Princeton/Michigan Chemistry (Organic)....and other program concerns

[asaprocky]

What are everyone's thoughts on Princeton's recent investment in a brand new facility as well as MacMillan's push to bring in (relatively) new faculty? (Chirik, Carrow, Knowles). Does this commitment to the organic chemistry faculty and their facility push them to one of the top organic chemistry programs in the country?

 

Also, Michigan recently got a rising star in Corey Stephenson from BU. I believe they now have a solid list of organic chemistry professors, including Sanford of course. Does this also show their rise in the organic chemistry world?

 

I always have Stanford, Illinois, Wisconsin and MIT in mind as top notch organic institutions but Caltech recently took Fu from MIT, Trost is on his way out, Illinois really only has Denmark and White (studs nonetheless), and Wisconsin lost Zimmerman and Reich is also getting there in age while the rest of their faculty is, although good, just not at the level of a Scripps, Caltech, or Harvard (Yoon is another stud I could see moving to a Harvard, Caltech, or Scripps in the future due to higher prestige....just my opinion....don't grill me over it). 

 

The rankings show Princeton at 13 and Michigan at 12, but do y'all think they could make a push into the top 10? I think they could since when the rankings were taken, Hartwig was still at Illinois, Trost was still taking students, MIT had Fu, and Wisconsin still had their legends. 

 

I'd love to hear everyone's responses, ideas, other questions. I know when you choose a school you're obviously suppose to look for PI's that you'd like to work for but if you want to get into academia, going to a top 10 school really helps. The rankings are extremely outdated (US News seems to like to re-rank everything except the sciences) and I'd like to hear what other people think as to how the rankings have changed throughout the years and how they can change in the future. 

[aberrant]

I thought I turned in to ESPN -- Sports Center: organic chemistry edition.

 

I'm not sure why are you concerning about the ranking to such a level that I have never seen on TGC. Let's be real here. If you ain't gonna publish, you ain't gonna graduate. And even if you do, the quality of your work will be reflected by the impact of your work and your recommendation letter from your PI.

 

So, instead of drilling all these rankings as if we are talking about a professional team sports, why don't you focus more on "who do you want to work for", regardless if the school ranked #1, #10, #100 in the country? For the record, not all the Nobel laureates got their PhD from a top 10 programs in the U.S., if that means anything to you. For now, I'll just call this kinda discussion superficial.

Edited June 1, 2013 by aberrant

[aberrant]

This may worth you a minute or two to read it as a reference:

http://www.insidehighered.com/advice/2012/08/22/essay-assumption-only-elite-university-phds-land-jobs

[asaprocky]

This may worth you a minute or two to read it as a reference:

http://www.insidehighered.com/advice/2012/08/22/essay-assumption-only-elite-university-phds-land-jobs

 

Interesting article for sure. Not really saying that you need to go to an Ivy league to be successful in life after you, hopefully, graduate (I hope you didn't get that impression). I am also fully aware that you go to a school for the PI, not the name. But let's be honest, the higher the school is ranked, the more options you PROBABLY have. Going to a lower tier school for one professor can also screw you if you don't get into their group. If you don't, then you're just SOL. Also, if the name of the school really didn't matter, then why do people apply to Harvard or Scripps? Because honestly, if you really didn't care about the name, I'm sure everyone could compile a list of "non-prestigious" schools with faculty they'd like to work for. 

 

In a perfect world, people would apply to schools for the PI's only. But in reality, people apply not only for the PI's but for the prestige. 

 

All I'm wondering is, is Princeton and Michigan more enticing due to their commitment

[aberrant]

But let's be honest, the higher the school is ranked, the more options you PROBABLY have.

What are "the options" here are you referring to? Getting a TT position? or just a post-doc position? Your TT position may has more to do with your research completed during your post-doc (may some from your PhD, too) then the "prestige" of your PhD. i thought that going straight to a TT position fresh out of a PhD is something that was more common last century, not now though. And where do you get your post-doc position from? either 1. publications during your PhD and/or 2. network that you have, which is predominantly from your PI. From my past experience talking to PI from my alma mater, my current school, and a few others from conferences, none of them really care where did you get your PhD. so we are back to the original question -- why should the reputation of a school matters more than your work / rep. of your PI? Whether you are getting a post-doc position or TT position, you'll also need reference letters.

 

Under a hypothetical scenario when you are applying a TT position, I just am unsure if the prestige of your PhD has any value, by comparing someone who got a PhD from somewhere "less reputable" but with a big name PI (e.g. Harry Kroto, Ei-ichi Negishi), did a post-doc (or two) with another PI at a competitive environment (e.g. any of the schools that is well-reputable in your field, inside or outside of the U.S.) -- look at the big picture again, does your school really matter as much?

 

 

Going to a lower tier school for one professor can also screw you if you don't get into their group. If you don't, then you're just SOL.

I will refer you to this link: 

TL;DR -- I think that it is your problem -- should you ever apply to a school that has just one professor that you are interested working for, and assuming that he/she is a nicest person on earth and you will be 100% working for this PI.

 

 

Also, if the name of the school really didn't matter, then why do people apply to Harvard or Scripps? Because honestly, if you really didn't care about the name, I'm sure everyone could compile a list of "non-prestigious" schools with faculty they'd like to work for. 

Maybe because those schools are most attracted to top-tier scholars in general? This isn't just a science question. If you are talking about resources and all that, sure, we would expect that those schools should have whatever their faculty members want -- but that doesn't mean that you can have it / have access to it / can gain access to it -- it depends on how a school run their business.

 

Quick example: http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/chemistry/laureates/2008/tsien.html

"Moving to UCSD

... I wanted to explore signals transmitted through more complex biochemicals ... As my bargaining power grew, I also came to want a lab with enough fume hoods, vented storage cabinets, and small darkrooms for fluorescence microscopy to support my unusual combination of chemistry and biology, as well as a joint appointment in a Chemistry department and support from the Howard Hughes Medical Institute. None of these were possible in Berkeley, so in 1989 we moved south to the University of California, San Diego, where we still are. UCSD satisfied the above desires and was much younger, roomier, faster-growing, and less tradition-bound than Berkeley, which I felt more than compensated for its lesser fame."

 

PI moves from one place to another for many reasons, which is why not all the big shots cluster in ivy leagues, or just the "top 10 programs" -- they are everywhere, spread across the country (or even continents), it's just that the schools that you are considering has a relatively higher density of these scholars. Relatively higher, but that doesn't mean that it is by a whole lot to some other schools, which is also depends on the field.

 

Which is why some people go to less reputable schools for their PhD (because of the research fit / PI / research interest), otherwise, those schools wouldn't even have a PhD program in the first place, no?

 

In a perfect world, people would apply to schools for the PI's only. But in reality, people apply not only for the PI's but for the prestige. 

Which represents a small amount of people that the article (by Karen Kelsky) was describing.

Edited June 1, 2013 by aberrant

[asaprocky]

What are "the options" here are you referring to? Getting a TT position? or just a post-doc position? Your TT position may has more to do with your research completed during your post-doc (may some from your PhD, too) then the "prestige" of your PhD. i thought that going straight to a TT position fresh out of a PhD is something that was more common last century, not now though. And where do you get your post-doc position from? either 1. publications during your PhD and/or 2. network that you have, which is predominantly from your PI. From my past experience talking to PI from my alma mater, my current school, and a few others from conferences, none of them really care where did you get your PhD. so we are back to the original question -- why should the reputation of a school matters more than your work / rep. of your PI? Whether you are getting a post-doc position or TT position, you'll also need reference letters.

 

Under a hypothetical scenario when you are applying a TT position, I just am unsure if the prestige of your PhD has any value, by comparing someone who got a PhD from somewhere "less reputable" but with a big name PI (e.g. Harry Kroto, Ei-ichi Negishi), did a post-doc (or two) with another PI at a competitive environment (e.g. any of the schools that is well-reputable in your field, inside or outside of the U.S.) -- look at the big picture again, does your school really matter as much?

 

 

I will refer you to this link: 

TL;DR -- I think that it is your problem -- should you ever apply to a school that has just one professor that you are interested working for, and assuming that he/she is a nicest person on earth and you will be 100% working for this PI.

 

 

Maybe because those schools are most attracted to top-tier scholars in general? This isn't just a science question. If you are talking about resources and all that, sure, we would expect that those schools should have whatever their faculty members want -- but that doesn't mean that you can have it / have access to it / can gain access to it -- it depends on how a school run their business.

 

Quick example: http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/chemistry/laureates/2008/tsien.html

"Moving to UCSD

... I wanted to explore signals transmitted through more complex biochemicals ... As my bargaining power grew, I also came to want a lab with enough fume hoods, vented storage cabinets, and small darkrooms for fluorescence microscopy to support my unusual combination of chemistry and biology, as well as a joint appointment in a Chemistry department and support from the Howard Hughes Medical Institute. None of these were possible in Berkeley, so in 1989 we moved south to the University of California, San Diego, where we still are. UCSD satisfied the above desires and was much younger, roomier, faster-growing, and less tradition-bound than Berkeley, which I felt more than compensated for its lesser fame."

 

PI moves from one place to another for many reasons, which is why not all the big shots cluster in ivy leagues, or just the "top 10 programs" -- they are everywhere, spread across the country (or even continents), it's just that the schools that you are considering has a relatively higher density of these scholars. Relatively higher, but that doesn't mean that it is by a whole lot to some other schools, which is also depends on the field.

 

Which is why some people go to less reputable schools for their PhD (because of the research fit / PI / research interest), otherwise, those schools wouldn't even have a PhD program in the first place, no?

 

Which represents a small amount of people that the article (by Karen Kelsky) was describing.

 

I was referring to the more PI options you have, not post graduate plans. Because I do agree with your argument as to it matters more with who you work for than where. It's just that a "higher ranked" program will inevitably have more research options that may or may not interest a person.  I also agree with a lot that you are saying, I just think that we can't be naive to think that people are going to apply to schools for the "right" reasons and prestige does play a role. Let's be honest, UC irvine, wisconsin, illinois, and many other programs are fantastic, even if they don't carry the immediate name recognition. I can clearly see that you support and believe in the "PI over school name" argument, and to a high degree, I do as well. It's just that a school like MIT will have more high-quality research in let's say, materials, than a school like University of Alaska (totally random example). Even if they have one stud in the field, a person is most of the time, more inclined to go to MIT with their vast options and resources. 

[St Andrews Lynx]

I don't think there will be much difference in your future job prospects if you attend a No. 7 Best Chemistry School In The Rankings vs. No. 8.

Probably not much difference between No. 1 and No. 8 either.

Between No. 5 and No. 20 in the rankings, maybe. Between No. 20 and 45...more likely to be a difference, but it will mostly depend on the PI and your publication record how easy it is for you to find a job.

[Arrowfletch]

You've talked a lot about the available faculty and what they bring to the ranking and implied dedication of the programs, but, at the risk of sounding repetitive, what about their relevance to your interests?  If one school only has one faculty member with research that really interests you, it probably isn't going to be your best choice, even if there are a lot of other professors in the general subfield.  On the other hand, if one of those schools has many faculty that you would be interested in, that might be a better fit.  When you think about individual professors, there's more than reputation and even more than publication potential to consider: if you go to a great place with great new faculty but don't love the specifics of your research, you're going to make your life difficult.

 

With all that in mind, you're really the only person who can decide which school is more enticing.  If commitment to bringing in new blood is important to you and you can see yourself working with the new professors, there's your answer.  If you like that there is active growth in the department but the people coming in don't fit your specific interests, you might need to think more about which thing you would prioritize: prestige or personal potential.  Most people would probably say to go for the personal potential with a balance of rank and interest, but if you are a person who can be happy doing any type of work in their general field and flourish under pressure, than maybe prestige is your better fit.  Even then, though, current ranking vs. observed dedication is a tossup that you have to decide.