Can't choose between two programs

[Roo]

I was just accepted to two grad schools, UCSF and UNC Chapel Hill, on the same day. I'm applying for biophysics and for this field they both seem so good that I can't choose between them! Given the list of pros and cons below, I'd like to hear some input from GradCafe:

UCSF

Pros:

1: Great, highly ranked biophysics program

2: Seems industry-oriented; there is an entrepreneurship club and incubator space

3: Excellent location; I'm a Midwesterner and I've always pictured myself in California after undergrad

4: Can take classes at both Berkeley and Stanford

5: Has a famous researcher in my desired field

6: 30K stipend

Cons:

1. Aforementioned famous researcher's lab is hard to get into; I have no guarantee of getting in. A couple other labs kind of tangentially touch my field of interest, but don't focus on it.

2. Hilarious cost of living

UNC

Pros:

1. Two professors working in my field of interest, and at least four others who touch on it significantly

2. One of above professors has been working actively to recruit me, and I genuinely appreciate his effort

3. Has "biophysics training program" that seems to be the most rigorous of the programs I've seen

4. Lower cost of living

5. 27.5K stipend with guarantee that increases for incoming students will be matched for previous students

Cons:

1. Not as highly ranked or well known as UCSF; in the words of my PI (paraphrased), "I don't know much about it. Of the ones you applied to I like UCSF"

2. Chapel Hill itself doesn't seem nearly as interesting as San Francisco; is there anything fun to do there? All of the grad students were saying "Yeah, there's this and that to do within a 2 hour drive". 2 hours is a long drive..

3. Doesn't seem as "business/startup-oriented" as UCSF

I think that's it. UCSF seems like a amazing place with great industry opportunities, but maybe not exactly the kind of research I want to pursue with the exception of one lab. Chapel Hill, on the other hand, seems to have more of the research that I'm interested in, but I would have to sacrifice both the name/reputation and location of UCSF.

What would you guys suggest?

Edited March 4, 2012 by Roo

[electrochoc]

That's tough. My question for you is about what do you want to do for a living after a graduation and what would be of higher value for you as a professional then: better university reputation or a more exciting research background?

[Roo]

At the risk of identifying myself to browsing admissions staff, I will say that I want to work at a startup doing large molecule therapeutic design. I'm not sure whether reputation or research in the field is of higher value to a potential employer. To be honest, I'm not exactly sure which is of higher value to myself. It's not like the labs at UCSF are boring; it's just that there are only two that do what I want to do. I'm completely torn!

[TropicalCharlie]

The advantage of going to UCSF (maybe I'm a bit biased as I am a former SF city dweller and also from California) is that there are numerous start-up biotech companies on top of very established ones. You will no doubt make tons of connections in the bay area. The possibilities are endless. Now look at UNC and think of the number of biotech companies or start-ups out that way. Does any come to mind? Will you be able to make connections in NC? If you have any questions about SF living and such, feel free to pm me.

[splitends]

I'm in a completely different field and don't know anything about the professional or academic side of your decision, but as someone who lives in the Bay Area, I vote for UCSF.

Don't let cost of living scare you off too much-- quality of life in California is just as much about the gorgeous weather (of course, SF isn't LA-- it won't be sunny year round, but it will always be relatively mild), the amazing food, the high concentration of educated people, the constant stream of exciting goings on, the proximity to every kind of natural beauty, and on and on and on, as it is about having someplace nice to sleep. Plus, plenty of people figure out how to live in the area on much less money. Hopefully you'll get a chance to visit and see it for yourself, but CA is awesome.

[ANDS!]

Chapel Hill and Duke are "college towns" in the same vein of Davis (which is near San Fran). You will hardly go insane living there or want for a social life.

But as you said the cost of living in San Fran is a problem. A stipend of 30K is worth less than a stipend of 27K in Durham. Overall, the only categories where Durham is more expensive are the cost of utilities.

As for research/job opportunities, it's not called The Research Triangle for nothing. If you haven't already, I would investigate to see what companies are operating in the area that would suit your particular tastes.

Seems like a no-brainer to me.

Edited March 5, 2012 by ANDS!

[ghanada]

I agree with a lot of what has been said here. I just want to emphasize that you should really consider exactly what you would want to do after grad school and where you would want to end up. For instance, if you want to goto industry and be somewhere in Cali, I would HIGHLY recommend going to UCSF. I am from Cali and can say easily say that Cali people in general have a huge bias toward UC schools (+Stanford and Cal Tech) and Ivys. Besides those, most people in Cali know very little about other schools in the country. BUT if you wanted to do a post-doc and stay in academia on the east coast, then UNC would seem like a great fit. Keep in mind your advisers in grad school can be a huge help in where you end up after grad school so their connections are very important. And of course it would make sense that UCSF would have more connections to west coast and UNC to east coast. Overall, from my impressions of living on both the west coast and east coast, I think UCSF has a more universally recognized name whereas UNC is definitely more recognized on the east than the west.

[dntw8up]

I did K-12 in SF and undergrad at UNC Chapel Hill. Chapel Hill is a great town with plenty to do socially, and if you think an occasional two hour trip to the beach or mountains is a hassle, you underestimate the hassle of living in SF and taking classes at Cal and/or Stanford. It sounds like UNC is a far better research fit for you, which is what matters most, and UNC professors are well-connected to biotech work being done by international firms in RTP. I wouldn't hesitate to trade the perceived status of one program for a program with more research depth in your area because that program will be better able to help you reach your professional goals. In fact, I have made the same choice in favor of the program I am entering this fall.

[jdrop]

I'm looking for some advice and frankness/bluntness is much appreciated. I'm on the fence about which MA/M.Ed to attend this coming summer/fall. I was accepted to TC as well as Lewis and Clark Graduate School for Ed. (in Portland, Oregon) and anticipate being accepted into HGSE for Teaching English/Language Arts at the secondary level. I want to work on the West Coast -- ideally in the Portland, Seattle, or Western Montana and Wyoming areas -- but am unsure what a grad degree from Harvard/Columbia will really do for me out here. At the moment I'm open to teaching for a few years and returning to school for a PhD or Ed.D but not set on it and think it may be a better idea-- jobwise anyhow -- to attend Lewis and Clark. They have great relationships with school districts near me and are well regarded in the NW. Has anyone else gone to TC or HGSE and taught out here? Are their alumni and school support networks that far reaching? Is it worth it?

Additionally, I'm 24 and can afford HGSE or Columbia thanks to some helpful grandparents, so debt isn't a big issue.

Would love to hear your thoughts!