How to make your final choice?

[ashiepoo72]

I was wondering if you guys would be willing to talk about how you're making your final decision? I was nearly sure a few days ago, now I'm vacillating again. I'm torn because I keep switching back and forth and sideways between which factors matter most to me.

So what factors are weighing heavily on your choice? Funding? Location? Rank? Adviser? Vibe? And what kinds of things tip the balance one way or the other?

I think this kind of discussion will also be good for future cohorts who venture onto Gradcafe.

[kblooms]

I would go with the money. You can do great work at most places but not all stipends are created equal.

[wacyeah]

 

im actually considering with the following priorities: Match between me and the profs. as well as me and fellow ph.d. cohorts, availability of resources, funding (tuition), TA-ship w/ stipend, job placement history, and location. I'm also trying to envision what type of a historian am I going to become when I graduate.

[ashiepoo72]

I'm debating whether great funding in the next five or so years is more important than choosing a program I think would make me a more viable candidate on the job market. All the programs I'm considering are great, but even some potential advisers at competing programs have told me one in particular would give me a big advantage on the job market.

Another huge consideration for me: move within CA to a nice little town and stay near support networks, including free babysitting when I need a break, or move across the country to somewhere awesome, a great place to raise a child, but where I know no one.

This is fun, guys...I asked my fave professor: "Can you just choose for me? Please?!" Haha

[atlremix]

I made a table of pros and cons of the programs where I was accepted. The column headers were each program. The first row after the headings included the basic info: how much funding I was guaranteed, for what length of time my funding was guaranteed, and whether my appointment was 9 or 12 months. The next row included pros. The final row included cons.

 

Campus visits were especially helpful in determining the nitty gritty pros and cons. I think that when you're making the list, you will find yourself making a lot more "cons" for the programs where you have that gut feeling that you won't fit in well. It might at least help you establish which way you are leaning.

Edited March 23, 2015 by atlremix

[Heimat Historian]

I wish I had the available PTO from work to visit all my schools.  I'm only able to visit 2, with a small possibility I'll visit a third (if I have to).  My choice is really between 2 programs at this point that I think are remarkably similar in many ways as far as funding, outcomes, etc.  THIS IS HARD!

[spellbanisher]

ouija board.

[ashiepoo72]

Oh gawd what an amateur...it's all about the tea leaves and blood sacrifices, preferably at the same time

[spellbanisher]

I prefer modern, scientific, technological methods, like the magic eight ball. 

[spellbanisher]

But seriously, pick the school with the beach. If your gonna be poor, you might as well get a tan. 

[rising_star]

I turned down more money to go with the advisor I thought would be the best for having an academic career. 

[anthrohis7092]

Ashiepoo, I am having exactly the same experience as you do. After I use funding as an elimination test, my top evaluative parameters now are adviser (also with a potential committee in mind), strengths of the program esp subfield, other complementary strengths such as cognate disciplines, graduate certificates, professionalization, external funding etc. It is most difficult when you (oddly) get admitted to programs that are not entirely comparable. Comparing them is like comparing apples to oranges because they have different niches. Choosing to go to one place will shape your future scholarship very differently than if you go to another place. This is the dilemma I am facing and it's pretty tiring because I have been debating with myself almost every day now.

 

I am glad to leave Toronto aside though because I decided to stay in the US for many reasons. So that's a nobrainer for now. Good luck to all of you and hopefully we will conclude this season soon with a choice that we'll never regret!

[modern]

One specific thing about funding is whether they have funds that you can use for your research, especially if your project implies traveling. You'll be applying for all kinds of grants, but even some of the most amazing projects sometimes don't get those. Having a safety net of potential internal funding for that (competitive but relatively accessible or, even better, not competitive) can make a huge difference for the quality of your dissertation research if it comes to that. 

 

Another caveat of your case is that, not knowing your subfield at least, and in a very impressionistic way, I don't think you need to look at rankings. The schools that admitted you, at least UCD, Maryland and Minnesota, are all very good and seem to be roughly on similar levels. I doubt rankings really mean much in this case. 

 

Having said that, by all means do pros and cons lists, listen to the advice of your professors and people whose opinion you respect, listen to what current and former grad students have to say, talk to potential advisors, look at placement records, the structure of the programs... but ultimately follow your gut. The relative weight of each pro and the con really depends on your own priorities. 

Edited March 23, 2015 by modern

[mvlchicago]

https://www.freakonomicsexperiments.com/home/faqs 

 

you are welcome  

[ashiepoo72]

Thanks for the advice, modern! You're right, I'm not too worried about rank. I'm focused most on advisers and funding in relation to cost of living at this point. I'm meeting two of my advisers this week, so hopefully that helps.

mvlchicago--I can't believe I didn't think of a coin toss before this haha I don't wanna say which program won the toss just in case I arbitrarily change my mind

At this rate I should consult an oracle. In all seriousness, I think adviser is the most important factor, with funding second.

[disposableheroes]

For me, ultimately it boiled down to fit and prestige of the school. It really helps if you get a chance to visit the department/campus. Some miscellaneous aspects also affected my decision.

 

School A was a perfect fit, intellectually speaking. My potential advisor is a top person in the field. The campus is beautiful (its right on the beach) and the city is even more so. The grad students are really cool and easygoing.

However, despite the decent package they offered me, I was concerned with the high cost of living and relocating more than 3000 miles away from my home town/state ( what would I do with my stuff?). Also, funding opportunities for the summer are very competitive and perhaps unavailable to me the first two years.

 

School B offered me a bit more financially, and the cost of living in the city was so much lower than in school A. Also, they told me that the department has money to go around, so if I applied to a summer grant I would probably get it. Plus, I would not be so far away from home.

However, it was not a good fit. I did not connect with my potential advisor in any way, shape or form ( I felt like perhaps she did not even thoroughly review my file). I did not like the campus much, and I really hated the city.

 

While my wife and I may be broke for the next 6 years, I chose school A and am really happy with my decision. Now I just have to finish my Masters ( I am running out of gas), pack all of my crap and drive across the country.

[nerdguy]

Dealing with the same issues. I've narrowed down my choices to about two schools (I think).

 

School A is a top school with at least four or five faculty with whom I'd like to work, a great cohort of grad students who'd be studying similar things, a beautiful climate, and a good track record with jobs. I'd have a great shot at getting additional outside funding if I went there, but obviously there are no guarantees. Living there is expensive, and the stipend is less than my other offers.

 

School B is still a well known school, with a number of star power faculty, tons of money to go around, and lower cost of living in an up and coming city. But less of a track record with jobs (maybe due to the fact that it is an up and coming program), and a smaller cohort. 

 

I'd effectively have twice the salary at school B, and I do like the faculty (and they like me), but everybody is telling me that school A is probably where I ought to go - mainly due to the jobs thing - and I do have this gut feeling that school A might produce the best historian/happiest person out of me. School B would allow me to save and perhaps buy a decent used vehicle, and I do think I could do my project there and do it well. The point being I don't know how to decide because I don't know what will happen over the next few years. I don't really know what is more important in fostering a successful graduate career - funds or atmosphere.

[Heimat Historian]

Decisions are hard!  

[TMP]

As I've alluded in other threads, adviser and faculty support first.  Funding was a non-issue for me.

 

Three years later, I still haven't regretted my decision to go with the adviser  over departmental atmosphere, a college town, beautiful lakes... well, especially now that Scott Walker's messing up the UW system

[ashiepoo72]

A little birdie told me Scott Walker is running for president...let's hope he doesn't decide to spread his Wisconsin vision nationwide.

And yeah I think you're on the money TMP. Adviser is so huge in my book. Fortunately I'll have met them by the end of the week!

[navyblackmaroon]

My strategy was fairly cynical, but I think that is because this is my second time going through the decision process. My experience at my soon-to-be-former doctoral program shaped how I approached this decision.

 

First, I wanted to be in a large department that offered flexibility in how I approached my topic. Having a good adviser is important, but I also considered other potentially key faculty members within the department. My experienced at my former program suggested the problems of going to a program based on working with a specific adviser. You become tied to him/her, and if your project changes (like it did in my case) that can lead to big trouble. 

 

Secondly, reputation was paramount. The first time I picked I thought reputation was not as much as a factor. Four years into my graduate experience, I have become aware of the importance of reputation. I tried the "up and coming" thing and it didn't really work for me. Most "up and coming" departments never reach the top. Their faculty starts getting offers from top programs, killing off the program's upward trajectory. That is what happened at my "up and coming" (and "very wealthy") program.

 

A third consideration was the presence of other graduate students who work on your field. Being the only student who works on a specific country can be very isolating. Having other people working on your area suggests a track record for the program.

 

Finally, the funding issue is pretty straightforward: can I survive with the stipend/TAship in that specific location?

 

Anyway, those are the 2 cents I have to offer after doing this for a second time.

[tingdeh]

Agreed with the above comments. In the end, besides higher (top 20) rankings and a large department, it came down to advisors. I met both sets at my two choices, and in the end, there was just one clear choice in terms of who I wanted to work with. It also helped that the professors at one university are all endowed chairs who have (according to their current and former graduate students) provided VERY generously for research, travel, and RAships for extra funding. I sacrifice gorgeous West Coast weather and check-mark perfect supervisors (in terms of topic) for advisors who I could connect with much more on personal and intellectual levels, and who have the resources to support graduate research, even if the living stipend isn't as hot.

Edited March 24, 2015 by tingdeh

[gsc]

I guess I'm surprised to read some of the responses here, because my professors have all told me that funding ought to come first, then advisor, then department. 

 

I mean, you're never going to make bank as a grad student, but the TA stipend of one school (a very large and very wealthy university) was literally half that of another school -- even when you adjusted for cost of living, it was still ridiculous. I declined their offer pretty quickly, mostly for reasons unrelated to the funding, but even if I'd loved the department, I probably would have declined anyways. A stipend that low would've had me taking out loans, and I'm really hesitant to take on debt when there's no clear way to pay it off.

 

Moreover, I think in some cases, the stipend and funding can offer a clue to how the university treats and views its graduate students. I would be hesitant to attend a university where liberal arts graduate students are literally at the bottom of the totem pole. That isn't necessarily true for all schools (low stipend doesn't always mean poor treatment of grad students!), but in this particular case, it threw up a major red flag for me.

 

As for advisors, I turned down an offer from a school where the POI and I had the exact same interests, because I felt her approach to advising was not really right for me. The advisor at the school that I'm leaning towards most works on slightly different stuff than me, but is exactly what I want in an advisor, and I'm really excited about possibly working with him. 

Edited March 24, 2015 by girlscoutcookies

[ashiepoo72]

I view funding kinda like the GRE. There needs to be a base line before I'm comfortable, and that baseline involves two questions: is this a reasonable amount to live on, and will I have enough money/free time (away from TA obligations) and support (like travel and conference $) to do my research? I can't see myself choosing the program that offers me the most funding simply because they offered the most funding. However, I would never ever recommend someone choose a program that'll force them to take out loans. That's crazy! Fully funded should be the first threshold, then you start looking at other factors like adviser, rank, etc.

But...even though I make funding the first cutoff, I still don't think it's the most important factor. If it was, my decision would've already been made. As long as I get enough to live on and work with, I'm ok choosing a program that offers less funding because I think adviser/department/placement are huge. Maybe I'm used to be a broke grad student after 3 years in an MA (god I'm getting old). I'm also ridiculously lucky to have multiple funded offers, all of which are enough to live on in their respected areas, so there is that.

Short story: don't do an unfunded or semi-funded humanities PhD. Ain't nobody got time for that.

[gsc]

Definitely; I think when you have very similar funded offers, then there's no need to be like, "well, the stipend here is $19k but the stipend here is $19.5k, obviously that's where I'll go!" because you're just missing the forest for the trees. The offers I've gotten so far were all fully funded, but were just all over the place in terms of what fully funded meant. When it came down to that offer I mentioned earlier, I decided that the potential advantages of going to that program (and there were several) didn't outweigh the fact that I would barely be able to live in that town.

 

Really, the more I think about it, that's what these decisions really come down to, whether you're looking at funding or otherwise -- do the potential pros of this program outweigh its potential cons? 

Edited March 25, 2015 by girlscoutcookies