Should I reapply: one offer from lower ranked program but want to be competitive on professor positions after program

[phddream]

I am currently a senior DS at a FAANG company but my passion lies in academia. I have 2 publications, 3.5 GPA from large top 20 public school in Statistics, but my GRE general and subject test dates were cancelled last year due to COVID (I took them over 5 years ago and got 99% in GRE Quant, 85% in GRE Verbal, and 73% on math subject test). I applied to 12 top 30 ranked programs. 

Perhaps my concerns are premature but so far, I have only been admitted to one lower ranked program. The Berkeley faculty I interviewed with gave me the feedback that my coursework could be stronger (ie. Real Analysis and upper level Linear Algebra). In any other year, I would be grateful to get into any program, but I wonder if my lack of GRE scores and applicable coursework kept me out of top programs. As I want to be employable in the professorship job market after completing my phd program, I wonder if it would be worthwhile for me to reapply next round (taking the suggested courses, taking GREs, and I have a publication expected in the summer) instead of taking my one offer.

Grateful for any thoughts and advice -- thanks! (and sorry if this is not supposed to be posted here ? )

Edited February 19, 2021 by phddream

[trynagetby]

Depends on how low the program is. But If you haven't had Real Analysis/Upper division Linear algebra (or did poorly in them) and you got an interview at Berkley I think you definitely have a shot at getting into some top programs if you reapply having fixed those issues (maybe even if not). I have a friend who applied out of college, didn't get in anywhere. Applied the next year with a single swapped rec without retaking any classes and got into Berkley and Duke. Admissions might have been way rougher this year due to COVID so you definitely have a good chance of getting in somewhere better IMO.

[phddream]

Thanks for the encouragement, @trynagetby

The program is lower than 25 (>25). And I haven't taken Real Analysis except to look up concepts for work. I've already enrolled in Cal summer school since the feedback, figuring it'll be good refresher before graduate program any ways. I got paranoid about the program because I saw most alumnus go on to DS work. I don't want to leave my DS job to work 5-6 years for a phd to be eligible for only more DS positions.  

Edited February 19, 2021 by phddream

[Egnargal]

I think I have seen some similar posts on here before concerning whether to accept such an offer or try to reapply next year after doing additional coursework, research, etc. But I guess it comes down to preference and timing. I was accepted into some top-ranked program but ultimately chose to attend a lower-ranked one owing to the research fit, the desirable location, the offer quality, and the program structure. Going in, I had not expected to end up where I did, so I would not discount a program just because of its ranking. It seems that you have a strong profile, and, as was mentioned, this year might have been more competitive than others, but by waiting and reapplying, you still run the risk of not being admitted again, at least not to the very top programs. I am sure that it will be beneficial to take analysis, and knowing more linear algebra is always helpful, but I would still consider whether this alone will be enough to tip the scales in your favor at the top programs. But you know best your situation and your ambitions. Even at the top programs, securing a tenure-track position after graduation depends also on what you are working on and the connections you make, so while top programs might offer better access to these things, I don't think choosing a lower-ranked program precludes a successful academic career, especially if you go in with the intention of going into academia after graduation.

[bayessays]

I wouldn't worry about what previous alums do - even at top programs, a lot of people just go into data science roles because of the money.  Most people who go to lower programs don't want to be academics, so most of this relationship is not causal.  I'm not saying program reputation doesn't matter at all, but it matters much less than who you work with.  There are plenty of great professors at many programs ranked 25-50.  I understand if you don't want to post the program because of privacy concerns, but it is hard to give advice without knowing what your alternative is.  If it's a school like OSU/UIUC/UF/UCD/UCLA/UT/UCI (not exhaustive list) that's in the top 50, I'd consider the offer very seriously.

[trynagetby]

Following what Bayessays, high concentration of people who go into acadmia really only starts happening at the level of Berkley, Chicago, Stanford, Harvard, CMU.  The next tier down (UWashington, Duke, UMich, UNC,...) the vast majority of alumni still go into Data science positions. I say this because I've been researching UWashington and Duke as potential programs and most of the people I see on their webistes go to  industry.

[Stat Assistant Professor]

How "low" are you talking? Fwiw, I went to a PhD program ranked ~40 in USNWR, and we have placed PhD grads in TT faculty positions at Duke, University of Minnesota, UT Austin, etc. And I have also seen people who got their PhDs from Baylor, University of Cincinnati, and University of Illinois at Chicago (*not* UIUC) get TT jobs at Texas A&M, University of Florida, and Iowa State.  

It's not *just* about where you get your PhD. For example, Dave Dunson has a PhD from Emory (a very solid biostats program but not a Stanford/Berkeley/Harvard), and Michael I. Jordan (considered one of the top researchers in statistics/ML) has a PhD in cognitive science from UCSD. Both of these guys are extremely renowned in the statistics field.  I can also think of other outstanding researchers who don't have PhDs from "top" schools who have done quite well in academia.

I don't want to dismiss rankings completely, but pedigree really is only one factor (and byfar not the most important one). Hiring committees *really* care about your past publication record, your future potential, your postdoc experience (a very productive postdoc at a prestigious institution can help you a lot), your letters of recommendation, your PhD advisor and influential scholars who can vouch for you, your teaching experience, etc. These are all things that are taken into account for academic hiring.

Edited February 20, 2021 by Stat Assistant Professor

[kingduck]

Yeah, I'd agree with stat asst professor here. While there is a considerable weight placed on the school name, it ultimately boils down to your contributions to the field, which is largely determined by yourself and not the name of the school. It just so happens that those in "top" schools also have done well for themselves in academia, but it's likely that they were "good", so to speak, to begin with before being admitted, and that their school fostered their initial successes.

I think what I'm trying to say could be represented in some sort of DAG. Would be interested to see if we can use some propensity scoring on all the greats of statistics and see if anything causal can be said about school name and future success.
 

[statsguy]

21 hours ago, Stat Assistant Professor said:

How "low" are you talking? Fwiw, I went to a PhD program ranked ~40 in USNWR, and we have placed PhD grads in TT faculty positions at Duke, University of Minnesota, UT Austin, etc. And I have also seen people who got their PhDs from Baylor, University of Cincinnati, and University of Illinois at Chicago (*not* UIUC) get TT jobs at Texas A&M, University of Florida, and Iowa State.  

It's not *just* about where you get your PhD. For example, Dave Dunson has a PhD from Emory (a very solid biostats program but not a Stanford/Berkeley/Harvard), and Michael I. Jordan (considered one of the top researchers in statistics/ML) has a PhD in cognitive science from UCSD. Both of these guys are extremely renowned in the statistics field.  I can also think of other outstanding researchers who don't have PhDs from "top" schools who have done quite well in academia.

I don't want to dismiss rankings completely, but pedigree really is only one factor (and byfar not the most important one). Hiring committees *really* care about your past publication record, your future potential, your postdoc experience (a very productive postdoc at a prestigious institution can help you a lot), your letters of recommendation, your PhD advisor and influential scholars who can vouch for you, your teaching experience, etc. These are all things that are taken into account for academic hiring.

Agree bigtime.

The most important factor for TT jobs is research. Having a good advisor helps - by good I mean one that publishes a lot and is at the forefront of his/her research, sets you up well to do research on your own going forward, and has some name recognition. Higher-ranked departments tend to have more good advisors. But even lower/middle ranked departments will have a few solid, well-known guys. 

Ultimately, someone super-motivated and ultra-hard working can overcome the setbacks of being at a lower-ranked department.

[Stat Assistant Professor]

I should qualify as well that if you're aiming to get a job at (say) Stanford or Harvard or one of those very elite schools, then your chances of doing that coming from a "lower" ranked program are probably slim, unless you're seriously amazing (very productive, tons of top publications, etc.). However, pedigree should not preclude you from getting an academic job at a fairly good school nonetheless. Even the vast majority of PhD graduates from the "elite" schools who go into academia will end up at flagship and public universities (there are only so many jobs at the "elite" schools, after all).

[phddream]

On 2/19/2021 at 6:20 PM, Stat Assistant Professor said:

How "low" are you talking? Fwiw, I went to a PhD program ranked ~40 in USNWR, and we have placed PhD grads in TT faculty positions at Duke, University of Minnesota, UT Austin, etc. And I have also seen people who got their PhDs from Baylor, University of Cincinnati, and University of Illinois at Chicago (*not* UIUC) get TT jobs at Texas A&M, University of Florida, and Iowa State.  

It's not *just* about where you get your PhD. For example, Dave Dunson has a PhD from Emory (a very solid biostats program but not a Stanford/Berkeley/Harvard), and Michael I. Jordan (considered one of the top researchers in statistics/ML) has a PhD in cognitive science from UCSD. Both of these guys are extremely renowned in the statistics field.  I can also think of other outstanding researchers who don't have PhDs from "top" schools who have done quite well in academia.

I don't want to dismiss rankings completely, but pedigree really is only one factor (and byfar not the most important one). Hiring committees *really* care about your past publication record, your future potential, your postdoc experience (a very productive postdoc at a prestigious institution can help you a lot), your letters of recommendation, your PhD advisor and influential scholars who can vouch for you, your teaching experience, etc. These are all things that are taken into account for academic hiring.

Thanks for your helpful responses. I think part of my challenge is feeling like I didn't give applications my all this year (no GRE math score, missing course work that I probably should have before I start a PHD program anyways). I certainly am grateful for getting any offer and don't want to insult any programs by declining to reapply, but I also don't want any doubt going into a PHD. 

[Stat Assistant Professor]

30 minutes ago, phddream said:

Thanks for your helpful responses. I think part of my challenge is feeling like I didn't give applications my all this year (no GRE math score, missing course work that I probably should have before I start a PHD program anyways). I certainly am grateful for getting any offer and don't want to insult any programs by declining to reapply, but I also don't want any doubt going into a PHD. 

No worries, not insulted at all. Nobody denies that the "top" programs have more famous faculty and/or faculty who are consistently publishing in top journals. Therefore, your chances of getting an academic job may be positively correlated with program ranking.  However, that is only one factor; it's really on you and your track record. If you didn't attend a "top" university for your PhD, you can partly compensate for that with a prestigious postdoc, letters from famous people in the field who are familiar with your work, etc. 

Only you can decide for yourself if it is worth it to reapply again next year. It can be very costly and time-consuming to reapply, but the payoff could be greater if you can get better results. I think the most crucial things to consider is: if you reapply again next year, will you be a *much* more competitive applicant? And what can you do to significantly bolster your application in one year's time that you haven't already done? (e.g. can you get a higher GRE score, better recommendation letters, more research experience, etc.?) Most PhD programs in Stats don't care that much about the Math Subject GRE, and a couple points higher on the GRE probably won't make or break your application. If there's not much that you can do (e.g. because you are an international student and did not attend a "top" university in your home country), then I would just take one of the offers you do presently have.

[phddream]

@Stat Assistant Professor I think my biggest doubt comes from not having submitted my general GRE. I know I can do well because I've gotten 99% on quant years ago (so old). My test date was cancelled due to COVID and I didn't get to take it before applications were due. Many programs waived it but I think it was still an important factor that could have helped me, I should have thought of this and figured out a way to take that darn test (regrets).

[bayessays]

I think your math background probably has a lot more to do with your results than the lack of a GRE score., as the Berkeley professor told you. I agree with @Stat Assistant Professor that you are unlikely to vastly improve your profile in a year. If you do well at a good but not great PhD program, you can also get a post-doc after to improve your profile, which may be a better use of a year of your life than just waiting for the chance to be admitted to a better program.

[phddream]

@bayessays You're probably right. I've enrolled in summer school for the two classes the Berkeley professor told me; I figure it'll be good prep for any program. Do you think that would help with my profile or not much? Thanks for your feedback, super appreciate this.

[bayessays]

Yes, of course the additional coursework will help, but I don't think you are going to improve your profile by a *drastic* amount.  For instance, if you didn't get into any top 30 programs, I certainly think it's unlikely that you'll be getting into a top 10 program in the next application cycle.  You may be able to move from the 40s to the 30s or 20s, but I wouldn't expect magical results from taking a few more classes.  We have somewhat similar profiles (good undergrad school but mediocre GPA, data scientist at FAANG, and I did submit a nearly perfect GRE score) -- and I didn't get into schools like Ohio State and Purdue after completing an MS with a 3.9 gpa from a top 20 program with all of the PhD coursework and multiple first-author publications.  It may be that the department you were admitted to is an appropriate rank for someone with your background.