Going to the same grad school for PhD as undergrad -- post-graduation employment prospects?

[Lhasa1951]

Well I'm sure this question has been asked before, but... I recently accepted a fully funded offer with a TA position for an economics PhD at the same institution that I received my bachelors degree from. It is a lesser known state school. I got admission to some other schools that I would have rather attended, but those offers were not funded.......

 

Did I make the right decision? Will my chances of finding a tenure track position post graduation be severely hurt? I'd be fine with going to any university to teach so long as the position is tenure track, and I can publish.

 

Would trying to diversify my resume by attending summer workshops, internships, publishing as much as possible, etc. etc. help me later in the job market?

 

Thanks

[Lhasa1951]

I should also mention that my undergraduate institution is a better match for my research interests overall -- the only reason I considered other schools is because I've heard it looks better on your resume in the job market.....

[Vene]

Regardless of how bad it is, I can't imagine pursuing an unfunded PhD is a better idea.

[Lhasa1951]

Yeah... the tuition for the school I didn't get funding for is $38,000 a year, and it's only #58 on the top 100 list. The school I did get funding for is #94.... lol

 

I guess I could make up for it if I got a good post-doc position.

Edited April 17, 2014 by Lhasa1951

[personalityresearcher]

Well I'm sure this question has been asked before, but... I recently accepted a fully funded offer with a TA position for an economics PhD at the same institution that I received my bachelors degree from. It is a lesser known state school. I got admission to some other schools that I would have rather attended, but those offers were not funded.......

 

Did I make the right decision? Will my chances of finding a tenure track position post graduation be severely hurt? I'd be fine with going to any university to teach so long as the position is tenure track, and I can publish.

 

Would trying to diversify my resume by attending summer workshops, internships, publishing as much as possible, etc. etc. help me later in the job market?

 

Thanks

I think this sort of thing was more frowned upon before most PhD programs started accepting people directly out of undergrad - before, it was more common to do a terminal masters, then go elsewhere for the PhD.

[Tall Chai Latte]

You know, I had the same question when I was deciding on which school to attend. I ended up choosing the other school over staying at my undergrad. My experience so far tells me that it doesn't matter. At all. It really doesn't matter, going to different schools for your PhD or staying as long as you do well. If you are staying in academia then your pedigree obviously matters. If you don't, employers only want to see that you can perform the tasks they hire you for.

But funding is a illegitimate reason to stay.

[nugget]

I agree with the comments posted thus far. I also think your idea to do a postdoc elsewhere is a good plan and a way to diversify your background and experience. Best of luck!

[victorydance]

Your prospects of a TT position are more hurt by attending a low ranked program for your Ph.D. than anything to do with going to the same institution as your undergrad.

 

Your chances of obtaining a TT position are quite low.

[anthropologygeek]

Academic imbreeding is what this is called and is frowned on in only academic careers. My advice go to a top school outside your current university

[MakeYourself]

'Academic in-breeding' is an old-fashioned way of thinking that stems from a time when all academics were rich white European men who could travel wherever they wanted. Times have changed, therefore, many people's opinions have changed. Some people still have this pretentious and out-dated view and I personally feel sorry for them. It is a naive view, in my opinion. You can go to a different school and end up being more closed-minded than staying at the same school. Changing locations does not mean better education, it depends on a multitude of factors. And given that your decision was pragmatic and based on funding, I think you may have made the right choice (not to mention you said it fits your research interest best which should be the number one factor in  making a decision!!).

 

I wouldn't worry about it, if an employer's only reason to not hire you is because you went to the same school for your undergrad and grad then I'd say good riddance, I wouldn't want to work for that pretentious and ignorant employer anyway.

Edited April 24, 2014 by randomness

[lewin]

In this job market funded > unfunded. Always.

 

 

PhD at same place I think isn't so bad anymore. Doing a postdoc where you did you PhD, however, still screams "I didn't have other options", I think.

[MakeYourself]

If anything, from my personal experience, only the really exceptional students get chosen to stay at their undergrad school. So I don't think it means you are not good enough to get in anywhere else. You were so good that they didn't want to let you go, even though they are aware that keeping students at the same school is frowned on. They have to really believe in you to invest in you like that.

[Secret_Ninja]

'Academic in-breeding' is an old-fashioned way of thinking that stems from a time when all academics were rich white European men who could travel wherever they wanted. Times have changed, therefore, many people's opinions have changed. Some people still have this pretentious and out-dated view and I personally feel sorry for them. It is a naive view, in my opinion. You can go to a different school and end up being more closed-minded than staying at the same school. Changing locations does not mean better education, it depends on a multitude of factors. And given that your decision was pragmatic and based on funding, I think you may have made the right choice (not to mention you said it fits your research interest best which should be the number one factor in  making a decision!!).

 

I wouldn't worry about it, if an employer's only reason to not hire you is because you went to the same school for your undergrad and grad then I'd say good riddance, I wouldn't want to work for that pretentious and ignorant employer anyway.

In some cases this is not outdated and has nothing to do with "rich white academics". I personally believe that you should expand your horizons when getting an education, and staying at your undergraduate university prevents this. That being said, every situation is different. Funded is better than unfunded, and an economics PhD can get you many more places than just a job in academics. So it probably does not matter as much. 

 

Also, to whomever said a low-ranking school is a big problem, well it depends on what you do with it. My grad school is not the best, but I just won a Fulbright and several other large grants to fund my dissertation. This reflects much more on my job prospects than the name or ranking of my university. 

[MakeYourself]

In some cases this is not outdated and has nothing to do with "rich white academics". I personally believe that you should expand your horizons when getting an education, and staying at your undergraduate university prevents this. That being said, every situation is different. Funded is better than unfunded, and an economics PhD can get you many more places than just a job in academics. So it probably does not matter as much. 

 

Also, to whomever said a low-ranking school is a big problem, well it depends on what you do with it. My grad school is not the best, but I just won a Fulbright and several other large grants to fund my dissertation. This reflects much more on my job prospects than the name or ranking of my university. 

 

I don't think people's opinions today are based on being rich or white, I'm just saying that we shouldn't forget where this sort of view originated from.

 

Right, I'm not saying that going to a different school can't be a great experience, it's just that you can also 'expand your horizons' by being at the same school. And it is completely possible that you could end up being even more closed-minded by switching schools. People act like going to a new school somehow magically makes you more well-rounded, but as you say, there are a multitude of factors at play and it really depends on the circumstances. As an example, there are some schools in which you can find really special programs or professors that do research in an area that is very unique, so sometimes switching schools would not benefit you if you are interested in that specific research area or program. I have heard from multiple students who switched schools and regretted it because they ended up feeling constrained and trapped in their program and unable to improve themselves. I have also met many students who stayed at the same school and are some of the brightest and most well-rounded individuals I have met.

 

It just gets tiring when people push this whole 'you must switch schools' BS and then give vague and uninformed reasons like 'it will make you well-rounded' or 'it will make you more open-minded.' As academics, you would think that we would be more careful than to generalize like that.

[Vene]

I don't think people's opinions today are based on being rich or white, I'm just saying that we shouldn't forget where this sort of view originated from.

Don't forget that it also gives advantages to those who haven't tried to start a family yet. It's a lot harder to decide you're going to pick up and move a few states away when you're married or have children. These factors have absolutely nothing to do with your ability to be a good scholar, but can definitely make applying for the "best" program much more difficult.

[i.am.me]

I actually got the advice from a few professors that if I wanted to some day teach in my home state - it would be better to go to another state to do my PhD. The perspectives and leanings of programs vary even if they all claim to have some social justice bent, so it would be good experience to learn how another department operates....or something along those lines. Actually, a lot of ppl in my current program got the same advice (we're in the top 5 in our field, if that counts for anything).

 

I love my current program, but personally, I'd go where the money flows. 

Edited April 26, 2014 by i.am.me

[anthropologygeek]

Reason it is bad is most likely you are being taught by the same profs in similar classes thus only getting what that prof deems important. If you go to a different school you get new classes with new profs with different ideas. I know in my field this is career suicide and you can kiss any academic job good bye.

[TakeruK]

I just want to say I know and have a lot of respect for someone I used to work with and this person did their undergrad, masters, PhD, and postdoc all at the same place. He is now a staff scientist still at the same school and is happy with it. Honestly, if someone told me I could have this exact path when I finished undergrad, I would have taken it for sure! I am just bringing this up because "academic job" is not synonymous with "tenured professor".

 

I am mostly speaking from a Canadian experience, but academic inbreeding is becoming less and less of a thing, particularly in Canada where there are only a small number of top schools. The top schools in my field are separated by a lot of distance, so it makes a lot of sense for someone to stay at their top undergrad school if they don't want to move across the country.

 

My current PhD school has accepted its own undergrads into PhD programs too. Sometimes if your true best research fit is the same school because your field is small, then it makes sense to stay. 

 

The bottom line is that in the modern view of academia, more and more schools and professors are no longer expecting academics to put research ahead of everything and be willing to move anywhere in order to maximally expand their horizons. They recognize that by doing this, academia is making it a lot harder for people without this mobility (e.g. have kids, have debts, need to be near family for cultural/personal/health reasons, etc.) Therefore I agree that it is old-fashioned to think that someone is less of a researcher if they choose to stay at the same school for their PhD.

 

In addition, I think funding vs. no funding is a totally legitimate factor in your program choice decision. I would say that e.g. $32k / year vs $30k/year is not a good reason but full funding vs. no funding is a very different scenario.

[lewin]

The important thing is to be perceived on an upwards trajectory so this.....

 

I am mostly speaking from a Canadian experience, but academic inbreeding is becoming less and less of a thing, particularly in Canada where there are only a small number of top schools. The top schools in my field are separated by a lot of distance, so it makes a lot of sense for someone to stay at their top undergrad school if they don't want to move across the country.

 

...is perfectly fine. I have a friend who did her undergrad at arguably the top program in the country for her specialty, then continued with the same advisor for graduate school. You'd be nuts to begrudge someone for doing that.

 

But this...

 

 

 

If anything, from my personal experience, only the really exceptional students get chosen to stay at their undergrad school.

 

 

...isn't always true in my experience. Maybe they're exceptional for that program but if the program is bad then it doesn't speak well to stay there. Go to Harvard, stay at Harvard = great. Go to nowhere college, stay at nowhere college = bad.

[MakeYourself]

...isn't always true in my experience. Maybe they're exceptional for that program but if the program is bad then it doesn't speak well to stay there. Go to Harvard, stay at Harvard = great. Go to nowhere college, stay at nowhere college = bad.

 

This is also a mistake, I think. To assume that someone is getting a good education just because they go to a high ranking school or that they are getting a poor education just because they go to a school that no one has heard of. People don't realize that there is a lot of history behind the reason why ivy league schools are ranked the way that they are. And it does not mean that you are going to be getting the most well-rounded or open-minded education just because you attend an ivy league.

 

As an example, in my field of study, the researchers at Harvard and Yale bring in a lot of cash because they are always in the news for their 'discoveries.' However, their studies are incredibly methodogically and theoretically problematic and many MANY MANY researchers in my discipline have pointed this out. Yet, because they are from Harvard and Yale, they have all of the connections and make all of the big money, so none of the criticism phases them.

 

If you really want to make the argument that rank is important, then you need to understand the history of why schools are ranked the way that they are and the business of academia. Once you do, you realize that rank does not necessarily equal better education.

 

 

Honestly, I have to say, it really worries me reading some of the views that people have on here. I presume that we are all students, and therefore, we are 'the future' of academia. Yet, the students on here seem to just repeat the views that are passed down to them from their professors or administrators without even questioning why things are the way that they are or trying to reason if there are good explanations for the way things are run. Just because your professors told you that going to the same school is a bad idea or going to a low ranking school is a bad idea doesn't mean that there is good reasoning behind it. Yes, it is true that there is a common 'idea' in academia that these things are 'bad', but I encourage people to try to figure out WHY. There is no inherent 'badness' in going to the same school or going to a low ranking school. Of course, every situation is different and sometimes these generalizations turn out to be true, but many times, they also turn out to be false. Questioning these sorts of things is what true scholarship is about. What really worries me is people's blind appraisal of current norms. One day many of us will be sitting on selection committees and I hope that we will have enough sense to consider the individual factors involved in each applicant's situation before throwing out their applicaiton because their school is low ranking or their BA and PhD were completed at the same school.

Edited April 27, 2014 by randomness

[TakeruK]

This is also a mistake, I think. To assume that someone is getting a good education just because they go to a high ranking school or that they are getting a poor education just because they go to a school that no one has heard of. People don't realize that there is a lot of history behind the reason why ivy league schools are ranked the way that they are. And it does not mean that you are going to be getting the most well-rounded or open-minded education just because you attend an ivy league.

 

As an example, in my field of study, the researchers at Harvard and Yale bring in a lot of cash because they are always in the news for their 'discoveries.' However, their studies are incredibly methodogically and theoretically problematic and many MANY MANY researchers in my discipline have pointed this out. Yet, because they are from Harvard and Yale, they have all of the connections and make all of the big money, so none of the criticism phases them.

 

If you really want to make the argument that rank is important, then you need to understand the history of why schools are ranked the way that they are and the business of academia. Once you do, you realize that rank does not necessarily equal better education.

 

I don't think anyone is saying that 100% of the time, always X is good and Y is bad. I totally agree that it depends on each specific scenario. But since we can't just discuss every single specific scenario, it's perfectly fine to speak in generalities, and it's my opinion that in general, going to a higher ranking school** is better for your education, so it does follow that if you are going to stay at the same school, it's better to do this at a high ranking school.

 

**By "high ranking" school, I mean high ranking and well regarded in your discipline, which is not necessarily the "famous" schools that the general public know about. 

 

The reason why a school like Harvard is better, in general, than nowhere school is not because the scholars at Harvard are inherently better or that you will even get a better education for sure. I think being at a well funded school like Harvard means you have a ton more resources at your disposal. The profs bring in more money (because of brand name recognition) and can hire more researchers, pay for you to travel to more conferences, buy you more equipment, pay for visitors to come and give interesting seminars and so on. I think if there are two people with identical skills but one is at a place where there is plenty of resources to buy them whatever they need to succeed and one is at a place where there just isn't enough resources, then the one with the greater amount of resources will, in general, have a much greater chance of being successful in the long run. 

 

So I am not saying that people should go to higher ranked schools because these places are magically better or that people should automatically pick people with these places on their CVs. But, I think that one way to increase your ability to do good research is to find a place that can provide the resources for you to reach your potential. And in general, a higher ranked, richer school will have more resources to throw at you than nowhere school.

[lewin]

This is also a mistake, I think. To assume that someone is getting a good education just because they go to a high ranking school or that they are getting a poor education just because they go to a school that no one has heard of. People don't realize that there is a lot of history behind the reason why ivy league schools are ranked the way that they are. And it does not mean that you are going to be getting the most well-rounded or open-minded education just because you attend an ivy league.

 

I erred in picking Harvard as my "good" school when I meant it as a proxy for, like TakeruK said, "high ranking in one's discipline". For what it's worth, the traditional top three programs in my discipline are Stanford, Ohio State, and Michigan, none of which are Ivy League.

 

 

 

Honestly, I have to say, it really worries me reading some of the views that people have on here. I presume that we are all students, and therefore, we are 'the future' of academia. Yet, the students on here seem to just repeat the views that are passed down to them from their professors or administrators without even questioning why things are the way that they are or trying to reason if there are good explanations for the way things are run. Just because your professors told you that going to the same school is a bad idea or going to a low ranking school is a bad idea doesn't mean that there is good reasoning behind it. Yes, it is true that there is a common 'idea' in academia that these things are 'bad', but I encourage people to try to figure out WHY. There is no inherent 'badness' in going to the same school or going to a low ranking school. Of course, every situation is different and sometimes these generalizations turn out to be true, but many times, they also turn out to be false. Questioning these sorts of things is what true scholarship is about. What really worries me is people's blind appraisal of current norms. One day many of us will be sitting on selection committees and I hope that we will have enough sense to consider the individual factors involved in each applicant's situation before throwing out their applicaiton because their school is low ranking or their BA and PhD were completed at the same school.

 

I agree with what TakeruK said in response to this, and reiterate that program reputation isn't just a argument's premise or an unjustified notion, it's also a conclusion based on evidence. For me, I don't need to go on what profs have said: I go to conferences, I read journals, I see where it comes from.  Though of course, there are always exceptions, and I can only speak of my own field. 

 

I'm not trying to say this is the way things should be, but I'm trying to give pragmatic advice to prospective grad students, especially those interested in academic careers. The job market sucks and the truth is that reputation matters a lot. People want to know where you trained, with whom you worked, etc.  People judge by heuristics and you need to look like you're on an upward trajectory. This doesn't mean that evaluators will throw out your job application if you're from a lesser known place, but you'd need to stand out all the more (i.e., with publications). You get less benefit of the doubt.

Edited April 28, 2014 by lewin

[Crucial BBQ]

I think this sort of thing was more frowned upon before most PhD programs started accepting people directly out of undergrad - before, it was more common to do a terminal masters, then go elsewhere for the PhD.

 

There are also greater number of students looking for employment outside of academia these days, too.  

 

What I have read recently claims that if you are going into academia, in particular for the humanities, it is still considered a bit of nepotism and looked down upon.  The general advice is the university likes to see a "diverse" background from their applicants.  It gives them a more well-rounded perspective. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

As an example, in my field of study, the researchers at Harvard and Yale bring in a lot of cash because they are always in the news for their 'discoveries.' However, their studies are incredibly methodogically and theoretically problematic and many MANY MANY researchers in my discipline have pointed this out. Yet, because they are from Harvard and Yale, they have all of the connections and make all of the big money, so none of the criticism phases them.

 

 

Well, Harvard is known to have participated in some questionable research in collaborations with the Military and government.  In fact, Harvard has a very long history with the Military going all the way back to the War of 1812. 

 

Yale is currently planning to work with (or already is) the Military on new interrogation techniques.  As someone who lives a stone's throw from DC, it is plain to see that any business with the Fed. Gov. and/or Military brings in big $$$$