Indiana University vs. UC Irvine

[IRTphd915]

So, I've gotten fully funded offers from both programs.

 

Although IU is ranked higher than UCI in every respect, UCI is a better fit.  There are a few associate professors who I would enjoy working with at UCI but only one assistant professor at Indiana who I think would be okay to work with (the associate professor I hoped to work with at IU recently took a professorship somewhere else). Taking this into consideration, would it be wise to choose UCI over Indiana? Or would you still go to Indiana despite it being an okay fit at best? 

 

Any suggestions would be greatly appreciated!

[Dwar]

I'd say that you should go with the UCI option. TBH i think specific rank doesn't really matter as much as grouping, and i'd personally put UCI and IU in the same general grouping of 20-50 ranked schools. 

Ultimately though you should check with the UCI placement and look if you can see yourself happy in the types of jobs that their graduates generally get. 

[uchenyy]

26 minutes ago, Dwar said:

I'd say that you should go with the UCI option. TBH i think specific rank doesn't really matter as much as grouping, and i'd personally put UCI and IU in the same general grouping of 20-50 ranked schools. 

Ultimately though you should check with the UCI placement and look if you can see yourself happy in the types of jobs that their graduates generally get. 

I don't think it's fair to place UCI and IU in the same general grouping, or to suggest all of those in the top 20-50 are similar. Even if one goes off of USNWR, IU is at #29 and UCI is at #45. That's still a pretty significant gap. 

[Dwar]

7 minutes ago, uchenyy said:

I don't think it's fair to place UCI and IU in the same general grouping, or to suggest all of those in the top 20-50 are similar. Even if one goes off of USNWR, IU is at #29 and UCI is at #45. That's still a pretty significant gap. 

IMO, the rankings are super arbitrary and a specific number doesn't hold any significance. I'd say that the groupings are as follows.

Tier 1: CHYMPS

Tier 2: 7-20

Tier 3: 20-50

Tier 4: 50-65

Tier 5: 65+

Obviously there are anomalies and schools which should be ranked higher/lower then they are, this is just a massive over generalization. But it is how i view the ranking systems and i totally understand that other people view it differently. I based it mostly off placement, which sucks everywhere, but seems to generally be the same among similarly tiered schools. Feel free to disagree with me, it's just how i view them. 

With that being said, i would put UCI and IU in the same general tier. Meaning if a student felt strongly about fit or personal success at one school over the other, i'd recommend they follow their heart. 

 

Edited March 6, 2020 by Dwar

[IRTphd915]

20 minutes ago, Dwar said:

IMO, the rankings are super arbitrary and a specific number doesn't hold any significance. I'd say that the groupings are as follows.

Tier 1: CHYMPS

Tier 2: 7-20

Tier 3: 20-50

Tier 4: 50-65

Tier 5: 65+

Obviously there are anomalies and schools which should be ranked higher/lower then they are, this is just a massive over generalization. But it is how i view the ranking systems and i totally understand that other people view it differently. I based it mostly off placement, which sucks everywhere, but seems to generally be the same among similarly tiered schools. Feel free to disagree with me, it's just how i view them. 

With that being said, i would put UCI and IU in the same general tier. Meaning if a student felt strongly about fit or personal success at one school over the other, i'd recommend they follow their heart. 

 

Thank you for your replies Dwar. I agree that if one feels strongly about fit or personal success at one school over the other and both are in the same general tier, then definitely follow your heart. But what's making my decision a little less simple is that if you look at the Oprisko or NRC rankings, IU is ranked 15 and 18 while UCI  is ranked 36 and 45. So, I'm also reluctant to say that they're in the same grouping. UCI nonetheless has decent placements and the professors that I'd work with have placed well in the past. So, yeah, I've got some thinking to do over the next few weeks. I may ultimately follow my heart when making my decision.

[Dwar]

8 minutes ago, IRTphd915 said:

Oprisko or NRC rankings, IU is ranked 15 and 18 while UCI  is ranked 36 and 45. So, I'm also reluctant to say that they're in the same grouping

Oh i was looking at USNEWS. TBH NRC is kind of useless. They last came out in 2010 from data acquired in like 2006-2007. While i do like how they actually use outcome and satisfaction, it is way too old and infrequent to be accurate at this point. USNEWS places IU at 29 and UCI at 45. 

While USNEWS has major flaws, it is the most recent ranking published and the most commonly used. 

But i do agree that you should follow your heart and head and go where you will be the most successful. 

[Paulcg87]

I tend to agree with Dwar on this. Ranking isn’t everything. It’s definitely important and if you were debating a choice between a first and fourth tier school I think it would be more important. In this case, I don’t think IU and UCI are so dramatically far apart that it should overrule considerations about fit and quality of life. Remember, you will spend 5+ years of your life here, and how happy you are and how well you get along with your supervisor/committee affect both your success in your program and your post-grad job prospects at least as much as ranking when both schools are in the same tier. 
 

As a side note, as a Canadian who has lived mostly in Canada and the eastern US and is intimately familiar with Indiana-style weather, I personally would also choose UCI under these circumstances because it is unequivocally in a location with far better weather (no snow! No summer humidity!) access to 4-5 major airports (Orange County,  LAX, Burbank, San Diego plus Ontario), a much more diverse/international region, and most importantly, In n Out

Edited March 7, 2020 by Paulcg87

[SHS]

On 3/6/2020 at 1:03 PM, Dwar said:

I'd say that you should go with the UCI option. TBH i think specific rank doesn't really matter as much as grouping, and i'd personally put UCI and IU in the same general grouping of 20-50 ranked schools. 

Ultimately though you should check with the UCI placement and look if you can see yourself happy in the types of jobs that their graduates generally get. 

It is mainly because you don't have any offer from Top 40(~39) schools. 

In reality, there is a significant gap within top 20~50 schools, in terms of placement, resources, admission chances, etc, 

No one puts Northwestern and CU Boulder, OR even,  PSU and UConn, in the same group. You should probably know better. 

Edited March 7, 2020 by SHS

[Theory007]

8 hours ago, SHS said:

It is mainly because you don't have any offer from Top 40(~39) schools. 

In reality, there is a significant gap within top 20~50 schools, in terms of placement, resources, admission chances, etc, 

No one puts Northwestern and CU Boulder, OR even,  PSU and UConn, in the same group. You should probably know better. 

Even if I agree with you that there's a significant gap in the top 50, this is not a very nice message. This forum is meant to relay information and provide support to others, but talking like that benefits no one. If you disagree with the original message then let us hear why but don't talk like that.

[horololo]

I wanna point out one thing: your research interest may change during your doctoral program. Actually, it is very likely, or so have I been told. Therefore, even if the 'present' research fit is better with UCI, your future research interest may fit better with IU. I also think that making a decision that might define the rest of your life on the basis of your current research interest may not be so fair. I wouldn't expect myself to be really knowledgeable about what I want to research for the rest of my life when I have just got my BA or MA.

[IRTphd915]

13 hours ago, SHS said:

It is mainly because you don't have any offer from Top 40(~39) schools. 

In reality, there is a significant gap within top 20~50 schools, in terms of placement, resources, admission chances, etc, 

No one puts Northwestern and CU Boulder, OR even,  PSU and UConn, in the same group. You should probably know better. 

obnoxious... 

 

 

3 hours ago, horololo said:

I wanna point out one thing: your research interest may change during your doctoral program. Actually, it is very likely, or so have I been told. Therefore, even if the 'present' research fit is better with UCI, your future research interest may fit better with IU. I also think that making a decision that might define the rest of your life on the basis of your current research interest may not be so fair. I wouldn't expect myself to be really knowledgeable about what I want to research for the rest of my life when I have just got my BA or MA.

That research interests are more likely to change than not while in grad school is a really good point. And it's much more reasonable to go into a program with a general idea of what you want to study, but with an open mind. 

 

I think a lot of good points have been made here. Thank you all for your input - it's been quite helpful in getting me to think more about how I will make my decision.

[Paulcg87]

On 3/7/2020 at 2:00 PM, SHS said:

It is mainly because you don't have any offer from Top 40(~39) schools. 

In reality, there is a significant gap within top 20~50 schools, in terms of placement, resources, admission chances, etc, 

No one puts Northwestern and CU Boulder, OR even,  PSU and UConn, in the same group. You should probably know better. 

There’s no need for condescending, snarky replies. Dwar has helped more people on this forum with useful feedback than most. Your comments are a great reminder of why this forum is not PSR, thanks. I hope we keep it that way. 

[Theory007]

There was some talk about rankings within the top 50 so I thought I would add the ranking that I've always had in the back of my head. I'd say that any university within each category is indistinguishable from the others within the same category. For example, I think the ranking (or preference one would have) would pretty much be a tossup between any university in the top 20, i.e. Cornell, Northwestern, Ohio, UCLA, UNC, UPenn, Wisconsin are pretty much equal programs, and same is true for all other categories. But most people would prefer any program in the top 20 to any program in the top 30. This also means that universities are not ranked within each category - Columbia is not ranked higher than Yale for example. They are pretty much equals.

The list is my own but based on a combination of university ranking, polisci ranking, and general reputation. It ignores very many important things. Rankings within subfields vary widely. And of course I think it would be reasonable for anyone to go to a slightly lower ranked program but where the fit is better. But if the fit was the same, I think that my ordering would be acceptable to most people. In reality you will notice that the ranking does not follow the official ranking very well at all. Just to given an example: Brown and Georgetown are both ranked pretty low in the official rankings, but anyone would still prefer a spot there to any program in the top 45 or top 50. Even if Brown and Georgetown are ranked lower at the moment I think it would be reasonable to expect that it is a matter of time before they rise. And UC Davis is a highly ranked program but I still think most people would be indifferent to a spot at it vs. Brown.

I should say that it is not my intention to make anyone unhappy by placing whatever program they are at in the lower end. The ranking is based on my own idea of where I think the programs are compared to one another. And if you disagree, which I think many will, then let us hear what changes to the list would be reasonable.

[Theory007]

edited

Edited March 10, 2020 by Theory007
a

[uchenyy]

57 minutes ago, Theory007 said:

The list is my own but based on a combination of university ranking, polisci ranking, and general reputation.

This doesn't seem methodologically sound. Which university ranking? Which political science ranking? Reputation based on what? There are a lot of problems here.

One can't, for example, place UT-Austin and Minnesota in the same category as Pittsburgh. Look at the placement records. 

 

[uncle_socks]

1 hour ago, Theory007 said:

There was some talk about rankings within the top 50 so I thought I would add the ranking that I've always had in the back of my head. I'd say that any university within each category is indistinguishable from the others within the same category. For example, I think the ranking (or preference one would have) would pretty much be a tossup between any university in the top 20, i.e. Cornell, Northwestern, Ohio, UCLA, UNC, UPenn, Wisconsin are pretty much equal programs, and same is true for all other categories. But most people would prefer any program in the top 20 to any program in the top 30. This also means that universities are not ranked within each category - Columbia is not ranked higher than Yale for example. They are pretty much equals.

The list is my own but based on a combination of university ranking, polisci ranking, and general reputation. It ignores very many important things. Rankings within subfields vary widely. And of course I think it would be reasonable for anyone to go to a slightly lower ranked program but where the fit is better. But if the fit was the same, I think that my ordering would be acceptable to most people. In reality you will notice that the ranking does not follow the official ranking very well at all. Just to given an example: Brown and Georgetown are both ranked pretty low in the official rankings, but anyone would still prefer a spot there to any program in the top 45 or top 50. Even if Brown and Georgetown are ranked lower at the moment I think it would be reasonable to expect that it is a matter of time before they rise. And UC Davis is a highly ranked program but I still think most people would be indifferent to a spot at it vs. Brown.

I should say that it is not my intention to make anyone unhappy by placing whatever program they are at in the lower end. The ranking is based on my own idea of where I think the programs are compared to one another. And if you disagree, which I think many will, then let us hear what changes to the list would be reasonable.

My hot take on this: 

Did you try to make the top 6 CHYMPS because that seems to be the conventional wisdom? The top 6 is very traditionally (and for good reason) Cal Berkeley and Michigan, not Columbia and MIT, and I struggle to think of a subfield that one could come from where they think that Columbia and MIT are both better than Berkeley and Michigan. In particular, MIT is very good but is hardly a full-service department. 

Some other minor quibbles: Emory ranked too low (esp. given recent hires and placements), Pitt/Rice/Iowa/Syracuse are a big step beneath everyone else in that column, Rutgers too high, Stony Brook ranked way too low (pretty much top 20 if you do pol psych, which is the only thing they do), and Rochester way too low. 

Very interesting to see how people interpret departments though. I really wonder what would happen if we individually made rankings and averaged all of those out  

[Dwar]

2 hours ago, Theory007 said:

The list is my own but based on a combination of university ranking, polisci ranking, and general reputation. It ignores very many important things

While I do disagree on a few placements, I do generally agree with the overall structure and placement of your rankings. 
 

I definitely think that the tier system is far more important then specific numbers, and often times us, as applicants, place waaaaaaaay to much significance on a single number. I appreciate the visual that you created to help push that through. 

[Paulcg87]

I continue to be fascinated by how much emphasis Americans put on rankings. Every single school in the top 10, 20, 50, etc., undoubtedly deserves recognition, but the amount of energy and effort that some people on this forum (and some of my American classmates and coworkers in real life) put into rankings is astounding to me. UC Berkeley and Columbia are both great schools; the USNWR ranks one higher overall, one higher in polisci, etc., and the same can be said for many others. Ultimately though, the USNWR rankings are based on more than just graduation rates, alumni giving, etc... A full 20% of the criteria that goes into the USNWR ranking formula is "expert opinion". Contrary to what @BunniesInSpace and some others on here might argue, "expert opinion" is completely subjective. Some of these schools also mis-report data, as evidenced by UC Berkeley's recent removal from USNWR (https://www.forbes.com/sites/christopherrim/2019/07/26/uc-berkeley-removed-from-us-news-college-rankings-for-misreporting-statistics/#31432c247578). 

Seriously, every one of these schools is great. If you get worked up over whether your school is top 10 or top 20, or where in the top 50 you are, you're going to have a hard time in the real world when you realize in your mid 30's that rankings didn't matter anywhere near as much as you thought they did. 

[needanoffersobad]

another question on the placement of PhD: how to do the comparison, especially those schools ranking lower than the top 20? Top 20 get a great great placement      But for those from top30/40, I notice they get post -doc in a good school or AP at some “ok” schools (sorry I say this again from an international student perspective: some US schools I have never heard of , but I google it and it seems like just a normal university. Correct me if it’s inappropriate to call it like this )           
it’s easier to tell the difference between top 20 and 40  but what about both in the 30-40 tier       (Yes I am using my options as example: Vanderbilt Vs. Penn state) what do u think? 

 

Edited March 11, 2020 by needanoffersobad

[uncle_socks]

2 hours ago, Paulcg87 said:

I continue to be fascinated by how much emphasis Americans put on rankings. Every single school in the top 10, 20, 50, etc., undoubtedly deserves recognition, but the amount of energy and effort that some people on this forum (and some of my American classmates and coworkers in real life) put into rankings is astounding to me. UC Berkeley and Columbia are both great schools; the USNWR ranks one higher overall, one higher in polisci, etc., and the same can be said for many others. Ultimately though, the USNWR rankings are based on more than just graduation rates, alumni giving, etc... A full 20% of the criteria that goes into the USNWR ranking formula is "expert opinion". Contrary to what @BunniesInSpace and some others on here might argue, "expert opinion" is completely subjective. Some of these schools also mis-report data, as evidenced by UC Berkeley's recent removal from USNWR (https://www.forbes.com/sites/christopherrim/2019/07/26/uc-berkeley-removed-from-us-news-college-rankings-for-misreporting-statistics/#31432c247578). 

Seriously, every one of these schools is great. If you get worked up over whether your school is top 10 or top 20, or where in the top 50 you are, you're going to have a hard time in the real world when you realize in your mid 30's that rankings didn't matter anywhere near as much as you thought they did. 

Yeah undergrad rankings in the US News are bullshit. That's what graduation rates, alumni giving, (and your link) go into.  Schools fabricate, twist, and omit data on these to get better enrollment rates for that $weet undergrad tuition. But literally no one cares about these, and I can't recall a time in my gradcafe reading time in which anyone has ever seriously referenced the undergrad ratings. That's why I called Stony Brook (not very good in undergrad, but a fantastic PhD program) underrated in a prior post -- because the undergrad rankings are irrelevant. 

However, the way they rank grad schools is literally not about any of the factors that you've mentioned. Grad school rankings are built solely on how fellow academics think of your program. If you're going to attack the US News methodology at least reference the correct methodology: https://www.usnews.com/education/best-graduate-schools/articles/social-sciences-and-humanities-schools-methodology 

Yes, expert opinion varies by subfield and by "expert", but that doesn't mean that there are strong themes within them and a strong perceived hierarchy by grad students and faculty writ large. We shouldn't pretend that there isn't a consensus. 

Also on the subject of rankings at large: yeah they're pretty dumb when we go by the US News methodology. But guess what? The US News rankings are very very highly correlated with the kind of rankings that matter: recent placement within your subfield. Another type of ranking that matters: how free-flowing the research money is at your school. The types of software/research pools/visiting academics/sixth-year funding/funding packages/faculty hiring your school can pay for all give some people advantages over others. The opportunities are worlds larger with a Harvard or Princeton PhD than with a Davis or UVA PhD, both inside and outside the academic market. Can you learn the same things at each program? Yeah. Will you have to work much harder to achieve the same things coming from a lower ranked school? Also yes. In an ideal world does the government seize all higher education and stop perpetuating these inequalities? Maybe yes, but until then, ranking is a big deal. I'm not advocating that anyone lose sleep over any of this, as luck and one's own effort play massive roles in academic success. I'm just trying to say that rankings are super highly correlated with things that do matter and that within the academic community, there is a consensus (especially with respect to who is in the top 6 (and that it's just my lowkey pet peeve when people spell out the CHYMPS with authority but don't match the CHYMPS that everyone knows are the CHYMPS -- like when you replace Michigan with MIT and Columbia or Chicago for Cal it's kinda obvious that people are starting from the acronym and filling in the holes -- else we'd see less CHYMPS and more CCCHYMMPS ya feel)). 

And to the OP @IRTphd915 sorry for hijacking this. My advice is that because IU and Irvine are not disproportionately endowed, is to really dig into the last 5-10 years of placements in your subfield and go to whichever is placing better. Google all those graduates and see what they're doing. Academic interests change a little bit, but odds are your main subfield will stay the same. Also think about possible things you would like to do if you don't get an academic job (this goes for everyone! even in the CCCHYMMPS!) -- IU has a world class business school and Irvine a really great law school and in some subfields, there's room for collaboration and cross-departmental networking at both. Ask an admin or faculty about placement in both places: their online lists are pretty clearly not complete (Irvine not updated for 2019 and Indiana not listing job title). That all being said, if they're about the same, my money is with UCI. Things happen to assistant professors, and you don't want to be reliant on any one faculty member.

and @needanoffersobad, my impression of Vanderbilt and Penn State is that Penn State (recent Princeton placement aside) will set you up really well for a career in data science or consulting, but R1 academic jobs are hard to get with a PhD there. If you're truly 50/50 and want a career in industry, Penn State sets you up better than a lot of higher-ranked schools will. Vanderbilt is fancier name for sure (and I think they're disproportionately strong in my subfield so maybe that's why my opinion is higher of them), but they don't place as well as you'd expect. Ask Vanderbilt if they'll give you a full placement record. Their online placement record that I found doesn't include industry placements and these are important holes that need to be discussed -- are their PhDs without academic jobs baristas or are they RAND associates? It's a big difference. 

[Paulcg87]

6 minutes ago, BunniesInSpace said:

(especially with respect to who is in the top 6 (and that it's just my lowkey pet peeve when people spell out the CHYMPS with authority but don't match the CHYMPS that everyone knows are the CHYMPS -- like when you replace Michigan with MIT and Columbia or Chicago for Cal it's kinda obvious that people are starting from the acronym and filling in the holes -- else we'd see less CHYMPS and more CCCHYMMPS ya feel)). 

If your pet peeve about using the wrong C and M in CHYMPS is why you disagree with me about it being subjective, that's your choice, but the word "subjective" is defined as being based on one or more personal factors including opinion. The link you provided states "RANKINGS OF DOCTORAL programs in the social sciences and humanities are based solely on the results of peer assessment surveys sent to academics in each discipline." This isn't that different from the "expert opinion" I mentioned earlier, which was taken from the USNWR undergraduate ranking methodology. We can go in circles and dance about whether the graduate social science ranking methodology using "peer assessment" surveys is so substantively different from the term "expert opinion" that one is subjective and the other is not, or more subjective, but both appear to be subjective to me, ya feel? 

[irinmn]

This place is really starting to feel like PSR...

[needanoffersobad]

@BunniesInSpace  thank you for sharing your opinion! I asked for a updated placement about 2019 graduates. But the director said for 2019, no one is active or new on the  market. But she said next year will be a big one.        I didnt see PhD from  vanderbilt get a R1 ap.. mostly R 2 . 

I will try hard to stay in academia so I care more about the placement in academia not industry. (Rand is an exception I agree)

 

For penn state, I noticed the Princeton one. But I agree with you, I should put it aside. His experience is incredible and unique. 

 

[Paulcg87]

34 minutes ago, needanoffersobad said:

@BunniesInSpace  thank you for sharing your opinion! I asked for a updated placement about 2019 graduates. But the director said for 2019, no one is active or new on the  market. But she said next year will be a big one.        I didnt see PhD from  vanderbilt get a R1 ap.. mostly R 2 . 

I will try hard to stay in academia so I care more about the placement in academia not industry. (Rand is an exception I agree)

 

For penn state, I noticed the Princeton one. But I agree with you, I should put it aside. His experience is incredible and unique. 

 

@needanoffersobad Penn State and Vanderbilt? I thought you said it was between Ohio and Northwestern? Just curious.

[Theory007]

1 hour ago, Paulcg87 said:

If your pet peeve about using the wrong C and M in CHYMPS is why you disagree with me about it being subjective, that's your choice, but the word "subjective" is defined as being based on one or more personal factors including opinion. The link you provided states "RANKINGS OF DOCTORAL programs in the social sciences and humanities are based solely on the results of peer assessment surveys sent to academics in each discipline." This isn't that different from the "expert opinion" I mentioned earlier, which was taken from the USNWR undergraduate ranking methodology. We can go in circles and dance about whether the graduate social science ranking methodology using "peer assessment" surveys is so substantively different from the term "expert opinion" that one is subjective and the other is not, or more subjective, but both appear to be subjective to me, ya feel? 

Boy, that escalated quickly.