Need Advice!!

[nomatterwho]

Hello, guys.

 

I have two schools to choose from and both have some pros and cons. (PHD program) Actually, I have not decide whether to go to the academia or industry after finish my PHD. Kind want to try both. so now It is too hard for me to make a decision. Hope you can help me out.

 

School A

high reputation

good location (good place to live and study, plus have potential industrial employers nearby)

good number of professors (have several professor I get interested in)

quite flexible/interdisplinary

But

no funding garauntee ( it looks like it is possible to find some funding at the end, but really need to take some time and energy after arrive the school)

 

School B

reputation ok

good location(good place to live and study, plus have quite a lot of research jobs)

funding garauntee for the first year, looks quite promising for the following years

quite a portion of new professors working on exciting topics, have decent background

But

students are almost all asican ( to me, it is not a good thing) and looks like quite competitve between students

low faculty-student ratio, faculty does not seems to have much time to spend on students

 

Thank you!

Edited April 12, 2013 by nomatterwho

[tarrman]

What's wrong with a program having a lot of Asians? In science and engineering, there isn't any way to get away from that (not that I would want to.) If you want to have any hope of getting into academia, you're gonna have to be competitive.

Also, it's a bad idea to do an unfunded Ph.D.

[nomatterwho]

What's wrong with a program having a lot of Asians? In science and engineering, there isn't any way to get away from that (not that I would want to.) If you want to have any hope of getting into academia, you're gonna have to be competitive.

Also, it's a bad idea to do an unfunded Ph.D.

No offense. I am an Asican as well. I just think that a program with students coming from different area would be fun and more productive.

[anoveldave]

I agree with tarrman's point. It is not only a bad idea to enter into a PhD program unfunded, it doesn't make much sense because there's never any guarantee of return on the investment. 

 

On the subject of "Asians," do you mean international students from Asia or Asian Americans? Actually, it doesn't matter. Like tarrman wrote, in a PhD program (and in your career in any field), you'll encounter competition, from those of all races, socioeconomic backgrounds, etc. It's understandable that you might want a diverse cohort for personal reasons, but I can't imagine you'll get too far in life if you're deliberately blocking out people of a certain group.

 

 

 

No offense. I am an Asican as well. I just think that a program with students coming from different area would be fun and more productive.

Please don't use this "get out of jail free card." I'm Asian American and I find it just as offensive as qualifying any racially charged statements with "well I have an yellow/brown/black friend." If you will be attending a program in the U.S., you'll be able to find plenty of people different from you and with different education backgrounds. And productivity ultimately depends on the individual.

[JungWild&Free]

I agree with the above posters that you don't want to do an unfunded degree and that a high proportion of Asian students should not be a con for that school.  Chances are that regardless of race, these other students are not from your hometown.  However, having a low faculty to student ratio is not usually a good thing as you want to be able to get attention from the department.   I would try reaching out to current students to see how they deal with that issue to see if you can work successfully in that environment.

[nomatterwho]

I agree with the above posters that you don't want to do an unfunded degree and that a high proportion of Asian students should not be a con for that school.  Chances are that regardless of race, these other students are not from your hometown.  However, having a low faculty to student ratio is not usually a good thing as you want to be able to get attention from the department.   I would try reaching out to current students to see how they deal with that issue to see if you can work successfully in that environment.

Thank you for your suggestions. I like the advice on "contacting current students".

 

Thanks for the above threads as well.For me,the diversity of students is minor con. What is more important to me is that PHD in first school really shows a brighter future with all those potential employers and research interests.

 

I would think myself stupid if I go to a PHD without funding. On other hand, I would think not having funding now does not mean not having funding in the future. It may be need some effort, but It's not unlikely. Why should I give up such a good school becuase I do not give enough effort to find funding?

Edited April 13, 2013 by nomatterwho

[JungWild&Free]

I would think myself stupid if I go to a PHD without funding. On other hand, I would think not having funding now does not mean not having funding in the future. It may be need some effort, but It's not unlikely. Why should I give up such a good school becuase I do not give enough effort to find funding?

 

This is a particularly bad time for funding for grad students.  It is really hard to find outside funding that would begin your first year, and if you don't, even paying for 1 year is a significant amount of debt.  I would definitely look into ways to get funding at School A if that's your first choice but I would not choose it over School B if you can't find any.

[nomatterwho]

This is a particularly bad time for funding for grad students.  It is really hard to find outside funding that would begin your first year, and if you don't, even paying for 1 year is a significant amount of debt.  I would definitely look into ways to get funding at School A if that's your first choice but I would not choose it over School B if you can't find any.

But I need to make a decision on April 15th. It does not seem to be likely that I will find one on Monday

[JungWild&Free]

It's a personal choice so if you think you'd rather go to School A and you are willing to take on the debt, it's something to consider.  If the funding is crucial to your attendance, I would say you should go with the funded offer at School B.  Obviously, there are intangible factors that none of us can comment on.  Will both programs meet your needs?  Will you be able to achieve your career goals either way?  Or do you feel like School A is going to give you a background that will get you better-paying jobs?  If it's not clear that it would, you should be really hesitant about taking on that debt if it's going to take you a long time to pay it back.  I think you need to do some soul-searching about which program would lead to you being more successful, without putting you in a black hole of debt. 

[somethinbruin]

I would think myself stupid if I go to a PHD without funding. On other hand, I would think not having funding now does not mean not having funding in the future. It may be need some effort, but It's not unlikely. Why should I give up such a good school becuase I do not give enough effort to find funding?

 

This is going to sound mean, but the harsh reality is that if you don't get funding the first year, the chances of getting funding from the school in subsequent years is extremely low. Schools allocate GTA lines/funds to bring in new students, not fund students who are already in and paying their own way. Once you are in and paying, they are not going to give you a GTA position, no matter how good your work is. It's not about performance. It's about economics. If you're paying, they will use the money to bring in someone else because they know you're stuck--they know you can't transfer PhD programs easily. So if you commit to School A, you should do so only if you're prepared to pay your own way for the full PhD, and that seems foolish since you have a funded offer to another school. 

 

I saw this very scenario play out at my school this year. A student was admitted to my program last year, but applied after the funding deadline. She was told she was a good candidate for an assistantship and encouraged to apply the following year. So she entered the program and paid for the first year. When she applied for funding the next year, the administration would not approve her for a GTA spot because she was already in the program, and GTA lines are dedicated to recruiting new students, not keeping existing ones. This student got screwed and she doesn't even know it. I was taken aback at this process, and I asked around to some other friends who work at other universities. Their response has been universal: this is how all of their schools function. 

 

With this in mind, I would urge you not to engage in the sort of thinking that lets you rationalize that "If I excel in the first year, they'll give me money in the subsequent years" because realistically, that probably won't be the case. The funding process is not a meritocracy. I think you've got a good option in School B, with the possibility of funding throughout.

[nomatterwho]

This is going to sound mean, but the harsh reality is that if you don't get funding the first year, the chances of getting funding from the school in subsequent years is extremely low. Schools allocate GTA lines/funds to bring in new students, not fund students who are already in and paying their own way. Once you are in and paying, they are not going to give you a GTA position, no matter how good your work is. It's not about performance. It's about economics. If you're paying, they will use the money to bring in someone else because they know you're stuck--they know you can't transfer PhD programs easily. So if you commit to School A, you should do so only if you're prepared to pay your own way for the full PhD, and that seems foolish since you have a funded offer to another school. 

 

I saw this very scenario play out at my school this year. A student was admitted to my program last year, but applied after the funding deadline. She was told she was a good candidate for an assistantship and encouraged to apply the following year. So she entered the program and paid for the first year. When she applied for funding the next year, the administration would not approve her for a GTA spot because she was already in the program, and GTA lines are dedicated to recruiting new students, not keeping existing ones. This student got screwed and she doesn't even know it. I was taken aback at this process, and I asked around to some other friends who work at other universities. Their response has been universal: this is how all of their schools function. 

 

With this in mind, I would urge you not to engage in the sort of thinking that lets you rationalize that "If I excel in the first year, they'll give me money in the subsequent years" because realistically, that probably won't be the case. The funding process is not a meritocracy. I think you've got a good option in School B, with the possibility of funding throughout.

Thank you for your information. What about GRA position?

[somethinbruin]

Thank you for your information. What about GRA position?

 

My understanding is they function similarly to GTAs. In instances where professors select research assistants from existing grad students, the competition is usually intense (since everyone wants funding, naturally). Again, I would just say buyer beware: if it's not guaranteed from the start, don't count on ever getting it.