I have a really tough decision.

[SymmetryOfImperfection]

I have been accepted by a top institution in physical chemistry/chemical physics. However, I'm not sure if this institution is for me.

 

During my visit, I felt like I would not be able to bring out my full creative potential at this institution. Instead, I'll be just making samples, pressing buttons and analyzing data. I know I can graduate like this; I've done this stuff literally a thousand times. But I don't think I will be that passionate about it, since the “cool part" is not experimental, but rather doing the data analysis. Also, I feel like that would leave me with no hard, technical skills. It didn't help that a professor that I thought I was really interested in said something (technical) that made me feel a bit uncomfortable about whether it could even succeed in practice.

 

At another lower ranked institution, a professor said I'll get to work on bringing a new technology into real world applications. But with that comes alot of actual engineering work - programming, optics and electronic hardware engineering. I only have one "engineering" style project under my belt, the rest of my work has been in the whole "make a sample, press a button, analyze data from machine" thing. I don't know if I can handle it. I don't know if I can make it work in a 4-5 year long project.  I'm scared that midway I'll run into a wall that's decided by fundamental physical constraints on this technology or my own intellectual limits and there'll be nothing I can do about it. Another thing is that I'm not too keen on the applications of this technology.

 

What should I do?

Edited April 1, 2014 by SymmetryOfImperfection

[Eigen]

When I had a similar choice, I went with option B. It hasn't been the smoothest path, it was a leap out of my comfort zone, and there are always roadblocks in really new areas of research, but it keeps me engaged and interested, and I find that worthwhile. 

 

Also, I now have a CV full of varied and interesting things that I can do, and the confidence that I can teach myself how to do pretty much anything. 

[SymmetryOfImperfection]

Thank you for your thoughts. I'm struggling hard with this decision, because I originally thought I wanted to go to the first institution so bad, but now that I've gone there and met with some of the professors, I'm not so sure what to think anymore.

[Eigen]

The same thing happened to me- I greatly sympathize. 

[asaprocky]

I feel like graduate school should be a place where you push the limits of your intellectual abilities, are challenged to become a better scientist/problem solver, and where you'll actually be excited about doing your research. Therefore, I don't think the highly ranked institution is for you. It sounds as if your 4-5 years will be mundane and repetitive. More of a technicians work.

 

As for the second institution, I feel like everyone will at some point run into a road block in their graduate studies and that's why you have your adviser and peers. To help you out. They're not going to just watch you fail. If you're in a nurturing environment, they're going to help you succeed and you'll be better off in the long run with having to solve those problems. I know you may not be as excited about the applications, but maybe you can talk to the adviser and figure out other applications along the way?

 

Also, you may want to look into other advisers you met on your visits and see if they interest you to a happy medium where you get the experience you want and it has the applications you're interested in. Just my 2 cents. 

[SymmetryOfImperfection]

Thank you for the thoughts. I guess I should email some professors that I didn't get a chance to meet. The other professors who I did meet at the first institution seemed similar; they mostly use known instrumentation and known methods to characterize new materials. I should also email the professor at the second institution about other applications.

 

What about the attitude and behavior of your colleagues? How important is that?

Edited April 1, 2014 by SymmetryOfImperfection

[DropTheBase]

I like option B as well.

 

As mentioned above, you're going to get stuck on your project no matter what. It's better to be interested in what you're doing in order to help you break through the "wall".

 

In addition to the project itself, make sure that you and your potential advisers share the same values. I turned down the number 1 school in my field exactly for this reason, and I'm confident that it was one of the smartest decisions I've ever made.

 

You're impression of future colleagues also matters a lot since you'll be seeing and dealing with them much more than your adviser.

 

Good luck!

[SymmetryOfImperfection]

thank you for the help. I'm just a bit scared that lower prestige, not just of the program itself but the university's overall name recognition, would negatively affect future job searches in industry, since there is no guarantee that industrial recruiters in another industry know anything at all about my chosen field.

 

I am also scared that even after learning all those engineering skills I will have nowhere to apply them since a human resources computer will see "physics"  instead of "_______ engineering" and give me an autoreject, and won't I have prestige to fall back on.

 

Did any of you guys have that worry when considering a high prestige school (top 20) vs a less known school (top 40-50)?

Edited April 3, 2014 by SymmetryOfImperfection

[Eigen]

For industry? From the talks I've had with industry recruiters, the name of your PhD granting institution doesn't mean much. Your resume, patents, and ability to show the skills you've leafed does.