Do you feel like there are two academic worlds?

[TheDude]

As application plans start to unfold at a brisker pace I am beginning to wonder if there are 2 academic worlds I need to choose from. What I mean by this is there seems to be a clear distinction between labs with professors who are constantly in the rat race to chase down million dollar grants year after year, with huge labs where it seems like as a student you might not ever get to know the professor- your advisor- or even other peers/researchers. Contrasting with that are professors who advise graduate students and have labs where the grant money is smaller and the focus of research is more regionalized to issues of their particular community or state.

Speaking from my own perception, it seems us graduate students envy the labs founded under Ivy League headings...the places where the prospect of never knowing your advisor and having them know you is real, where perhaps finding time to do your own work is stunted by next million dollar grant your advisor needs you to work on. I should add, my perceptions come from horror stories.

My issue stems from an internal conflict about where I know I should apply to experience eudaemonia and where an intellectual institution would have me be. I know I've worked hard enough the last 2 years to at least have the faculty at some of these prestigious institutions open my file and take a hard look at me, perhaps even gaining some interviews from some really prominent researcher. In essence I know I have a shot at getting into programs in schools that my blue collar family could only have dreamed that I'd attend. However, as I begin to really look harder at potential advisors I find myself crossing off a lot of "prestigious" schools off my list because I know I wouldn't be happy there.

I'm content to become a professor at a University where the pressure to publish is less fervent than top labs. I want to work on topics that interest me in spite of the fact that grant money might be harder find instead of working on projects that I know are financially viable as a researcher. Don't get me wrong I'm not saying that I don't want to work hard, publish and have a productive lab. I want time as a professor to work on becoming a better teacher because I know that is something I am already suited to do. I know no matter where I go there will be pressure to publish and find external funding, that is part of what we all sign up for, but the fervent nature at which that occurs is dictated by what the University expects of you, and none of those are the same.

I know this is the kind of life that the "heaviest" academics shun- the prospect of having a family and teaching and researching at some less prominent state school.

I'm just wondering in the long run if I am going to regret not contacting the more prominent labs in my field of interest. I am not naive, intellectual nepotism thrives no matter how much you can prove you "know your stuff." The prospect of getting tenure, or even an academic job while shunning this does worry me a bit even though I know I would be happier being a grad student in smaller labs with advisors that know who I am...who are making differences in their communities, etc.

[American in Beijing]

I'm not in the sciences, so I can't really comment too precisely on the exact nature of large and small labs. However, it seems to be that working in a small lab in a small school (not a bad thing, in my book, by the way) can have its disadvantages as well. Funding is the main issue that comes to mind. You will certainly have a lot less direct access to funding, which could compromise your research. The university would not necessarily have a lot of money to offer you, and grants for these smaller projects might be harder to attain. Another is the type of students you will teach. It can be a very uplifting experience to be able to teach a talented and passionate student. I'm not necessarily talking about those know-it-all straight A students, but the student who really cares about the material and enjoys learning. At a smaller school, those kinds of students may be few and far between.

That being said, if it's your dream to teach and do research at a smaller school, great for you! But I wouldn't necessarily completely ignore the larger, more reputable schools just because your dream is to teach at a smaller institution. It's a job security thing, really. In most fields, there are more doctoral students that graduate than there are jobs. You're right in saying that academia, while in part merit-based, does place a lot of value on the reputation of your degree. Will you really be happy if, 20-30 years down the line, you're still making a very low salary and do not have tenure/job security? Obviously money is not everything (and very few people choose this career thinking that they're eventually going to "make it rich"), but having a steady and reliable income that is enough to support the family you mentioned is important too.

My advice would be to apply to all the programs where you would be a good fit, including the larger ones. This way you have the greatest amount of options when you go to make your final decision about which school to attend. And who knows? Maybe you'll go to the visit day for one of these schools and find that it's very different from what you expected. It's ALWAYS good to have options.

[cogneuroforfun]

Don't think that you can "settle" for teaching and light research at a smaller, less well-known school. Getting any TT position is incredibly difficult, no matter what level the school. Going to really prestigious graduate schools and labs will give you a better chance of someday getting one of those rare positions. You also need to realize there are lots of prestigious labs that are smaller, and that many prestigious programs/schools have small and large labs. Knowing you want a more connected, involved PI doesn't mean you should cross off prestigious schools and labs. Those are two different dimensions you need to consider.

[TheDude]

Thanks everyone.

A couple points:

1) In regards to the quality of students you will have: A consistent theme I've wanted to satiate in my mind was actually being able to teach in areas where the population is under-served. So the prospect of empowering people who don't think they can to like learning and realize it's importance and has the supreme utility in their life is perhaps more appealing to me than most. I've been in situations where I could do this and it pays in dividends down the line. However, being pushed by really smart students can't have too many negatives.

2) I am not saying I want to go to a lab no one has heard of. In fact, the schools I am applying to do have active labs that are funded well just not like labs I've looked at in, for instance, Columbia. There is in no way I am applying to schools where there is no funding. Still within the realm of funded schools there seems to exist 2 realms of researchers. I'm probably over-thinking this?

3) Yes, TT track positions are very hard to obtain. You can bet I realize that the first 7-10 years I am with a University, should I be so lucky, I will be researching at a pace that is perhaps going to force me to make sacrifices with how much I'd like to teach and get better at it.

I will check out a couple of the schools I excluded now thanks to the input here. If for anything, like you've said, perceptions could be changed.

The one thing I take some comfort in is depending on what program I end up in, focus-wise, I will be able to work in the dreaded applied fields. This is something that I thought I'd detest but after meeting a few people who work in that area I feel much better about it.

Thanks for the input all. I can bring up some of these things to people who I am close with in the academy, but certainly not all of it without feeling odd. To have a degree of anonymity here and have really smart people give me really smart answers is fantastic.

Addendum: I should add that I think I am just naturally suspicious of the whole process as much as I try not to be. Graduate school is VERY intimidating to me. No one in my family that I know/was raised by has ever finished college. So carrying undergrad debt....going for more school...and having no one to really talk about it with probably just leads to a lot of paranoia.

Edited August 7, 2010 by musicforfun

[timuralp]

This may be different in your particular field, but the following is true in mine: at any school you find both kinds of advisors. We have a few people who have small armies of grad students, where the interaction is often group meetings, however most still try to meet with the students in smaller groups too (usually in pairs or so) and some still even make time to meet with students individually. At the same time, there are professors who have fewer students( < 5-7) and spend a lot of time working with them. There are also ones that have few students and don't spend as much time with them.

My point is that the amount of time often depends on the group dynamic and the professors and the setup. I wouldn't discard any school only because of the reputation of a few people. Hope this is somewhat helpful.

[American in Beijing]

A couple points:

1) In regards to the quality of students you will have: A consistent theme I've wanted to satiate in my mind was actually being able to teach in areas where the population is under-served. So the prospect of empowering people who don't think they can to like learning and realize it's importance and has the supreme utility in their life is perhaps more appealing to me than most. I've been in situations where I could do this and it pays in dividends down the line. However, being pushed by really smart students can't have too many negatives.

If your dream is to empower the unempowered and teach the under-served, I would ask myself whether teaching at the university level is really the best career choice for you. College students and graduates still form a financial and/or intellectual elite in our society. With all the opportunities that exist on a college campus, are these kinds of people really "under-served"? Maybe doing something like Teach for America of the Mississippi Teacher Corps might be more up your alley. Or, if you happen to know Chinese or like China, the China Education Initiative is also an excellent program that allows college graduates to teach English in rural Yunnan Province (very beautiful, but at the same time VERY under-served).

It sounds like you really enjoy teaching, which is wonderful. This country needs more passionate and dedicated teachers. However, research is the main priority of any college professor, no matter what the size of the school is. If you enjoy teaching a lot more than you enjoy doing research, then maybe teaching in a different setting might be a better choice for you.

[Eigen]

The issues you're having are the primary reasons I didn't apply to top 10 schools, but mostly 10-50 schools.

It's definitely possible to find a school with smaller groups, professors with good contacts, and good funding, where you'll get more contact with your boss and less stress.

If the school is relatively well known, and your boss has a good network of contacts, you'll be fine at smaller schools.

[TheDude]

I like teaching and researching...and most of the research I have been doing and am interested in, broadly speaking, is in designing interventions that target learning and language deficits in preschool children.

So I want to have my cake and eat it too.

I also didn't mean to directly imply small state schools were undeserved, but the struggle of people in some of those schools is real: Working 2 jobs, raising kids, etc. So while not a destitute population, compared to elite schools I'd argue there is a paucity of intellectual fervor and access.

I appreciate all the info.

Edited August 8, 2010 by musicforfun

[cogneuroforfun]

I also didn't mean to directly imply small state schools were undeserved, but the struggle of people in some of those schools is real: Working 2 jobs, raising kids, etc. So while not a destitute population, compared to elite schools I'd argue there is a paucity of intellectual fervor and access.

I appreciate all the info.

You definitely have a point in comparing state schools vs. elite schools. You just need to keep in mind that completing a prestigious program in a prestigious lab will give you a better shot at being able to do the kind of work you want where you want to do it (all else equal). Also, make sure you're looking at how people in your field view programs and PIs, not relying on US News or something. I don't think you are, but I want to make sure you don't think I'm using "prestige" to mean rankings; its all about reputation for excellent research and excellent placement.

Do try to find smaller labs, regardless of what schools you're looking at. It is possible to find smaller labs with involved PIs and good funding that also happen to be in prestigious programs and universities!

[American in Beijing]

You definitely have a point in comparing state schools vs. elite schools. You just need to keep in mind that completing a prestigious program in a prestigious lab will give you a better shot at being able to do the kind of work you want where you want to do it (all else equal). Also, make sure you're looking at how people in your field view programs and PIs, not relying on US News or something. I don't think you are, but I want to make sure you don't think I'm using "prestige" to mean rankings; its all about reputation for excellent research and excellent placement.

Do try to find smaller labs, regardless of what schools you're looking at. It is possible to find smaller labs with involved PIs and good funding that also happen to be in prestigious programs and universities!

Agreed. Why not have your cake and eat it too in grad school as well?

[TheDude]

Y'all rock~

[timuralp]

Ok, now I'm confused. What is a "state" school? Which of the following are state schools: Michigan, Berkeley, UCLA, UCSD, UMass, Wisconsin, UIUC, University of Washington? Because last time I checked they were all "state" schools and are all in top 10-20, for various subfields.

By the way, once again, at least in CS, there are a lot of college professor jobs that require very little or no research at all. These are the jobs at liberal arts colleges, community colleges, etc. The course load is quite a bit heavier, but all you do is teach.

[ScreamingHairyArmadillo]

Ok, now I'm confused. What is a "state" school? Which of the following are state schools: Michigan, Berkeley, UCLA, UCSD, UMass, Wisconsin, UIUC, University of Washington? Because last time I checked they were all "state" schools and are all in top 10-20, for various subfields.

By the way, once again, at least in CS, there are a lot of college professor jobs that require very little or no research at all. These are the jobs at liberal arts colleges, community colleges, etc. The course load is quite a bit heavier, but all you do is teach.

Think University of Michigan vs Michigan State University. The former finds its own funding while MSU is funded largely by the government.

[cogneuroforfun]

Ok, now I'm confused. What is a "state" school? Which of the following are state schools: Michigan, Berkeley, UCLA, UCSD, UMass, Wisconsin, UIUC, University of Washington? Because last time I checked they were all "state" schools and are all in top 10-20, for various subfields.

By the way, once again, at least in CS, there are a lot of college professor jobs that require very little or no research at all. These are the jobs at liberal arts colleges, community colleges, etc. The course load is quite a bit heavier, but all you do is teach.

The undergrads going to those schools are likely somewhat different than those going to Harvard, Yale, Stanford, MIT, etc, in socioeconomic status if nothing else. I think musicforfun was saying they would rather work with more "disadvantaged" students, so working at a private university with >$35,000 tuition alone is not what they preferred.

If you were commenting on what I said, I realize I wrote it a little confusingly. This "You definitely have a point in comparing state schools vs. elite schools." was unrelated to the rest of what I said, sorry Excellent programs for any given field can be at a state school or private school. Obviously Berkeley, for example, is better than most private schools in many fields. The "state school vs. private" was just referring to where musicforfun wanted to work after graduate school, not where they should go for graduate school.

[breakfast]

However, research is the main priority of any college professor, no matter what the size of the school is. If you enjoy teaching a lot more than you enjoy doing research, then maybe teaching in a different setting might be a better choice for you.

Is this really true? I've been reading "Graduate Study for the 21st Century" by Gregory Semenza (a prof in the english department at UConn). In the book, he makes it a point of letting the reader know that only 10% of universities are classified as research universities according to the Carnegie Mellon classifications. Most of us will probably end up at institutions where teaching is the priority and mision of the college. He says that is why it is so important that every graduate student serious about an academic career get as much teaching experience possible while in graduate school. Research is still important no matter where we go, but it is not always more important than teaching.

[timuralp]

Think University of Michigan vs Michigan State University. The former finds its own funding while MSU is funded largely by the government.

Fair enough, but then UMass for example takes in largest money in State Appropriation. Still, it's in the top 10 for AI. I would argue it's still an "elite" school in that regard.

Then, as far as Michigan State goes, their biggest income is actually from Student Fees and not State Appropriations. Sounds like it's less of a "state" school than you think it is. Sure, its appropriations may be higher than UM, but the biggest way they pay for themselves is Tuition+Fees, which is a way private schools raise money to pay for expenses. So, once again, I'm not sure how you differentiate.

Further, at least in sciences, the bulk of funding IS from government research grants. NIH+NSF pay for most research happening at the University of Michigan. My point is that at the end of the day this distinction to me seems silly and to say that "Ivies" are elite is not quite right.

If you were commenting on what I said, I realize I wrote it a little confusingly. This "You definitely have a point in comparing state schools vs. elite schools." was unrelated to the rest of what I said, sorry Excellent programs for any given field can be at a state school or private school. Obviously Berkeley, for example, is better than most private schools in many fields. The "state school vs. private" was just referring to where musicforfun wanted to work after graduate school, not where they should go for graduate school.

Sure, that's what I was trying to point out.

I honestly feel like thinking about where to work before even being in grad school is just a little bit too far ahead. Further, I think it's easier to get the job being overqualified than underqualified and, finally, not to be terribly cynical, but very few people's theses make even the slightest difference in anyone's life and most of the time just sit on a dusty shelf.

Edited August 9, 2010 by timuralp

[TheDude]

I honestly feel like thinking about where to work before even being in grad school is just a little bit too far ahead. Further, I think it's easier to get the job being overqualified than underqualified and, finally, not to be terribly cynical, but very few people's theses make even the slightest difference in anyone's life and most of the time just sit on a dusty shelf.

Really? Every professor I have talked to has told me that before you apply to a Ph.D. program you want to see yourself down the road 10 years from now. I'd imagine that thought shapes a lot about the decision I am going to make, and am making right now, about where I want to go, etc.

You also are characterizing it like I am some wide-eyed youngster who wants to change the world with my thesis. I know where most publications end up...I know the game. However, a slow movement of work in one direction does affect people, at least in the field I am going in. There are lots of researchers who might not be nationally known but are finding ways to apply their work to issues in their community and make differences. It can matter.

I think I stirred up something unintended here. My words above where not stated correctly and because I can't edit things I cannot change them, so I tried to demystify them after the fact. All I was trying to say is the prospect of teaching at a state university, that isn't considered a "state ivy," and having a distribution of work that made you teach more is not a terrible idea to me. I think stating elite vs. anything puts people on either end of the continuum on the defensive.

When I said under served population I didn't mean what some are taking it as. I came from one of those Universities. I sat next to a brilliant student who couldn't afford private school because no one in his family had ever attended college and thusly had no savings to make it happen, a mother of 3 who was fulfilling her life dream by finally finishing up her degree, a veteran back from war happy to be using the GI Bill to better his life, kids who are ready for ivies and kids who struggle to put together a coherent thesis. I've always found how that environment shapes pedagogy and the discourse that arises from truly effective teaching to be completely intoxicating. That is what I meant. And yes, I will argue with anyone here-- that is a population that tends to be intellectually stiffed.

In my eyes that is a second world of academia.

I have my answers so thanks a bunch- and no bad vibes intended.

Edited August 10, 2010 by musicforfun

[American in Beijing]

I honestly feel like thinking about where to work before even being in grad school is just a little bit too far ahead. Further, I think it's easier to get the job being overqualified than underqualified and, finally, not to be terribly cynical, but very few people's theses make even the slightest difference in anyone's life and most of the time just sit on a dusty shelf.

Really? Every professor I have talked to has told me that before you apply to a Ph.D. program you want to see yourself down the road 10 years from now. I'd imagine that thought shapes a lot about the decision I am going to make, and am making right now, about where I want to go, etc.

You also are characterizing it like I am some wide-eyed youngster who wants to change the world with my thesis. I know where most publications end up...I know the game. However, a slow movement of work in one direction does affect people, at least in the field I am going in. There are lots of researchers who might not be nationally known but are finding ways to apply their work to issues in their community and make differences. It can matter.

I think I stirred up something unintended here. My words above where not stated correctly and because I can't edit things I cannot change them, so I tried to demystify them after the fact. All I was trying to say is the prospect of teaching at a state university, that isn't considered a "state ivy," and having a distribution of work that made you teach more is not a terrible idea to me. I think stating elite vs. anything puts people on either end of the continuum on the defensive.

When I said under served population I didn't mean what some are taking it as. I came from one of those Universities. I sat next to a brilliant student who couldn't afford private school because no one in his family had ever attended college and thusly had no savings to make it happen, a mother of 3 who was fulfilling her life dream by finally finishing up her degree, a veteran back from war happy to be using the GI Bill to better his life, kids who are ready for ivies and kids who struggle to put together a coherent thesis. I've always found how that environment shapes pedagogy and the discourse that arises from truly effective teaching to be completely intoxicating. That is what I meant. And yes, I will argue with anyone here-- that is a population that tends to be intellectually stiffed.

In my eyes that is a second world of academia.

I have my answers so thanks a bunch- and no bad vibes intended.

I, for one, never felt any bad vibes from you. I think what timuralp meant was that it's just a bit early to lock yourself into one dream or one idea of what it means to be a good professor. Things can change tremendously at this stage in a person's life, even in the very short time frame from the time you submit your applications in December/January until the time you make your decision in March/April. You should keep your mind open to all sorts of possibilities. Many of us go into this process knowing full well that in the end we may end up working at a non-Ivy state school, even if that is not our dream. And I highly doubt that anyone in this economic climate would be arrogant enough to scorn a tenure track position in such a school, even if it is less than ideal for that particular person.

And I completely agree with you. Working in that kind of environment can have enormous benefits. I used to be a GED tutor and it was often a very satisfying experience to be able to help people whom our public school system has failed. But at the same time there are definite drawbacks to working in a setting where not everyone has the same amount of dedication to learning. During undergrad I was allowed to take classes at the neighboring public university, where I met one of my all-time favorite professors. She was young, dedicated, brilliant, and her class really opened my mind. I could tell that she very much enjoyed teaching our honors seminar, but she would tell us stories about how frustrating it was to teach her introductory lecture (basically Chinese History 101). She put such a great effort in the class and even brought them Chinese moon cakes as a special treat one day, which she paid for with her own money. However, no one in the entire class of 100+ students thanked her for it. They just didn't care enough, I guess. I felt very bad for her, because I could tell it really hurt her feelings.

I don't mean to completely discourage you from teaching at a smaller university. I just want to point out that there are definitely unpleasant aspects about teaching in that kind of environment (not that there aren't in other types of schools). I would strongly urge you to try to get into the best program possible that will allow you to have an enjoyable graduate school experience. This way, when it comes time to find a job (which, like timuralp has correctly pointed out, is still a long way off), you have as many options open to you as possible. That way it's YOU making the decision, rather than your fate/circumstances making the decision for you.

[breakfast]

Further, I think it's easier to get the job being overqualified than underqualified...

Again, I'm not sure if this is entirely true. People graduating from top-10 programs are having trouble finding jobs just like everyone else, although for slightly different reasons. Less "prestigious" programs can sometimes be wary of hiring someone from an elite program because they may assume that the candidate will bolt as soon as they have an opportunity to move to a "better" program. This isn't always the case, but I have heard it from numerous professors. That is one reason you need to think about the type of career you want when you apply to grad school.

[rachaelski]

Think University of Michigan vs Michigan State University. The former finds its own funding while MSU is funded largely by the government.

This is not true, at least for the states I have researched. All public institutions receive funding from the state. Where I am from, there are a couple different funding formulas, but the majority of the money comes from the number of student credit hours registered. A certain amount is given for 100 and 200 level classes, another for 300 and 400 level, another for graduate level, etc. I had the pleasure of spending the summer working with my state's Higher Education Department, which is responsible for passing out the money.

[rachaelski]

When it comes to choosing a school, I think it's okay to choose a less prestigious one, so long as you work your butt off to make a name for yourself. A friend of mine beat out applicants from all the Ivy League schools for a pretty awesome position in Africa. She said she secured the job over them because of her rationale for choosing the lower-ranked school, the interviewers were impressed with that. I attend an institution that's a Research 1 school, but is ranked around 50 or so. However, my department is a pretty unique one, and it perfectly addressed my needs. In addition, with this program I am teaching my own class independently, and it's a senior-level course! I am building up my teaching background, my school has quite of bit of resources for students attending conferences, and I have great mentors to work with. For me, the lesser known school was the better choice.

[American in Beijing]

Again, I'm not sure if this is entirely true. People graduating from top-10 programs are having trouble finding jobs just like everyone else, although for slightly different reasons. Less "prestigious" programs can sometimes be wary of hiring someone from an elite program because they may assume that the candidate will bolt as soon as they have an opportunity to move to a "better" program. This isn't always the case, but I have heard it from numerous professors. That is one reason you need to think about the type of career you want when you apply to grad school.

Still, I agree with timuralp. I think it's a lot easier for an over-qualified applicant to convince Eastern Connecticut State University that they would really enjoy the opportunity to teach in an environment where they could teach students who are struggling to put themselves through college than it is for an under-qualified applicant to convince Harvard that they are the person that Harvard's fancy-schmancy research program needs to continue to be fancy-schmancy.

[American in Beijing]

When it comes to choosing a school, I think it's okay to choose a less prestigious one, so long as you work your butt off to make a name for yourself. A friend of mine beat out applicants from all the Ivy League schools for a pretty awesome position in Africa. She said she secured the job over them because of her rationale for choosing the lower-ranked school, the interviewers were impressed with that. I attend an institution that's a Research 1 school, but is ranked around 50 or so. However, my department is a pretty unique one, and it perfectly addressed my needs. In addition, with this program I am teaching my own class independently, and it's a senior-level course! I am building up my teaching background, my school has quite of bit of resources for students attending conferences, and I have great mentors to work with. For me, the lesser known school was the better choice.

I agree. It's definitely not always the best decision to go with the biggest name or the most famous lab. If, after visiting and having detailed discussions with both faculty and students at several schools, you decide that the number 31 school is the best fit for your needs, then by all means go for it. However, I think it's a foolish decision to not even bother to apply to a school that in reality you know little about just because it's Ivy League and you don't want to work in a big lab or teach at an Ivy League institution. You should at least give yourself all the options you can so that when March comes around you can know you made an informed decision.

[timuralp]

Really? Every professor I have talked to has told me that before you apply to a Ph.D. program you want to see yourself down the road 10 years from now. I'd imagine that thought shapes a lot about the decision I am going to make, and am making right now, about where I want to go, etc.

I think this may be a difference between sciences and humanities? Or may be not. Either way, in my own experience, every professor and grad student that I've talked to when I was applying told me that you apply to PhD if you like doing research. The reasoning is that since one has to work a lot of hours on just one problem for a publication that few people read, one has to be excited about it to get through it. Having been in grad school for 2 years, if I were not passionate/excited about the research work I'm doing, I can honestly say I would not still be here. At the same time, if one were to ask me where I see myself in 5 years, I'm not sure. The only thing I'm certain of is that right now I really enjoy research work and I would like to continue it after I graduate. That does not mean it won't change. My point earlier was that a lot of things can change once you enter a program: maybe you find you absolutely hate PhD; maybe you'd rather be focusing on a different topic, etc. I was expressing my concern over setting yourself up on a career plan that may not be the one you'd be happy with in a few years and that options are good. I'm sorry if it was too blunt.

You also are characterizing it like I am some wide-eyed youngster who wants to change the world with my thesis. I know where most publications end up...I know the game. However, a slow movement of work in one direction does affect people, at least in the field I am going in. There are lots of researchers who might not be nationally known but are finding ways to apply their work to issues in their community and make differences. It can matter.

Sure. My disbelief lies in that I don't see why a top 20 or top 10 school would not have people doing the same thing. As my advisor in undergrad said, you apply to a department, but really you care about the few individuals.

I think I stirred up something unintended here. [...] All I was trying to say is the prospect of teaching at a state university, that isn't considered a "state ivy," and having a distribution of work that made you teach more is not a terrible idea to me.

[...]

I have my answers so thanks a bunch- and no bad vibes intended.

Great, both to being ok with being at a "worse" school and wanting to make a bigger impact at that level and having your answers. I think the confusion stemmed from what sounded like making the choice of not even considering the "top" programs, whatever they are in your field. I did not see this discourse as either unpleasant or ill intended.

I agree. It's definitely not always the best decision to go with the biggest name or the most famous lab. If, after visiting and having detailed discussions with both faculty and students at several schools, you decide that the number 31 school is the best fit for your needs, then by all means go for it. However, I think it's a foolish decision to not even bother to apply to a school that in reality you know little about just because it's Ivy League and you don't want to work in a big lab or teach at an Ivy League institution. You should at least give yourself all the options you can so that when March comes around you can know you made an informed decision.

That is precisely my sentiment. Thank you for clearly expressing it more eloquently than I could

I, for one, chose a reasonably lower ranked school only because I thought it fit my research interests better. I am not regretting that choice for a moment, but still if I went back, I would apply to all the same schools and meet the same people and have the same conversations. That experience was tremendously valuable in figuring out what it is I really want to do.

Edited August 11, 2010 by timuralp

[rising_star]

If your dream is to empower the unempowered and teach the under-served, I would ask myself whether teaching at the university level is really the best career choice for you. College students and graduates still form a financial and/or intellectual elite in our society. With all the opportunities that exist on a college campus, are these kinds of people really "under-served"? Maybe doing something like Teach for America of the Mississippi Teacher Corps might be more up your alley. Or, if you happen to know Chinese or like China, the China Education Initiative is also an excellent program that allows college graduates to teach English in rural Yunnan Province (very beautiful, but at the same time VERY under-served).

I actually disagree with this. Teaching in a high school is *very* different from teaching in a college/university setting and it is definitely possible to teach underserved college students without having to go to China. There are quite a few minority-serving institutions, community colleges, and tribal colleges where faculty can focus primarily on teaching and work with underserved students. I think a lot of people here don't realize that there are tenure-track positions at community colleges where faculty teach a 4-4 load and have little to no research/publication expectations.

Still, I agree with timuralp. I think it's a lot easier for an over-qualified applicant to convince Eastern Connecticut State University that they would really enjoy the opportunity to teach in an environment where they could teach students who are struggling to put themselves through college than it is for an under-qualified applicant to convince Harvard that they are the person that Harvard's fancy-schmancy research program needs to continue to be fancy-schmancy.

Have you ever actually met with those candidates? The over-qualified applicant sticks out like a sore thumb. Why? Often it's clear to those meeting with the candidate that he or she intends to use the job as a stepping stone, doesn't actually want to live in the area, thinks the place is beneath them, etc. And before you say this doesn't actually happen, let me assure you that it does because I've been in the room with more than one job candidate like that. Needless to say, those candidates were not offered the job.

As someone else has already said, it's never too early to start thinking about what kind of career you want to have after you've earned your degree. If not, it's easy to lose sight of one's goal while in graduate school. Keep your eye on the prize (which may change) and do what you need to do to get there.