Pros and Cons of going into a "new" PhD program

[A2018]

I am deciding between a few offers and without going into details, I just want to ask about the advantages and disadvantages of going to a PhD program where my cohort would be one of the first (not the literal first though!). Nobody has graduated with a PhD from this program yet. 

Otherwise I am in love with the program. Just want to make sure I consider all the pros and cons that I might not have thought of yet. 

This is in the Humanities/Social Sciences field, if that matters. 

Edited March 21, 2018 by A2018

[ZeChocMoose]

4 hours ago, A2018 said:

I am deciding between a few offers and without going into details, I just want to ask about the advantages and disadvantages of going to a PhD program where my cohort would be one of the first (not the literal first though!). Nobody has graduated with a PhD from this program yet. 

Otherwise I am in love with the program. Just want to make sure I consider all the pros and cons that I might not have thought of yet. 

This is in the Humanities/Social Sciences field, if that matters. 

Have you got to talk to the current students of the new program?  Have they mentioned any pros or cons?  My guess is as a new program there will be more uncertainty about program offerings/process; the faculty might be more inexperienced compared to other programs; lack of reputation (or knowledge) of the program might hurt your job prospects.  I think all of these can be mitigated - but the program needs a strong plan to address these issues so I would ask them what their plan is and how they are adapting it as things change.

On the flip side - the faculty might be more invested in the students since you are the first classes and they want to ensure that you all will have jobs after you graduate and be relatively satisfied with your time in the program.  There also might be starting funds that the program can leverage from the university to have more resources - which can translate into a lot of different ways to impact the quality of life in the program. 

[juilletmercredi]

This all depends on what "new" means, because "new" doctoral programs can have different kinds of features.

For example, a university can decide to offer a new doctoral program using existing strengths and offerings. For example, let's say that a university decides to offer an interdisciplinary American studies PhD for the first time. But they have powerhouse American history professors in the history department; excellent American literature professors in the English department; some well-established professors studying American culture and issues in the anthropology department, etc.; they've got like six centers dedicated to the study of American problems and topics that have been around for 20-50+ years; and they already have a long record of placing alumni into American studies-related positions. In that case - the program is new, but the study of American studies at this university is not, and the professors have established skill and networks and ability to do the kind of training and professional development American studies scholars need. So it's not so big a deal.

A related situation might be when a department has been offering a specific concentration for many years and they finally decide to spin it off as a new field. E.g., let's say that the history department has always had a special concentration or certificate in American studies, and students in this concentration could always work with professors from other fields studying American studies, but they finally decided to make it a standalone PhD. That situation is fine too.

In some cases, even an entirely new PhD program can be a great place to go if the university has strengths in related fields and is strong enough overall to attract great faculty in the area. For example, let's say Columbia wanted to start a new data science PhD program. They've already got existing professors in statistics, computer science, operations research, industrial engineering and other fields who can easily contribute, but they also have the institutional resources to easily lure established, powerhouse data science professors from other universities to come teach in their new program. These professors are bringing their networks and resources and grants, and stuff with them. That's not to say there won't be some growing pains as they get settled in, rebuild their labs, figure out their relationship with the new university, etc.

Where the true issues come in are if a university doesn't have existing strengths in a particular area and/or the resources to attract them, especially if it kind of seems like they're hopping on a fad train. So you want to ask  yourself: Does the university already have existing, established departments with faculty who have been doing work in this and/or related areas for some time? Even if they've never specifically placed someone with that exact PhD, have they placed PhDs from other departments in relevant positions (academic or industry)? What other institutional support - centers, libraries, institutes, consortia, partnerships - does the university have for this kind of work? Look at the whole picture, not just the existence of this specific program or department.

[aakhere]

I don't think the program title for a PhD matters a whole lot. Ive talked to a few PhD graduates and Ive been part of conversations with PhD grads and senior researchers. PhD grads often introduce themselves by one of two things, the university or their thesis topics. In conversations what they get asked most is who their advisor was. I'd say look at the advisor and see the quality of the work his students under other program labels have done. The accomplishments of the students if consistent speak volumes for the advisor.

A definite con of this approach may be limiting your options in advisors going in. Many students that join PhD programs actually take up a different advisor than they initially planned to since you dont have to do it until a couple semesters in.

[juilletmercredi]

I think whether or not program title matters, and how PhD grads introduce themselves, depends on the context. I have a PhD in Sociomedical Sciences, and nobody ever knows what that is, so I alternately introduce myself as having a PhD in social psychology and/or public health depending on the context. I never talk about my thesis topic unless someone asks me, and usually they're asking me out of curiosity. I work in industry, where your dissertation topic really doesn't matter, but my sense is that even in academia once you are more than 1-2 years out of grad school nobody cares about your dissertation topic anymore.

Program title can matter for academic jobs - for example, someone with a PhD in sociology may be more likely to get hired in a sociology department than someone with a PhD in American studies, even if they did research on the same things. But it doesn't always matter.