Considering your own undergrad university?

[splitends]

Is anyone else considering their own undergraduate university for graduate school? I would really love to hear how you're navigating the decision, because I am having an exceedingly hard time separating and weighing out a confusing mix of feelings about it.

On the one hand, there are lots of objectively good reasons to stay: it's a top ranked program, its a great fit for my research interests, I love the area, I adore the grad students here, I have great relationships with many professors, and on and on and on.

On the other hand, I'm lucky enough to have other great offers, and staying put will be the less personally adventurous decision, and maybe less rewarding in the long run. I've lived in the state more or less my entire life, and I've lived within a few blocks of campus for the past five years (minus one semester living abroad, and a few summers working out of state). I'm still quite young and think it might just be a good idea for me to see more of the world. And professionally speaking, I already know the work being produced in my undergrad soc department quite well, and maybe I would have more to learn some place new.

And of course the entire time it's hard to decipher whether or not I'm being biased by feeling comfortable, feeling attached to people, etc.

Anyway, if anyone else is going through or has gone through the same process, I would love to hear how you figured it out!

[newleaf]

Go to other departments visitation days/weekends. I went to an MA program and was admitted to my BA school which was my "dream school" for PhD since Freshman year...up until about a month ago. I woke up to some realities that I would face. Now likely going to a department thats about an hour away and I can take advantage of a lot of what I really liked about my undergrad school without the negatives.

[cmr26]

I would go somewhere new, because that would be better for your personal and professional development, in my opinion. I'm in a similar situation, and although the grad students and professors at my undergrad university are amazing, I'm already really familiar with their take on my field. I'm sure I would still have a lot to learn if I stayed behind, but I think a new place would allow more room to be exposed to new ideas, new perspectives, etc. It'll ultimately give you a more complete understanding of your field.

Is it a PhD program? Ten years is a long time to be associated with one university while you're still young.

[Darth.Vegan]

That was the plan when I first got here. My how things have changed.

[undmich]

me on the same boat. i m doing my undergrad in the US as an international student. the decision is very tough for me to make since I can hardly picture myself living in the same place where is not my hometown for another five to seven years. if i choose to stay, by the time i graduate with that phd degree, i will spend more than 1/3 of my life living in a foreign city alone(cry, i need family). although i can see the advantages of staying in my home institute. besides already have good relationships with faculties in the department, NO NEED TO MOVE attracts me the most. it would definitely save me tons of time and energy and it ll make it easier for me to plan the upcoming summer.

Yet my plan now is to visit all schools that admits me and to see if i want any fresh air/environment in the next few years.

[sciencegirl]

I think conventional wisdom would advise strongly against it - unless it was by far the best and only option you had. I've had advisors say to me that it just looks funny on a CV, and that there is an assumption that someone chose to do that because they didn't have other options, and actually makes someone a tiny bit weaker on the job market.

Here are the mentioned tangible reasons why someone should go elsewhere.

1. Networks. These are some of the most important things you do as a graduate student. Going to another program allows you to broaden your base of contacts, who in turn have contacts as well that you also develop. If you were the superstar undergraduate in your department, you can always rely on your undergraduate advisors as a back-up firewall for your support. You will see them at ASA and other professional events. They will always be proud of you and look out for you. They will keep an eye on you, and sometimes even give you a heads up on publishing opportunities. If you have a close superstar professor that wants to continue working with you, they can serve as an outside person on your committee at another program. When job market time comes and by chance there is an opening at your undergrad school, the department will remember you and may be even more inclined to move you up on the short list of a hiring search when you are on the job market. (It is much more common for departments to have hired their own undergrads who went elsewhere for a phD, as rarely do departments ever hire TT their own graduate students). Staying in the same program as your undergraduate program, puts you at a disadvantage to everyone else who is developing these two sets of professional networks, one from their undergrad (some who have them from masters programs) and then new ones from the phD program.

2. Methodology training. Many programs have their style of doing things. They have their focus, their strengths, their biases. Going to another program, one that might be completely different from the one/style you are used to, will only make you a stronger sociologist. I am currently facing this debate with my choices. I am a qualitative scholar.. and some of my schools I am looking at, are great at qualitative work so it made sense at first for me to only consider these. But after some consultation with advisors, they've urged me to strongly look at a program that is also quite strong in quantitative methods. Their reasoning is that when I go on the job market, I would be seen as a very well-rounded candidate. (They also argue that going to a program different than what I already know may also strengthen my dissertation)

3. Experience for teaching/seeing other programs. Schools are vastly different - particularly between public and private programs. Going to another school gives you perspective on how things are done "the other way." If you were used to large 500-person lectures in a UC school, 10-person undergraduate seminars at an elite private are going to be weird - also, conversely if you were coddled at an Ivy as an undergrad, trying to get a handle leading 30-person sections at a competitive public school will definitely be a learning experience. I'm not saying that if you went to a private undergrad you should go to public grad, and vice-verse.. but rather, highlighting the fact that "learning" in grad school happens a lot when you are given new experiences. And when you are staying in the same program, you only heighten your sense of tunnel vision of one particular way of learning. In a competitive job market, and when it comes down to two candidates who are essentially even in capability, I can imagine then the candidate with a more diverse array of educational backgrounds would get the nod.

Given these reasons, I could understand why many frown upon going to the same program, and also why many assume that when people do this, it was because they most likely didn't have other opportunities (ie, they applied everywhere and only got into their current program).

Edited March 7, 2012 by sciencegirl

[splitends]

Many good points sciencegirl.

I think it would be easier to follow that advice if I weren't already at arguably the best program in the country (though of course it's an impossible thing to quantify, and once you're in the top five I don't think prestige differences are really all that discernable, but I mean-- it's good, and a lot of people want to be here), which happens to be a perfect fit for my research interests. I've had professors tell me: "Normally I would always tell a student to go some place else for graduate school, but...you're just such a good fit here. I wouldn't normally recommend staying, but I think this case is an exception."

I've also been assured by many, many people that your CV won't get any funny looks for listing the same school for undergrad and grad if it's a top program (There's no way anyone at my school is here because they didn't have other options-- it's not exactly easy to get in).

And as much as I agree that it's probably a good idea to see how the other half lives, I am a huge proponent of public education and I am afraid of feeling just completely out of place at an elite private school.

But it's hard to say if I'm just thinking all that because I like living here and I love the people in my department. It's not like there aren't other programs that also fit my interests pretty well. ARGH. SO torn.

But I really appreciate all the input! Please keep it coming!

[jacib]

I want to second all the things that Sciencegirl said. They're all correct, definitely. But I think if it's perfect for you, it's perfect for you. But you will have to realize that you might be viewed in the same way as an "affirmative action admit", that is, you'll maybe ironically have to do more than normal just to prove that you "deserve" your admission. You know? Like your school's name will mean a little less unless you have the published work to back it up, in which case it might not matter as much that you got both your degrees there (I've definitely seen it before on professional CV's). But know that people will probably have the suspicion that you maybe just "slid on by" unless you have a strong CV of peer reviewed published work.

[splitends]

I really do have doubts about the validity of the whole "affirmative action admit" perception. I've been reassured by many top people in the field that it's not at all a concern insofar as the discipline or the job market are concerned. I really don't think it's going to affect my career at all.

If it came from anywhere, it MIGHT come from other students, but frankly it would be based on total ignorance. I've heard that second or third tier programs do sometimes try to recruit their own students because it might be harder for them to get the students they want from the general population, BUT most top tier schools have tremendous bias against taking their own undergraduates. The Princeton Sociology department never takes their own students at all. My school takes them once in a blue moon, but they're usually against it on principle-- they have to really want you to let you in.

You're probably right about most everything else, though. Yet I still feel torn...

[jacib]

Just to clarify, I meant "affirmative action admit" only in the fact that, even when you really earned every thing you've got, other people (haters) might have some lingering doubts that you really "deserved" your spot in the program. That's all. Like minority candidates in some places--it doesn't matter how talented a minority judge is, for example, some dumbass will always think, "They got their position because they're a minority". That's the sense I mean it in, not in the sense that you were "saved a spot". The only way you can prove haters wrong is with really good, peer-reviewed work, which hopefully we'll all do, but there might be people out there who will be looking for evidence that "Oh he only got in because Professor Such-and-such must have liked him from undergrad". That's all I'm saying, going to the same school as your undergrad might potentially put you under an added layer of scrutiny on job market. Remember, it's not about the advantages you're actually given or not given; it's about how outside people read the situation.

[splitends]

Yeah, I totally get that-- I'm just saying that I don't think it's likely to be an issue, and that if anybody does have that misconception, it's based on serious lack of information that will probably be corrected really early on. I've been interacting with several grad students in the department lately, and they seem to totally get that it's an accomplishment, and many of them are actually really supportive of me staying here. Frankly, I don't think ANYBODY gets stigmatized like that in a top program-- competition to get in is so cutthroat, I get the impression that once you're in it's accepted that you're pretty good. Nobody got in easily.

In fact, the one warning I did get from a current grad student along these lines said exactly the opposite. She pointed out that it might put me in an awkward position vis a vis my classmates to already know the department really well and to already have good relationships with professors, and that it might just make me feel uncomfortable or like there's extra pressure to live up to expectations, etc.

I can theoretically see where you're coming from, but I'm just not concerned about it. I wouldn't recommend anyone take that into consideration unless they've heard of rumors or assumptions along those lines in the specific department they're considering.

[sciencegirl]

@splitends I think part of the difference in opinion might be that your specific school is an outlier. You actually got me thinking all day, and I realized I know a lot of top academics who did both undergrad and grad at your university in a lot of different fields... and it's probably the one same school combo that is repeated the most. Hence, you are probably also getting a lot of feedback there that confirms that it won't affect your success, since well, there are a lot of superstars right now who have that combo, proving in some ways that it isn't a bad thing at all.

My own ramblings on why this happens with your school and not others: my guess is that part of it has to do with the belief in a top public school education that you mentioned for yourself, but also because you don't really have too much freedom to move around if you wanted to stay at a public school in the same state and also if you wanted to stay at a top ranked program. You essentially have one other choice, which might as well be in another planet. Contrast this to say a Yale graduate, who was the reverse of you - wanted to stay private in the same region... that person could go to Harvard, Princeton, Columbia, Brown, NYU, UPenn. I think then you see a lot more school-changing on that side of the country, so that becomes a more dominant and respected practice.

I think the scenario of "affirmative action" does happen in other fields (and maybe more in top private schools) - which is maybe why both @jacib and I brought it up. It certainly is the case for some top law schools to prefer their own undergraduates.. and friends of mine in the humanities have told me that if they wanted to stay at their top undergraduate school, they could as a back up if they didn't get into other top choices (perhaps sociology is very different).

The things though for you to really focus on is broadening your base. I actually had a really wonderful conversation from a fairly recent graduate from your program who also came undergrad from another UC. This person strongly advised me to go to a different type of program from where my current networks were.. that on the job market, this person felt that only coming from the same school system hurt in some cases.. mostly in just not being able to expand very much from your current networks. Had nothing to do with the strength of the program - just the location and types of professor circles that were limited by this.

For tenure at the top schools, don't you need like 10-15 blind letters from top scholars in your field supporting your tenure.. won't it be much easier if you went to another program and then got to work with and study with twice as many potential letter writers during your academic career?

Edited March 8, 2012 by sciencegirl

[splitends]

Hmm...that's a really interesting point. I never really considered that it might be something specific to my department. (It's true that lots of people never want to leave, and I think it runs a lot deeper than just not having other similar schools around-- some people just fall totally in love with this department, as well as the area. Plus, I reiterate-- it really is an awesome program, and it makes sense, especially for people with particular interests, to feel like they're going to be better supported here than they would be at other similarly prestigious schools). But I know it's not the only school that has heavy hitters with both BAs and PhDs from the same institution. Lots of Harvard alum seem to fall into this category, at the very least.

But seriously-- if you run into Harvard alum in your Harvard PhD cohort, would you really question if they belong there? They only accepted ten people this year. Nobody got in easily, and I'm sure everyone there is more than highly qualified. I just can't see that being a major issue if you're talking about a top five program. And again, I've been told by some pretty famous and important sociologists that nobody cares at all where you went to undergrad once you're on the job market, and nobody looks twice if you went to the same school you got your PhD from.

I'm still really torn on what to do in my specific situation, but this just isn't a factor in my otherwise confusing mix of thoughts and feelings on the subject.

[sciencegirl]

@splitends.. I just wrote you a much more personalized PM so hopefully you'll get that.. what I'll say here though is that it sounds like you had a wonderful, amazing, magical time as an undergraduate at that department. In some ways, it would be best to almost leave it at that.. keep those memories really special. Graduate school can be a cruel, eye-opening, terrifying, gut-wrenching reality check. Why not have those not-so-great memories somewhere else, lest you taint the wonderful undergraduate experience that you had?

Perhaps this is the romantic side of me, but I also had a really once-in-a-lifetime undergraduate experience that I'll always want to remember as simply that. I know I can't go back to it and I don't want to. I also realized when I graduated undergrad (many years ago) that I had to leave those memories and that place behind. It was just part of my growth. Yes, the first year in another department might be really difficult, and you'll miss it a lot - but leaving it behind and missing it is just part of growing and learning and being a better scholar of the world around us (and knowing yourself better as well). And who knows, maybe some day down the line you'll be asked back, but this time not as a student

[giacomo]

For tenure at the top schools, don't you need like 10-15 blind letters from top scholars in your field supporting your tenure..

whoa, is this true?

[sciencegirl]

I know at the top tier programs.. if everyone is freaked out about letters of rec for your applications now.. the tenure process is pretty brutal...

[giacomo]

no wonder some--many--seemingly great young scholars never get to become tenured profs.

[jacib]

Back to the OP, I think sciencegirl and I are coming from the same place, but I wouldn't say as strongly as her not to go. I am just saying fully understand why other people might say it's a bad idea. Understand the cons of it, because you understand the pros pretty well it seems. Then make your decision. I went to one of those fancy elite places undergrad and there were definitely people who stayed in the department. I didn't follow to know if it hurt them on the job market, but it definitely isn't completely isolated to one department. And I definitely have also seen more than one Harvard BA, Harvard PhD, but those seem to be mostly from like 30 years ago.

And letter writing for tenure: I just found out this year it can be worse. So first the department evaluates your work and votes on you and if you get approved then it goes to the next step (there can be two to three steps total, depending on if the graduate school and the university evaluate your separately, I think). But if it's a close vote, or like the Dean or whoever just doesn't think you're right for the process, they can put the thumb on the scale and ask for more letters (or letters from tougher people or whatever), so, from someone, I think my father who's a professor who's asked to write these letters from time to time but maybe from a kid in my department, I heard a rumor of a dean who asked for twenty letters for a tenure candidate. If there are twenty letters, that increases the odds that one will be "Meh", and the dean can point to that one in declining to give tenure. Alternatively, if they're a big shot in training and the department loves them, and the dean thinks they're good for the school or whatever, there will be fewer and gentler letter writers. It's a really weird process, apparently, and one that can be really opaque.

[giacomo]

i guess i'll ask my fellow posters for letters.

[ItsFreezingUpHere]

... I'm still really torn on what to do in my specific situation ...

@Splitends... I'm in a very similar situation, and I feel the same way. I've been accepted to a few schools, but there are only two that I'm really considering hard. They aren't top 5 schools, but still good schools nonetheless. They're ranked about the same, they both have a good handful of people I'd like to work with, and I think I could do very well at both places.

I'm basically choosing between my undergrad school where I know the people well (grads/faculty), I know the city (geographically and also how it works), and I have a great network in my areas of interest, both inside and outside of academia (in other words, I have great access for projects, etc). I have a few faculty members that I would definitely be able to work with who are really doing some great things, and I could easily hit the ground running by getting in with some of the great projects they're doing as early as this summer before school even starts. I mean, after all, it's these people and their work that inspired me to pursue soc.

But if I go to the other school, I would basically double my network instantly, and I would get exposure to different perspectives that I wouldn't get at my original school, as @Sciencegirl pointed out. They're also doing some great things there and have some great projects and people with whom I could get involved. It's also a fresh beginning, and I wouldn't have to worry about that stigma that a few people had talked about.

And this stigma thing, I think, is where our situations differ. You're at arguably the best program in the country right now, so who could blame you for staying put? I, on the other hand, am at a school that's strong in my area, but overall "good", not "great" (my other option, too, is good, not great.) So perhaps I might be more susceptible to being a victim of the "he must not have been able to get into any other programs" type of look when it comes to finding a job.

Some times I wish that I was only accepted by one program... that'd make this a hell of a lot easier! HA!

Edited March 9, 2012 by ItsFreezingUpHere

[Scrabble2]

To the OP: presumably you've developed close relationships with your undergraduate advisors. If it was me, I'd have a frank discussion with them in regards to what program is most likely to help you reach your career goals. If you trust them, and they say they believe they are the best fit, than I wouldn't overthink it in regards to attending the same institution for undergrad and grad school. I imagine their hiring process is as competitive as any other, so they would know better than anyone whether a job applicant attending a top program for UG and grad school is stigmatized.

As for professional networks, my assumption is that established academics at top programs know academics all over, especially within their subfields. So I dont think you'd be limited by any means. That being said, the greater breadth of your networks the better, so attending another program would help. But ultimately, I think the strength of your ties will be more important than the breadth.

Meaning, I'd rather have strong but more limited ties to a top program than weak ties at two top programs (I think your under grad advisors will be good for personal networking but they wouldn't be the ones writing rec letters for you down the road--so they'd become relatively weak professionally).

And ultimately, grad school is about preparing you to get a job as an academic. Among top programs, I figure students should go where they think they will publish the most--which means fit, program culture, and not disliking your cohort and city are all important.

If your UG program ends up being where you think you will be most productive, and your advisors assure you that their isn't much of a stigma to attending the same program (which I really doubt--if you come out of a top program with pubs and strong recs from giants in the field I can't imagine hiring committees dwelling on your UG institution) I'd stay there.

But that's mostly speculation based on my convos/visits with professors/programs.

One last point though--if you stay at your program your probably less likely to change your main area of focus (since you would presumably keep working with the same professors). That is something I'd think about...some people would love that and others would dislike it (ie is it rewarding to have that continuity or is going to grow stale). Good luck with your decision.