Robsoc7

mtlve... Thanks for the post. My potential advisor at Cambridge gets in a lot of good journals, although not Nature or Science as most of my potential advisors at Southwestern have done (and they are young). I definitely like the shorter Ph.D system at Cambridge and the no course work, but I am worried how my lack of experience will affect me if I return to the US for a job. I do like the no coursework aspect, but my main concern is exactly what you said, that your former boss does not like to hire people from the European system. Do you know where I would make up for my lack of experience? Postdoc maybe? I have pretty much already voted out Brown... I loved Southwestern for the same reasons you have said, and I also love Dallas and am fairly moderate with a lean towards conservatism. I visit Cambridge in March, so I hope to know more by then.

belevitt While the Cambridge system is different in that you do not do rotations, the system does include a extended amount of lectures and seminars. This is akin to the US system, although not identical in that you do not take academic courses in the sense that you are talking about. And I support their methodology in that you finish your Ph.D based on time, not research. This is how biotech works...you either produce the results you need in a specific time frame, or you fail. If you are not producing results fast enough, then work longer. The academic system is, in my opinion, impeding science. I have seen too much of a lazy research going on because academic science is essentially devoid of deadlines. But, this is my business mindset coming out, and I would guess not many people support this view. Thus, I am not against the Ph.D system at Cambridge. And, I seriously doubt a degree from Cambridge would be looked down upon by biotech companies. Especially since Cambridge is home to the Cambridge Science Park, the oldest science park in the UK, and composed of about 100 biotech companies. But, Southwestern is currently building its own science park, which will open summer 2009, to house biotech companies.

You are definitely right that the size of their faculty helps with the amount of pubs they get out, thus giving them a high ranking with in most cited polls. Hadn't really thought about this. I have pretty broad interests, and if I got to Southwestern I may even pursue Biophysics (US News puts Biochem/Biophys in same category, thus still top 10). I don't really know what I want to do. I have talked to all kinds of profs at southwestern, from a natural product chemist, to a RNA biochemist, to a molecular biophysicist, to a quantitative biologist. All but one of these potential advisors is young, but they all have published at least once in either Science, Nature, PNAS, or Cell every year since 2005-2006. On the other hand, my potential advisor at Cambridge (who I have to go to if I go to Cambridge, and she is not from MRC) has only published in PNAS once in 2006. But, she publishes a lot each year (12 in 2008; 19 in 2007). This is a good amount more than my potential advisors at Southwestern. I guess this is what I need to figure out... 1) I want to work in biotech one day, so how important is that name. YES, a name is important if you want to gain a good faculty position one day, but what about in the biotech world. Usually in business (and I'm guessing in the biotech industry as well), once you get that first job your academic history becomes MUCH less important than your ability to perform in the workplace. 2) Which advisors would be seen as more prestigious; one that publishes a lot in lesser quality journals, or those that publish not as much but in higher quality journals. Could you maybe tell me a little but about your situation now (school and/or location, field of study, degree pursuing). I am wondering why your profs have never heard of it. Thanks for the responses too.

bernard... I agree with you on Brown. I also agree with you on the caliber of Cambridge. A few notes on Southwestern faculty... 4 Nobel Prize winning scientists, one winner of the Shaw Prize, 18 members of the National Academy of Sciences, 14 members of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences and 13 members of the Howard Hughes Medical Institute. All 4 of their Nobel Prize winners are still there, including a member of the Biochemistry department. Also, UT Southwestern

Do you think that future employers in the biotech world would be influenced much by the name of a program? There is no way around it, Cambridge has a reputation that even Southwestern, with its amazing faculty and credentials, does not have. Southwestern, though, has many more options on what I could study and with whom I would work under. At Cambridge, my potential advisor will be my advisor no matter what as she is providing the funding. I'm sure my project will be rather constrained as well. Cost of living is not of much concern to me...all the schools have good stipends. I also am impartial as to living in Dallas (Southwestern) or Cambridge. I do have family and friends in Dallas though.

I have no clue how to decide between these schools. I want to pursue a Ph.D in biochemistry, biophysics, or medical related field, and eventually work in the biotech and biomed world. I would pursue a Ph.D in Biochemistry at Cambridge and it has the best reputation/ranking. I would pursue a Ph.D in Biochemistry or Biophysics at UT Southwestern, and although these programs are top 10 (US News), UT Southwestern does not have the name of Cambridge or Brown. I did love the faculty at Southwestern, and they also happen to be the highest cited biochemistry faculty according to some sources. I would pursue a Ph.D in Pathobiology at Brown. All schools are fully funded.