Prestige vs. Research Fit: Can we have this conversation again?

[JackOfStyle]

Accepted to two programs. One ranks top 5 year after year, lots of excellent funding, huge research budget, private. Decent - but not spot on - research fit. Big city.

 

The other public but still selective, top 10 or 12 or so, public. Very very good research fit with the faculty. Small town.

 

Funding from both is equal. Cost of living is about equal too.

 

So can we talk about it again - when it comes to life after PhD, what's more important? Prestigious program or lots of experience in projects that match my specific research interest? For the record, this is not the hard sciences - I'm going in for ed policy.

 

Please and thank you. Ugh this is difficult.

[serotoninronin]

No we can't. 

 

Just kidding.  To me the difference in rank isn't enough to justify any degree of downgrade in fit, let alone a big one. What I've always heard is that in most disciplines, once you get into the top handful of programs it all blurs when it comes to job hunts after graduating.

 

I always think of it this way, my motivation and ability to do lots of badass work in my field will likely be higher at a place with a really good fit and culture than it would be somewhere with a weaker fit, where I would have to finagle with people to work with me on stuff I wanted to work on, etc. Have some confidence that you'll stand out for the volume and quality of the work you'll be able to produce at a well-fitting program rather than just the prestige of the program.

[bsharpe269]

Well if your goal is to study X then you probably wont reach it by studying Y in grad school, prestige or not!

[Monochrome Spring]

I think it's more important to make sure that you're happy with the research and the program. You're not really downgrading much, since you're still looking at a relatively-competitive program with choice 2. And in the end, a lot of your career opportunities come down to what you did during your graduate studies. Prestige is important, but your happiness is more so.

[TakeruK]

I also agree that this difference in prestige is very small and probably not going to matter. At the same time, the difference between "decent" and "excellent" research fit might not be that big either. In terms of thinking about post-PhD career plans options, here are some of my thoughts. I am not in your field and know pretty much nothing about it though, so I'll just offer thoughts and let you decide what is actually relevant.

 

1. What do you mean by "research fit" precisely? Do you mean that you get along well with the faculty and that the faculty there do exactly what you want to work on? Or do you mean that the program has a very strong research program and the right resources to help you achieve your goals. In my opinion, one of the things you can be flexible about is the exact topic of research. So, to me, I never looked for graduate schools based on the exact topic I wanted my PhD thesis to be on. Instead, I made a list of certain goals/skills/experiences I wanted to achieve during my PhD and my choice of "fit" is the place that will let me enable these goals. For example, I wanted to learn how to use telescopes and become an observational astronomer. This meant that my "topic" fit can be anything that is observational in the department, whether it's asteroids in our Solar Systems or planets in other solar systems. 

 

So, in my opinion, I don't usually think of "fit" as "I want to study [topic X]" but rather "I want to become good at [skill X]".

 

2. Related to the above, what about the resources available to you at each of these programs? Let's say that I did want to study topic X, subtopic Y using telescope observations. However, sometimes a school with the best research fit (many experts on topic X, subtopic Y) might have fewer resources available to you than a school with only a decent research fit (some experts on topic X, but they mostly work on subtopic Z). You will be much more likely to succeed when you have the resources available to you. Resources can be things like funding to attend conferences, funding to "buy you out" of other commitments like TAships (unless developing a strong teaching background is your PhD goal, then you might want the opposite of this!), equipment to do experiments, good location/big city where a lot of other academics will visit and give seminars, etc. 

 

In my opinion, if I am indeed a badass scientist, I would be better off where I have the most resources to fulfill my maximum badass potential.

 

3. I also don't think PhD students need to be completely 100% in love with their PhD thesis/work. You definitely need to not hate it and be miserable, but really, you might only need to tolerate it. I think it's hard to stay as freshly motivated and in love with a topic after 4-5 years. And, for most that are entering grad school, we probably have 2-4 years max of research experience in the field. Our research careers (if we go that route) will probably be 40+ years long. Even after grad school, we would have only completed a tiny fraction of our total research career. So, I think this means two things. First, how can we really really know what we actually like to research--our exposure to our field is pretty small. Second, it's not like what we do in grad school is going to dictate the rest of our research careers. Most professors I know change paths after grad school. Many postdocs I work with do not work on the same topics as they did in their PhDs just a few years ago. The field is changing all the time, so it makes sense for our interests and research goals to change too.

 

4. So, also related to the above, if you are mainly concerned about post-PhD career plans, instead of worrying about research fit with your choice of topic, I'd consider more about the program's research fit with what kind of work you want to do later on. For people in my field, I'd advise them to work on topics that will be likely to get grants/jobs in a few years. One way to think about this is to think about what space missions are scheduled to arrive at their destinations at the time of graduation. At this point, there will be a ton of data, and lots of people looking for scientists who know how to interpret it and analyse it etc. For other fields, I would suggest a similar approach for whatever big projects that exist there. 

 

Also, if your eventual career goals are not research based, then consider that in your decision too. For example, there are some schools in my field that are very research heavy and has very little emphasis on teaching. Grad students might only work as a TA for a couple of semesters in their whole degree. This is not going to be an ideal place for someone whose career goal is to work in a primarily teaching position. 

 

5. Finally, one thing I also did consider is prestige of the school outside of your field in case you are interested in working outside of your field. There are some schools in my field that are not very big names to public as academic powerhouses but they are very well known to be the best within the field. But if you are looking for a job in industry or something outside of academia, it would help more to have the shiny school brand name even though the program might not be as good as the one at the less shiny brand name (of course, usually the best program in the field will make the other 4 points here better, so I would say this is one of the least important points). Also, if you are planning to work outside of academia in a certain geographical area (e.g. not the US) then perhaps the bigger name schools will have more international recognition. 

 

Hope these were some useful thoughts to think about and help you

Edited February 18, 2014 by TakeruK

[JackOfStyle]

TakeruK that is extremely helpful! The meaning of "research fit" is exactly what I'm pondering here - I know that either school will give me the start that I want, but yes, one will be more specialized in what I want to study, while both will vault me into the field as a fully capable researcher. Thank you sooo much for your advice.

[juilletmercredi]

The difference between top 10 and top 5 to me is so small as to be irrelevant, especially when one has "very very good research fit" and the other has "decent" research fit.  They're both prestigious programs.

I like TakeruK's advice.  I have found that my actual research interests and projects have shifted a bit since I began school, and have also found that I am intrigued by a lot of different kinds of projects.  If I were applying over, I wouldn't be so concerned about the exact projects as I would be about 1) the skills I could learn and 2) the people I would be working with.  I am also definitely not completely 100% in love with my PhD dissertation work, but I like it well enough to finish it, and I think it's interesting.

Honestly, it's like work.  I don't know too many people who are completely, 100% in love with their jobs. But they like them well enough to work at them for 50-60 hours a week.  That's what you need.