What factors to prioritize when choosing between graduate schools

[visiblethinking]

Hi all,

 

I'm having a very hard time choosing between 2 graduate schools at the moment and I was hoping for some input. I recognize that this is a question that every person will have a different answer to but I'm still interested in hearing people's opinions.

 

What factors would you say are most important when selecting a graduates school?

 

*Name/prestige

*Number of labs I am interested in at the school

*How established the graduate program is (i.e. how old it is/whether it has worked out all of its kinks)

*Preference for location of the graduate school

*Financial circumstances (i.e. stipend, cost of living in the area, extra financial perks, etc.)

 

Both of the institutions that I am interested in are well-known. However, one is more well-known/prestigious overall, whereas the other is more well-known in regards to cancer research specifically. The latter is also a newer graduate program so less well-known/established. However, I think I MAY be interested in more labs at the newer institution. But I wonder whether mentoring would be better at the more established graduate program? I also prefer the location of the newer institution...I'm all over the place! 

 

What are people's thoughts?

[SublimePZ]

First off, congrats on your acceptances!

 

I think you should put your happiness first in all respects to choosing a grad school. For me that would be fit - do I fit into a specific lab (or labs) and can see myself doing really good work there for the next 5-7 years of my life? The next criteria would be location - you'll be living there for the next 5-7 years. If you really can't deal with cold, but are going to get a PhD in Boston well... I have some bad news for you. Do you like small cities vs big cities? West coast vs east coast?

 

I personally don't really care about name/prestige (to an extent, of course) because it's all about what you do during your time at the program and what you do WITH your degree afterwards.

 

My advice to you would be to create a numbered list of the things that are most important to you and then see how these two schools fit in to this criteria.

 

I'm having the same trouble as you, deciding where I want to go, and it's a very distracting procedure! One day i'll be so set on school A, then change my mind when I wake up the next day.

[TakeruK]

In order to rank them, it really depends on what your priorities are in life. It might be hard to know at this stage though, so maybe I'll rank these factors into two different categories and then you can decide your balance.

 

Ranking of career-based factors:
1. Resources available to ensure your success. This is often but not always, correlated with name/prestige. I think this is the number one most important factor for your future career goals. What you actually do in a grad program will have way more influence on your post-degree success of course, however, what you are capable of doing in your grad program is very strongly linked to how much resources are available to graduate students. Another way to think about it is that you don't want to go to a place where the lack of resources limits your ability to be the best you can be. 

 

2. Fit / number of labs you're interested in. I would worry more about personality fit than research topic fit. Your relationship with your lab/PI is correlated with your happiness/productivity. It's much easier to change your own research interests than it is to change your working environment.

 

3. Prestige of the school in your subfield. This is related to #1 (although usually the amount of resources comes from amount of funding, which is more linked to overall reputation rather than subfield reputation). It's important to take advantage of opportunities to meet top scientists in your field when they visit for seminars, colloquia, etc. If you are at a lowly ranked school, you are not going to be able to attract as many of these visitors. Similarly, you will not attract as many candidates for postdocs and potential collaborators.

 

4. How established the graduate program is. I don't think this is a very important factor for career reasons. This is because older programs are not necessarily better--lots of old programs have crappy systems and/or policies that are wasteful/annoying/unfair because "that's the way it has always been". New programs can be innovative and have more modern/forward-thinking policies. Perhaps a better factor is "what is the work environment like?".

 

Ranking of personal factors:

1. Financial circumstances. I put this first because financial stresses are one of the worst types of stresses, in my opinion. I've experienced it first hand and from working with student groups on campus, I've learned that this is one of the most common sources of stress/mental health issues for most graduate students. However, I want to clarify that by "financial circumstances", I mean that it is very important that the answer to "Does the stipend provide enough for me to live?" is yes, but I wouldn't consider money above this to be important. That is, if all else being equal, I would not use this factor to give preference to a program that pays $1000/year higher.

 

2. Preference for location.

 

3. Resources available for you to achieve work-life balance. Again, this is often closely related to name/prestige. You want to know if any particular resources you might want to use are available. For example, I personally asked questions about parental leave, childcare subsidies, can they help my spouse find a job, etc. Others might be interested in medical leave, personal leave (e.g. if you have relatives you know you might have to take a leave to care for), does the health insurance cover the things you need, are there enough social activities for you etc.

 

---

 

It's up to you to decide how much to weigh each list. Personally, I weighed them equally. This means that I would not consider any program that did not meet the #1 factor in both lists!

[BeakerBreaker]

My personal ranking/rationale:

 

1) Finances, to make sure you can afford where you will be living. However, don't look at grad school as a money-making endeavor. Just make sure you have enough to live comfortably where you're going, unless you are willing to make personal sacrifices for a school.

 

2) Number of labs that match your interest.  There's a chance that your top, or top two lab choices won't be able to accept you for any number of reasons (unless you establish this ahead of time). Professors leave, lose funding, etc. You definitely want to be interested in what you are working on, and you don't want to bank entirely on one person unless it really is assured.

 

3) Establishment of the school + prestige. You want to make sure you are going to get a quality education. How productive are the faculty? How many connections will you be able to make? How much money is available to you? These are all considerations

 

4) Location. I'd do grad school in Antarctica if the program was good enough 

Edited March 26, 2015 by BeakerBreaker

[Taeyers]

I agree with BeakerBreaker, except for the Antarctica part...

Just wanted to chime in and say that I'm in a very "young" recently established program, and I think the mentoring here is phenomenal in part because of that. First of all, at this stage of the game, each individual student's success matters more in helping the program gain a good reputation and recruiting quality students in the future. So the faculty are very invested in setting us up for success. Secondly, by virtue of being new, our program has a lot of flexibility with respect to our individual needs because rules aren't set in stone and there's no "typical" way to do things, which I would consider to be a mentorship perk too. Just another side to consider when contemplating the newer institution

[visiblethinking]

Thanks so much for your thoughtful responses, everyone! 

 

TakeruK, could you elaborate a bit on what you mean by resources? Do you mean funding, core facilities, adequate seminars/talks, etc.? I can better compare my two options if I have a better feel for what specifically you mean. Thanks!

[TakeruK]

For the career section, resources mostly means money to directly support your research needs. It would depend on field. For me, this means money to buy me a new computer if necessary, money to send me to conferences, money to pay for lunch/dinner for students to meet with visiting scholars. Resources can also mean facilities -- access to libraries that have subscriptions to the right journals, facilities like telescope time (my current school owns 25% of one of the biggest telescopes in Hawaii, giving people here a huge advantage over researchers from other places; and my current school will own more of a future telescope than entire countries). Hope that clarifies!

[aberrant]

My personal ranking/rationale:

 

1) Number of advisors/PI that are 1) do research that I am interested in, 2) may be taking students for my year. I wouldn't consider a school where no advisors that I wanted to work with will be taking any students -- why would I want to go to a program that wouldn't let me do research that I wanted to do, and do things that I wanted to learn?

 

2) Track record of a specific advisor/PI. To me, it doesn't matter if this advisor/PI is from the most prestige school, or at a school that nobody heard of. The track record, where the alumni of the lab go, matters a lot to me. It would be discouraging for me if an advisor/PI never place anyone into a competitive/great environment for post-doctoral research, or, a job in academia. Given that I have all the intention to go into academia. (Vice-versa if you are looking to get into industry). Network helps a lot, and therefore the reputation and network of a PI/advisor, to me, means far more important than the prestige of an institution. There are no "bad PhD" degree holders, there is no "bad quality of PhD" in my humble opinion, although there is "bad quality of work" which is reflected on ones list of publication. My assumption is that everyone that applies to a specific position is competitive, but having a network can absolutely do you no harm. Network from your advisor/PI can at least get you an interview (even if a lab that is not looking for any post-doc in particular -- if your advisor/PI and the other POI [for post-doc] have a positive relationship). Having said all that, it would be a bonus to attend a big, top tier program, but what matter to me more is the advisor/PI. In a hypothetical question to choose between a leading expert from a public school that is not "top 10", versus a good researcher from an ivy league, I always choose the former, for all the reasons I listed above.

 

3) Location of the campus and its regional culture. I don't want to stay in hell for 5, 6 years, with majority of the people holding extremely opposite view/values of mine. These values can be political, religious beliefs, etc. It matters to me because I can't deal with extremist.

 

I'm less concern about finances, since in my field, it is common that the program (and eventually advisor/PI) provides stipend that is sufficient for PhD students to live without financial burden. Heck, if everything went wrong, I can live in the lab since I spend most of my hours in the lab anyway. I don't really care.

[kaluza]

Personally, I would go with whichever school you think would make you happier. It sounds like both institutions are well regarded, so it's not like you're choosing between #1 Best School in the Universe and Random School in Siberia That Nobody's Heard Of. As long as there are a decent number of labs at both places that you think are doing exciting and important work, I wouldn't worry about the specific prestige of one school over another, as I think ultimately the work you end up doing and the advisor you choose are more important than your school's name. I also don't necessarily think that the age of the program is going to have a huge impact on mentorship (though I do think it could make a difference in other areas - like access to career resources, etc).Like TakeruK said above, newer programs may indeed have more flexibility, which can be an advantage. But at the end of the day, I'm sure you'll find PIs who are great mentors and PIs who are terrible mentors at both schools, and most of the mentorship you'll get during grad school will come from your PI, not directly from your program. As far as money goes, obviously make sure you can get by on the stipend in both locations. Financial perks (free computers/software, bonuses for securing outside funding, that sort of thing) are great, but they're just that - a perk. Don't make your choice based on that. And remember that at both schools, students are making it work on their stipend, so you probably can too. 

 

I think the most important thing to keep in mind is that for most science PhDs, your "program" essentially ends after your first year. After that, you're just working in a lab. So my best advice is first to go to a place where you like the science, and secondly (but almost as importantly), go to a place where you think you'll enjoy your life beyond the lab. In that regard, I seriously disagree with BeakerBreaker. Don't go to Antarctica for a great program. Anywhere you go, your lab life will have its ups and downs, and when you're in a down period, it's important to know that you'll have something going for you in your personal life. Which town/city would make you happier? Is one place located nearer to family or friends you're close to? Do you have a SO whose location could affect your decision? Where did you connect better with current students and other interviewees? Which school's students seemed happier and more enthusiastic? Which school or location can better cater to your interests beyond science? When none of your experiments are working and you're hating being in lab, you need to be sure you'll have other things in your life that can make you feel better.

 

I guess the tl;dr version of what I'm saying is that you from what you've described, you can't go wrong either way. Make sure the science will be a good fit for you at both schools, and then pick the one where you think you'll be happier. A PhD is a long haul, and I know from personal experience that being unhappy with your life outside of school makes the whole experience a lot worse. I don't think you'll look back and regret picking a #5 school over a #1 school, but you might regret choosing a location you hate over one you love, or a school that didn't feel like quite the right fit over one that did. You're not just picking a school to get a degree from - you're deciding how your life is going to look for the next 5-7 years. Choose the life that you'll enjoy. Best of luck with your decision!

[visiblethinking]

Thanks for the additional responses! They're all extremely helpful. It's reassuring to know that other grad students place non-academic factors fairly high on their priority list. 

 

I have another question that is somewhat related to all of this and that I'm unclear about: is it more the lab/location of your post-doc that shapes your future career endeavors? More specifically I'm wondering whether my sights should be aimed even higher when applying for a post-doc position. This could potentially affect which school I choose for my PhD.

[TakeruK]

Thanks for the additional responses! They're all extremely helpful. It's reassuring to know that other grad students place non-academic factors fairly high on their priority list. 

 

I have another question that is somewhat related to all of this and that I'm unclear about: is it more the lab/location of your post-doc that shapes your future career endeavors? More specifically I'm wondering whether my sights should be aimed even higher when applying for a post-doc position. This could potentially affect which school I choose for my PhD.

 

The most recent experience is probably going to be the biggest factor in where you go next. So, yes, after your postdoc, the location of your postdoc will matter more than your PhD when you apply to jobs beyond the postdoc! However, when you are applying to postdoc positions, the location of your PhD will matter! So I would always aim for the best fit/resources/rank (they are usually highly correlated) at every single stage.

 

I suppose there is some way to optimize PhD and postdoc selection and perhaps, in theory, you don't want to go to the "best" school for your PhD because you want your postdoc to be from the "best" school. However, in practice, it is not a good idea to purposely go to a bad place for your PhD in order to "save" it for your postdoc. I would say it would be a very bad idea to assume that you can get into the "best" school later as a postdoc or otherwise!!

[visiblethinking]

I wasn't thinking of saving one school for my post-doc per se but I just wanted to remind myself that graduate school isn't necessarily my absolute last chance to work at whichever school I turn down! Both schools are prestigious and both schools are a great fit (for different reasons) so I'm in the fortunate position that it's a win-win scenario, I just have to decide (within the next two weeks!).  

[aberrant]

location of your postdoc will matter more than your PhD when you apply to jobs beyond the postdoc! However, when you are applying to postdoc positions, the location of your PhD will matter!

 

This might be field dependent, but I can list countless of labs in top-tier institutions that recruit post-docs across the world AND schools with different "caliber".

 

Aside from the "list of publication" and who did you receive your PhD training with (how big your PI is, which matters quite a lot), your presentation as a post-doc applicant will also be a huge factor. Communication skills, knowledge, personality, almost everything can be observed in a 30-60 minutes presentation will be evaluated.

 

To OP, if you do great research, you will succeed no matter how and where. If, for example, you get a post-doctoral fellowship (that has a less stringent pre-selected lab requirement), you financially can choose any lab that you want to do a post-doc with (I personally know 2 individuals who got their a PhD in top-tier public school and, interestingly, go to a less well-known school for post-docs -- to work with an expert in their corresponding fields). I also got a verbal commitment from a PI for a post-doctoral position at a very prestigious institution should the funding situation allows few years from now. So, anything can happen. You can definitely go out and do big things even if you are a "big fish at a small pond", as your quality of work is reflected on various tangible and intangible "records"; on the contrary, being a "small fish at a big pond" doesn't guarantee you a bright future, neither. All in all, if you are a big fish, with the right mindset, you will succeed no matter what and where the pond is.

 

 

I wasn't thinking of saving one school for my post-doc per se but I just wanted to remind myself that graduate school isn't necessarily my absolute last chance to work at whichever school I turn down! Both schools are prestigious and both schools are a great fit (for different reasons) so I'm in the fortunate position that it's a win-win scenario, I just have to decide (within the next two weeks!).  

 

A friend of mine was thinking what you weren't thinking. Briefly, he chose Berkeley over Princeton and Yale for his PhD, and he is now doing post-doc in Harvard. So take your time -- no pressure.