University of Cambridge (UK) or UChicago for Chemistry PhD

[thenewkidaw71]

I was just accepted with funding to Cambridge, and it has totally thrown a wrench in my decision. I have tried to explain my pros and cons for each school, but I am also concerned in general about the difference between a USA and a UK PhD - some people say it doesn't matter while others say it is a kiss of death, so I do not know where the truth lies. If anybody has any feedback or experience, this would be greatly appreciated!! I am a younger PhD candidate and American if that matters.

Cambridge - I have been working with this professor since last August, when he helped me to write a proposal for the Churchill Scholarship (I didn't make it past the first round lol but we stayed in touch after). The lab is a really great fit, and the POI is very interested in me, but I am somewhat tentative about attending a UK PhD program for several reasons. I am coming straight from undergraduate and would lose out on some valuable advanced coursework and well as connections for job opportunities down the road (since I would be in the UK). I love the idea of finishing my PhD 1-2 years earlier, but I am worried that this would limit my opportunities afterward. I also spent a year living in Germany previously and consider living in Europe to be a huge advantage.

UChicago - Another great fit in terms of the professor, and they offered me a pretty competitive fellowship which would ease the cost of living. I also applied for GRFP under this professor, but that is by no means a given award. The professor is young and extremely productive, and I got along quite well with the graduate students. I think that I would benefit from the first-year graduate courses in a US school, and I really liked the first-year TA experience at UChicago. My main concern here was the atmosphere - I got the feeling that the program was rather competitive and that a lot of the graduate students were unhappy.

[GirtonOramsay]

I applied to 2 schools in the UK as well and have had the same concerns with doing a PhD in 4 yrs (skipping Masters too), but apparently my POI at Exeter has said that the American vs UK/European graduate school programs are quite disputed. He described it to me as the UK system just skips the "qualifying exam rubbish" and doesn't try to waste time having students taking 1-2 yrs of graduate courses, which takes away from research. Although, he told me that he has his students sit in on a few masters-level core classes, like fluid dynamics, to gain foundation knowledge expected for the research. Definitely worth mentioning as an idea to your Cambridge advisor since I was also worried about having no classes, but a few core classes is a good compromise to me.

This methodology apparently comes from the fact that UK students typically take 5-6 yrs to do their undergraduate studies, which starts at 16 vs 18 in the US. Most UK PhD applicants graduate with a first-honors degree (US equivalent to B.S. with honors thesis & high/highest honors) where they specialize in a certain field of science to a deeper level than a typical US college undergrad. This has the advantage of allowing UK students to become more certain and developed in their research interests that allows them to easily jump into and start working on independent research projects, hence the shorter graduation time. Whether this system is better than the US system for developing research skills is to be determined as I am not convinced either way yet. 

Ultimately, in the UK PhD, you are expected to do full-time research (could still TA though) as soon as you get there, and he told me that the main difference is "don't underestimate the very intensive workload and pace that we may expect of you" compared to the US. In other words, you get your hands down and dirty immediately after arriving in the UK vs in the US where you get to take a few years to develop your knowledge base and write a dissertation proposal with the qualifying exam before you do full-time research.