Requesting Advice and Input on Decision

[cyborges]

I'm not sure how to search for this question specifically, so I apologize if there are a million threads about this other places.

I'm having trouble deciding between two programs:

Art/Architectural History -- MIT

***

Masters Program (called SMArchS)

Half Funded

Literature -- UC Santa Cruz

***

PhD Program

Funding for at least three years.

Both focus on contemporary theory and are excellent matches for different reasons. Obviously, everyone I tell who isn't wrapped up in this process hears MITs name and immediately thinks that's where I should go. But the program isn't funded, and it isn't a full PhD -- the only real justification I could have for going there over Santa Cruz is "deciding" I wanted to be an Art History / Architectural Theory person instead of an English, American Studies, or Comp Lit person... right?

What does everyone think? I'm curious because I am torn between wanting to go to MIT for both program and name, and wanting to go to Santa Cruz for an excellent (but not popularly known) literature/critical theory program and funding to boot. I'm going to visit both programs next week, so I will have a chance to meet with faculty from both.

What would you do?

[teaganc]

Normally, I would say take the funded offer, but the difference in fields makes this much less a decision about what school you want to go to and much more a decision about what field you want to be in. Yes, UCSC is offering funding and the opportunity to get your PhD, so you would never have to apply to another program again (until you want a job, of course). But MIT is a big name, and a half-funded MA program isn't that bad of a deal. If your interests and passion lie not in literature but in Art and Architectural History, don't be swayed by the chance to have a funded PhD. You might have that opportunity anyway after you graduate from MIT, and it could be in a field you are passionate about.

[nicolesuza]

Just wanted to let you know you're not in the boat alone -- I'm going to follow this thread closely and see if anyone offers some advice that tips either of us in one direction. Very best of luck!!

1. A top #100 university with a fabulous research match and surprisingly, advisor comes recently from #2 Education school in country. (Don't know why he's now at this school.) Full funding.

2. The #1 ranked department, good research match, friendly professors. Also, my first acceptance -- feels like my "first love." Full funding.

3. Third, Ivy League, fabulous research match, highly respected but fairly aloof faculty, . Much less funding, but holy crap, never even thought I had a chance.

I'm dying here. (Wonderful problem to have, tho.)

Accepted: Columbia, U-Wisc Madison, Illinois-Chicago

Rejected: Northwestern, U-Chicago

Waiting: none

[fuzzylogician]

I think it all depends on what the difference between a "good" and a "fabulous" research match means for you. If you feel that you can find a good adviser at the school ranked #1, who you get along with and who will guide you and help you produce good work (=possibly work less related to their research, since the match is only "good"), then it's a hands down winner in my book. Otherwise it's a harder choice, and I'd need more info - what's the placement record of students of your potential adviser at top #100 university? How much financial strain will going to Ivy League School put on you (I am a firm believer in not going into debt for your Phd, especially when you have funded offers). How important is a friendly adviser to you--do you see yourself getting along with the aloof faculty of Ivy League?

[cyborges]

(I am a firm believer in not going into debt for your Phd, especially when you have funded offers).

I'll apply this to my scenario too, even with the difference in fields. I've heard this from lots of grad students. Any arguments against?

[liszt85]

I'll apply this to my scenario too, even with the difference in fields. I've heard this from lots of grad students. Any arguments against?

Cyborges, I've been accepted to some PhD programs with full funding (guaranteed for 4-5 years) but I'm shifting from Physics to Music Research and some of these PhD programs require me to primarily do language work (which I like very much too) for various reasons. I will then get to do interdisciplinary studies on music with faculty from other departments. It would all work quite well for me but now I got a funded MS offer in Music Technology from Georgia Tech. I might most probably accept the MS offer not because its a funded one but because I will give myself two years to decide more precisely what it is that I want to do for my PhD or if I want to work in the industry. Also a MS from Gatech would render me a competent applicant to much better programs at the top ranked schools that I'd applied to this time and got rejected from (MIT, Berkeley, etc). I believe you might be in a similar position where taking some time off to decide more precisely what it is that you want to do might be helpful, and you have a half support from MIT. I personally think that if you have little debt so far, it could be worth going into a little bit of debt to be able to attend MIT and then if you still wish it, apply to PhD programs and probably get into the best departments.

[studentfromLA]

Just wanted to let you know you're not in the boat alone -- I'm going to follow this thread closely and see if anyone offers some advice that tips either of us in one direction. Very best of luck!!

1. A top #100 university with a fabulous research match and surprisingly, advisor comes recently from #2 Education school in country. (Don't know why he's now at this school.) Full funding.

2. The #1 ranked department, good research match, friendly professors. Also, my first acceptance -- feels like my "first love." Full funding.

3. Third, Ivy League, fabulous research match, highly respected but fairly aloof faculty, . Much less funding, but holy crap, never even thought I had a chance.

I'm dying here. (Wonderful problem to have, tho.)

Accepted: Columbia, U-Wisc Madison, Illinois-Chicago

Rejected: Northwestern, U-Chicago

Waiting: none

In your case, I would say it depends on what you want to do with your life. If you want to go into academia, then when you are applying for positions, a higher ranked program will get your c.v. reviewed much more often than a lower ranked one, unless you do some incredible research while you are in school and/or are working with a top-ranked scholar in your field. The scuttlebutt as far as I've been able to deduce it is that when applying for professorships after a Ph.D., you are most likely to be hired by a deparment that is equal-to or lower-ranked than yours. So, if you go to the #1 ranked deparment in your field, you will have more options than if you go to a top 100 school or an Ivy, if their department is lower-ranked. Look closely at the placements of graduates from each of the schools, and see if you can talk to any of their advanced Ph.D. students to get a sense of how they are recieved on the job market.

[thepoorstockinger]

to the OP:

I assume it's easier to do visual culture/architectural type criticism with a Comp Lit degree then it is to do the opposite. Santa Cruz also seems to have a pretty good name in theory circles due to the history of Consciousness program, from what little I know.

If you did go to MIT, where/in what field would you get your PhD?

[cyborges]

to the OP:

I assume it's easier to do visual culture/architectural type criticism with a Comp Lit degree then it is to do the opposite. Santa Cruz also seems to have a pretty good name in theory circles due to the history of Consciousness program, from what little I know.

If you did go to MIT, where/in what field would you get your PhD?

History, Theory, and Criticism of Architecture and Art. Thank you for your input. I am curious about program rankings though -- i wish it was easier to understand how people on the outside feel about ranks/prestige. I know that going to an ivy but mediocre program will hurt you (unlike undergrad), but I still would like to know the general sense. A professor I talked to said Santa Cruz is much more highly regarded than their US News ranking states, but I have no info to back that up.