Prestige, not wanting to seem ungrateful, etc. (explanation inside)

[essequamvideri]

So, I am currently a master's student intending to apply to PhD programs this year. I haven't completely narrowed down the list, but most are in the US, and most will be what you'd consider "name brand" schools (in my field, a lot of the top programs are at these schools, which is probably true for most fields).

 

I have good but not stellar numbers (3.6 cGPA, 3.85 in last two years), good GRE, and I think the fact that I'll have a master's by the time I start + a lot of relevant research experience as a result + strong references, will mean I have a realistic shot at getting in to one of them.

 

I'm not the type of person who is completely deadset on going to a "name brand" school and I don't think it's the most important factor in determining where to go. That said, these schools tend to 1) have more funding and more extensive facilities, 2) attract high-caliber scientists and mentors, which is important when learning how to conduct your own research and possibly have your own research program someday in the future, 3) have name recognition with people who will someday be making hiring decisions for academic jobs. I don't care how recognizable the name is to random people on the street, but (though there are definitely exceptions) there is overlap with this kind of recognition and the recognition of people in the field.

 

Now, I've heard that if you want to get into a top program, you shouldn't apply to just a couple, you should play the odds and apply to many with the hopes of getting into one. I agree with this, but a.) I feel guilty making my referees write letters for many schools, b.) I don't want to seem like I'm only applying to "high-presige" schools and only care about prestige. Again, I have a pretty good academic record, but not one which is so amazing that would make me confident I would get in somewhere if I applied to 2-3 programs (I'm thinking more like 9).

 

Would appreciate if anyone with an opinion on this issue could chime in!

Edited October 6, 2014 by essequamvideri

[Eigen]

You don't say what area you're in, which makes it hard to advise you. 

 

In general, applying to schools for prestige over research fit isn't a great way to go. Personally, I'm also of the opinion (STEM) that applying to more than 4-5 schools is overkill. 

 

Be realistic, apply to places that you would fit, well, stand a good chance of getting into, and would attend if accepted. 

[essequamvideri]

I'm in psychology (specifically cognitive neuroscience). I agree that research fit is important, but what I'm currently working on isn't specific enough that only one place is doing it; most universities have faculty working on something similar. Why would you say that applying to more than 4-5 schools for STEM is overkill, and why would it matter if you're in STEM or not?

 

Edit: Also, I really don't know how good of a chance I would have applying to "top" psychology programs. As I said, my grades are reasonable, my GRE was decent (162V/160Q/5.5), I have a lot of research experience and will have a master's and am likely to have strong references. This leads me to believe I would have a good shot, but because these programs are so competitive I feel like no one can really know for sure.

Edited October 6, 2014 by essequamvideri

[Eigen]

Just because the general work is being done everywhere doesn't mean your particular interests and skill set will fit everywhere. 

 

Outside of STEM fields, I think fit is less well defined- although in some fields it can be an even greater consideration. Hence, applications tend to be broader. Funding is also more of a consideration in non-STEM fields, as the vast majority of STEM PhD programs are fully funded. Accordingly, you'd want a wider net not just for acceptance, but also to increase your funding options. 

 

It doesn't matter if what you're currently working on is specific enough, but you need to narrow down what you want to work on for your PhD to a very specific area (or several very specific areas) and then apply to programs who have faculty who are well known in that specific research field. 

[essequamvideri]

@Eigen, I've heard this is not strictly necessary (which is why many schools have lab rotations prior to even choosing your supervisor). I think it's certainly not a negative thing to have a prior research interest which is almost exactly the same as a professor you've identified (and I do have some very specific research interests), but I'm also open to the possibility of ultimately working on something slightly different. To me, research and project fit is secondary to 1) if the supervisor is a good scientist and mentor, 2) if you are compatible with your supervisor personally, and only after that should you consider if your prior interests exactly align.

[bsharpe269]

If your interests are currently so broad that you can fit almost anywhere then I dont think they are specific enough to apply to PhD programs. Also, the goal is definitely not find one PI at each school doing what you want! You want to find the departments that specialize in your subfield. For me, there are about 15 that specialize in my subfield and I was able to elimiate some based on more specific interests, locations, vibe that I get from faculty, etc. I will be applying to about 10 programs. I do not think is overkill since every one of these departments specializes in pretty much exactly what I want to do.

 

Yes, mentor fit is important but so it research fit. This is why you apply to departments who specialize in your research area. Then it is extremely likely that you will find someone who fits in both categories. Also prestige is of course slightly important, secondary to fit. Most of the programs that I am applying to are ranked around 30 for the overall field but are known for their specific research related to my interests. This is a great place to be in my opinion since the programs may be slightly easier to get into than say top 10 programs yet the faculty there are amazing and I will end up with awesome post docs coming out of these labs.

[essequamvideri]

If your interests are currently so broad that you can fit almost anywhere then I dont think they are specific enough to apply to PhD programs.

 

I appreciate the reply and advice, but I disagree with this statement (though it's probably field dependent). Although I could very well narrow my interest down to exclude a bunch of schools, I think it's better to be flexible and entertain the possibility of working on something slightly different from what you originally intended.

[bsharpe269]

Right, I dont mean that you should be close minded but I also dont think that you should apply to a bunch of prestigous schools that dont really fit with your research interests and call it open mindedness. The idea of rotations is related to what you are talking about..you are able to sample a few projects related to your interests before choosing.

 

In my opinion, there are 2 extremes here. 1 extreme would be someone who is only willing to work on 1 project. The other extreme is what you are doing, being open to working on absolutely anything. I think that when applying to PhD programs you should be somewhere in between these extremes. For example, know a general subfield but be open to various topics within it.

[essequamvideri]

The other extreme is what you are doing, being open to working on absolutely anything.

 

I didn't say anywhere that I'm open to working on absolutely anything; very much the opposite. It's just that even within a fairly constrained subfield there is still significant flexibility.

[Catria]

I am facing a similar issue, albeit it has more to do with school-wide prestige rather than field-specific prestige: I seemingly made my choices, partially at least, with school-wide prestige in mind while, at the same time, striking a field-specific balance, thinking that, despite my best efforts, wishes and intentions, in the end, I could end up taking a job in a sector that is more sensitive to school-wide prestige than field-specific prestige, since it's far from a given that anyone, really, will still do research after a PhD and, with that logic, I would simply be hedging my employment bets, because I would still be employable.

 

It just so happens that I have a balance of schools (because Tufts, Vanderbilt and Dartmouth all do early universe physics but are not considered top physics programs by any stretch) with the choices I made.

 

I, too, am in a similar situation to the OP, academics-wise (3.67 undergrad, 3.84 in physics undergrad, 3.80 masters, 86%ile PGRE) with an article under preparation...

[Eigen]

If you were applying with a BS, I would say you would be OK with the broader interest base, but applying with an MS, I think most schools are going to want you to have a pretty specific research group and focus in mind. 

 

Rotations are meant less to let you see different fields, and more to let you get a feel for different lab cultures, PIs, and let them see if they're OK with having you work with them. For more advanced/experienced applicants, they're also more a way to get specific experiences/skills that you can bring back to the lab you are intending to work in. 

 

You should have at least 2-3 PIs that work in the specific area of cog neuro that you are most interested in, and ideally your SOP will be focussed on that area. While you can find 1 or 2 people working in most areas of the field at most graduate programs, when we talk about fit we're talking about a large portion of the department leaning in that direction. 

 

I'm more familiar with molecular neuroscience, but people are intended to be exceptionally specific there- it's not just about, say, hormones and development, but you need to look for someone that looks for the hormone you're interested in, and also with the specific techniques and on the particularly organism. There might be someone who works, say, with testosterone in mouse development, but you wouldn't fit in there at all if you were more interested in estrogen from a rat model, or a cell model. 

[essequamvideri]

I agree with what you're saying Eigen, though I think it's definitely more applicable to things like biochemistry where you need a lot of domain-specific skills and extremely specific knowledge to contribute to that subfield. Since cog. neuro. is more "conceptual" and the field as a whole uses basically the same imaging and electrophysiological techniques, I think there is inherently more room for flexibility. I could be wrong about this, but this is the impression I've gotten.

[GeoDUDE!]

I think Eigen is right: I originally applied to 8 schools and once i got into 1 I immediately withdrew 3 of my applications. I had wished i didn't waste the money.  5 is a good strong number if you have strong research interests; if you MA/MS didn't include a thesis you are pretty much the same as a candidate with a BS/BA. 

 

You should have a fairly narrow research focus 2 years into graduate school: if you were in a PhD program you would be taking quals right now, and perhaps, proposing your dissertation.