More Money vs. Ranking/Prestige

[jprufrock]

So let's play hypothetical and ask a fundamental question without naming schools etc. This way, the thread will apply to everyone.

Let's define money as the end result of financial offers after accounting for cost of living, etc. Let's define ranking and prestige as just that--how widely recognized and renowned a potential grad school is in your specific field.

And for the sake of the thread, let's leave out questions of "fit" or "location" or any other variables that obviously have a significant impact. Just money vs. ranking. Let's also say that "more money" doesn't mean the other school will force you to live an impoverished lifestyle, just a lackluster one. Let's say that you'll be fully funded at both, regardless, and won't have to accrue any debt.

Which one do you choose and why? <---probably a good idea to state your field, too.

Do you go with more money because this economy is terrible (though getting better) and even if you graduate, a job might not come easily? Do you go with more money because it will make grad school that much easier, that much more comfortable? Do you go with higher ranking because it might lead to higher wealth in the long term? Is higher wealth in the long term a reality, or will having more money in the present make that more attainable? Will your higher ranking school make you more competitive for a job once you graduate? How much, if at all?

Cite evidence or relay anecdotes, if possible.

I'm sure this has been discussed before, but I searched 5 pages back and didn't find a satisfactory thread. Things are economically different here in 2011, as well.

Edited February 10, 2011 by jprufrock

[anthropologygeek]

Go with the better school especially in English. In anthropology, rankings are less important and your adviser is more important. I took less money but after the first semester I was given unique opportunities and actually bring in more money each year than I would of gotten.

[newms]

If everything else is equal and there is a sizable difference between reputation and money at the schools, I would go with the school with the better reputation as long as the money is enough to get by. In Computer Science, ranking and prestige isn't as important as in other fields, since there are a lot of lower ranked schools that do well in a particular sub-field, but it still helps for job placement after graduation.

[kateow]

A more highly ranked school is more likely to result in offers of full time employment within academia. I'd choose the school that was most likely to get me job offers, post-doc.

I'm in anthropology (archaeology), but I've seen this work, first-hand, in history too.

[firefly28]

It depends on the level of difference between the schools (and the level of difference of money). I'm not going to go to a school that only offers $13K a year to live on, no matter how good that school is, because I'd have trouble surviving on that little. Once you get beyond $20K money becomes less salient--I'd probably sooner take $25 at a top 10 school than $35 at a school that's not quite so high. I'm looking at some fairly competitive fellowships at universities that are within the same range, so choosing will be more difficult.

[ZeChocMoose]

I vote for name recognition/prestige. There is something to be said for name recognition of a program especially if the program has a large alumni network. Something I would never want to hear after I spend 5+ years working hard to earn a PhD is, "I didn't know that X University had a program in THAT?!"

Like the poster said above, if the stipend is enough to live on in that area, I am not too concerned what the bottom line is. As a grad student it is normal to live simply and on a budget. I would only grow concerned if I needed to take out loans to supplement the stipend because it is not enough to cover living costs.

[cesada]

I know you said to discount fit, but I think fit almost replaces rankings in English... if you are, say, a feminist scholar working with a famous feminist theorist at a slightly less prestigious school, that would be better than working with a lesser-known feminist scholar at Yale. Or if you are in science fiction, you had better pick UC Riverside over UCLA.

In any case, I would pick prestige (of the adviser or the school) over money, so long as you will make enough to live decently. Maybe it won't make a difference on the job market... but maybe it will. With something like 50% of English PhDs not getting jobs in academia, I think it's worth living on less money to possibly boost your job chances later.

[neuropsychosocial]

I'd choose the school that was most likely to get me job offers, post-doc.

Me too. In some fields, this seems to be overall prestige of a department, while in others, it's prestige of a specific POI/lab. (And for some fields, it's probably overall reputation of a university if the majority of jobs are outside academia/hired by HR folks rather than specialists in a given field). As long as I can survive without loans, the specific amount of the stipend is not important to me: I consider the next five years to be an investment towards where I want to be in 25 years.

[shepardn7]

In any case, I would pick prestige (of the adviser or the school) over money, so long as you will make enough to live decently. Maybe it won't make a difference on the job market... but maybe it will. With something like 50% of English PhDs not getting jobs in academia, I think it's worth living on less money to possibly boost your job chances later.

I chose "prestige" (not necessarily "ranking") in the poll above, and I think this is the best point--you need to take the prestige of your advisor (and all professors in your area of specialty) into the highest account. This is the person who will have the connections to push your name, and his or her name will likely help you more than the general name of the school. I think you also want to consider "new prestige" vs. "old prestige." Some professors at certain schools were "cutting edge" in the seventies; some are younger and "cutting edge" now. I'd probably go with the latter in a humanities advisor.

[a fragrant plant]

But what if the situation is not about opting between 'more money' and 'less money', but between having some funding and having no funding at all?

[SuperPiePie]

But what if the situation is not about opting between 'more money' and 'less money', but between having some funding and having no funding at all?

That would depend how much "some" is. If some is like 300 dollars well....

[Bukharan]

Easy choice. School with a better reputation over money.

[qbtacoma]

But what if the situation is not about opting between 'more money' and 'less money', but between having some funding and having no funding at all?

That's the way I read the question too. I chose funding over prestige. Honestly, the choices I made in the application process were all around whether I liked a professor's work - I didn't think about prestige as much, and so I picked a lot of young faculty. They just don't have the publication history yet. So I can't say this is a dilemma that I've set up for myself.

[neuropsychosocial]

But what if the situation is not about opting between 'more money' and 'less money', but between having some funding and having no funding at all?

That's a totally different situation, but the OP specified that the hypothetical involved being fully funded, no loans.

[a fragrant plant]

Looking at the votes, money doesn't seem to be a decisive factor to a lot of people. Well, if a very prestigious program offers you partial funding, and you have support from your family to help you get by, you'll not have a hard time to choose. In that case most people will choose the school that has a better reputation, even if it means they'll have to live on a tight budget. However, if your second choice is willing to support you financially, and the very prestigous does not, will the choice be so obvious? I doubt it. Having said that, it must be extremely difficult to decline Harvard.

[cranberry]

I would go wherever would be most likely to help me get a job, and if Program A is more respected and highly regarded than Program B, the choice is obvious. Since I want to go to grad school to have a career in academia, I'm going to think of my future and the long-run rather than focus solely on the money I get in grad school. Granted, if Program A offered me a solid $20k/yr but Program B offered $50k, I might think twice.

[Count de Monet]

Got to go with the better program because while a lesser school may offer you more money now, you'll earn more money later by going to the better school because you'll actually get a teaching job.

[harpyemma]

Prestige.

This reminds me of, i don't remember, some test where they asked kids if they wanted one piece of chocolate now or the whole bar in 20 minutes.

[jprufrock]

Prestige.

This reminds me of, i don't remember, some test where they asked kids if they wanted one piece of chocolate now or the whole bar in 20 minutes.

[Ludwig von Dracula]

Prestige.

This reminds me of, i don't remember, some test where they asked kids if they wanted one piece of chocolate now or the whole bar in 20 minutes.

You may be thinking of the "Marshmallow test"...there's an interesting TED talk on it here: http://www.ted.com/talks/joachim_de_posada_says_don_t_eat_the_marshmallow_yet.html

Turns out that the kids who were able to wait it out for the bigger reward were ultimately much more successful in life. But I have a feeling that most people going into grad school aren't shooting for short-term results anyway.

[GNC]

It would really depend how different the ranking/prestige is, and how different the money provided is.

But based on the given facts I'd got with prestige.

[DrPepper-olic]

Based on the assumption that all the programs grant a tuition waiver, I would go for prestige over money. Prestige can be it's own reward. Getting through a prestigious program (or working under a renowned researcher) can communicate a lot about your drive and ability when you're on the job market. For my BA and MA, I went where the money was, and my resume suffers for it.

It's nice not being in the red, though. I think it's unwise to go into debt for a Ph.D. in any case.

[callmelilyb]

I've already sent some of my thoughts on this issue to jprufrock in a personal message but I'll add some of them here for others to consider.

When one thinks about "funding" it is important to consider things outside the personal funding package that you receive.

Considerations of funding should also entail how much work the program will require of you to receive your stipend (teaching two courses of 20+ students a semester is not the same as teaching one course a semester that is capped at 12).

Funding also means the amount of additional monies that will be available to you for: research and conference travel, attending summer institutes, dissertation research, archival work, etc. All of which arguably have as much of an impact on your ability to get a job as a program's ranking.

Lastly, funding structures have undeniable effects on department culture and environment.

Granted, if you are talking about programs whose rankings are wildly disparate then these things becomes less important. If you're talking about programs in the top 25-30 range then all of these considerations should play a larger factor in your decision.

[jprufrock]

Yes--I've learned that my proposed question in this thread is overly reductive.

The conclusion I've come to is that funding is invariably linked to many other aspects of potential programs, such as fit, climate, happiness, stress, living situations, etc. To pit money against ranking is thus impossible because too many variables come into play and our 'hypothetical' loses its utility in reality.

What I've gathered is that one should not give up a higher ranked program solely for money, and contrarily, one should not at all dismiss another program based on rank. This has been said many times before. Perhaps something new to say is that money and ranking are not mutually exclusive; schools should be judged holistically and in regard to your own personal inclinations.

I've also learned this: ask everyone about everything. callmelilyb has given me excellent advice which has subsequently made decisions[, decisions] even more difficult. And grad school choices should never be an easy decision.

I've already sent some of my thoughts on this issue to jprufrock in a personal message but I'll add some of them here for others to consider.

When one thinks about "funding" it is important to consider things outside the personal funding package that you receive.

Considerations of funding should also entail how much work the program will require of you to receive your stipend (teaching two courses of 20+ students a semester is not the same as teaching one course a semester that is capped at 12).

Funding also means the amount of additional monies that will be available to you for: research and conference travel, attending summer institutes, dissertation research, archival work, etc. All of which arguably have as much of an impact on your ability to get a job as a program's ranking.

Lastly, funding structures have undeniable effects on department culture and environment.

Granted, if you are talking about programs whose rankings are wildly disparate then these things becomes less important. If you're talking about programs in the top 25-30 range then all of these considerations should play a larger factor in your decision.