Cambridge, UT Southwestern, Brown...Ph.D Biology

[Robsoc7]

I have no clue how to decide between these schools. I want to pursue a Ph.D in biochemistry, biophysics, or medical related field, and eventually work in the biotech and biomed world. I would pursue a Ph.D in Biochemistry at Cambridge and it has the best reputation/ranking. I would pursue a Ph.D in Biochemistry or Biophysics at UT Southwestern, and although these programs are top 10 (US News), UT Southwestern does not have the name of Cambridge or Brown. I did love the faculty at Southwestern, and they also happen to be the highest cited biochemistry faculty according to some sources. I would pursue a Ph.D in Pathobiology at Brown. All schools are fully funded.

[t_ruth]

Cost of living is probably going to be very different in those places.

Don't know your field, so can't be more help - good luck!

[MAN]

I'd guess that the placement from any of the top 10 schools would be comparable (I'm not familiar with your major, so I'm not completely sure). So, any gain from going to the #1 school over the #10 school is going to marginable. You just need to decide which school/town/atmosphere you would be happiest studying at for the next half decade.

[Dubya]

If you have funding at Cambridge then that would certainly be my choice. Plus, cost of living shouldn't be an issue for the next year or two since the pound is so weak against the dollar (actually against everything).

[Robsoc7]

Do you think that future employers in the biotech world would be influenced much by the name of a program? There is no way around it, Cambridge has a reputation that even Southwestern, with its amazing faculty and credentials, does not have. Southwestern, though, has many more options on what I could study and with whom I would work under. At Cambridge, my potential advisor will be my advisor no matter what as she is providing the funding. I'm sure my project will be rather constrained as well.

Cost of living is not of much concern to me...all the schools have good stipends. I also am impartial as to living in Dallas (Southwestern) or Cambridge. I do have family and friends in Dallas though.

[bernard]

Brown is out of question.

Cambridge - good location, excellent research going on, I know the university has many collaborations with MRC laboratory, where a lot of Nobel winners and big scientists work. If you can find a research supervisor from MRC, that will be golden.

UT Southwestern - large place, a lot of scientists to choose, but not many star scientists in biochemistry.

So, Cambridge all the way...

[Robsoc7]

bernard...

I agree with you on Brown.

I also agree with you on the caliber of Cambridge. A few notes on Southwestern faculty...

4 Nobel Prize winning scientists, one winner of the Shaw Prize, 18 members of the National Academy of Sciences, 14 members of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences and 13 members of the Howard Hughes Medical Institute. All 4 of their Nobel Prize winners are still there, including a member of the Biochemistry department. Also, UT Southwestern

[bernard]

UT Southwestern ranks high probably because of its volume of publications contributed by its large faculty. But I doubt its publication/PI is ranked so high. A few PIs are really well known though. So it depends how well your interests align with them. Unless you can get into these famous PIs' lab, I would not go there if I were you. Besides, not many people have heard of the school (I talked to two of my profs, and one confused it with Northwestern and the other said he's never heard of it). So this is something to think about...

What area of biochemistry are you interested?

[Robsoc7]

You are definitely right that the size of their faculty helps with the amount of pubs they get out, thus giving them a high ranking with in most cited polls. Hadn't really thought about this.

I have pretty broad interests, and if I got to Southwestern I may even pursue Biophysics (US News puts Biochem/Biophys in same category, thus still top 10). I don't really know what I want to do. I have talked to all kinds of profs at southwestern, from a natural product chemist, to a RNA biochemist, to a molecular biophysicist, to a quantitative biologist. All but one of these potential advisors is young, but they all have published at least once in either Science, Nature, PNAS, or Cell every year since 2005-2006. On the other hand, my potential advisor at Cambridge (who I have to go to if I go to Cambridge, and she is not from MRC) has only published in PNAS once in 2006. But, she publishes a lot each year (12 in 2008; 19 in 2007). This is a good amount more than my potential advisors at Southwestern.

I guess this is what I need to figure out...

1) I want to work in biotech one day, so how important is that name. YES, a name is important if you want to gain a good faculty position one day, but what about in the biotech world. Usually in business (and I'm guessing in the biotech industry as well), once you get that first job your academic history becomes MUCH less important than your ability to perform in the workplace.

2) Which advisors would be seen as more prestigious; one that publishes a lot in lesser quality journals, or those that publish not as much but in higher quality journals.

Could you maybe tell me a little but about your situation now (school and/or location, field of study, degree pursuing). I am wondering why your profs have never heard of it. Thanks for the responses too.

[belevitt]

Hi. I will be starting a Phd program in Micro this summer and I thought I might share some thoughts on your comments about Brown, UTSW and Cambridge for biochem/biophysics. First of all, acquaint yourself with the British education system. You don't do rotations or take courses. You begin right away on a thesis project, without comps or prelims. You stop doing your Phd based on time, not on research results. A degree from the British system will not hold as much weight in biotech as an American degree would.

I don't think you could go wrong with UTSW or Brown. They both have strong reputations in the sciences and world class facilities. This is a good time to make your decision based on labs you like. The program setup is important, course offerings are valuable, degree requirements are relevant, but it ultimately boils down to finding the right lab for your thesis. There are a number of factors to consider, google it. Pick the right faculty member and you will complete your Phd with excellent publications, a great network of contacts and a firm grounding in how to plan and carryout a research proposal.

[Robsoc7]

belevitt

While the Cambridge system is different in that you do not do rotations, the system does include a extended amount of lectures and seminars. This is akin to the US system, although not identical in that you do not take academic courses in the sense that you are talking about. And I support their methodology in that you finish your Ph.D based on time, not research. This is how biotech works...you either produce the results you need in a specific time frame, or you fail. If you are not producing results fast enough, then work longer. The academic system is, in my opinion, impeding science. I have seen too much of a lazy research going on because academic science is essentially devoid of deadlines. But, this is my business mindset coming out, and I would guess not many people support this view. Thus, I am not against the Ph.D system at Cambridge. And, I seriously doubt a degree from Cambridge would be looked down upon by biotech companies. Especially since Cambridge is home to the Cambridge Science Park, the oldest science park in the UK, and composed of about 100 biotech companies. But, Southwestern is currently building its own science park, which will open summer 2009, to house biotech companies.

[bernard]

I have no experience in the biotech world, as I am research type and want to go to academia after PhD. But I hear from online forums and from my colleagues from my current biochemistry lab that the fame of your PI and school's prestige are very important.

Fame of PI - In any job, you need to get strong letters of recommendation from your PI. Employers do not really know the big scientists names, but they will be impressed by titles like HHMI investigator or chair of some departments. So preferably you want your PI to be well known and to be at least professor in the university. Senior professors likely will have more experience in writing a strong letter of recommendation.

Prestige of school - School's general ranking is more important. This is because employers generally know that highly ranked schools will produce good graduate students no matter what field they are in.

But school and prestige aside, I think your performance in graduate school is really important. If you can publish high-impact papers in your study, you will come across as a hardworking and intelligent person to the employer. For example, if you have just one first-author Nature paper, you will be judged very competitive in just about any job.

Lastly, it matters whether the work of your PI has any industry connections. For example, if you work in structural biology and protein structure modeling, this area usually has connection to pharmaceutical industry, in drug design (such as the design of inhibitor for enzymes that are implicated in diseases). If you work in development of methods and technologies (such as microarrays, sequencing, mass-spectrometry, hplc), these areas are also in good demand in industry.

A little bit about me: I am a senior undergraduate doing a double degree in computer science and biochemistry at a Canadian university. I didn't consider UK schools because they are kind of far from where my family lives (which is in the eastern Canada). My interests are in computational biology which is a really broad field. I have worked before with protein structure prediction, inhibitor design, and a little bit of comparative genomics. Since I have no interest to go to industry, I am open to research in a lot of areas. It is quite normal that a lot of people here in Canada have not heard of UTSW, maybe this is not the case in US. The professor who said he never heard of it was a 70-year old professor in mathematics but a leader in bioinformatics. The other professor who confused the name was ironically a biochemistry professor...

Sorry about the long post...

[mtlve]

I applied to biomedical programs last year with an interest in biochemistry. I interviewed at UT Southwestern, and I loved that program. They have tons of big named faculty, and the faculty I met with seemed very down to earth. As others said you want to train with a big named PI or a rising star. Your school's reputation matters some, but it is a less of a factor. You want to go some where that will enable you to work with a big name and get great pubs.

Would you get this from your cambridge PI? Another thing to consider is that European graduate degrees are ~3yr degrees so you will get out faster- a good thing. My former boss (a big name) does not like to take people from the European system, because they have less experience. You have to make up the time at some point. Otherwise, Cambridge would be a good choice.

Brown has a good reputation as an ivy, but its not known for science. If there are a lot of good scientists there, consider it. If not, I would go elsewhere.

As I mentioned before, I interviewed at UT Southwestern and I loved it. I ended up going to a top10 instead, but I know I could have found a great lab there. According to faculty at my school (a private school with one of the largest endowments), they have serious problems recruiting faculty that UT Southwestern is recruiting because UT can offer them comparatively large start up funds. As you know they have tons of big names, and they are recuiting some of the most promising young faculty. UT will probably be a powerhouse in our generation for this reason. I sadly eliminated this school because the student body seemed very conservative. I am very liberal, so I doubted whether I would fit in there. I also did not care for Dallas. With your interest in biotech, this would probably be a good place since a lot of their students go that way.

Good luck with your decision. I obviously vote for UT Southwestern.

[Robsoc7]

mtlve...

Thanks for the post. My potential advisor at Cambridge gets in a lot of good journals, although not Nature or Science as most of my potential advisors at Southwestern have done (and they are young). I definitely like the shorter Ph.D system at Cambridge and the no course work, but I am worried how my lack of experience will affect me if I return to the US for a job. I do like the no coursework aspect, but my main concern is exactly what you said, that your former boss does not like to hire people from the European system. Do you know where I would make up for my lack of experience? Postdoc maybe?

I have pretty much already voted out Brown...

I loved Southwestern for the same reasons you have said, and I also love Dallas and am fairly moderate with a lean towards conservatism. I visit Cambridge in March, so I hope to know more by then.

[Dubya]

Robsoc7,

If you want a guided tour of the city/university then you should send me a message before you come over.

[mtlve]

Does your cambridge advisor have a reputable name? It is fine to not get Nature/Science as long as saying you worked with PIX= really good thing/desirable quality. Journals like PNAS, Molecular Cell, J of Biochemistry, Development, Neuron, etc are fine. Also be sure to dig up as much information on the Cambridge PI, since you will be stuck there if you go that route.

In regards to the shorter degree, you would probably still be able to get a good US job. According to a lot of the PIs I talked to, it takes a certain amount of time in the lab to reach the skill levels needed to sucessfully perform as a faculty member. Graduates from the US system supposedly function at a more advanced level than those of the European system. My old PI said that it takes them 1-2years to get to the level of US grads. For this reason, he liked them to take another post-doc position for these 1-2 years before he hired them. I do not know whether a lot of PIs do this. My old PI has never trained a grad student, so he may be a little unusual in this matter. Just be aware that the European program shaves a few years from graduate training, but you will probably have to add a couple years to your postdoc training to make up for it. This may also be less of a problem if you go into industry.