Dilemma--Reputation vs. Program

[AmHist2010]

I'm in need of advice to help me think clearly--and rationally--about my grad decision. I've been accepted at two top-twenty schools (both of which are top 10 in my subfield), but am becoming increasingly tempted by an offer at a school that is just outside of the top-50 (USNWR--I acknowledge these don't necessarily mean anything, but it's the best rough marker I can come up with). [Though to slightly different degrees, all are funded]. While the two top-twenty schools would be good fits and have much stronger reputations in my field, the top-50 school is throwing all of its resources at the exact sub-sub field (if I can use that term) that I want to be trained in. In the past 4/5 years they've been hiring faculty for this area alone, including a top scholar in the field and several all-star, multi-award wining junior faculty (recent FJT prizes, etc). Their pitch to me, which I honestly can't disagree with, is that their program is the best fit of almost in the country for what I want to do. And while the other schools have general colloquia, this school has three workshops dedicated to different aspects of this sub-sub field. In fact, the only reason I have for turning them down is general reputation--not that they have a bad one, but that they have no reputation at all.

So, is it absurd to consider the top-50 program? Or is the prudent, market-oriented thing to do to accept something at the other schools?

[Squawker]

I was faced with a similar decision for MAs. Wanting to be in the best place for PhD applications, I was initially quite stumped - choose the internationally renowned university with a meh program as far as my specific interests are concerned, or choose a great but not as highly ranked university with faculty members who teach classes that sound like they've been designed just for me. I was actually leaning towards the former, but when I talked about it with my family and some of my recommenders they all looked at me like I was crazy. Turns out I was underestimating the reputation that school B has in my specific field, and that despite the lower ranking of the university the specific program is actually considered more prestigious. I'll be attending school B.

Sorry for the long personal rant. It sounds like you're deciding between PhD programs and not MA, is that right? I obviously have no experience with getting jobs after doing a PhD, but you should also consider the prestige of the individuals you'd be working with as well as the prestige of the university and the specific department within that university. I don't know what your field is like, but in mine only one of the expected Ivies is really up there as a top program in the field - the rest of the top programs seem like dark horses because they're at universities that some may never have even heard of! Obviously employability is a major factor to consider, but also think about whether you would want to dedicate 6+ years of your life to studying a topic you're not quite so crazy about. Sorry if that comment only makes the decision more painful! I know that I still feel a little queasy when I think about the choice I have just made and wonder if I'll be happy this time next year. I suppose that's just the wonderful advantage that comes with getting acceptances!

[spozik]

I'm in a similar situation, albeit in Classics. My programs are also much closer in rank, but the one that's a better fit for me and my subfield is the one that's ranked slightly lower. "Rankings" in Classics are tough because they haven't really come out recently. So who even knows? History rankings are, I'm sure, a little more current than Classics, but the last really good survey of Classics programs happened in 1997. In 1997, Arizona won the men's NCAA basketball championship. This year, they didn't even make the tournament. I wouldn't believe you if you said that Arizona was the number one team in the country this year, but for some reason Harvard at #1 for Classics still seems right--even though there is no legitimate indication that it is.

I think it's because the information just isn't as publicized because so few people really care. You have to talk to someone interested in your subfield and find out if your impressions of the program are consistent with their views on it. If they're not, you may have a problem--but chances are they will tell you that yes, it's an up-and-coming program and it would be a good fit.

Anyway, I've read over the threads on this topic throughout the forum, talked with some friends about it, and talked with professors about it. The result is fairly unanimous: go with the better fit in my subfield and ignore the "rankings" of the programs as that is often a very specious statistic. You want the statistics to be right because you want someone else to know what you should do, but that just isn't the case. The fact of the matter is that if you've done research on your own that tells you something that the rankings don't, you're probably right.

Unfortunately, programs that are particularly good in one subfield don't seem to get ranked well because one of the main factors in rankings are other professors' opinions of the different programs. If your subfield is small, fewer people know about it and recognize that strength. But when you go to get an academic job and your application has the seal of approval from two all-stars in your subfield and you work on a similar topic, you'll be much better off than if you had worked with junior faculty at a more "prestigious" institution.

Anyway, I'm essentially just parroting back the feedback that I have received from people who know more than I do about the whole process. Good luck in whatever you decide!

[AmHist2010]

I am entering a PhD program and will study 19th century American cultural history with a focus on the history of capitalism. I actually would be able to write on what I want at all three places, so that's a good thing. I would get excellent methodological training at each as well. The principal difference is that while my potential advisor (and other potential committee members) at the two higher-ranked schools do work in the general area of my interests, my potential advisor at the lower ranked school writes explicitly on my core interests and is continuing to work in that area.

[breakfast]

I'm in need of advice to help me think clearly--and rationally--about my grad decision. I've been accepted at two top-twenty schools (both of which are top 10 in my subfield), but am becoming increasingly tempted by an offer at a school that is just outside of the top-50 (USNWR--I acknowledge these don't necessarily mean anything, but it's the best rough marker I can come up with). [Though to slightly different degrees, all are funded]. While the two top-twenty schools would be good fits and have much stronger reputations in my field, the top-50 school is throwing all of its resources at the exact sub-sub field (if I can use that term) that I want to be trained in. In the past 4/5 years they've been hiring faculty for this area alone, including a top scholar in the field and several all-star, multi-award wining junior faculty (recent FJT prizes, etc). Their pitch to me, which I honestly can't disagree with, is that their program is the best fit of almost in the country for what I want to do. And while the other schools have general colloquia, this school has three workshops dedicated to different aspects of this sub-sub field. In fact, the only reason I have for turning them down is general reputation--not that they have a bad one, but that they have no reputation at all.

So, is it absurd to consider the top-50 program? Or is the prudent, market-oriented thing to do to accept something at the other schools?

You're making a common mistake I see a lot of people on these fora committing.

It isn't all about rank. In fact, the first time I heard about the "rank" of universities being discussed at all, let alone as the single indicator for a good program, was here on grad cafe. Never in any of my talks with my professors and my LOR writers was rank mentioned as being important. Take my case, for instance. The undergrad institute I went to? A large state school that appears to be unranked in my field. However, the professors in my subfield? Very well known and respected. No matter who I talk to or where they are located, every time I mentioned I went to U of X, people always ask me if I worked with Professor Y and/or Professor Z.

The same held true when talking about graduate school with these professors. At each school I mentioned, Prof. Z or Y would say something like, "Oh, doesn't Professor U work there?" Or they would say, "Professor W works there. They are young, but are becoming a star in the field", "Who?", or "I don't recall who works there." (I took these last two as a bad sign, even though the USNWR ranks these particular programs high in my sub-field). They never once said anything about the USNWR rankings of these programs.

I hope you're seeing a pattern here. It's all about who you work with. If I was in your situation, I wouldn't even have to think about it. You have been accepted to a program that could very likely be known among academics (a much more important consideration than what USNWR thinks of your program) as the top program in your sub-field in a few years (if it isn't already). It is at least very clear that they are trying to position themselves as such. You have a top scholar in your sub-field, and several up and coming stars. It isn't absurd for you to consider this program; it is absurd for you not to.

Edited March 20, 2010 by breakfast

[StrangeLight]

i agree with breakfast, who you work with is much more important than the school you come from. when i was building a list of schools to apply to, my very well-known undergrad advisor would recommend schools to me based on where the best professors were teaching. i'd look at the USNWR list and say, "well, what about X school?" her response would often be, "who is there? .... oh, yeah i guess" or "there's not really anyone good there now" or "they take on a lot of students and churn them out fast. it's more of a factory than graduate training and you'll pretty much be on your own there."

it's interesting to think that my award-winning, ivy league-trained advisor's top 10 list of her own subfield would look dramatically different from anything the USNWR puts out. the prestige and peer recognition your advisor receives IS important. program ranking as determined by the USNWR is not.

that said, you've already stated that all three programs have well-known professors in your field and all three would be strong places to carry out your research. lucky you! i would recommend talking to your undergraduate profs now and getting their opinions on where you should go. they'll know better than us the specifics of your situation and can offer you more informed advice.

then i'd also check out where students in your sub-sub-field are being hired, if at all. are they all getting tenure-track jobs? either they are 1) at universities you've heard of, or 2) in places you'd like to live long-term. it's rare to find both. if the department websites don't publish their placement statistics, ask the DGS for specific stats on placement rates. i noticed a lot of top 10/ivy league places just give a list of prestigious schools where past graduates teach, but there's no way of knowing if those students graduated 3 or 30 years ago. a program unwilling to provide you with this info may be a red flag. sure it's school X, and everyone knows school X, but if their PhDs aren't getting hired, back away slowly.

finally, look at where the schools are located. where do you want to live for the next 6 years? since your research is easily doable at all three schools and your potential advisors are "names" at all three schools, you're in a good position to make this decision based on something other than academics. where would you be happy?

Edited March 20, 2010 by StrangeLight

[rising_star]

I'm not in history but I decided to weigh in on this anyway, in part because I did what you're thinking about doing. I'm currently attending the lower-ranked PhD program because of its emphasis in my subfield and who I get to work with. My advisor is one of the 4-5 names that everyone in our subfield knows, and his name alone opens doors. So, I would pay more attention to who you would be working with at each program, what their students have done and are doing, and how supportive they will be (ie, will they write you a letter with 4 days notice or ignore your emails?) of your progress as a student and your career development.

Also, I'd look at some of the intangibles at the schools. Are there professional development workshop/series? What about the speakers they bring in? (They should have a speakers series and I'd be seriously concerned if they don't.) Grant writing workshops? Publishing workshops? Roundtables for you to workshop proposals or papers before submitting them? Those things aren't cited as often but they are necessary and helpful.

[auzmtz]

You're making a common mistake I see a lot of people on these fora committing.

It isn't all about rank. In fact, the first time I heard about the "rank" of universities being discussed at all, let alone as the single indicator for a good program, was here on grad cafe. Never in any of my talks with my professors and my LOR writers was rank mentioned as being important. Take my case, for instance. The undergrad institute I went to? A large state school that appears to be unranked in my field. However, the professors in my subfield? Very well known and respected. No matter who I talk to or where they are located, every time I mentioned I went to U of X, people always ask me if I worked with Professor Y and/or Professor Z.

The same held true when talking about graduate school with these professors. At each school I mentioned, Prof. Z or Y would say something like, "Oh, doesn't Professor U work there?" Or they would say, "Professor W works there. They are young, but are becoming a star in the field", "Who?", or "I don't recall who works there." (I took these last two as a bad sign, even though the USNWR ranks these particular programs high in my sub-field). They never once said anything about the USNWR rankings of these programs.

I hope you're seeing a pattern here. It's all about who you work with. If I was in your situation, I wouldn't even have to think about it. You have been accepted to a program that could very likely be known among academics (a much more important consideration than what USNWR thinks of your program) as the top program in your sub-field in a few years (if it isn't already). It is at least very clear that they are trying to position themselves as such. You have a top scholar in your sub-field, and several up and coming stars. It isn't absurd for you to consider this program; it is absurd for you not to.

I couldn't agree more. I certainly wouldn't feel confident making a recommendation about a decision I don't know as well as my own. Nevertheless, don't underestimate the importance of working with well-respected professors in your sub-field who are eager to oversee your research. If your top 50 can offer you that opportunity, you're far from crazy for considering it over your top 10s.

I had a similar choice (top50 v. top10 in my sub-field) this year. And I did more than consider the top 50 program--I chose it.

[siue16171617]

I couldn't agree more. I certainly wouldn't feel confident making a recommendation about a decision I don't know as well as my own. Nevertheless, don't underestimate the importance of working with well-respected professors in your sub-field who are eager to oversee your research. If your top 50 can offer you that opportunity, you're far from crazy for considering it over your top 10s.

I had a similar choice (top50 v. top10 in my sub-field) this year. And I did more than consider the top 50 program--I chose it.

I will agree with everything that has been said about going with the best people over the best university name. The US News rankings are seriously flawed and incredibly misleading. The job market for PhDs in the humanities will be determined by who you know, not what you know. Also, consider teaching experience available to graduate students. It seems like big name institutions will treat you much worse than a "top 100 program." Consider the workload they are asking of you in addition to the coursework and research. If you are the hottest thing coming out under Prof. "Giant-in-the-Field" then you will have an excellent chance to secure funding beyond year 5, get published at journals, etc.

[siue16171617]

I will agree with everything that has been said about going with the best people over the best university name. The US News rankings are seriously flawed and incredibly misleading. The job market for PhDs in the humanities will be determined by who you know, not what you know. Also, consider teaching experience available to graduate students. It seems like big name institutions will treat you much worse than a "top 100 program." Consider the workload they are asking of you in addition to the coursework and research. If you are the hottest thing coming out under Prof. "Giant-in-the-Field" then you will have an excellent chance to secure funding beyond year 5, get published at journals, etc.

I also agree that all the posters on this forum are hyper about US News rankings, to their own downfall. These are the same people who seem to go with "quantity over quality" in the application cycle, i.e. they applied to a ridiculous number of programs (like, 12) as if it increases their chances. That's how universities like Yale make bank each fall. I am just sorry people haven't had better advice as undergrads.

[Riotbeard]

Also think about the diversity of the program. I am in a similar situation with you, and I think I am leaning toward the more renowned program, because they have a more diverse faculty. At program A, I could have a dissertation committee with four people in my narrow subfield; however, at program b my advisor is renowned in my subfeild, but I would also work closely with other profs. that would help internationalize my research with African Diaspora, Atlantic history, gender etc. You don't neccessarily need four committee members in your subfeild, and a more diverse education may make you and your dissertation more marketable as a grad. That being said, go where you feel the most comfortable and don't listen to the rankings (really, really don't listen to elitist grad cafe members, there are people on this site who will be applying to Yale every year for the next 50 years in the hopes their application will be finally "good enough").

[africanhistoryphd]

To be a bit of a devils advocate, check this article out:

http://www.historian...10/0510new2.cfm

It's a bit old, but as far as I know that data is still valid.

To summarize, top 25 schools hire people from other top 25 schools and thats about it.

Even beyond the top tier, "the representation of history PhDs from the top 20 programs is 1.7 times their portion of the PhDs conferred."

If my math is right, and I'm a historian so it's probably not, being in a top 20 program doubles your "presence" in the job market.

Just something to chew on as you make your decision.

For all its methodological issues, USNWR does heavily weight, perhaps even over-weight, peer reputation perceptions.

Edited April 1, 2010 by africanhistoryphd

[Matilda_Tone]

Thanks for posting this! It has, for the most part, been relevant and reassuring for me as well.

I am leaning towards picking a school based on the potential supervisor (who is arguably the top in the sub-field) but I have been having some hesitation about the school’s reputation (it isn’t bad, but certainly not a top ten)- “who you work with is much more important than the school you come from” is exactly what I want to hear

[Joe Lordan]

To be a bit of a devils advocate, check this article out:

http://www.historian...10/0510new2.cfm

It's a bit old, but as far as I know that data is still valid.

To summarize, top 25 schools hire people from other top 25 schools and thats about it.

Even beyond the top tier, "the representation of history PhDs from the top 20 programs is 1.7 times their portion of the PhDs conferred."

If my math is right, and I'm a historian so it's probably not, being in a top 20 program doubles your "presence" in the job market.

Just something to chew on as you make your decision.

For all its methodological issues, USNWR does heavily weight, perhaps even over-weight, peer reputation perceptions.

What i also found surprising was that it said something to the effect of the top 25 programs producing something like 44% of all history PhDs. That seems like an awfully large number for such a proportionally small group of schools... if it wasn't for this acceptance season I might even allow myself the chance to hope that it is actually "possible" for me to be admitted to one of them after I get my MA!