PhD student in a pickle

[Andrew84]

Let me give you the situation:

I'm a first year biochemistry PhD student. I was accepted into a decent program (my PI is well respected in our field, the university itself is "up and coming"). I have a 3.2 GPA and a 312 on the GRE. I like the program for the most part, but I don't like the reputation of the university. Many of my fellow students are lazy as are some of the faculty. I don't get the impression that graduates have gone on to do anything spectacular and I honestly don't want my PhD to bear the university's name. Even though my PI is well connected, I'm not how much her reputation matters versus the university's reputation.

I have been considering dropping down to an MS and getting my PhD elsewhere. Would this ruin my academic reputation? I expect to maintain an A average in all my courses, so would this fact overshadow my poor GRE and undergrad GPA? I'm not aiming to get into Stanford or Harvard, but I would like to get into a school with a better reputation. Am I shooting too high? Would my PI's reputation override the school's reputation if I decided to stay? Any advice would be greatly appreciated. 

[fuzzylogician]

This probably depends on field at least somewhat. Also, are you hoping to stay in academia or go into industry? 

 

For academia, the advisor's reputation and the department's reputation matter much more than the school name. For industry, name recognition is more important, at least if you can't assume people will know details about particular departments. 

 

Can you find out how recent alums from your department are doing -- particularly your advisor's former students? Are they getting the kinds of jobs that you want? If so, you're in good shape. If not, it may be worth finding out where those people went to school and apply there for a PhD. If you do good work during your MS, I don't think your GRE and undergrad GPA scores should be much of a hindrance (and you can always retake the GRE). The important thing, once you have a MS, is proven research experience and strong LORs. In some fields, you might also be expected to have some conference or publication experience, so you should make the most of your time in your current program.

[juilletmercredi]

Transferring to get a PhD elsewhere won't ruin your reputation.  Whether your PI's reputation would override the university's will depend on your field and how famous your PI is.  But the thing is, in academia it's the reputation of your department that matters, not your university.  For example, in my field the University of Minnesota is better than going to Princeton or Brown.

 

Also what's important are your own personal record.  You may publish extensively with your mentor and put yourself in a good position.  Also, given that you're in biochem you'll be expected to do a postdoc (or 2) - maybe your postdoc will also be in a top research university and give you the opportunity to seek the kinds of competitive positions you want.

 

I would point-blank ask your adviser what kinds of jobs her former students have gotten and what kinds of jobs a good student from your department can expect to be competitive for.

As a first-year student in a doctoral program, your grades and reputation in your doctoral program will be much more important than your undergraduate grades and GRE scores (although ~156 on each section isn't bad).

[danieleWrites]

I don't have anything to add to what fuzzy and julilet put so well. I agree with their ideas. However, this is the way I construct the academic world, as naive a I am:

 

When I submit work for publication or to present at conferences, my credibility comes from my institution first. My name means nothing to the person(s) looking my materials over, but the University's does. I am not me, but Graduate Student in Specific University. What the reviewer thinks of me is directly related to what they think of the university. If my name is Graduate Student from Yale, I have a lot more credibility right off the bat than someone named Graduate Student from Podunk U. This is borrowed credibility and it cannot maintain itself for long. The reviewer then opens the materials I've submitted and begins to read. They may not read more than the first few lines before rejecting it, or past the introduction, but they must read some of it. This is where I begin to be me, not Grad Student from University of Whatever. Because they must judge my words, the must judge my competence, as well. And this is done mostly independent of my school. Sure, a Yalie will have the benefit of Yale's credibility far longer into the submitted material than a Podunk U student, but that won't last the entire work. Yale doesn't get people published, the work does. I got into the program that I thought best for me (yay!), but I don't think anyone considers it the bestest of the best anymore than they do the worstest of the worst. It's one of those middle-road places that puts out great scholarship and not-so-great scholarship.

 

The reality, though, is that reputation does matter to a degree. As fuzzy said, the PI and department matter more than the school when it comes to academia. When it comes to MFAs, the Ivy Leagues have nothing on the Iowa Writer's Group, for example. I stick my nose up at the University of Phoenix because I think it is substandard and harmful to scholarship overall. I would be more of a skeptic jerk if I were reviewing someone with the University of Phoenix attached to their name simply because of that opinion. If your school has a reputation, in the academic community in your field. of churning out substandard scholarship and substandard graduates, you'll have to work a bit harder to prove yourself should your program get the stink eye from the academic community in your field. The second part of this is about scholarship. If they are churning out substandard work and graduates, are they going to offer you what you need and want in terms of challenging you to be a better scholar? Are they offering courses and faculty that meet minimum standards? If you're taking courses throughout your candidacy that would be considered remedial in most other programs, there's a problem that personal scholarship can't always overcome. The lack of knowledge will clearly show in your work. I don't know your school, field, department, or PI well enough to make that call. What I do see is that you don't want the school's name on your diploma. I have a school on my MA that practically no one has heard of. Most people will assume my diploma has a typo in favor of a larger school with a similar name, so I can fully understand getting a masters where you are and moving on to a PhD in a different school. If my MA program had offered a PhD, I would have gone elsewhere anyway. They're great people with a lot to offer, but the MA is the limit of the program's ability. Not enough faculty and budget.

 

As far as the GRE goes, just because the scores are valid for 5 years, that doesn't mean you won't retake it should you apply to another program for you PhD. I don't think anyone would think it weird for someone about to graduate from a grad program to retake the thing with different scores. It would show your growth as a student (according to ETS). The potential schools would be more interested in your MS GPA and your record there because that's not only newer work, but more relevant to your PhD. So, at the least, publish and go to conferences.

[AdjunctOverload]

 

 

The reality, though, is that reputation does matter to a degree. As fuzzy said, the PI and department matter more than the school when it comes to academia. When it comes to MFAs, the Ivy Leagues have nothing on the Iowa Writer's Group, for example. I stick my nose up at the University of Phoenix because I think it is substandard and harmful to scholarship overall. I would be more of a skeptic jerk if I were reviewing someone with the University of Phoenix attached to their name simply because of that opinion. 

 

I agree with danieleWrites (and others).  The MFA is a great example of Ivy Leagues having nothing on a Midwestern university.  Because the University of Iowa had one of the first MFA programs, they have all the name recognition, the reputation, the ability to cherry pick students, etc.  The saying is: "You have to already have a published book to get into the University of Iowa's MFA."  On the other hand, Yale -- a more reputable school all around -- has much less name recognition and reputation in the field of creative writing.  I mean, they gave James Franco a Ph.D. and he can't write anything (creative or analytical).  But that's another story.

 

If your department isn't reputable/well-known, I'd be concerned if your goal is to teach in a selective university or liberal arts college.  If your goal is to teach--period--I wouldn't be as concerned (as long as you're okay with community college and less selective universities and liberal arts avenues).  Your POI is important, but one person cannot carry a department's reputation.

 

Just don't end up with a double masters in the exact same field/subfield (like my brother did) when he had to exit a Ph.D. program due to department politics.  Now he's never going to be able to get into (another) top Ph.D. program in his field;  he could get into a Ph.D. program somewhere, but his goal was to teach at an R1--that's pretty much down the drain.

Edited December 29, 2013 by AdjunctOverload

[RedPill]

Taking a different take on what everyone said,

 

You are unhappy.

 

You don't like being around students, peers and faculty that aren't motivated and A type individuals. You're a bad fit for the program. Although not the number one metric for selecting a program, I believe environment matters. You simply won't thrive where you feel you don't belong. I've had this situation during my undergraduate career. An A type Harvard caliber student who detests athletics would not feel at home at football U, regardless of the school's reputation. You're getting a PhD from this place, you'll be there for quite a while. Here, you'll make your friends, your colleagues, your peers and maybe even your family. I recommend finding a good fit on top of finding a more esteemed program/university. Happy chemists are productive chemists.

[qualthian]

Best Case scenario: You are in a top university and working with a very successful advisor. (which is no brainer)

 

Case1: Not good university, good advisor

Case2: Good university, average advisor

 

From what I understand, advisor > university ( I am in a similar situation )

 

When you apply for postdocs, they will read your papers, and read the recommendation from that well networked advisor. Other applicants graduated from top universities, so what? Your coursework during Ph.D. doesn't matter anyways. Your sole responsiblity during Ph.D. is doing significant research. So if you can do better research than others, then it will be you who gets the position.

 

University during undergraduate is important, because only your department judges you of your success. Outsiders doesn't know whether all content during all courses were covered, are whether you really deserved that A. So they trust the good universities. But during Ph.D., your work is public. Anyone can read your work and judge your success. And your research will be main factor they take into consideration.

 

Edit: I heard that if you apply to a university that doesn't have any member doing research in your field, they won't be able to understand the significance of your work very much, so they will look at the name of your university. 

Edited December 30, 2013 by qualthian

[juilletmercredi]

I'm sure this varies from field to field, but I've served as a reviewer for papers and conference submissions and we do them double-blind.  So credibility doesn't come from the name OR the institution for that; it comes from the actual work in the paper.  And it's exactly for the reasons danieleWrites put - nobody wants reviewers assuming that the graduate student from Yale knows anymore what she's doing than the grad student in the same department at Podunk State.  There's no reason to believe that from individual to individual.

 

Where it more matters (and what I was talking about) was hiring.  In my fields, the reputation of your department and your advisor are important in the kind of jobs you can compete for.  Students who went to schools outside of the top 30 aren't really competitive for faculty positions within the top 30 (for better or worse), unless they did a postdoc at one of those institutions and/or published their butt off.  My department has done two faculty searches in the time that I've been here, and we invited several candidates to campus; all of them had gotten their PhDs at either top 20ish institutions here in the U.S. or, in a few cases, at top institutions in the UK.

 

And yes, advisor > university, but the well-known advisors tend to be at the top universities.