Stay or transfer - I need to decide

[GradSt]

Hi guys,

 

I have been studying Phd CS in this school (not ranked) for two years now. I have published one paper, almost done with the second, and have ideas on for few more.

 

However, I am not happy here. Not because I don't like my advisor or the other faculty who I work with, but because the school is not ranked. I have thought about staying and continuing what I've started over and over but couldn't convince myself to stay or to be satisfied.

 

I am seriously thinking about applying and transferring to a higher rank school. My problem is that I am afraid that I wouldn't be able to get along with an advisor or faculty whom I can continue good research.

 

If you have gone through something similar, know someone who has been, or have an advice or point of view please share it.

 

Thank you all in advanced.

[danieleWrites]

So you're basing your decision on US News & World Report's choices? Or Princeton Reviews? Forbes? (US News says Princeton is the top school; Forbes says Williams College is the top school, Money says Babson College, the last time Washington Monthly published a ranking, the top school was UC San Diego). Do some research about ranking systems first. You might find out that ranking is pretty much one small metric for use in making college choices. You might find that the graduate student body's collective ability to take the GRE makes up about 1/3 of the ranking system. So how does the GRE factor into your value system? Can quantitative data accurately describe qualitative circumstances? Yeah, a tricky question for computer science. I would suggest you begin with Lloyd Thacker's book College Unranked: Ending the College Admissions Frenzy.

 

Full disclosure: I'm virulently against college ranking systems because they have become an oversized tool in the data set. It's rather like deciding not to purchase a tool set because the hammer wasn't designed by someone from MIT.

 

What you're really discussing is prestige. Is your school prestigious enough for you? Your answer is no. It's not ranked, ergo it doesn't have prestige. Why is it not ranked? Schools are opting out of ranking systems because they acknowledge that ranking systems pretty much suck. Schools near the top of the list aren't necessarily top ranked because of quality; there are enough that are top ranked because of advertising and gaming the system to make the metric's value questionable. Rankings should be a guide, but they should not be an important guide in making school choices.

 

The better approach to prestige is to look at what you're doing in your program. Are you getting published in places that have prestige in your field? Are you presenting at conferences or other events where the movers and shakers in your field are attending? Are you doing good research in the field that people in your field will take notice of? Prestige matters (the places rankings have in prestige isn't as much as the names--if Harvard was never ranked again, it would still have more prestige than the top ranked school), but all the prestige in the world cannot make up for quality work.

 

None of us can make your decision for you (stay in an unranked place where you're productive and happy, or gamble on getting into a ranked school where you may or may not be happy and may or may not be able to carry out the research you want to do with, at minimum, the career results you currently have). Rank is obviously very important to you while I obviously hold it in contempt. I think, what it boils down to, is an evaluation of your value system (not just in what makes a good school) followed by an evaluation of your chosen ranking publication's value system. I would be surprised if those two lists matched up with any statistical significance. For example, US News values the use of SAT and/or ACT scores in admissions; and will not rank schools that do not. Is the undergraduate population's collective ability to take the SAT/ACT something you value? If not, why would you consider the value of a ranking system that requires its use to even be considered for a ranked position? Do you value ROI across every field? Does it matter to you that art majors spend a lot of money but don't make much? Why would you use a system that thinks blanket ROI does? People do not get into humanities and education to make money, and these majors are made up of a statistically significant number of the undergraduate population.

 

I would propose that, instead of considering your school's unranked state in US News & World Report, you look to your field. What makes prestige in the field? Sure, a name like MIT on your diploma is going to open some doors, but so will exciting research. Steve Wozniak went the the University of Colorado in Boulder (US News ranks #88). Ken Thompson went to Harvard. For every Ken Thompson, though, there are many more like the Woz. Not in terms of making bank (there is only one Apple, after all), but in terms of having a fulfilling career after graduation.

[Quantum Buckyball]

Hi guys,

 

I have been studying Phd CS in this school (not ranked) for two years now. I have published one paper, almost done with the second, and have ideas on for few more.

 

However, I am not happy here. Not because I don't like my advisor or the other faculty who I work with, but because the school is not ranked. I have thought about staying and continuing what I've started over and over but couldn't convince myself to stay or to be satisfied.

 

I am seriously thinking about applying and transferring to a higher rank school. My problem is that I am afraid that I wouldn't be able to get along with an advisor or faculty whom I can continue good research.

 

If you have gone through something similar, know someone who has been, or have an advice or point of view please share it.

 

Thank you all in advanced.

 

Where you get your PhD from is not important, what's important is the quality and the quantity of research papers you can produce before you graduate. 

[bsharpe269]

I would work as hard as you can and publish great quality work which will open doors to post docs with respected PIs.

[juilletmercredi]

I’m not against rankings on principle, because I think that well-done rankings systems can yield important information.  For example, the National Research Council gives a range of rankings, not just an absolute number.  It also takes into account factors that are actually important for an academic career, like research money and publications and time to degree (as opposed to U.S. News’ rankings, which are based solely on the nebulous opinions of a few academics in the field).  But when I say “rankings” I more mean reputational surveys that don’t have absolute numbers - more like groupings, like “top 25”, “top 50”, “mid-ranked,” etc.  Whether a school is #1 or #9 doesn’t really matter - at that point they are close enough that there are probably only superficial differences between them.  There may be a bigger difference between a school in the top 10 and a school in the top 40, though - but not necessarily in a way that would make you automatically select the top 10 school.

 

I don’t like the brand analogy, because I DO make decisions based on branding, as do most people.  I wouldn’t buy the Wal-Mart tool set; if I want quality tools, I buy the Craftsman or DeWalt.  I wouldn’t buy a car made by GMC these days.  I’d get a Toyota, or a Honda, or a Nissan.  Certain brands have a reputation for quality.  Likewise, certain universities/programs have a reputation for quality - because they turn out good scholars, get disproportionate shares of research dollars, and do good scholarship work.  I think that’s slightly different from prestige.  Infiniti and Nissan are made by the same company, but Infiniti has the prestige associated with it.  Likewise, Minnesota and Harvard are both ranked in the top 10 in my field, but Harvard had prestige associated with it while Minnesota does not.

 

Where you get your PhD from is not important, what's important is the quality and the quantity of research papers you can produce before you graduate.

 

I also think this is not true in most fields.  Both are important.  It's just that people take that to the extreme.  While your PhD institution is important, it's not important because academics are bedazzled by names and prestige (they largely are not).  It's important because of the reputation programs acquire - where the people are, the network you build, the work that you are able to do, the resources available to you.  Especially the network you build.  People at well-reputed (not necessarily prestigious) programs have broad, sprawling networks.  There's somebody there who knows somebody everywhere else, and they get the job ads before other people do, or know when School X in Your Favorite City needs a new person in your area, or can call up Professor B on the search committee to chat you up.

 

Nonetheless, I do think they have gained outsized importance in selecting colleges and grad programs.  And so I agree - you are in a place where you are productive and happy.  You like your advisor; you are only 2 years in and you have already published 1 paper with several more in the pipeline.  You *are* happy; you just have this one niggling question about the rankings.  Is your program “not ranked” because it’s newer?  And even then - screw the rankings.  Are people from your program getting good jobs?  Are they getting research money and publications?  Are they doing interesting work?  Do your professors have connections and networks that will help you build your own?  THAT’S what matters.