Opinions about ranking

[JonathanEdwards]

So I’ve been thinking about how important schools’ ranking will be when (if) I am choosing between several offers...

I like to approach this from a different angle. I think that technically, ranking is not what you want (especially since most ranking is done on the basis of comparing undergraduate programs). Seeking a highly ranked school will cause you to include some highly ranked schools that aren’t the best for you. Without pointing the finger at anyone’s uni, everyone in doctoral programs can probably think of at least one very highly-ranked school that is not a significant player in their specialized field.

Ideally, I think one should aim for schools that have first, the scholar(s) who can provide the best supervision for your particular research; second, best departmental reputation; and third, the resources to support your research (primarily libraries/labs, but also funding), and resume (teaching experience, broadening study at partnering university in another country, etc.) Seeking the best school in this way will usually produce a list of highly ranked schools, but the list will be shorter and more focused.

Why the emphasis on the supervisor? If you want to break into university teaching, your Ph.D. thesis had better hit like a hammer. It won’t if you don’t find the best possible supervision for your research. I also understand hiring panels frequently view this area as a future indicator of your dedication to ongoing research. They want to see that you are interested in making a genuine contribution to your chosen field, and giving higher priority to other items like convenience, cost, name cachet, etc. suggests that you’ll likely have the same attitude towards your research if hired as faculty.

The reality of course, is that I wound up with a list of highly-ranked schools, but I can defend my choice to a hiring committee in a way that is not only hindsight (I want what I got), but advances me as a candidate (I got what I needed to be the best researcher and teacher for you).

Anyway, Strangefox, I hope this is helpful to you!

Edited February 2, 2011 by Westcott

[BrandNewName]

I am not qualified enough to speak about US job market but I am quietly positive that if you apply to universities abroad, ranking will matter a lot. If you try to do research abroad (contact institutions, libraries, individuals), ranking will help.

Obviously, it is not the only factor. No one ever said it was.

I would concur with this. On the whole, I was lucky to find people who I would be thrilled to work with at the universities I applied to this cycle (most of which are Ivies and/or highly ranked by USNWR, etc.). If I was certain that my future as an academic was purely US-based, then I would have been more willing to go outside of the Top 20. In European academic markets though--I am thinking here of Germany, Switzerland, the Netherlands, and the UK--I have been advised by countless professors that name recognition and ranking/prestige is HUGELY important in hiring someone educated outside of the country in which you are applying. For example, I did my undergraduate at a Jesuit university in New England that is ranked in the Top 40. When I mention the name of that university on this side of the ocean, most people don't know it, even though I would say most people hold it in relatively high regard in the States. Even my boss will often not remember the name of the place where I did my BA, getting it confused with other schools similarly named. The American university system is well-respected abroad, but the majority of people over here, by my estimation, know about 10-15 schools. Those 10-15 are invariably those that are most highly ranked and are perceived as better than the rest. Whether that's a good thing or bad thing is up for debate, but if you are considering teaching and researching abroad, then rank and prestige has to be taken into consideration.

[BlueRose]

Given a choice, I would prioritize rank over research fit for grad school. (I don't mean the specific US News et al rank, I mean general reputation in/out of the field.)

This is because, as grad students, people change their minds about what they want. Maybe you will stay in the sub-subfield you picked as an undergrad. Good for you. Maybe you'll do something else entirely. If you chose an obscure school with a good reputation in some field, you're fine within that field, but you'll generate some head-scratching if you leave it. This is even more true if you go for the one star professor; outside that very specific research area, people won't know Prof. Star from Prof. Schmuck. And besides, as a grad student, you may not have anyone else to go to if Prof. Star doesn't have room / is hit by a bus / is a raging psychopath / etc.

Conversely, a big-name school will leave your options open. The name will get you the benefit of the doubt; IIRC, one of those ranking surveys a few years back put Princeton Business School in the top 3, despite the fact that it doesn't exist.

For a postdoc, the reputation of the specific professor is everything. But for grad school? I don't think I would choose on that basis alone.

Of course, productivity trumps all...

[starmaker]

Ultimately, what you're concerned about is job placement (and how your school's reputation will affect that). I think you're right to be concerned, because there's a correlation between program reputation and job placement.

But you don't just care about a general correlation. You care about the specific programs on your list, right?

So go look at the placement records for the programs on your list. The NRC collects this data for research-based doctoral programs (though their data is four years out of date), which you can see for free online, and programs themselves will often have it available. You want to know what percentage of a program's grads have a job lined up when they graduate, and, depending on your career ambitions, what percentage have an academic job lined up. You probably also want to know the quality of the jobs in both categories. While it's true that more prestigious programs tend to have better placement rates, if you're considering a mid-rank program that is a good research fit for you and has a very strong placement rate...clearly they're doing something right.

Different advisors within a department also sometimes have different placement rates. Awesome Dr. Connected's advisees might nearly all end up in top postdocs, tenure-track positions, or highly prestigious industry jobs, while most of her departmental colleague Dr. Blah's advisees might not even have any good prospects by the time they finish.

One thing NOT to do is to simply accept the program's glowing reports of their best three success stories of the last decade in place of numbers about how the average graduate fares. Most programs, even if they're not very good and have poor placement rates, will have the occasional superstar who has his or her pick of the best jobs. You can't assume that that will be you. You want to know how placement works out for the students who DON'T walk on water.

Depending on what, exactly, you want to do, there might be other factors you care about. If you know that you want to teach at a community college or small liberal arts college, you want a program that not only has a good placement record but turns out good teachers. If you want to work in another country, as several people have said on this thread, straight-up reputation can matter a lot.

I tend to place more emphasis on prestige/reputation than I think a lot of applicants on boards like this do, but it's because those are generally linked with good resources and outcomes, not because it's nice to have random people ooh and aah when you tell them where you went to school. They're a proxy for employability. But if you can get the actual numbers on employability, that's more useful information than the proxy.

[JonathanEdwards]

Some of the variance in responses may be due to different fields, and some to what point of the journey one is on at application. Particularly, those coming straight out of undergrad into one of the MA/PhD type programs will likely have a different perspective than mine. I already held a master’s degree with thesis when I applied to doctoral programs, a point at which one really ought to have an idea what they’re going to research. For what it's worth, a significant part of the reason I got into my first choice PhD program was that I contacted my prospective supervisor with a detailed research proposal that interested them.

Edited February 3, 2011 by Westcott

[queller]

I am looking at ranking from the perspective of choosing schools to apply to - not choosing between them at this point. I must admit I have found this discussion interesting, and will be considering some of the things presented by the posters above in determining schools to apply to.

As a basis I am taking any ranking of CS PhD programs over 50 as something similar to a Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval. I am not considering rankings outside of the CS department - as CS graduate programs are my area of interest. Naturally I hope I get in some of the schools towards the higher end of the top 50 when I try and apply, but if I don't I have no intention of applying or looking below that point.

Beyond that I am going for fit and research when considering schools.

[hejduk]

I think that we are all forgetting about one MAJOR factor in obtaining a job: personality. While good school rankings will truly get your "foot in the door", acing an interview and enduring a campus visit requires a "game face" and being personable.

I have chosen good and great schools, and frankly, if I get into both, I'll choose the school that gives me the better choice to develop as a scholar. I need help in publishing, and I need someone to guide me through four years of apprenticeship. Whoever seems to give me the best options to obtain and publish, as well as develop me as a teacher and researcher, I'm there!

Edited February 5, 2011 by hedjuk

[Kathiza]

Hedjuk, I totally agree with you. Where did you apply?

[Strangefox]

Just make sure you understand that no matter where you go you will not be finding a good job in academia "EASILY". It will be super hard either way. You need to do one/two really strong post-docs and get teaching experience. As someone else mentioned, if you have never even TA'd it will be really hard to get a position in academia.

So it must be important to teach your own course while TAing, not just grade papers, right?

Also, can you explain to me, - what is a post-doc? Is it a research position when I work with a professor and help this professor with their current work? How do I find post-doc positions? Is the process competitive? I am in social sciences so it is a must for me if I want to get a good job in academia, right?

[Strangefox]

I think it's also really important to differentiate between STEM fields and non when you're talking about how important name is. I think they're a lot more important outside the STEM fields than within them.

What is a STEM field?

[Strangefox]

So go look at the placement records for the programs on your list. The NRC collects this data for research-based doctoral programs (though their data is four years out of date), which you can see for free online...

Could you give me the link?

[Eigen]

What is a STEM field?

Hehe- reading old posts? STEM is Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics.

[Strangefox]

Hehe- reading old posts? STEM is Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics.

Yes

So there is not so much outside STEM fields, I presume? Humanities? What else?

Does "Science" include social sciences?

[Eigen]

Yes

So there is not so much outside STEM fields, I presume? Humanities? What else?

Does "Science" include social sciences?

It can.

But yes, that tiny field of "humanities"... English, languages (linguistics), History, Art, Communications, Political Science, Economics, etc.

It's the semi-traditional "Sciences/Humanities split". The research as well as funding structure, etc. tends to be very different on either side of that divide.

If you google it, you'll find a lot more info than I can provide here. It's the general catch-all term for describing science fields by funding agencies.

Edited February 17, 2011 by Eigen

[Kathiza]

I'm not sure if the differentiation is different in the US.

But we learnt that the english word "science" just meant natural sciences.

Then in my country social sciences also mean communications, political science, economics.

And there are "medical sciences" - like medicine and all related fields.

The humanities are split up in historic-cultural philologies, social-cultural philologies. (bad translation, I know, but I couldn't come up with a better term)

Religious fields also are a separate categorie in my country. And not to forget law and all related fields.

[LJK]

Yes

So there is not so much outside STEM fields, I presume? Humanities? What else?

Does "Science" include social sciences?

Most social sciences are not STEM. Psychology is a STEM field but anthropology, political science, history, sociology, etc. all are not STEM fields.

[Kathiza]

And it would be great if someone could tell us more about post doc positions. I know that my university (in my home country) offers these positions. They are generally for two or three years. But I don't know what post-docs are supposed to do. Are they allowed to teach? Or is it just research? One's own project or helping with another project?

[qbtacoma]

Post-docs are pure researchers. They apply for a position with one supervising professor with the goal that at the end of a 1 or 2 year period they will produce a substantial publishable result (like, a book, or a paper in a high impact journal). Post-docs, as you may imagine from the name, are post-dissertation researchers. I'm not sure of the origin of the position, but right now they function as a bit of a safety valve for the overglut of academic job seekers on the market. Instead of quitting entirely when you don't find a job, you hang out and do research until you can. In fact, I hear that in some fields candidates without a post-doc or two aren't even considered - it is that competitive.

They are also paid slightly more than grad students, but it's nothing to write home about.

ETA:

Okay, now I have a question. Say I have two schools with all things equal except for the reputation of my POI in the field. Professor A is quite famous and influential but brutal on grad students (in a bad way, in that former grad students advise me not to work with A). Professor B is less well known but is a very supportive advisor - but placement may be an issue later. Which should I pick?

Edited February 17, 2011 by qbtacoma

[Strangefox]

Okay, now I have a question. Say I have two schools with all things equal except for the reputation of my POI in the field. Professor A is quite famous and influential but brutal on grad students (in a bad way, in that former grad students advise me not to work with A). Professor B is less well known but is a very supportive advisor - but placement may be an issue later. Which should I pick?

To answer this question I must know how brutal Professor A is exactly. May be he/she is strict but supportive to those who work hard.

Or are they just brural brutal brutal and tell you bad things and make you want to go shoot yourself??

Edited February 17, 2011 by Strangefox

[qbtacoma]

To answer this question I must know how brutal Professor A is exactly. May be he/she is strict but supportive to those who work hard.

Or are they just brural brutal brutal and tell you bad things and make you want to go shoot yourself??

Let's say...brutal brutal. As in some students have their graduation delayed because A is a nitpicker for whom no work is good enough. A believes in negative feedback alone.

On the other hand, A really goes to bat for A's grad students, and will aggressively promote them at conferences, etc.

Is enduring hell with A worth it?

[new mexico]

I don't care about rankings. I'm interested in attending a grad program where the professors are laid back and want what's best for the students -- that is, i'm interested in schools where the professors aren't creating "mini-me's," so to speak.

[LJK]

And it would be great if someone could tell us more about post doc positions. I know that my university (in my home country) offers these positions. They are generally for two or three years. But I don't know what post-docs are supposed to do. Are they allowed to teach? Or is it just research? One's own project or helping with another project?

Post-docs are often pure research positions used to get your publication count up to be competitive on the academic job market. But, there are post-docs that involve teaching. With one of these positions you might get less research done but you might be gaining teaching experience that will give you an edge over job applicants who don't have independent teaching experience. Sometimes the teaching is optional, some times it is required. As to whether the research is your own or you serve a support role, ideally you are developing your own research program. However, post-docs are often paid off grants that may have a general direction to them so that your work may have to find a compromise with the direction of the grant.

So ideal: pure researcher, developing own research program and getting publications.

But reality often intrudes.

Also, for pay, Post-docs are often paid about the amount of a graduate stipend + the tuition that the department is paying for grad students, therefore they cost the PI about the same amount of money to have on a grant as a grad. They usually have benefits as proper university employees unlike many grad students.

Let's say...brutal brutal. As in some students have their graduation delayed because A is a nitpicker for whom no work is good enough. A believes in negative feedback alone.

On the other hand, A really goes to bat for A's grad students, and will aggressively promote them at conferences, etc.

Is enduring hell with A worth it?

I would go with B. If you are driven and you are able to publish and get work out, you will be able to acquire a job or a post-doc position that you can use to leverage yourself higher with more independent, good and published work. There is too much of a sacrifice involved in becoming a trodden upon slave-like being for 5+ years in my opinion. You substantially increase the possibility of burn out or deciding to quit for other reasons. Everyone thinks that can't happen to them but the statistics say otherwise, and if I were you I would protect myself against it.

Edited February 17, 2011 by LJK

[Strangefox]

Also, for pay, Post-docs are often paid about the amount of a graduate stipend + the tuition that the department is paying for grad students, therefore they cost the PI about the same amount of money to have on a grant as a grad. They usually have benefits as proper university employees unlike many grad students.

Oh, so if post-docs get an amount that is a grad student's stipend + tuition - then they are paid more than grad students because the latter do not actually get their tuition, they just do not have to pay it!

I like that!

[Strangefox]

Let's say...brutal brutal. As in some students have their graduation delayed because A is a nitpicker for whom no work is good enough. A believes in negative feedback alone.

On the other hand, A really goes to bat for A's grad students, and will aggressively promote them at conferences, etc.

Is enduring hell with A worth it?

I have to agree with LJK. At least for me enduring hell is not an option. I guess there are some thick-skin people who don't care if their advisor is brutal or not but I am definetely not one of them and I would choose Professor B.

If you are actively networking and publishing you will have no problem searching for a job, I guess.

[Eigen]

Oh, so if post-docs get an amount that is a grad student's stipend + tuition - then they are paid more than grad students because the latter do not actually get their tuition, they just do not have to pay it!

I like that!

Well, you get it in the sense you have to report it as income at tax time :-D

But yes, practically a post-doc position in the sciences pays 40-50k per year + benefits, as opposed to a grad stipend of 25-30k.