Importance of BIG name schools...

[jimmy_01]

In your opinion, how important is it to get a Ms or PhD at a big name school, like Stanford, MIT, Harvard, Berkeley, Cornell, etc.....? I was looking at Prof's from some of these institutions, and about 98% of them have degrees from one of the institutions mentioned above...So it looks like if you want to become a professor at MIT (for example), you have to either be an MIT grad, or a grad from a top 5 institution....I guess that you form special connections at these schools that open more doors...

[fuzzylogician]

I currently attend one of the schools on your list and I have to say that more important than the name of the school in getting a good academic job post-graduation is the name of the department and of your advisor(s). In my field, people from my department historically do quite well on the job market, but so do for example graduates of UMass Amherst and UC Santa Cruz, which may not be very glamorous universities on the whole, but the linguistics departments there are very strong. If you're not aiming for an academic job but for a job where people might not know the intricacies of within-field rankings, there might be a greater weight put on the famous school name, but since you asked about academic jobs I think it would certainly not be my first criterion for choosing where to apply and what school to attend compared to research fit within the department and the personal fit with my advisor. 

[TakeruK]

I also agree with fuzzy that the reputation of your department/advisors is very important in your eventual academic job position (coincidentally, UC Santa Cruz is also a big name in astronomy!). Every single prof at my current school has also worked at a top tier school at some point in graduate school and/or post-docs. However, post-docs at top schools tend to go to graduates at top tiers. Also, even the schools in Canada (the highest tier in Canada would probably be second tier in the US) tend to have a large fraction of faculty from top tier US schools.

 

I don't really think it's solely "special connections" at the top schools that magically give you access to jobs at these top schools. I think it's a combination of skill/merit to get into these schools in the first place as well as the vast resources at your disposal if you are working at one of these top programs. 

 

Anyways, I would state that if you have goals of working as a faculty member at one of the big name schools [here, "big name" means big in your field, not necessarily famous worldwide], you would want to join one of the "big name schools" as soon as possible. I think it would take a very very special person to somehow land a faculty job at one of the big name schools with a background at solely second- or third- tier schools (mostly because if you are someone that good, you would probably already be at a big name school).

 

But to answer your question, if you aren't trying to get a faculty position at one of the big name schools in your field, it's not really that big of a deal to be at a big name school in your field for grad school! I don't know very many people who has "faculty member at big name school" as their career goals though. So, depending on your goals, being at a big name school might not be as important as other criteria, such as the location, or academic/advisor/personality fit.

[jmu]

Tthe people in your field will know how good your background is whether you come from a "big name" or not. Programs that have respectable people will have respect in the field.

[fuzzylogician]

I don't really think it's solely "special connections" at the top schools that magically give you access to jobs at these top schools. I think it's a combination of skill/merit to get into these schools in the first place as well as the vast resources at your disposal if you are working at one of these top programs. 

 

To make matters worse, it's not just "special connections," skills/merit and vast resources that make you successful. Lots more goes into successfully getting an academic position, a lot of it obscure and up to luck. For example, you want to have a successful project or two some time in the beginning of your career which you can turn into journal publications, or else a brilliant dissertation (or both); you need to have good instincts or else good mentorship that can help you pick out and develop the skills that will be 'hot' on the job market a few years down the line when you graduate; similarly it helps if you can identify the problems that will be occupying your field when you graduate because having work on them will set you apart from the rest; you want good people skills and opportunities to use them; favorable conference/journal/grant proposal reviewers; the right job posting at the right time; strong faculty supporters; did I mention luck? lots of luck. 

[jeffster]

As others have been pointing out, name recognition matters quite a bit.  I did my undergrad at a school ranked in the low 30s in my field, and almost every one of my professors had attended top-10 or even top-5 programs for their PhDs.  This seems less rigid outside of academia, if your goal is public or private sector.  Employers seem far more likely to be happy with relatively good quality programs of only regional influence.

 

Just an anecdote to illustrate, I have a friend from central Europe who did her undergrad at Brown.  When we first met and I expressed my admiriation for going to such a fine school, she was *overjoyed* that someone finally recognized it.  In her home country it basically carries no weight at all, because no one in the private sector has heard of it.  This might be different if she was in academia.

[TakeruK]

To make matters worse, it's not just "special connections," skills/merit and vast resources that make you successful. Lots more goes into successfully getting an academic position, a lot of it obscure and up to luck. For example, you want to have a successful project or two some time in the beginning of your career which you can turn into journal publications, or else a brilliant dissertation (or both); you need to have good instincts or else good mentorship that can help you pick out and develop the skills that will be 'hot' on the job market a few years down the line when you graduate; similarly it helps if you can identify the problems that will be occupying your field when you graduate because having work on them will set you apart from the rest; you want good people skills and opportunities to use them; favorable conference/journal/grant proposal reviewers; the right job posting at the right time; strong faculty supporters; did I mention luck? lots of luck. 

 

Definitely agree -- it's naive to think that simply being the best researcher will get your recognized! There are a lot of things you can do (doing great research, finding great mentors, "market" yourself accordingly [e.g. talk circuits]) that can mitigate the amount of luck you need, but in the end, you kind of have to be in the right place at the right time. All of the above work that fuzzy mentioned can help increase the chances of "right place at right time".

[jimmy_01]

You guys are making it sound like it's almost impossible to get a good job in academia, that you need "lots of luck" and need to be "at the right place at the right time".....I mean, if that's the case, then getting a PhD with aspirations of getting an academic job after graduation is basically a huge gamble, and IMO not worth the effort....Mind you, I'm strictly talking about academic related jobs (Associate Prof, Prof, etc...). Obviously, if one is interested in working for an industry in research after a PhD, then thats a completely different scenario...

[jmu]

jimmy_01, I would hazard that a number of PhD students don't see the degree as simply a means to an end. I certainly don't.

jeffster, I went to a low/unranked school in most categories (it is top 50 in schools under 50 years old) and most of my professors came from top schools.

[fuzzylogician]

You guys are making it sound like it's almost impossible to get a good job in academia, that you need "lots of luck" and need to be "at the right place at the right time".....I mean, if that's the case, then getting a PhD with aspirations of getting an academic job after graduation is basically a huge gamble, and IMO not worth the effort....Mind you, I'm strictly talking about academic related jobs (Associate Prof, Prof, etc...). Obviously, if one is interested in working for an industry in research after a PhD, then thats a completely different scenario...

 

Well, a tenured job in academia is in fact a difficult goal to obtain. It's a buyers' market, there are more qualified people than jobs and the economy isn't great either. It's something to be aware of before applying and while attending school. Schools are many times not exactly great at preparing students for industry jobs, but it's a fact that not everyone can (and should, or even wants to) get an academic job. You need to actively seek out the qualifications that will help you in all potential markets you might enter once you graduate - academic and otherwise. I'm not telling you not to do it (I'm doing it!) but you should definitely not come into this with any illusions about how the job market works. 

[TakeruK]

You guys are making it sound like it's almost impossible to get a good job in academia, that you need "lots of luck" and need to be "at the right place at the right time".....I mean, if that's the case, then getting a PhD with aspirations of getting an academic job after graduation is basically a huge gamble, and IMO not worth the effort....Mind you, I'm strictly talking about academic related jobs (Associate Prof, Prof, etc...). Obviously, if one is interested in working for an industry in research after a PhD, then thats a completely different scenario...

 

In your original question, you mentioned faculty positions at the top schools. Let's say there are 10 such "top schools" in the US. At my school, which I would consider a part of this, there are about 10 profs in the field and the oldest one has been here for maybe 30-40 years. So, as an estimate, let's say that each of the top schools will hire a new prof every 3 or so years. I think this number is actually too high and in addition, hiring here seems to come in waves (a bunch of people might retire, then they hire a new batch etc.) "Bunching" up increases the "luck factor", if you're a great candidate but job-searching when the schools aren't hiring, then you're out of luck!

 

Anyways, let's say on average, a tenure-tracked position is open at a top-10 school once every 3 years. So, that's 0.33 positions per school per year, so 3.3 positions in total for all the top-10 schools in the US. In my field, it seems like the top-10 schools will produce about 3-5 PhDs per year. So, this means each year, on average, there are about 3.3 positions in the top 10 schools, and there are 30-50 people looking for jobs every year with PhDs from the top 10 schools. In reality, the competition will be even stiffer, since the 27-47 people that didn't get jobs the past year will likely try again. Plus, there are people from top-20 and top-50 programs applying too. 

 

The point of the above is to say that it's naive to think that being really good is all you need to land a faculty job at a top school. Getting a PhD doesn't mean that you will get work in academia. During your time in grad school, you should figure out what job "market" you want to work in, and hone your skills and experience to target that "market". One important note is that I know some people think that "liberal arts colleges" or "teaching colleges" are a great backup if you can't get a tenure track position at a research school. This is not true! I think that these positions form a completely different "market", and the steps you take during grad school to prepare yourself for this market is different than what you would do to prepare for a research oriented position. Especially in many science programs, the basic experience you get from TAing is generally not enough to make you competitive for teaching position. One example of properly preparing yourself would be to seek out opportunities to design/teach a mini course, or take a larger role in course planning and teaching by getting permission from your instructor/department.

 

Finally, I want to add that I think if you properly prepare yourself for an academic job market, it is definitely not impossible to get a tenure-tracked position. It won't be easy and the higher ranked the school, the more likely that factors such as luck come into play. It is not realistic to come into grad school expecting to end up as a faculty member at the top programs. But it is realistic to come into grad school knowing what the job market is like, knowing what skills/experience you want to gain from it, knowing what you would like to do at the end of school (and how the program will help you), and knowing that some of these things will change as you go through grad school!

Edited August 8, 2013 by TakeruK

[jmu]

TakeruK - don't forget that many "top" programs also grab already tenured faculty. Those few positions are not only filled by recent grads. It isn't unusual for a person to "work their way up" over a very long period.

[TakeruK]

TakeruK - don't forget that many "top" programs also grab already tenured faculty. Those few positions are not only filled by recent grads. It isn't unusual for a person to "work their way up" over a very long period.

 

Good point! I would say that it seems pretty rare that a tenured faculty from e.g. a second tier school would be recruited to a "top" program though. I have seen some examples of lateral movement between top programs, or untenured profs at top programs accepting a tenured position at a lower ranked program. 

Edited August 8, 2013 by TakeruK

[juilletmercredi]

It depends on the field.  In one of my fields (psychology), Stanford and Harvard would be great, but a degree from UW-Madison or Michigan would actually be better than one from Berkeley or Cornell.

 

In general, academia does tend to be prestige focused.  For example - in my field, the professors at Stanford and Michigan (both top programs in my field) tend to come from other places that are like Stanford and Michigan.  Generally speaking, you can't get your PhD at Compass Point U and end up at Harvard, Stanford, for Michigan.  However, Stanford PhDs can end up at Stanford or Michigan or Harvard - or they can end up at Swarthmore or Wellesley (top liberal arts colleges) or UNC-Greensboro (regional university campuses).

 

Yes, it is definitely the connections for one.  My advisors at my top 5/top 15 program (two different fields) are familiar with the very top researchers at other top institutions, and through them I have met people in my field making the moves and changing the field.  If they write me a recommendation letter for a job at one of these places, that faculty member can call up one of my advisors or recommenders - who they may have gone to grad school with or collaborated on a paper with - and chat about me for 15 minutes.  One of my advisors has literally written the book on the research method I use, to the extent that when I go to conferences and say that I work with this person people immediately know what I do.  To that end, they assume that I know what I am talking about when I use the method in my work.

 

But there are other things, too.  Going to a big name school means access to resources you don't have at other places.  I can borrow a book or get an article from several other top universities, which gives me access to millions of volumes and journal articles.  I can't remember any time in my 5 years here that I couldn't get a book or article I wanted.  And even if I couldn't…I could ask our librarian to buy it for me and it would be here in a week.  Or my advisor could buy it for me with one of his grants.  The people who do scanning in my department have access to several state of the art fMRI scanners, and other expensive equipment they need.  It's stuff like that that can make a difference in the quality of your work.

 

But that doesn't necessarily mean the name of the SCHOOL, but moreso the reputation of the department/field.  The #1 department in your field may be located at a university that doesn't have great name recognition, but the department itself is baller and has resources out the wazoo for anything you want to do.  Subfield is important, too.  My secondary department is top 15 in my general field, but wouldn't be a good place to come if you were interested in stereotyping and prejudice research or, like, child development research.

 

If your intent is industry, then the actual name of your school matters more.

 

You guys are making it sound like it's almost impossible to get a good job in academia, that you need "lots of luck" and need to be "at the right place at the right time".....I mean, if that's the case, then getting a PhD with aspirations of getting an academic job after graduation is basically a huge gamble

 

It is!  You do!  It is!

 

And in my field(s), professors do tend to shuffle around the top field - so that a tenured professor at Columbia may move to UCLA, or a tenured professor at Stanford may move to Michigan, when a position opens.  Sometimes the position isn't even advertised, but the deal is brokered between the chair of the department and the deans and provost or whatever.  In my own top 5 department, I can remember ONE assistant professor that was hired in the last 5 years and he was/is a superstar.  In the other department (top 15) we hired 2 assistant professors in the last 5 years and both had crazy publications going back literally 10 years.  One was already an assistant professor somewhere else - another top 10 school in my field.  The other one has a first-authored paper in Science and was a postdoc for 5 years, which is unusually long in my field.

Edited August 12, 2013 by juilletmercredi

[CageFree]

then getting a PhD with aspirations of getting an academic job after graduation is basically a huge gamble

Yes, it is.

 

and IMO not worth the effort....

That is up to you to decide. It is worth the effort for me, but I cannot count on having a job in academia when I get out.

[CageFree]

jimmy_01, I would hazard that a number of PhD students don't see the degree as simply a means to an end. I certainly don't.

jeffster, I went to a low/unranked school in most categories (it is top 50 in schools under 50 years old) and most of my professors came from top schools.

A professor once told me that some of the lower tier schools will take people from big name schools (regardless of quality of field and or program) over someone from a more respected program with a lesser name, just to pad their ranks. It's the mid tier to lower first tier schools that offer better opportunities for mobility.

[jmu]

A professor once told me that some of the lower tier schools will take people from big name schools (regardless of quality of field and or program) over someone from a more respected program with a lesser name, just to pad their ranks. It's the mid tier to lower first tier schools that offer better opportunities for mobility.

I mean from top ranked programs in that field. Anthropologists, sociologists, and geographers from Berkeley (including one who spent more than 30 years as tenured faculty there), geographers from Washington, sociologists from The John Hopkins, etc, etc.

[frundelson2]

I think it also depends on what you want to do with your degree. If you want to teach or research at a big name school, you need to get a degree from a big name school. If you are content with just teaching at a smaller school, the prestige of the school is less important. What becomes more important, as others have noted, is your advisor and the relative strengths of your particular department. 

[Guest |||]

the highest tier in Canada would probably be second tier in the US

 

 

And this statement is based on?

[TakeruK]

And this statement is based on?

 

I based this statement on a few things. First, there is the worldwide university rankings. For example:

 

http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/world-university-rankings/2012-13/world-ranking

http://www.shanghairanking.com/FieldSCI2013.html

http://www.usnews.com/education/worlds-best-universities-rankings/top-400-universities-in-the-world

 

The top Canadian schools (Toronto, McGill, UBC) generally rank in the 20s or 30s worldwide, which I would call "second tier". I don't mean "second tier" with the same negative connotation as an expression like "second class citizen", but I use "second tier" to mean highly ranked/regarded (relative to universities worldwide) but not the best of the best. I know that these rankings are not specific to graduate programs and rankings don't mean a whole lot. However, the OP did ask about "big name" schools, implying that he/she is considering the reputation of the school to people outside of academia as well. General rankings are also not great because of specific programs at certain schools might be very good (see posts above). I'm mostly making this statement based on the physical science programs at Canadian schools. 

 

Secondly, there aren't highly funded (i.e. privately funded) research programs in Canada that is comparable to e.g. Harvard, MIT, etc. I've seen a huge difference between the resources available to graduate students at a Canadian school vs. a privately funded US school. Money may not be everything, but resources will attract top researchers and limited funding may mean limited outcomes. I think the top US schools are able to be so productive (in terms of research) simply because they have the resources to do so. I think the difference availability of resources is also linked to the sizes of the research communities in Canada vs. the US (about a factor of 10 in astronomy, just like our relative populations), so it makes sense to me, that it would be very hard for Canadian schools to compete with the top schools in the US.

 

Overall, while some specific programs in Canada may be world leaders and equivalent or maybe even better than their counterparts in the US, I think it's generally true that the best Canadian programs are not in the same league as the top tier US programs. I know this is just a generalization but it's a good approximation, in my opinion.

[Usmivka]

I don't think the job market is too tight to find work in academia if you set your expectations realistically, develop multiple skill sets (including the ability to manage people and money, nontrivial job components as a prof) and aren't picky about your job. But "big name" places sometimes hire on tenure track and avoid hiring assistant profs, lecturers, etc...and tenure achievement may occur at a much lower rates in such places. For example several departments at MIT and Harvard are infamous for their "chew 'em up and spit 'em out" approach to young faculty. So what you may really be asking when you question the possibility of getting hired at a big name school, is "can I get a tenure track position, and can I actually get tenure?" (with all the usual caveats about department, culture, etc). In my field, which is if anything expanding in these positions, I'd say your odds are about 1% of getting tenure at one of these places (if they were restricted to only grads of the most recognized schools, ~3 posit a year, 200 grads, 60% rate of tenure success). That again precludes anyone on their second postdoc or otherwise in a holding pattern angling for the same jobs, and assumes that every candidate is equally qualified for the specific position that is open any given year.

Edited August 20, 2013 by Usmivka

[TakeruK]

In my field, which is if anything expanding in these positions, I'd say your odds are about 1% of getting tenure at one of these places (if they were restricted to only grads of the most recognized schools, ~3 posit a year, 200 grads, 60% rate of tenure success). That again precludes anyone on their second postdoc or otherwise in a holding pattern angling for the same jobs, and assumes that every candidate is equally qualified for the specific position that is open any given year.

 

Another way to look at it, if you don't want to assume that every candidate is equally qualified, is that a 1% chance is similar to saying that you have to be in the top 1% of all graduating students in your year. Sounds incredibly difficult to me! It would be impossible, I think, to quantify what constitutes the top "1%" though and it might be hard to compare yourself to all the other students in your field in the world/US!