similarity in experiences and outcomes between first-generation and continuing-generation students. One notable exception to this overall pattern of similarity was research productivity in the second year. By examining the relationships between students' experiences and outcomes over time, the findings illuminate the unique ways in which socialization experiences are related to specific outcomes and the extent to which those relationships change across years. Thus, this study offers initial insights into the nuanced ways in which students' socialization experiences contribute to various outcomes of doctoral education.

Equitable gender representation is an important aspect of scientific workforce development to secure a sufficient number of individuals and a diversity of perspectives. Biology is the most gender equitable of all scientific fields by the marker of degree attainment, with 52.5% of PhDs awarded to women. However, equitable rates of degree completion do not translate into equitable attainment of faculty or postdoctoral positions, suggesting continued existence of gender inequalities. In a national cohort of 336 first-year PhD students in the biological sciences (i.e., microbiology, cellular biology, molecular biology, developmental biology, and genetics) from 53 research institutions, female participants logged significantly more research hours than males and were significantly more likely than males to attribute their work hours to the demands of their assigned projects over the course of the academic year. Despite this, males were 15% more likely to be listed as authors on published journal articles, indicating inequality in the ratio of time to credit. Given the cumulative advantage that accrues for students who publish early in their graduate careers and the central role that scholarly productivity plays in academic hiring decisions, these findings collectively point to a major potential source of persisting underrepresentation of women on university faculties in these fields.

In the biological sciences, very little is known about the mechanisms by which doctoral students acquire the skills they need to become independent scientists. In the postsecondary biology education literature, identification of specific skills and effective methods for helping students to acquire them are limited to undergraduate education. To establish a foundation from which to investigate the developmental trajectory of biologists' research skills, it is necessary to identify those skills which are integral to doctoral study and distinct from skills acquired earlier in students' educational pathways. In this context, the current study engages the framework of threshold concepts to identify candidate skills that are both obstacles and significant opportunities for developing proficiency in conducting research. Such threshold concepts are typically characterised as transformative, integrative, irreversible, and challenging. The results from interviews and focus groups with current and former doctoral students in cellular and molecular biology suggest two such threshold concepts relevant to their subfield: the first is an ability to effectively engage primary research literature from the biological sciences in a way that is critical without dismissing the value of its contributions. The second is the ability to conceptualise appropriate control conditions necessary to design and interpret the results of experiments in an efficient and effective manner for research in the biological sciences as a discipline. Implications for prioritising and sequencing graduate training experiences are discussed on the basis of the identified thresholds.

Many PhD programs incorporate boot camps and summer bridge programs to accelerate the development of doctoral students' research skills and acculturation into their respective disciplines. These brief, high-intensity experiences span no more than several weeks and are typically designed to expose graduate students to data analysis techniques, to develop scientific writing skills, and to better embed incoming students into the scholarly community. However, there is no previous study that directly measures the outcomes of PhD students who participate in such programs and compares them to the outcomes of students who did not participate. Likewise, no previous study has used a longitudinal design to assess these outcomes over time. Here we show that participation in such programs is not associated with detectable benefits related to skill development, socialization into the academic community, or scholarly productivity for students in our sample. Analyzing data from 294 PhD students in the life sciences from 53 US institutions, we found no statistically significant differences in outcomes between participants and nonparticipants across 115 variables. These results stand in contrast to prior studies presenting boot camps as effective interventions based on participant satisfaction and perceived value. Many universities and government agencies (e.g., National Institutes of Health and National Science Foundation) invest substantial resources in boot camp and summer bridge activities in the hopes of better supporting scientific workforce development. Our findings do not reveal any measurable benefits to students, indicating that an allocation of limited resources to alternative strategies with stronger empirical foundations warrants consideration.

Studies of skill development often describe a process of cumulative advantage, in which small differences in initial skill compound over time, leading to increasing skill gaps between those with an initial advantage and those without. We offer evidence of a similar phenomenon accounting for differential patterns of research skill development in graduate students over an academic year and explore differences in socialization that accompany diverging developmental trajectories. As predicted, quantitative analysis indicated large effect sizes for skill gains after controlling for initial performance levels. Qualitative analyses indicated that students with initial advantages were more likely to report greater demands of independence by their advisors and see more extensive value in research tasks comparable to those assigned their less skilled peers.