Advisor vs School

[yoconman]

I've been talking to a lot of graduate students here at UT Austin about their personal take on advisors.  My field of interest is Solid-State Electronics so UT, Stanford, MIT, UCB, Cornell, Umich, and Illinois are dream schools of mine.  One student here said that if you want to go into academia after grad school, then your advisor is more important than what school you went to (considering it's a top ten school).  I was hoping to start a topic on this subject.  That is, how should an applying undergrad weigh school choice (say MIT or Stanford) over a university that isn't as reputable but has advisors they really like?

Edited February 22, 2014 by yoconman

[hikaru1221]

I personally think you will need to "like" your adviser and vice versa, regardless of where you go; else the amount of compromise would not make you happy. But a renowned / influential adviser is a different story: he would help you a lot in networking, getting your work known to people, getting funding, etc.

 

There are 3 factors that make a "good" paper: findings/results, writing, and networking. The former two are those evaluated in the PhD application - what they require from you (significant findings should be proportional to your research talent). The last one is the one that you ask from them.

 

Have you contacted professors at the other schools? You can find out about them during the visit days as well.

 

I believe that things should be able to work out, given that there is no such thing as perfect match between a student and any professor. The more senior the professor is, I guess the more efficient he is at handling compromises with the student, so that the relationship can be maintained satisfactorily. This is a two-way thing: you want to like that professor of yours, but he will also want the same, since it is a pain to meet somebody that one doesn't like every week (except that your professor is well demanded that he's absent from the school most of the time). Then the bottom line is to pick somebody who, first, gives you the impression that you can work with and respect (as I personally believe respect is the foundation of a good relationship), and second, is well-known in your field.

 

I speak from my undegrad research experience by the way

[1535nuke]

I doubt there are many if any people who would say the prestige of your schools title is more important than the qualities of your advisor- especially when your goal is academia/research- if you're going to industry though few people will care what you published they just want to see what degree you have and from where. This is all just what I've heard though, as I'm an undergraduate but I've worked in industry and at a national lab and this what I've been told

[yoconman]

These are both good points.  I'm a junior undergrad so I've still got a few more months before I start working on my applications.  It's just stressful trying to think of not only where I want to apply, but who I want to apply to.

[hikaru1221]

These are both good points.  I'm a junior undergrad so I've still got a few more months before I start working on my applications.  It's just stressful trying to think of not only where I want to apply, but who I want to apply to.

 

In that case, I would urge you to "think" of where you want to apply. Research "fit" is relatively important, but a perfect match with a perfect professor is not gonna happen. Let me explain.

 

1/ Prestige should somewhat correlate with overall quality + amount of funding. You would want to be happy be surrounded by top-notch peers and good professors with secure finance. Professors at places like MIT, if not the best in the field, are then likely the second best (in terms of influence, networking, etc).

 

2/ You would not be sure about whom to work with until you are admitted and have talked to the professors in person. A good researcher needs not be a good adviser. You need to find out whether you would like a professor or not, and reading his webpage over and over just won't do the job.

 

3/ Now when you try to find out whom to work with before applying, your limited undergrad experience would limit your choices. There are many exciting things that you may not be exposed to during undergrad, and the lack of familiarity may discourage you from applying to great places that have great people that you could not evaluate. You never know whether you would resonate with VLSI tomorrow, and switching fields is a norm in grad schools. You may also never know about research directions that are within your field until grad schools give you a chance to explore. So applying to big schools with many people working in your field, as well as related fields in Electrical Engineering / Material Science / etc, would be a safer option, right?

 

So the game before admissions is about choices you pick, and the choices that admit you. This process involves a lot of uncertainty. So to be on the safe side, there is nothing wrong going with prestige, provided that the school has people working in your field or related fields. You never know if you would be happiest with those schools, but you can be sure you will find yourself happy there.

 

It can only sound wrong if you decide to go to Stanford instead of Berkeley based on prestige, but your choice cannot be wrong nevertheless.

Edited February 27, 2014 by hikaru1221

[chemeng24]

When you are considering a PhD it is almost always more important to choose an advisor rather than school name. If you stay within the top 10 or so then people in your field will be aware of that, regardless of whether you choose MIT or UT. It is extremely important, in my opinion, to look at the specific research you are interested in, and where are the advisors that are at the forefront of that field. It may or may not be MIT, Stanford, or Berkeley, but it will be their name that matters most. 

 

Undergraduates are still programed to think in terms of the school name because thats what we were taught in high school. It is a different story when you are applying to grad school. I found that the top 5 schools all have excellent faculty with research that is sort of mutually exclusive. For example, you may find that Prof. X is at the forefront of field A and he is located at Georgia Tech. If you really want to study field A, why would you go to MIT if they do not have somebody successful working in that field? In my field (chemical engineering) I found that the story goes like this. If you want to study A then you go to MIT, if you want to study B then you go to UT, if you want to study C then you go to Stanford, if you want to study D you go to Minnesota, and so on. 

 

Choosing an advisor is the right way to go about choosing a graduate school (PhD). 

[bsharpe269]

ADVISOR!

 

My top choice schools are actually ranked around 20-30 for my field and I would go to them any day over a top 10 school. I am pretty convinced that one of the advisors at one of the top 30 schools will end up with a nobel prize at some point (not just my point of view, professors in my subfield as well). He is my dream guy to work with. Actually, only one of the top professors in my subfield is at top 10 school. I have zero desire to go to any of the top 10 schools that dont have top people in my subfield. The people working at the 20-30 ranked schools on the other hand are very regularly publishing in science, nature, being asked to head the biggest conferences in my subfield etc. Working with them will open so many doors. The only benefit youll find out of attending a top school for the sake of prestige is impressing your mom tha tyou got into harvard. No one in academia cares... they look at advisor name.

[yoconman]

What are qualities of a good advisor then?  I think of mentorship and research expertise.  I've been told that the best advisor is nice and won't force you to work, rather they let their graduate students work by their personal motivation.  

Edited March 2, 2014 by yoconman

[yoconman]

By personal motivation I mean intellectual curiosity.

Edited March 11, 2014 by yoconman