Stellar adviser vs. brand name

[eyeso]

I would like to ask y'all's opinion on the adviser vs. school prestige dilemma.

 

Here's my situation:

I intend to work in modern/contemporary art of a rather obscure non-Western geographic region. I am choosing between two PhD programs:

 

1. School X, a top-20 state school (to go by this generic ranking http://arthistorynewsletter.com/blog/?p=3013)

School X is where there are two professors working on art of the region I'm interested in--one doing pre-modern and the other doing modern/contemporary. The former is an established full professor well known in the field, while the latter (who would be my adviser) was recently tenured and considered an up-and-coming scholar in the field. There are also several graduate students working in closely related areas to my research interests; many of these students said that they turned down other brand name schools to work with specific professors at school X. Being a state school, the annual stipend at school X is considerably lower than at school Y (the difference is more than $5,000).

 

2. School Y, a very highly regarded Ivy League school

School Y has a strong modern/contemporary art program heavily concentrated on Euro-America, but no one working on pre-modern/modern/contemporary art of the region I want to study. Students working on non-Western modern/contemporary at school Y have warned me of the challenges I might face, but also note that school Y--being much more well endowed--will be able to support me in whatever line of research I would like to persue, although I will have to be resourceful and striking out my own path.

 

I understand that the quality of the dissertation and my development as a scholar are some of the most important factors to consider when picking a graduate school, and with these criteria, there is no doubt that school X is a better match. But the issue is that ultimately I intend to return home (the geographic region I am studying) to work as an arts administrator, and there, everyone knows of school Y but very few people have heard of school X. Name recognition would not be as much of an issue if I were thinking of staying in academia or curating, but with my hopes to get into national arts administration and policy work, a lot of the people I will be dealing with (including the people hiring me) will not necessarily be familiar with scholarship in art history, and this is where the brand name factor kicks in (as superficial as that sound, it is the reality).

 

For the people on GradCafe who had to make a decision similar to this in the past, what did you end up choosing and are you ultimately happy with that decision? Or anyone else out there currently facing the same issue?

Edited March 29, 2013 by eyeso

[Swagato]

Quality of your work is undoubtedly a factor. Equally undoubtable is the fact that where you trained, who you worked with, and the names on your letters of recommendation all carry great, great value in the future (depending on your ambitions). Every half-decent job posting today receives 300+ applications. Any slight edge you can show, helps push you that much further ahead. 

 

#2 would, perhaps, allow you to develop your own niche at a stellar department that isn't necessarily known for that (this is where you get to adapt the expansive resources to further your ends). And given your specific future intent, #2 would appear to carry far more currency.

[ProspectStu8735]

I had a similar issue and went with the ivy.  From my understanding, letterhead trumps advisor reputation in hiring, outside funding & post docs, basically everything that is material to making a career, because people in your specific sub-field might know that your advisor is the best, but that doesn't mean the Fulbright committee will, especially if you're working in a non-western field.  Make life easier on yourself.  Go with the bigger funding package and the bigger brand.

 

But depending on the specific schools, I might advise you differently.  If its Cornell v. UCLA, I'd go with UCLA, which is more well-regarded for art history.  And who really wants to live in Ithaca  anyways?  Brown is sort of borderline, because of small department size, but it'd probably be worth attending just for the sake of getting paid more and having cross-disciplinary cache.  But, unless the state school is Berkeley, any other ivy would trump any other state school.  Harvard, Columbia, Penn, Princeton and Yale all have outstanding art history programs, so there wouldn't be any contest with any other state schools.  People will look at your CV for longer if it has "Famous School That You Could Never Get Into U." at the top.  You want to have that cultural capital in the hyper-hierarchical profession of academia.  Sad but true.

[adynata]

If your main objective is to work outside academia in a non-Western country (and I'm thinking Asia, given the enormous weight put on Ivies even if it's a cash cow MA) then go for the Ivy.  Just wanted, however, to correct the common, but not wholly accurate assumption that being at an Ivy, by which I mean a top-tier Ivy like Yale, Harvard, Columbia and Princeton, will automatically give you a leg up on the "competition."  It really depends on the field, and on the student-advisor relationship. Not every school is uniformly strong in every field. For instance, if I was serious about going into academia I'd never go to Yale to study Asian art right now, nor would I think about going to Columbia to work on Pre-Columbian for fairly obvious reasons.

 

I have close friends who suffered terribly while at a big name school because of a poor advisor fit and despite producing good work are struggling as adjuncts or have left the field altogether, disillusioned. There are also advisors based in non-Ivy schools whose students win prestigious fellowships (CASVA, Getty, ACLS) and jobs at R1 schools at a considerably higher rate than their Ivy peers (e.g., MIT students had quite a monopoly on the CASVA Ittlesons/Islamic jobs; the IFA Chinese art students, etc). 

 

In the end, however, it's really what *you* make of the program, whichever program you think works best for your goals and interest.  Even the best school in the world won't make a difference unless you can figure out what you stand for as an intellectual and what you can get out of being at a certain place. For every "star" are countless others who looked perfect on paper but somehow couldn't quite get it together intellectually and were usually passed over by their advisors for the next bright young thing, especially when the BYT in question had interests that more closely aligned with those of the big name advisor.   I used to work in university admin at an Ivy (best way to see what really happens behind closed doors!) and saw this happen year in and year out. The students who "made it," who got jobs, etc, were the ones who figured out early on what they wanted to do whilst in grad school and who had a clear sense of what they were about.  The ones who don't were the ones who, consciously or not, so identified themselves with the prestige of their institution that they forgot who they were as scholars and/or became so puffed up that it worked against them in interviews. 

Edited March 29, 2013 by adynata

[oh_la_la]

Hi there,

 

I really am not sure that I would agree with the advice to go to the ivy.  Based on my own experience in a PhD program in a top tier state school, on the job market and now in a tenure track job, I would say that brand name recognition is a minor issue and arguably becomes more and more minor as you advance through the program.  Sure, the Ivy has prestige (and this seems like a really big deal when you are first entering into a program), but this alone will not get you a job when you come out on the other end.  Above all, it is the quality of your dissertation, your impact on the field as you are finishing your diss, the prestigious external fellowships you earn and the connections you forge across your field that will get you hired.  I was on the job market for three years (and was lucky to get a great job!) and graduated from a highly ranked state school, perhaps the one that you are now admitted to.  I have seen how many job searches have worked out (and am now sitting on the other side of a search committee) and it's clear that hiring committees do not privilege ivy league PhDs over other non-ivy candidates: this is something of a misnomer.  When you are going through piles of cover letters, C.V.s and writing samples, it is the quality of the work that matters the most (everybody generally has great letters of rec).  I would go with the school where you think you will have the better and more active adviser who will actually read and rigorously critique your dissertation.  This matters more in my opinion.  Best of luck.   

Edited March 29, 2013 by oh_la_la

[poliscar]

Have you tried looking outside of the Art History department at the Ivy. Suppose there is a fantastic faculty member in languages or comparative lit, who is able to serve as a co-supervisor or committee member. You may end up producing better work if you have a supervisor working with Western modern/contemporary art, and then another working with the art/literature/cultural history of your geographical area of interest. 

 

Really I would say that you should go to the Ivy, find a committee member/co-supervisor outside of the Art History department, and take the extra $5000 a year. I know, for example, that it's mandatory in Art History at Berkeley for doctoral students to have a committee member outside of the department. Obviously this is not a deciding factor, but I think it's one of the reasons that students from the department produce some of the most interesting new work in the field. 

Edited March 30, 2013 by poliscar

[asdf123]

I also say go with the top-ranked ivy -- this makes all the difference:

 

"but also note that school Y--being much more well endowed--will be able to support me in whatever line of research I would like to persue...."

 

No matter how great your advisor, if you're constantly having to stop your dissertation research & writing to cobble together adjunct teaching appointments / apply for every external funding opportunity possible, then your work/time-to-degree will suffer as a result.  Of course, no matter what, you'll be applying for pre-doc grants, BUT if you have the opportunity to go to a place that will be able to fund you guaranteed for 5/6 years and has some research-travel money to throw your way, then I'd say take it.  Also, at many schools, its not uncommon to have one reader on your dissertation from another institution.  Just because you turn down institution X doesn't mean you can't still forge a relationship with the potential advisor at school X.  

 

Also, if the potential advisor at school X is young, ambitious, and recently tenured -- there's a decent change he/she might be looking to move/ get wooed away. 

[JosephineB]

What do you mean about Columbia? I thought Pasztory was one of the top people to work with on pre-columbian?

It really depends on the field, and on the student-advisor relationship. Not every school is uniformly strong in every field. For instance, if I was serious about going into academia I'd never go to Yale to study Asian art right now, nor would I think about going to Columbia to work on Pre-Columbian for fairly obvious reasons.

[manierata]

I had the EXACT same dilemma.  All the scholars I canvassed--and I canvassed many--said go to the better school if you ever want a job.  

[eyeso]

Thank you everyone for your very helpful advice and suggestions! Now yet another complicating factor... Just when I was about to decide on Y, the adviser I applied to work with there informed me that s/he has received a job offer elsewhere this fall and is seriously considering it. So does it even make sense to attend a school with potentially no adviser in hand?

[manierata]

NO.

[oh_la_la]

@eyeso: I think you already know the answer to your own question.  It was kind of your potential adviser to tell you this news and may be a sign from the universe that you should go to the place that is a better fit!