Stanford MS vs. UCLA PhD - Need Advice!

[fe3lg0odhit]

I was recently accepted to both the UCLA Chemistry Ph.D. program and the Stanford environmental engineering and science M.S. program.

UCLA is fully funded, with the possibility of a fellowship. Stanford is not offering any financial aid.

UCLA is a great program, but let's be honest, Stanford does as well.

And it's STANFORD.

So...What would you do? And how would I even go about trying to support myself at Stanford?

Any advice is greatly appreciated.

[vvvee]

I vote for Stanford! I am admitted to the Mater of Engineering program in Cornell, with funds I suppose... However, by the time I was admitted to Stanford, no fund at all... I totally forgot about Cornell already... Stanford has the best environmental engineering program in the world! I am still waiting for four Ivy league schools, mit, cal and cmu, but it will only be a joy if I can get in any of these. I have decided to go to Stanford since the very beginning. It will be worthwhile even without fund!! So yeah, let's go to Stanford!!

[stephanopolis]

I know very little about either school, but a decent or good PhD program (in my humble opinion) trumps an MA even at a very good school. And not going into debt trumps either going into debt or overworking to pay for school That's just me, but I'd definitely take the PhD. After that degree you will likely have more opportunities open to you. I have a friend who went to Columbia for her masters and now realizes it hasn't helped her much in her career at all. If she had gone into a PhD she'd be at least halfway through it now instead...

[ghanada]

It seems like you should also consider whether or not the PhD is your end goal or if you are fine with a terminal Masters. If you want to do academia and research for sure, then it is a no brainer to do the PhD at UCLA. If you are just interested in going to industry and are ready to just finish school and start a career, then do the Masters. These are very different options in my opinion, and I worry less about the school rank and more about what it is you exactly want to do. And since one program is in chem and the other in enviro eng it seems like these are different fields and you should consider what it is you want to accomplish. Anyways, I am from Cali, and I actually have spent most my educational career at UCLA, and to me both UCLA and Stanford are well respected. Sure, Stanford's name is almost always ranked higher than UCLA, but not by miles or anything.

[hungry]

Also it's not like you're choosing between Stanford and a community college... it's UCLA. I hate UCLA, all their fans, and all their teams (USC undergrad ), but I'd still probably do a PhD there over paying for a Masters myself at Stanford.

[Golgotha]

Stanford Master's student here. It depends on your end-game. If you want to contribute meaningful research to a field that you're passionate about, and you're excited about devoting the next 4+ years to research, go for a Ph.D. If you just want two more years of coursework and a degree with Stanford's name on it, go to Stanford. In my experience, at Stanford it's notoriously difficult for matriculating Master's students to obtain any significant research position unless they have their own funding. In the end, a Ph.D is a Ph.D, it doesn't really matter where you get it.

[EvilFabio]

If it were me I'd be all over the UCLA deal. Of course, I know I'm looking for a PhD. UCLA grads seem to do well on the job market. I don't think the Stanford name is worth that much. That is, if you really want a PhD. If you don't, don't get one.

[thakchi]

Okay, I have to disagree with most people in this thread. I am not a Chemistry or Environmental Engineering guy, but in my opinion your best bet is Stanford, PhD or Masters. If you are looking to do a PhD, given the current competition in PhD programs, a Stanford PhD will definitely give you a big advantage. Plus, Stanford is notorious for having very difficult PhD qualifying exams(procedures), especially in Engineering, which adds to their PhD prestige.

If you prefer the industry route after a quick Masters degree, Stanford is the obvious choice.

[samosatoasta]

I'm currently in a very similar situation choosing between offers for a Masters at Stanford or a PhD at UCLA in Electrical Engineering.

For EE as well, Stanford is definitely at the top of the rankings... but of course, there's the question of funding, or lack thereof that's being offered with the Masters program. Whereas UCLA is offering me a full fellowship. I agree it's a pretty tough choice.

I'll be making my decision soon as well and I'll likely be following this thread for more opinions. Thanks to everyone that's posted already - there's been some really insightful advice. And good luck feelgoodhit with your decision

[okayandgo]

If your goal is a PhD, definitely first figure out how difficult it is to continue to a PhD from a Master's at Stanford. I know it's very difficult to go from a Stats Masters to a Stats Phd at Stanford or Chicago for instance (both top 10 programs).

From a friend, however, I've heard it's very easy to go from an EE Masters at Stanford into their BioE PhD.

Industry/career-wise, I always feel like Stanford is a great place to start a career, particularly in tech/in the bay area of course. (If you want to get jobs in Southern California, UCLA wins on so many levels: funding, career, PhD...)

I agree with the post above though that stated that a PhD was a PhD no matter where from. Or at the very least, UCLA is actually pretty prestigious. The credentials gap between UCLA and Stanford seems smaller to me than the gap between a PhD and a Masters.