Overall Vs. Speciality?

[finetune]

Suppose I've been admitted to a top-20 department — call it University X. Suppose also that I've been admitted to a department whose ranking is in the mid-40s – call it University Y.

University Y is clearly not as well-ranked as University X and, seemingly, X has more ‘prestige’ than Y. But Y has one faculty member whose research interests almost perfectly align with my own. Also, most of the grad students at Y seem to have research interests that are in line with my own. The same can’t be said of the grad students at University X. Moreover, while X also has one faculty member whose research interests are in my subfield, they don’t seem overall as salient to my own, nor does that faculty member seem as involved in same ‘subfield scene’ as the faculty member at University Y (the ‘subfield scene’ I’m interested in).

Assuming University X and Y have roughly the same job placement success (or lack thereof), and assuming X and Y have similar funding packages, is it better to attend X or Y?  

[lyellgeo]

Other people on here may have more experience, but my sense is that Y would be better. But if you're less sure about your current interests and think there's a good chance they might develop into other areas (or if you want to develop a strong competency in other areas), then you may want to go with X, as the higher ranked school may have more options in those other areas.

Edited March 15, 2018 by lyellgeo

[Glasperlenspieler]

Questions to ask yourself:

1. What is the likelihood that your research interests will change over the course of your graduate career? (This is obviously highly variable depending on the person, but generally speaking someone entering with an MA is less likely to change focus than someone coming in with only a BA.)

2. Insofar as you want an academic job, where are the former advisees of the professor at University Y? Have they gotten tenure track positions at the sorts of universities you would like to work at?

3. How confident are you that you and the professor at University Y would have a good working relationship? I've heard more than a few stories of students (and current professors) who entered a program intending to work with a particular professor, but realized that for one reason or another that wasn't going to work. 

4. How important is it that your advisor has exactly the same are of research as you do?

 

I'd say the right choice depends a lot and your answers to these questions. University Y seems like the riskier choice, because  if your interests change or you decide you don't work well with this professor, you're sort of up a creek without a paddle. But, those concerns could be mitigated if you have a good reason to think that won't be the case. I'm also skeptical about the idea that one's advisor needs to have exactly the same interests as you. Obviously, they need to know your subfield, but I think that having someone who approaches things from a slightly different perspective can be helpful as can have a committee whose overlapping expertise provides you the support you need, even if no single individual on the committee does exactly what you do. But that's just my 2 cents. YMMV 

[ThePeon]

I would also look at not just the placement rate of the schools, but at what kinds of jobs people were placed at. If you want a research job, for instance, University X may have better placement in those kinds of positions than University Y due its prestige.

[maxhgns]

Some of the questions you need to ask (many of them already mentioned above) are:

1. Is program Y in Group 1 or 2 (preferably 1) for the specialty?
2. What does each advisor's recent placement look like?
3. How does X's general placement compare to Y's?
4. How big is your subfield, and how many jobs does it generate each year?
5. Has program Y been hiring a lot recently?
6. How much support does each program have for your interests outside the subfield?

 

IMO, if Y is to have any chance, it needs to really  crush your intended specialty. That means that your prospective supervisor has to be one of the top people in the subfield. Believe me, your experience of a subfield (and your access to opportunities) will be very different with a fancypants supervisor than it will be with a middling one. This isn't because they're better--qua actual supervision, they may well be worse--but because of the privilege that comes attached.

Relatedly, you want to see what the placement record for each prospective supervisor is like, compared to the program's own placement record. If the department places well but the supervisor doesn't, that's a problem (unless perhaps it's because they seldom have any students--but then, you need to ask why. E.g. is it because the subfield is so small/maligned?). If the supervisor's placement is better than the rest of the department, then that's a very good sign.

You should also have a look on PhilJobs to see how many jobs have opened up in your subfield over the last few years. My opinion--just an opinion, mind--is that supervisor prestige matters more in subfields with a steady and relatively large number of jobs each year (say, 8+), because it helps to mark you out from the crowd. If it's a job-poor subfield, though, then I think that program prestige is more helpful because it makes you more competitive for the jobs in your other AOS(es), for open jobs, and for jobs at ranked departments. If your subfield is a low-status subfield, then the hiring committees are much less likely to know just how impressive your impressive advisor's letter is, and how impressive all your subfield connections and publications are. But they'll know that your PhD came from the T20 program.

You should also consider whether program Y's ranking is static, or whether its star is  rising (or declining). Are most of its faculty older, younger, or well-balanced? If older, then there will be lots of retirements soon(ish)--while you're there, or while you're on the market. That means that they need a supportive admin to replace the lines, and a coherent vision of their department's strengths to guide the allocation of those lines. If they're mostly younger, then their reputation can only grow (but they probably won't hire much for a while). Have they been hiring a lot recently? If so, then they enjoy good admin support, and their fortunes are rising. The best example of this is UBC: back in the early aughts, they had ten ageing faculty. They now have what, 23ish? And they're concentrating their hires in certain areas that are well-supported. They're also hiring every year. Last year they poached Alison Wylie, which is a huge steal. This year they're hiring a junior logician, and a senior fancypants for a Tier-1 Canada Research Chair. They're on the rise, and I would bet on them ranking in the 20s in the next report (which would still undervalue them, IMO).

Finally, as others have said, you need to consider that your interests may change. In which case, you don't want to have to transfer or feel screwed. But it's also important and useful to be in a program with strengths in subfields cognate to your prospective AOS. You'll be doing a lot of work in those cognate areas, they can do a lot to inform your work, and it's really useful to have solid guidance with that.

 

FWIW, I would probably gamble and attend Y if it was clearly on the rise and if the main person in my subfield was clearly someone at the top of the subfield. What I actually did was attend a program that was gradually declining, but with one of the very top people in my subfield. Jobs in my subfield are very scarce, though, which makes it hard to stay in the game long enough to have a shot. It's worked out pretty well for me so far, but it's still far from over. I would not have chosen my program--nor would I advise you to choose Y--had this person not been so famous in the subfield, however. A middling supervisor at a top department beats a middling supervisor at a low department every time (not in terms of their work, obviously, but in terms of the department's desirability).