How bad is it really, to get all of your degrees from the same university (if that university is one of the best for your program)?

[harrisonfjord]

I realize that people caution against finishing all of your degrees at one single institution, particularly if you are planning on teaching. I understand the premise is to become a well rounded researcher and that one school only provides you with a limited perspective.

 

My program is not common and is only offered at 5 schools in the US, one of which you need to be a government employee or military officer to attend. There are marginally related PhD programs I could apply to, and I definitely do plan on applying to other schools out of state.

 

How bad is it to stay at your alma mater if the resources, professors, and research will still greatly contribute to my success and I could potentially cut the time to my PhD in half? 

Edited November 29, 2014 by harrisonfjord

[Taeyers]

That's what I did, for about the same reason. Programs in my field are not that rare, but my program (and city) is hands-down the best for my particular interests. At least a few other graduate students in my program also have their undergrad degrees from the same institution. No one is too particularly worried about it. In fact, one such student just graduated and landed himself a very prestigious post-doc elsewhere. I guess I'm optimistic that the pro of being trained in a great department for my subfield will balance out the "con" of staying at my undergrad institution for grad school. 

[MathCat]

I feel like this is something you should ask your professors. They would probably know a lot more about your particular field and how this might be viewed than us.

[JBums1028]

I had a professor in undergrad who earned his BA, MA, and PhD from the same University. Likewise one of the new directors who was hired where I work earned all her degrees and all of her previous work experience took place within one University system. I don't think it's unheard of and I feel like there are pros and cons in both scenarios. I think it's best to choose the program that is the best fit for you, even if it's where you attended for a previous degree.

[maelia8]

One quarter of the people in my Ph.D. cohort went to my institution for undergrad as well, and it seems to be pretty average for our school - in fact, I've even heard that they expect to fill the cohort with at least 2-3 students from the undergrad program each year (which graduates hundreds of students each year, so they are the very best of the undergrad cohort). Our institution has a great reputation in our field, and honestly, if I'd wanted to go to a large school for undergrad, I would have been happy going there for my B.A. and then staying on for my Ph.D., but I wanted to go to a SLAC instead and was quite happy there. If your school is perfect for your interests within your field and you like the atmosphere, and it's a good program, I see no reason not to stay

[Quantum Buckyball]

I would suggest you to avoid this if you were in the life science/physical science field. It would be very challenge to land a good post-doc position, or a decent job in the industry.

[Garrus_Vakarian]

And I would say if the plan of education is fine, professors (entire staff) are wise and helpful and you're happy and feel fulfilled both emotionally and scientifically then why the hell not? If it fits your purpose and your goal then it is fine and there is NOTHING wrong with it

[Quantum Buckyball]

It's about how your future employers would think...well, unless you start your own company...

[juilletmercredi]

In my field, future employers would think nothing of it.  In fact, they wouldn't even care where you got your BA.  The concern would be the quality of your graduate education.

 

In my field it's not uncommon for students who went to the best or one of the best programs in the field for undergrad to stay there as doctoral students.  After all, if you are in one of the top-ranked places in the country that's the best for your research area, you're working on bleeding-edge research with a rock star in the field, and you're doing well - why would you leave?  Simply to say that you did your PhD somewhere else?  If you went to BA through PhD at, say, Michigan or Stanford or UCLA or Harvard - that wouldn't threaten your job prospects one iota in my own field.

 

There are other ways to gain perspective.  You can collaborate with PIs at other institutions; you can go to conferences a lot; you can do a postdoc somewhere else.

[bsharpe269]

I am of the mindset that it is almost always better to go elsewhere for your PhD.

 

For example,assume that you are at the number 1 ranked school in your subfield for undergrad, working with a nobel prize winner on the exact research that you want to do for grad school. Wonderful... you do research under the PI for a few years and then apply to grad school. You could stay and work for him for your PhD or go work for the number 2 guy in the field. I am of the mindset that you will learn alot more from 3 years with the number 1 PI and 4-5 years year with the number 2 PI than you will from 8 years with number 1 guy. Even if there are 2 great professors at your undergrad school and you switch labs, I still think that you are limiting yourself since you could learn from both of them as an undergrad and switch for PhD. In my field, it is frowned upon to stay at the same school for undergrad and PhD and I think it could negatively impact your career.

[Taeyers]

I'm fairly certain that at least a good dozen of other factors are more important in the success of a job search than getting the PhD from the undergrad institution or a different one. Two of those extremely important factors would be publications and letters of recommendation. If the OP finds herself at an institution where she's the most likely to thrive as a graduate student and produce great publications and glowing references from faculty she's already familiar with, it would be irresponsible to rule it out because her undergrad degree was awarded there. I found myself in the same situation, and I have no doubts that my choice was the best for me. 

[shadowclaw]

Well, I had an archaeology professor who got all of her degrees from Ohio State. Since then, she's done lots of exciting things like analyze the gut contents of frozen mastodons and gone digging in Egypt. She has lots of publications and her work has been featured in National Geographic. Currently, she's a tenured professor, and she spends the first half of every summer working on a dig in Ohio with undergraduate students for their field experience (plus finding out some really cool stuff about the mound builders) and spends the second half in Egypt.

 

I don't think having all of her degrees from the same place hurt her at all.

[TakeruK]

It's not common in my field, but also not super rare either. I would say that most graduate programs have at least one current grad student that did their undergrad at the same school. 

 

I agree with bsharpe that in theory, working with #1 PI for 3 years then working for #2 PI for 5 years is better than working with #1 PI for 8 years. However, working with #1 PI for 8 years is not that far down the list....it would be better than say, working with #1 PI for 3 years then working with #238 PI for 5 years. 

 

In my opinion, working for #1 PI for 8 years would only be marginally worse than working with #1 PI for 3 years then #2 PI for 5 years. How much worse exactly depends on the stigma in your field but this can vary a lot from person to person and I would say that I feel the general trend in my field overall is that the expectation that one moves around a lot for most academic growth is reducing.

 

Therefore, if there are reasons for an undergrad to stay at the same university for all their degrees, I would say go for it and worry about the stigma later. One very successful scientist I know has been at the same school for 20 years (BSc, MSc, PhD, multiple postdocs, and now hired as permanent research staff, all at the same school). 

[Taeyers]

One very successful scientist I know has been at the same school for 20 years (BSc, MSc, PhD, multiple postdocs, and now hired as permanent research staff, all at the same school).

Come to think of it, I know a professor like that too. She has been at my institution her entire career (about to retire) and she's very successful here.

And I also want to encourage separating staying at the same institution from staying in the same lab. I'm staying in my perfect-for-me department but switching PIs and subfields.

[Applemiu]

I agree with bsharpe that in theory, working with #1 PI for 3 years then working for #2 PI for 5 years is better than working with #1 PI for 8 years. However, working with #1 PI for 8 years is not that far down the list....it would be better than say, working with #1 PI for 3 years then working with #238 PI for 5 years. 

 

It seems to me that staying in the same institution is OK if you are working with the top scholars of your fields; otherwise it is better to move.

[juilletmercredi]

I would agree with that assessment.

[TakeruK]

It seems to me that staying in the same institution is OK if you are working with the top scholars of your fields; otherwise it is better to move.

 

Definitely agree -- I was assuming this scenario because of the topic title!