futurephd1589

GMU sounds like it'd be the better program long-term. I won't presume to know how you and your family handles finances, but doing a PhD is usually not about the money - I've been told that it's about acquiring the best possible education for yourself, while ensuring the widest, strongest network possible after you graduate so that you have the best possible industry job. You and your family are clearly important to you, and you have another child on the way - I would posit that long-term financial stability via the better (and by your words, an easier to complete) program would be the more optimal path. You'll have to endure some financial squeezing for the duration of your degree, but if you're going to be finishing your degree faster, wouldn't that balance out? Just my two cents!

Hey all, I've been lucky enough to have been accepted to various programs, and now I'm juggling some choices. My dilemma is this: PhD in nanoengineering at UCSD, or PhD in mechanical engineering at Tufts. UCSD has the better overall ranking than Tufts as far as US-News goes, but as we all know, rankings are only part of the story. 1) Both UCSD and Tufts have exciting research that I like a lot and can see myself doing at a PhD level. UCSD has more research expenditure, with bigger labs and funding, but I haven't yet identified a professor who will take me on. Tufts has professors I resonate with on a personable level, but they can't guarantee me funding in the time frame I have left. 2) If I take UCSD's nanoengineering, do I go to the higher-ranking school, but take the risk of hyper-specialization in a relatively new discipline (officially recognized as of 2007), in a rapidly-changing field that may or may not be lucrative? Or do I take the more traditional mechanical engineering, at an admittedly lower-ranking, but still very respectable, institution? Common pros to the situation: - Guaranteed first-year funding, with renewal contingent upon 'satisfactory performance,' which I'm guessing just means 'don't mess up, and your research adviser likes you.' - Adjusting for cost-of-living and other expenses, I would experience a similar quality of life. California has admittedly better weather, but I'd have to drive, something I dislike immensely. Boston experiences more dramatic seasonal shifts, but the public transit is arguably much better than that of California's. Negatives: - Taking UCSD would mean leaving behind an extensive life that's been built in Boston, including but not limited to friends, professional connections, and my significant other whom I'm very dedicated to. I would have to rebuild from the ground-up, be potentially lonely, I also feel like it would constitute a large academic and future-career risk (see my second point). - Staying in Boston would mean 'giving up' going to a larger 'brand name' school, but I would still be at a respectable institution with my personal relationships intact. --- I guess what it comes down to is, am I crazy for even considering not going to UCSD's nanoengineering program? Any thoughts you guys have would be much appreciated. Good luck to any others making tough decisions!