AbaNader

I am in a quandry and would like people's thoughts on it. I think more of it is a personal ethical dilemma rather than a real problem. I finished my Masters at a top 10 school and got into a fairly selective PhD program at a research institute (not in the rankings or anything). The pay is unheard of in academia (esp. with multiyear support), the benefits are amazing (we get dental!) and my adviser is the coolest I've worked with so far. The project is great too (v. cool) with real implications (unlike much of the engineering research these days). Now I before I got accepted and took up the position at this research institute, I applied to a bunch of schools and recently got accepted to a selective top 10-15 school which has all the makings of a great education. They also offered me a double fellowship and really want me to attend. More critically, however, the person who wants me to do research is someone I've wanted to work with for quite a while and the research is at the heart of my interests. I can't say the same for my current position (the research area is interesting but I can't see myself doing it in 10-15 years). I am now considering leaving my current position and going to this other school for my PhD mainly for the research area and the opportunities afterwards (better reputation, more access to industry, etc.) I've talked to my current adviser about it and he recommends I ignore the material benefits and follow my passion, that there is no pressure from him, etc. My question: Is it right for me to pull out after a semester of this program and after he already funded me for travel, etc.? In mentioning that there is no pressure, he said that the student-adviser relation is based on trust so he doesn't want to wish something he wouldn't wish for himself - and that is really how he has acted so far; going out of his way to help me even when it would not be in his best interest. But shouldn't that standard be expected from me as well? The idea of this type of "disloyalty" (if that is what you want to call it), is really eating me up inside and I can't get myself to do it, even if I did decide to leave (it is not a given just yet). Has anyone else been in a similar position (recently)? Your thoughts?

You don't seriously consider a jump of a couple of spots (or even 5!) as an indicator of the quality of a program, do you?

I will not claim to necessarily add to what has already been (very eloquently) said, but here are some of my thoughts: All schools typically have "residency" requirements of between 1 to 2 years. You have to be physically at the school doing research and collaborating with your adviser/other individuals during this period. Coursework is not an integral part of the PhD. In fact, some schools do not require any coursework for their PhD students beyond their BS (such as Johns Hopkins). Does this mean you wouldn't take any courses? No, you would take some to cover the qualifying/oral/preliminary examinations and also some that your adviser would require you to as a (personal) rule or because it would benefit your research. Learning how to do research, conducting research, learning to write scientific papers and contributing to the state-of-the-art, learning the psychological tricks-of-the-trade in order to make breakthroughs, learning how to advise/mentor future students, "inculcating" oneself in the research/academia culture of inquiry/collaboration/knowledge dissemination, and teaching are all goals of getting a PhD. It is ideally supposed to be a sandbox type of atmosphere for budding/aspiring scholars to learn their trade (research and "inquiring" into a particular area of science) in a low pressure setting. It is not always like that but the ratio of the pressure of the atmosphere to learning opportunities still makes it very much relevant compared to industry (where very novel research is seen as an expensive risk and where the learning opportunities at a high level are usually far and few in between). I have known people who have done their PhD's while working full-time but their PhD work has invariably revolved around their full-time job. I had the opportunity to spend some time with Russell Enns of Boeing. He did his PhD at Arizona State (or University of Arizona, I'm not sure) while working full-time at Boeing out in Arizona (formerly Hughes Helicopters). The residency requirement meant he had to take a leave of absence from Boeing for an year or two but then he came back to the company. His work at Boeing as well in his PhD revolved around flight control methodologies for helicopters (highly nonlinear/coupled dynamics) so there was some synergism involved and he was more accurately working 1.5 jobs instead of 2! He is now an associate editor for the top aerospace control journal (AIAA Journal of Guidance, Control, and Dynamics) and a research fellow at Boeing. Moral of the story: it can be done but your work should probably be aligned with it and you should make sure you have your heart in it as well. As a side note, I recall Enns chuckling dismissively when I suggested a raise/promotion at Boeing might have been his incentive for getting a PhD, "they don't care if you're a PhD or if you're a janitor, as long as you produce" (paraphrasing) - just in case you were considering doing a PhD for career opportunities, etc. In any case, you are still fresh into your MS program so let your feet get wet a little before you consider doing this more seriously. Good luck!

"bad year"? I think professors see it as a good thing. Larger pool, more options. Not to mention the windfall from application fees. Its a cruel cruel world...

I am leaning on accepting my offer at Johns Hopkins, however, the small faculty size is troubling. If I can't find classes I am interested in or I am saturated in terms of what I can learn from the department, do departments usually have mechanisms in place to allow students to spend a semester or two or dual enroll at a "partner" institution? I know Harvard/MIT have something like this but I wanted to know if it is common before I shoot an email to the department. Thanks!

Thanks for the input everyone! I've got a toughie on my hands... :-)

I hate to be Debbie Downer here but I think our chances of getting in have just gotten alot slimmer. I was waiting on MIT, Caltech and UCSB, but I am putting those down as pretty much rejects now. Many people already got offers from these schools on the results page and its relatively uncommon for them to give out offers later.

I got accepted to the engineering school at JHU. Does anyone know how the school is (environment, etc.) and what the town is like? I've only been hearing really negative things about both so far (JHU cold and competitive, Baltimore crime-ridden boring ugly city). Is it true? What city/school would be similar to JHU/Baltimore?

Depends on your area but Caltech and Stanford are really top notch both in terms of research quality but also in terms of the education you will likely receive. The former more than the latter IMHO.

Congratulations! I'm still waiting on MIT, Caltech and UCSB. Do you mind sharing your stats?

I just got an acceptance to UCSD but without any financial aid (so far).

I don't know if this helps anyone but I got an informal offer from JHU. The POI said formal offers will be sent after visit days (which she invited me to) which is after Feb. 24th. If you haven't gotten an offer yet, then don't despair...it seems official offers are sent much later. In fact, if you haven't gotten a rejection yet, that might be a good sign.

Just FYI: Purdue ME has had a problem for the last two years where they are exceeding their internal enrollment cap. That, coupled with funding sources drying out will make admissions much more selective this year. Don't be surprised if they expect you to pay for your education - thats how they make up for lost funding.

Notice in the Leiden rankings, 3 of the top 10 are from the UC system. In fact 5 out of 10 are from California. Great weather, great scholars and great research. Too bad they have perpetual earthquakes and are sitting on an overdue time bomb volcano that would eliminate the entire state in case it erupts. I think UCSB is the most underrated school around. They have amazing research and 99.8% of incoming students have guaranteed funding.

That is cool with a few surprises (I knew UCSF was great with brain sciences but not that good...). I wish they had a break down by discipline, it would be alot more useful for us picking graduate schools. I found phds.org to be a great tool although their metrics are (just) a little sparse. Question: Is it just me, or does MIT seem overrated when it comes to Mechanical Engineering? Looking at their faculty and work, nothing really stands out. It is definitely top 10-20 but #1?

What I was referring to was nitpicking at the rankings. I specifically remember a conversation I had with an international student at a "top 10" school about getting into a school that was ranked just a few places ahead of this "top 10" school in some ranking. He was advising me to leave saying "I don't know about you...but I am greedy, I will always go to the highest ranked place, even if its 1 place higher". That kind of mentality spells trouble. One of the best schools in the world are the Ecole Normale Superieure schools in France. If you look at their faculty and the quality of their students, its just mind blowing. But because they are smaller schools, they would have trouble getting into the rankings...that is until they aggregated their scores and said they were 1 school with three campuses. Poof, suddenly they're in the top 30 rankings of best universities in the world, which IMHO is still not high enough. Also, from working substantially under four different advisers at four different schools, personally I prefer that an adviser be very hands-on for the first year or two until the student is familiar with the topic and has some courses under his belt. You can learn and work a lot faster if your adviser cares about your personal/professional success as much as he cares about some paper being published. Don't even get me started with the horror stories...

...and of course has moola!

Hate to break anyone's bubble but I've studied at all types of schools, including top ranked ones (top 5-10) and rankings are very misleading. There is definitely a reason they are ranked that high but this whole ranking thing is way overrated and many of these schools are over-hyped. Unless you are at places like Caltech or Stanford there really isn't a major difference between any of the top 20-30 schools. The rest they feed you is all PR and advertising. Its really self-perpetuating: higher ranked schools get the better mind, and thus produce better results, and thus stay ranked high or get higher. In reality, often there hasn't been any difference in their faculty, facilities, courses, or anything else. International students have a habit of falling for the rankings game more than anyone else, probably because usually reputation trumps everything overseas. Even if your dissertation was trash, your adviser a wash-over and you don't seem to know a thing about your field...usually a degree from Georgia Tech/UIUC/Purdue/etc.. will be enough. I am saying this because I've seen it. You will be very blessed if your adviser knows his stuff very well, loves to do his stuff, and loves to share his stuff. Thats all that matters.

I don't know where you go to school but KAUST has agreements with a bunch of schools (Berkeley, MIT, Oxford, Texas A&M, UCSD, etc.) that you may be able to exploit.

www.kaust.edu.sa They are small, focused, have truckloads of money and are super selective (6% acceptance rate I read somewhere). Its a worth a shot. PhD stipends start at $2k/month and they also provide free housing (two floor condo's around a bay) with utilities included, medical care with dental, yearly tickets, etc.. You should contact their faculty directly for opportunities.

Stuff: Don't be discouraged...it is very common for Physics majors to jump to other fields. My own adviser finished his bachelors and masters in physics at a top university and then finished his PhD in EE at Berkeley...in only three years too! If you have a good GPA from a top school, that is already a good sign. The two other most important things are letters of recommendations and then your SOP. The ideal LOR comes from someone famous in the field and who knows you personally. I found the best way to get good LORs is to cultivate relationships with professors before hand...give it at least an year. Jump on their research project, show your enthusiasm, work your butt off, impress them and finally ask their advice about graduate school...if you did everything right, at that point they will most likely offer to write you an LOR. That is honestly the only way to get good LORs and a good LOR can make everything else not matter. Do your masters at your own school or extend your graduation if you have to so that you can prepare for your graduate application. Make a game plan for the next year or two about what you need to accomplish to get in where you want to.

That was the impression I had; the SOP of LOR's are the most critical parts of the application.

Congratulations! And thanks for the positive encouragement. What do you think really got you into the program? Any special letters of recs? Statement of purpose? Also, what area are you in?

bump

TU Berlin, TU Munchen are pretty good. You may consider Switzerland as well: ETH Zurich is a very good school. In the US you will have better chances to get funded, in all respects (tuition, research projects, facilities, etc.). You have greater mobility here as well because there are more good schools here than any other country in the world. You also have sheer mass at most good school (large departments can easily have 60-80 listed faculty members) which gives you more exposure. Finally, getting a Masters/PhD from the US is significantly more valuable (in the sense of knowledge/expertise) than anywhere else simply because the graduate programs here have mandatory coursework. In the PhD programs, you will have to sit qualifying/comprehensive exams as well to test your knowledge. That makes getting a PhD at a US university much more difficult, much longer (can go to 10 years in many cases) but also more meaningful. The US is not the end-all or be-all, but its good to be cognizant of the advantages/disadvantages of an education here.