Richard Gilder Grad School (AMNH) reputation?

[breadwinner]

Hey EEB and comparative bio people, does anyone have a sense of how Richard Gilder is perceived by "the scientific community" i.e. the givers of employment and grants? Or just contribute anything you've heard about them from sources outside of the program. Especially with regards to the recent Cladistics twitter feud. 

I'm doing my interviews now and my first was at RGGS, which I really really liked. However, they are a very young program so it's difficult to get a sense of their reputation and one unaffiliated professor told me attending would be "professional suicide". A little startling considering how positive the interview made me feel and how well the graduates seem to be doing.

Are these people considered wackos by everyone else? Is this school considered subpar? Thanks!

 

[Uso]

I didn't apply this cycle, but I'm interested in finding out too since I've known about this school for a while and I've been thinking about applying. It seems like a good program faculty-wise, it has ties to top-tier programs, and its funding doesn't seem unusual as far as I could tell. Do you know if the professor who was giving you advice was talking about the credibility (at face value) of getting a degree at a museum, or more concerned about the general danger of applying to a young program?

[kimmibeans]

Full disclosure: I am not in EEB or Comp Bio, just a former employee of an AMNH lab that had a lot of interaction with RGGS.

So, I really can't comment on the reputation of the school. I can tell you, however, that though the program is young it is not run by newbies. The professors for the program have all taught at other universities and are adjunct faculty at schools such as Columbia and NYU, so they know their stuff. In addition, they are familiar with what goes into a PhD and the work required for it, as we have had ongoing partnerships with many institutions where we fostered their PhD students, including Fordham, Columbia, Hunter College, and others. Like I said I don't know anything about the program's reputation, but I wouldn't be turned off by the age of the program. The research there is top notch and they handled PhDs long before they became their own institution.

[breadwinner]

Thanks kimmibeans. I agree with what you're saying. I was super impressed by the research and resources they have there and the curators are definitely at the top of their fields. However, in the weeks since I posted this topic I have heard some things confirming my suspicion. I, and everyone I talked to, agreed that the research is great and the scientists are really intelligent, so the program as a whole doesn't have a bad rep.

However, a number of the very parsimony-centric people there, some of whom are also perceived as somewhat mean-spirited by some other phylogeneticists, are apparently sufficiently disliked so as to drag down the reputations of their students when they apply for certain jobs. I have had 3-4 unaffiliated organismal bio/phylogenetics profs at multiple schools tell me that working with the specific (very senior) people I wanted to at RGGS would hurt my CV just in terms of the social climate of the field. It's a shame because they have a super cool program, but the only people who really do the stuff I want to study are also the worst-perceived.

[ctenophora]

Hey breadwinner, just wondering what you ended up doing—and what your thoughts are since? I just applied to RGGS and had the same concerns you had but I was happy to find other faculty there that are younger who I applied to work with instead. I think they’re actually better suited to mentor me while I try to answer my research questions than those that I maybe would’ve applied to work with had I no prior information. The program seems incredible on paper. 

On 2/23/2016 at 12:38 PM, breadwinner said:

Thanks kimmibeans. I agree with what you're saying. I was super impressed by the research and resources they have there and the curators are definitely at the top of their fields. However, in the weeks since I posted this topic I have heard some things confirming my suspicion. I, and everyone I talked to, agreed that the research is great and the scientists are really intelligent, so the program as a whole doesn't have a bad rep.

However, a number of the very parsimony-centric people there, some of whom are also perceived as somewhat mean-spirited by some other phylogeneticists, are apparently sufficiently disliked so as to drag down the reputations of their students when they apply for certain jobs. I have had 3-4 unaffiliated organismal bio/phylogenetics profs at multiple schools tell me that working with the specific (very senior) people I wanted to at RGGS would hurt my CV just in terms of the social climate of the field. It's a shame because they have a super cool program, but the only people who really do the stuff I want to study are also the worst-perceived.

 

[breadwinner]

 

On 12/31/2018 at 8:19 AM, ctenophora said:

Hey breadwinner, just wondering what you ended up doing—and what your thoughts are since? I just applied to RGGS and had the same concerns you had but I was happy to find other faculty there that are younger who I applied to work with instead. I think they’re actually better suited to mentor me while I try to answer my research questions than those that I maybe would’ve applied to work with had I no prior information. The program seems incredible on paper. 

 

Hi ctenophora, sorry for the late response. Based on everything I have heard about the program since then, the main thing to avoid seems to be specific faculty members (the cladists), and beyond that it is a well-regarded program. The facilities are really outstanding too. Hope that helps.