Does it matter where you were/are a research assistant/lab tech at?

[TenaciousBushLeaper]

I have an opportunity to be involved in research at two different universities, one is an R2 school, while the other is a well known, high ranked school in Massachusetts,  what does everyone have to say about how working at one or the other might play into graduate school admissions? 

 

[TakeruK]

The location / brand name may play a small role, but I think the quality of the work you would be doing is much more important. If you are just a "cog in a machine" then it doesn't really matter if you are a cog at a high rank school vs. a cog at a R2. But if you have the chance to do meaningful/impressive research, go for that over the brand name.

 

That said, there are certainly "fringe benefits" of working in a prominent lab/group at a high ranked school. You will likely be able to make more connections and having a strong reference letter from a high ranked school will be very helpful. Also, sometimes these schools have good programs for undergraduate research--for example, my current school has a whole summer student program with seminars, mixers, mentoring and other enrichment events to help student researchers develop "soft skills" (how to apply to schools etc.) as well as give them networking opportunities.

 

Overall, I would say things like brand name (and the fringe benefits that come with it) are more like multipliers. They can certainly enhance your CV if you are doing good solid research there. But they won't really do much if the research isn't very solid. I'd pick based on research project first, and then use brand name/fringe stuff as a tiebreaker.

[rising_star]

I would go with the one that will give you the better research experience. My concern with the brand name school would be whether you will get meaningful research experience and training or just be another grunt there to do grunt work. If the latter is the case, then that won't really benefit you going forward.

[TenaciousBushLeaper]

At the brand name school I'd be working with a postdoc, with the multiple projects the postdoc is involved it, I'd do things such as write scripts(computer programs) for data analysis and recruit participants, and provide my input on what's going on in regards to those projects. 

At the R2 school (it's the same school I graduated from, and have been involved in research there) I'll be working with the PI of the lab to do similar things, write scripts for data analysis, recruit participants, run participants in the experiments, general lab stuff (ordering materials, IRB stuff, etc,), but I'd also pretty much be leading a project that big name researchers were working on in the 1980s - 1990s but stopped working on because the computing power wasn't yet available (and the programs they were running just didn't work). We finally got one of those programs to work and now we also have a large supercomputer cluster to run the models. 

On another note, the brand name school would be paying me more. 

[rising_star]

Are they both enough money to live on? I ask because it sounds like the training you'd be getting at the R2 school would be more valuable and applicable to a future dissertation (even if not the same project)...

[TenaciousBushLeaper]

Yea, actually both places would pay enough to live off of. 

 

[TakeruK]

Okay, I didn't realise that this is a post-graduation job, not a temporary/term position while you are finishing a degree.

 

I agree with rising_star that because the R2 school job sounds like you will be given more responsibilities and "own" a project more than just helping another person get their work done, the R2 position sounds like a better route to go! Especially since this is a post-BS job (unless I misunderstood?), you would want to show that you are more than just an undergrad researcher, and I think the level of responsibility in that job will be very good in the future!

 

The R1 school job also sounds very good though. During my undergrad, I took a job like this (my program had us do two 8-month stints of full time research so our degree length was 5 years). The data was already all collected and I came in to do the analysis (i.e. writing scripts). The timing worked out very well for me because I arrived just in time to be a part of a slew of publications that the team produced based on analysis work I was hired to do. The advantage of being the person that is hired for their expertise and analysis skills is that you get the chance to be part of a large number of projects. You'll get to contribute to a large number of discussions and a large number of people will look to you for advice and expertise. This can help you a lot in forming good working relationships with many people. And as I said above, you'll get a chance to be a coauthor on many papers (although co-authorship protocol might vary based on school). Being at a R1 school will help this, after all, the R1 school is an R1 school because they really prioritize research output.

 

To be honest, both opportunities sound really awesome and I don't think you can go wrong with either one. The R2 position will let you have more meaningful responsibilities but at the same time, if that one project you are working on does not do well, then you might be stuck on a less than exciting project. The R1 position will allow you to contribute smaller amounts to many more projects. But on the other hand, being part of a large group might also mean that you are more easily overlooked and you don't get to be the "owner" of any one project. There's a risk that you'll be relegated to just doing grunt work and not getting recognized for it. Both have their pros and cons but I think both will be good opportunities

[eeee1923]

Quality of training will almost always get you further than name brand alone.

[kim92015]

Oh it matters! Pick the one that is closer to your field.

[TenaciousBushLeaper]

Oh it matters! Pick the one that is closer to your field.

They are both exactly within my field, & they are both doing the work I want to do.