how does your environment affect you?

[SymmetryOfImperfection]

I feel like the environment for a Ph.D. program, not just the research, is important.

 

That being said, not all the best research is done in the best environments. Some top universities are located in the middle of a desert or in very cold parts of central plains instead of major cities.

 

Would you live in a desolate college town in the middle of the plains or in the middle of the desert, but with great research? Or would you rather attend a big city college with a lower ranking but still 1-2 professors that you'd like to work with?

 

I'm curious as to how students straight out of undergrad vs. those with work or MS/MA experience think about this.

[deci:belle]

Well, I'm straight out of undergrad and going into my AuD program and location was very very important in choosing my schools. 

First of all, rural areas won't cut it. No matter how amazing the school is. If I am bored out of my mind for 4 years then I just can't do it. I won't be happy at all to do the work that would be required of me. For that alone, I declined two of my offers even though they are ranked much higher than my final choice. 

 

Maybe I'm really biased being from NY, but I just think that so much experiences come out of a city life and theres so much more stimulation. However on the flip side, it can be a distraction to your research if you are always trying to have fun.

[themmases]

Well, environment affects my research because I'm interested in urban health disparities and access specifically. Rural areas have their own, quite different, public health problems which are interesting and important, but not what I want to work on. I could compromise on a small city/large college town if the school had a great research fit otherwise, or tons of health data to analyze.

 

So I love living in Chicago and I'm excited to stay, but sometimes I feel a tiny bit disappointed that I'm not using this opportunity to try somewhere totally new without committing to it forever. I loved living in Champaign-Urbana (I still miss my awesome house there), and part of me also really wanted to move back to a college town whether it helped my research or not.

[rj16]

I grew up in the country, lived in the city for a year, the suburbs for 2 and then did my undergrad in a very small college town near a small city. I have loved and hated aspects of every place I've lived. Now that I am heading to the big city for my MA, I am worried about distractions and not being able to get enough fresh air. Going back home to the country has been my mental health saviour in the last few years. I think my ideal location for research would be a small city that I could easily get out of when I need to. My current college town is great for that. Because it is on the outskirts, you can drive for 5 minutes and be in the middle of nowhere. 

[RunnerGrad]

Environment is definitely important to me.  I'm very much a non-traditional student, with many years of work experience.

 

I'm not a fan of big cities.  That's one of the major reasons that I will not be living in Toronto, despite the fact that I'll be attending graduate school at the University of Toronto.  I have no desire to live there.  Instead, I will be commuting.  I live in a lovely, small city that is the perfect size for me, with plenty going on, but without the craziness of a big city.

 

I only applied to a limited number of universities, both due to my husband's job, and due to not wanting to relocate to a big city.

[victorydance]

Don't really care, just give me the best grad school as possible.

 

I would prefer the city, but it's not a big deal if I end up in places like South Bend or Ithaca.

[maelia8]

I've lived in the country, in the suburbs, in the middle of a big city, and in a mid-sized city, and I liked living in the mid-sized city best. Being in the middle of a huge metropolis is a bit overwhelming for me (I grew up in the country), and in a small city, commutes are shorter and it's easy to know where to find everything. I'm happy living anywhere, but all things being equal, I'd choose a mid-sized city or large town over a metropolis.

[ExponentialDecay]

yes, but i often feel like a person who is serious about getting a PhD should be so engrossed in their subject that they shouldn't care where they are - that they're living in their head, essentially.

 

then again, i know very successful academics who absolutely require distractions to be able to do good work.

 

then again, it's always good to be prepared for the contingency of teaching at Flyover Community College in IA

Edited April 10, 2014 by ExponentialDecay

[QASP]

Straight out of undergrad, but older non-traditional. I don't understand people who think 95% of the United States is uninhabitable. I find the use of the word "desolate" for a college town pretty laughable. I find people who make these broad sweeping generalizations usually have no idea what they're talking about.

 

My personal preference would be large city in the middle of the desert > middle of the desert > other large city > somewhere warm but not a desert or large city > every other small college town. I am attending a school at the last one, because it's a top school and I think it's worth it (and my field just doesn't have the options that a lot of others do in terms of schools and location). It's a personal choice, certainly, but I think a lot of people make ill-informed decisions based on surface understandings and false impressions of what a lot of places are like.

[ss2player]

I prefer large cities due mainly to the variety of people you will find there, so an isolated location would be too homogeneous for me. For example, one place I interviewed was in a Midwestern college town, and I feel going there would be disastrous for my social life as I couldn't relate at all to the locals/townies. All my other interviews were in places with at least 500K people, so while I loved that school and the research, I couldn't see myself somewhere with 1/10 the population.

[TakeruK]

I feel like the environment for a Ph.D. program, not just the research, is important.

 

That being said, not all the best research is done in the best environments. Some top universities are located in the middle of a desert or in very cold parts of central plains instead of major cities.

 

Would you live in a desolate college town in the middle of the plains or in the middle of the desert, but with great research? Or would you rather attend a big city college with a lower ranking but still 1-2 professors that you'd like to work with?

 

I'm curious as to how students straight out of undergrad vs. those with work or MS/MA experience think about this.

 

I can answer both cases for you! Background: I grew up in a suburb of a major city (Vancouver, BC) that is pretty diverse (the majority of the people in my hometown have English as a second language). I am a type of person that prefer to live in a urban / big city environment where I can have access to ethic grocery stores, restaurants etc. 

 

In 2010, I was straight out of undergrad and I was planning on 2 year Canadian MSc program and then doing a 3-4 year PhD after that, not necessarily at the same school (the standard plan for a Canadian undergraduate student). Location was not as important to me, since I knew I could leave after 2 years if I didn't like it. And since 2 years is a short time, I wanted to make sure I got a good research fit. The only factors that really played into location was 1) cost of living and 2) ability for my SO to find work (i.e. parts of French Canada would not work for her). We ended up moving to a small college town (150,000) that was very homogeneous (95% Caucasian) and with very extreme temperatures compared to the temperate west coast. We did visit during winter and we knew what we were getting into, but we decided to not worry about location as much as the research since that school had the only other person that did exactly what I wanted to do (my field is tiny in Canada). We also figured that although we didn't think we would like a small town in the parts of Canada with real winters, we hadn't spent much time out there so we should try it! In the end, we tried it and it was fine but we probably won't do something like that again!

 

In 2012, I started my PhD program and location became a very important factor in deciding where to go. I would say my split was 50% school/career and 50% location/personal. Moving to the US also means higher expenses/risks/stress for us so we didn't want to go through all that work and still be unhappy where we lived. Also, ability for spouse to work was also important since it's still another 5 years to do a PhD in the US (vs. 3-4 if I stayed in Canada) so we didn't want to put ourselves in a bad place financially.

 

Finally, at this point in our life, we have also decided that we would very much like to raise our own future family near our parents and that ultimately, if I can't find work in my field in a location we would want to live in, I'd change career paths. So, given that this career path is already hard enough even without geographical constraints, we could continue sacrificing personal happiness for career at the PhD level, at the first postdoc, at the second postdoc, and we might still end up without the career we want and also 10 years of living in places that made us unhappy and/or poor. So, the way I see it, is that the pursuit of an academic job can cost a lot of time, money, effort and happiness, and the only way it's worth it is if we are still happy/content at every step of the way towards this goal. 

[gingin6789]

Environment, including location, was critical in making my decision.  I need to stay as close as possible to home for family reasons!  The university I'm attending is also just minutes from where my boyfriend's family lives.  So, if something goes wrong (if I get ill or if something happens at home), I have "family" nearby!

 

As for environment, I'm from a small, urban town with a steel mill, and my backyard is completely concrete.  Green in seldom seen among the gray-scale landscape. 

 

The university I will be attending in the fall is also in a town with a (now-defunct) steel mill, and the town has houses that look like the ones in my own neighborhood. The campus itself, however, is on a mountain, and is filled with beautiful buildings and a rich landscape. So, I feel at home, but with more comforting greenery. =) It's a gorgeous campus.  I'm elated to attend school there, and the environment is one of the reasons why.

 

So, to answer your question, I'd much rather attend a rural school than an urban school!  I've not seen enough urban schools to determine whether I would absolutely NOT attend there, though!  A school with great professors and a great program located in the city might work for me.  I'm straight from undergrad, and I've attended colleges in more rural environments (a community college and a four-year university).

Edited April 10, 2014 by gingin6789

[SymmetryOfImperfection]

thanks. i guess most people are not willing to sacrifice everything else for research. this is very different from what my professors recommended to me though. they all said "it's just 4-5 years. don't worry about the environment". If I came straight form my BS, I probably wouldn't even think and pick the best school in research, but being a few years later and with experience, I am now a bit hesitant.

[victorydance]

I think one thing to keep in mind is that just because place X might be perceived to be a better fit for you, doesn't mean it will turn out that way in reality. Our perceptions of places or cities are largely determined by our experiences that we have there.

 

For example, someone might choose UT, Austin over say Princeton because it is in Austin and they like the city and think living there would be great. But then they get there and don't really meet anyone they really connect with, find out they don't have much time to enjoy the advantages of living in Austin, or any other thing that leads them to not like the city as much as they thought they would. 

 

So you could theoretically pick a place because of where it is located at the detriment of your education and training for no reason. 

 

That is why I do agree with the notion of picking the best school according to your goals and research interests above everything else. Because at the end of the day, going to grad school is about receiving training, and since you will spending 80% of your time doing those things, the location really shouldn't be the biggest factor in your choice of which program to attend or apply to.

 

I definitely prefer big cities. I have lived in places like Vancouver, Montreal, Mexico City and Rio de Janeiro for the last 15+ years of my life. That being said, as a grad student it's a different mentality. I am going to be spending the vast majority of my time at the university and working my ass off. The benefit of cities are more to do with entertainment and cultural advantages, things that are low priorities for the majority of grad students. Hell, a nice small town could be a blessing because you could get away from the hustle and bustle and really think about research questions that you are working on. 

 

So in other words, yeah I like big cities way more and prefer to live in them. But that doesn't necessarily mean I will be more productive as a grad student in that environment. They are different equations with different variables.

[TakeruK]

thanks. i guess most people are not willing to sacrifice everything else for research. this is very different from what my professors recommended to me though. they all said "it's just 4-5 years. don't worry about the environment". If I came straight form my BS, I probably wouldn't even think and pick the best school in research, but being a few years later and with experience, I am now a bit hesitant.

 

Although advice from people who have "made it" in field are generally good because well, they have succeeded, there is a danger that for the people who have "made it", their vision of the past may be positively distorted. If their 4-5 years in a bad location was "worth it" since they got a good job at the end, they would probably have fonder memories of it than someone who spent 4-5 years in a bad location and then didn't get the degree/career they wanted. Of course, you should plan for success rather than failure, but I think it might be a bit naive to just think of it as "only 4-5 years, don't worry about location", in my opinion. 

 

I think one thing to keep in mind is that just because place X might be perceived to be a better fit for you, doesn't mean it will turn out that way in reality. Our perceptions of places or cities are largely determined by our experiences that we have there.

 

For example, someone might choose UT, Austin over say Princeton because it is in Austin and they like the city and think living there would be great. But then they get there and don't really meet anyone they really connect with, find out they don't have much time to enjoy the advantages of living in Austin, or any other thing that leads them to not like the city as much as they thought they would. 

 

So you could theoretically pick a place because of where it is located at the detriment of your education and training for no reason. 

 

That is why I do agree with the notion of picking the best school according to your goals and research interests above everything else. Because at the end of the day, going to grad school is about receiving training, and since you will spending 80% of your time doing those things, the location really shouldn't be the biggest factor in your choice of which program to attend or apply to.

 

I definitely prefer big cities. I have lived in places like Vancouver, Montreal, Mexico City and Rio de Janeiro for the last 15+ years of my life. That being said, as a grad student it's a different mentality. I am going to be spending the vast majority of my time at the university and working my ass off. The benefit of cities are more to do with entertainment and cultural advantages, things that are low priorities for the majority of grad students. Hell, a nice small town could be a blessing because you could get away from the hustle and bustle and really think about research questions that you are working on. 

 

So in other words, yeah I like big cities way more and prefer to live in them. But that doesn't necessarily mean I will be more productive as a grad student in that environment. They are different equations with different variables.

 

This is a good point, but the corollary also applies. Just because a place is perceived to be a better academic fit doesn't mean it will actually be. Perhaps the course listing looks really good, but when you get there, the courses offered are not actually available (or you don't have time). Or the research projects you want to work on are not there. Or, it turns out you don't really get along well with that advisor you really wanted to work with! 

 

I agree that location and research fit are really independent factors and you can't really consider one will help the other. But there's nothing wrong with considering both these factors in choosing a PhD program. I am not saying there's something wrong with making the choice considering only your research potential (or vice versa)--I'm just saying if you want to consider both factors in whatever proportion you want, you should not feel bad about it or let other people tell you otherwise!

 

Personally, I think the parts of me that are not a scientist are just as important to nourish as the parts of me that make me a scientist. I would say I spend about an equal amount of time being a scientist as being a not-scientist so it's pretty easy for me to make time to take advantage of the place I'm in (and I have done so a lot in the past 1.5 years!). I have like 112 waking hours per week and I work about 50 hours per week, which gives me about another 50 hours per week to do whatever I want (let's say the remaining 12 hours are for chores )

[Cookie]

This is a great question!

I have seasonal affective disorder, and winter time is really really hard on me. Among all the schools I was accepted to last year, I picked a tiny Midwest town with horrible winters. 

Basically the last 6 months were straight hell for me. But my decision was solely on research, and I believe I can pull through another 4 years. There is a bit of logic in my decision since this area is so boring plain, I have nothing else to do but to work!  I love my research and enjoy it so much  it doesn't matter  if it's snowing 12 inches outside (most of the time)... I'm a theoretical chemistry student btw, so take my words with a grain of salt

Edited April 12, 2014 by heartshapedcookie

[spectastic]

it matters a lot to me. snow and the cold makes me depressed during winter. and small flat towns make me bored to death, and I need good means of outlet other than alcohol. 

[personalityresearcher]

The research is the most important - I'd (literally) sacrifice my limbs and live in the crappiest of places for what I want to do!

[SymmetryOfImperfection]

This is a great question!

I have seasonal affective disorder, and winter time is really really hard on me. Among all the schools I was accepted to last year, I picked a tiny Midwest town with horrible winters. 

Basically the last 6 months were straight hell for me. But my decision was solely on research, and I believe I can pull through another 4 years. There is a bit of logic in my decision since this area is so boring plain, I have nothing else to do but to work!  I love my research and enjoy it so much  it doesn't matter  if it's snowing 12 inches outside (most of the time)... I'm a theoretical chemistry student btw, so take my words with a grain of salt

 

Nice to hear your opinions. Do you want to go into tenure track academia at a university, public sector research, or private sector? I'm wondering if the career motivation also affects people's views.

[spectastic]

I get that research is number one, and I agree. But I know I'd be totally burnt out if I didn't anything else to do. That's just me. I think this is different for everybody. 

[Cookie]

Nice to hear your opinions. Do you want to go into tenure track academia at a university, public sector research, or private sector? I'm wondering if the career motivation also affects people's views.

Tenure track and Research at nat labs/universities are my dream jobs

[personalityresearcher]

Nice to hear your opinions. Do you want to go into tenure track academia at a university, public sector research, or private sector? I'm wondering if the career motivation also affects people's views.

Tenure track academia!!!!

[TakeruK]

Nice to hear your opinions. Do you want to go into tenure track academia at a university, public sector research, or private sector? I'm wondering if the career motivation also affects people's views.

 

For me, my main career goal is to have a job where I am useful for a skill, not just manual labour. If I can design my ideal job, it would be one where 1) I use data to solve a problem and 2) I am able to teach/train new people. Whether or not the applications are scientific research or not doesn't really matter to me.

[RunnerGrad]

Nice to hear your opinions. Do you want to go into tenure track academia at a university, public sector research, or private sector? I'm wondering if the career motivation also affects people's views.

 

Ideally I would work in the public sector, developing, implementing and evaluating nutrition and physical activity interventions, and teach the occasional university course as a sessional or lecturer.  So I'm not gung-ho for a tenure track adademic position like many here.  Perhaps that is why environment is important to me, or perhaps it is because I'm a non-traditional/mature student, and enjoy spending time outside of my universiy studies with my husband.  I also know myself well enough to know I am most productive and do my best work when I'm in an environment I like, and when I don't spend all my time on research and/or school.