Getting a job at the end - does your PhD insitution count?

[global_nomad]

Hi All,

Hoping to draw on some advice from those of you out in the job market. I am right at the beginning of my PhD journey and weighing up two offers. Getting an academic job at the end is what it's all about and I'd like to consider this in making my decision.

I will be studying Palaeolithic archaeology (Anthropology). an have offers from Cambridge and UConn. My gut says UConn (chance to experience the US, great location, new adventures, and an excellent research fit with a brilliant supervisor). But my head says Cambridge when I think of my academic job opportunities after.

Does reputation of the inistitution really make that much of a difference? I know its meant to be about how much you publish and the connections you make on the way, but does snobbery still win out these days?

Post PhD, I am unsure where I want to settle. I have lived overseas for the last 5 years and don't plan to return to my country of citizenship (UK) long term. I'd like to be able return to where I am now (NZ), but Palaeolithic archaeology is rather thin on the ground here (heavy regional focus) and I'd probably have to give them a strong reason to consider me as a left of field candidate or broaden my geographic interests. My supervisor at UConn is well known and highly regarded in her specialism, but probably not so well known out here.

Given you guys are out there in the job market, what advice do you have for me?

Cheers

[anthropologygeek]

Yes reputation matter but more so of what the reputation is like in your speciality and not so much the reputation of the department overall. Also who your adviser is matters. How are they thought of? Where you go matter especially in anthropology however the other country universities are thought of highly if you have the right adviser.

[Seeking]

I know two archaeologists from Cambridge - from the same specialisation and supervised by the same famous professor. One has a high-profile career and the other is struggling to get a regular job.

The difference - the high-profile archaeologist is a great communicator and is a prolific author with many publications. The other one is a good archaeologist but not so great communicator and not having many publications.

But communication skills and publications being basic requirements in all cases, perhaps your job application will always be topped by an Ivy League or Oxbridge candidate if you are not Ivy League/Oxbridge and if there are many candidates coming from these institutions.

Perhaps you can have a PhD from Cambridge and get a Post doc or a teaching fellowship at Univ of Connecticut.

Another aspect you can consider is which of the two advisors is actually in a position to help you get a job.

[global_nomad]

Thanks for the advice, some good food for thought there. I've worked in publishing and done a lot of presentions professionally, so I hope that gives me a bit of an advantage!! I guess you're right tho, all other things being equal the institution is likely to give the edge. Hmm, I'm normally go with my gut. . . . but just maybe this time . . . .?

I should probably add that the place at Cambridge is only an MPhil, so there is no guarantee that I'll get funding for ,or even a place on, the PhD there after my Masters.

Secondly, I'm interested in your last point Seeking: What do you think qualifies a supervisor to be in a good position to help me get a job?

Ta.

[Seeking]

I'm sorry, I presumed Cambridge offered you a PhD position.

An MPhil degree won't cut much ice, unless you are confident of getting a PhD offer at Ivy League/Oxbridge after this. It's a PhD from a top-ranking institution that matters the most.

A supervisor can help if s/he is in a senior position, has influence with the faculty of their own and other departments where job openings may come up when you are graduating and most important, has the generous nature and willingness to help. An influential supervisor without the willingness to help is of not much use.

So, in the present circumstances, perhaps Univ of Connecticut would be better if they are giving you funding and if your supervisor there is well known and has the willingness to help.

Most US universities help their PhD graduates to find a Postdoc so I guess in the log run you'll land a teaching job in the US.

[Seeking]

PS - Of course, the other thing you can do is to take the Cambridge offer, write the GRE after a while and see if post-MPhil you can get a PhD offer from a top ranking US university - remember "top ranking" is the key.

So, there is a risk in there.

Edited April 19, 2011 by Seeking

[global_nomad]

Thanks so much Seeking.

Yes my supervisor at UConn is head of the department, seems very helpful, and is well connected with staff at a lot of top institutions in the US. Outside of the US, I am not so sure, but she would still be well known in her specialism.

My funding for the Cambridge MPhil is based on it being prep for PhD, so I'd have a decent chance of staying on (as that is the expectation of the funding). However, in the current funding climate nothing is guarenteed.

It's a very hard decision, so thanks for the helpful advice.

[Seeking]

It looks like Univ of Connecticut is a good option for you - if you are getting funding there. See how you feel about it.

Edited April 22, 2011 by Seeking

[booksnlooks]

Thought I would bump this thread and get some more opinions on it! I've heard some very conflicting stories - some people have told me that your PhD institution is important to even have your CV read, while others have told me that other factors are more important so don't worry about it too much. I'm currently in the process of deciding where to apply for my PhD and, with the end goal of becoming a prof in mind, I wouldn't want to apply to a school that wouldn't help me with my goal.

[Quant_Liz_Lemon]

Look where profs (esp. assistant profs) earned their terminal degree.

[booksnlooks]

Look where profs (esp. assistant profs) earned their terminal degree.

Oooo good advice! Thank you

[Seeking]

I feel everyone should read this thread, but if you don't have time, read at least the last 2-3 pages. The last response is something I hadn't expected at all - 

 

http://chronicle.com/forums/index.php/topic,89131.msg2405808.html#msg2405808

Edited January 8, 2013 by Seeking

[TakeruK]

Definitely agree that the things that matter are, in order: the individual student, the advisor's ability to advise/mentor, the advisor/department's reputation, then lastly the University's reputation. 

 

Just also wanted to add some advice I got when I was deciding on schools. Many have told me (but this might be specific to astronomy/physical sciences) that a PhD at a (North) American university is more likely to lead to a North American post-doc than a PhD from a European university. Due to high costs of travel (for conferences or doing talk circuits during job application), the exposure of most students are limited to their continent. For example, during your last year of your PhD, you can do talk circuits at all the places where you want a job (or places where you know referees for that post-doc fellowship work) so that people know who you are and what you do. (However, I've also learned that not all fields do this type of stuff). In addition, the shorter length of the PhD in the UK/Europe might mean you have less time to get publications out (and less talks/conferences to present) so the advice I got was to plan to do a first post-doc in Europe/UK if I wanted to go back to North American eventually.

[Seeking]

That's great advice - to do talk circuits in the last year of PhD at places where the potential referees and selection committee members are placed. It's true that many disciplines don't have this practice and they should have it.

 

And the order of priorities listed above is as it should be in an ideal situation - and as it is in many countries.

 

But the higher education in the US runs on the skewed notion that a candidate from an elite school is the best no matter how much s/he knows the subject and no matter whether s/he has published enough or is capable of publishing - and I have seen quite a few from the elite schools, who have not much published and are not capable of publishing high-quality research work.

 

This is not to say that such mediocre people don't exist in other schools, but the sad situation of the US higher education is that these mediocre products of elite schools are keeping the good talent out of the job market merely on the strength of the elite stamps on their degrees and the networks of their advisers. 

 

The rising unemployment in the academia is related to not only the reduction in jobs, but also to the fact of rising number of mediocre products from the elite schools who are keeping the talented ones out of jobs because the American selection committees go by the stamps on the degrees, not by the level of knowledge, research and the academic potential of the candidates.

 

And in many cases they prefer to have the mediocre ones  from prestigious schools without any significant research record as adjuncts rather than a good researcher from anywhere as TT - it saves money. 

Edited January 9, 2013 by Seeking