Big name school in 6 years or top 150 state school in 2-3 years?

[MOR_embryo]

I'm about to finish up my Master's and have been very surprised to get acceptances to some awesome biomedical PhD programs. Having been in research for about 3 years, I feel I would have a leg up entering a PhD program fresh.

 

On the other hand, I could stay in my current lab and continue my masters work. My PI says I could probably finish in 2 years, and definitely be done by 3 years. I am guaranteed a great stipend for 2 years, no teaching (Thank GOD!). All of my credits would transfer and I would need about 3 classes (1 elective, 1 seminar, 1 experimental design) plus 2 first author papers to graduate. My master's thesis is practically a guaranteed paper and we have work going on now to get another.

 

I feel that staying in my current lab would be detrimental due to lack of networking and branching out. I also feel that I've just hit the tip of the iceberg in my research project and we have a lot of new avenues to explore.

We also have no federal funding. To be honest, I'm not quite sure how he is paying the bills, but he seems genuine that he can continue to fund research for the duration of my PhD.

 

So it has come down to staying put for another 2-3 years to earn a PhD in the lesser-known state school or starting anew in some top pharmacology programs in the US. No credits would transfer to the new schools, but that's not an issue.

 

How would it look to have 2 papers in impact factor 10 journals from current school v. 2 papers impact factor 10 in highly ranked school?

[MOR_embryo]

Also, if I stay, I will have my BS, MS, and PhD from the same institution!

(I'm also considering MD/PhD here)

[rising_star]

I would go to the top program.

[victorydance]

Top program.

[braindump]

I personally think that going to the top program would open up more opportunities for you, making the extra few years much more worth it. I also think it's better to widen the breadth of your experiences; meaning, I personally wouldn't attend the same university for all three degrees. For what it's worth, I don't necessarily think that it will take you 6 years if you already have your master's. Even for those with just a bachelor's degree, the average is typically 5 years. Your master's might shorten that, but it might not. It depends a lot on circumstances. It looks like you've been accepted to some pretty great programs (congrats!), and I think that, in the long run, these will be pretty great for your future. 

Just my opinion!

[MOR_embryo]

So the unanimous choice is top program!

What about finishing up then doing a post-doc at one of these choices? Is that a good way to make connections or should it be done during grad school years?

[braindump]

Well, I'm not very familiar with post-docs or how easy it is to get a position, but you're assuming you'll be able to get a postdoc position at such a prominent institution (not saying you won't, but I don't know how easy that is compared to graduate student positions). And, if you think about it, going someplace new for graduate school, and then someplace else for post-doc, you're making many more connections than you would be if you stayed at just one institution.

[eeee1923]

The usual rule of thumb that I was told was not to do every degree at the same institute as a budding scientist. You need to allow yourself to explore the different projects and experiences out there. If you have acceptances at top ranked programs - what is an extra 2 yrs to complete a degree? 

[twentysix]

I don't know about in sciences, but in humanities "inbreeding" is frowned upon. Inbreeding being when you get your undergrad and graduate degree at the same institution. It is good to gain experiences and ideas from other schools, that is what makes you well rounded and unique.