Going back to alma mater for graduate school?

[radiomars]

Hey guys, I already have a BS in Anthropology from a well-renowned state school in California, and applied again for graduate studies in the same department. It's a fantastic program that fits my research interests to a tee (maybe because I was trained there), and I recently caught word that I'll be admitted for Fall 2013. I'm a little concerned about heading back to the same faculty and research ideas as it seems like a better strategy to expand my connections and expose myself to a new school. However, the other schools I'm choosing from are all good, but not as great a program as my alma mater. Any advice?

[Usmivka]

As long as you don't plan to work there afterwards, seems fine to me. West Coast schools have a hiring bias against their own grad students, they seem to like least coasters. But the younger the faculty the less of this "you must go elsewhere and expand your horizons" mindset I hear. I mean, the internets is two decades old at this point...

Edited January 30, 2013 by Usmivka

[NeuroTU]

It's a no no rule for science PhDs to stay at undergrad/masters place for your PhD. So annoying if you're happy where you are... but hey, if you're THAT happy screw the naysayers. 

[biotechie]

It is generally okay to stay at your alma mater only if you have additional studies to pursue after you finish this next degree.. I stayed for my Masters degree, but I am leaving to pursue a PhD elsewhere. Could I get a great education at my alma mater? Yes, most definitely, but I will struggle to find a job later if I stay.

 

If you can guarantee that you will get a killer post-doc, it might be okay, but in science, it is considered imperative that you move beyond that safe nest you made at your undergraduate institution. You really need to get into a different school for your PhD. Make sure there isn't another program that you are in love with and can be happy in before you choose to stay where you are at. If you do stay, it could be a very hard road.

[Usmivka]

.. but in science, it is considered imperative that you move beyond that safe nest you made at your undergraduate institution. You really need to get into a different school for your PhD.

 

This is exactly the attitude I was talking about. Lots of older profs in the sciences say this to their undergrads contemplating grad school--but by the time those same students are a little into grad school they stop believing it (myself included). I've met only a handful of faculty under 65 that still echo this line. By the time you finish your PhD I suspect the generational turnover will be more or less complete and no one will care one way or the other--I've watched this happen first hand in my field as schools transition to actively poaching their best undergrads. Again, with the age of the internet and frequent academic conferences, you can do the collaborations and get exposed to the different viewpoints that previously you would have had to move somewhere else for. Such reasoning should be fairly far down the list when deciding where to study--as always, advisor and research fit are by far the most important things.

Edited January 31, 2013 by Usmivka

[CarlieE]

I think it all depends on the school as well. Harvard (anthro) has a habit of in-hiring amongst their PhD graduates I've heard - and some other schools do this too; they are creating their "school of thought" and so there's a specific slant they want their department to have. Other schools have a hiring bias that goes the other way where they try NOT to hire from amongst their graduate students unless they have a very specific program; or if they do hire within they want that person to have other experience elsewhere ie. post docs in other places, or employment at other universities in between. 

 

The advice I was given was to do my grad at a different institution so that hiring committees can see that I have been schooled in many (perhaps conflicting) perspectives which would make me a more "well rounded" candidate (no idea what that ACTUALLY means). I think the idea is that if you are TOO married to a way of thinking, ie. pomo or materialist or whatever, you might not change with the department as it needs to over time. AND if this is tenure track position, you might be there for 10-15-20-25 years and will HAVE to be fluid enough to change with the department as it needs to. 

 

Departments do have their flavors and preferences theoretically and they don't want to hire a one-trick pony so to speak.