MIT vs Rockefeller University for a PhD in Biology ?

[raisinbrain]

I have been accepted to both institutions and I am having a difficult time deciding between the two. Both are world class in terms of research, but Rockefeller seems to have a better financial package. I am interested in genetics and neuroscience. I would appreciate any opinions and suggestions concerning both programs !

[Neuro PolarBear]

What labs are you interested in at each? I'd suggest following up with them to hear more about possible projects to see which ones sound more interesting to you.

Also, I think the labs at those two places might have slightly different environments. Some of the labs at Rockefeller are quite huge and might not be the best place to do interesting work as a graduate student.

[aberrant]

OP may also want to consider TA duties and the path to get your degree (e.g. candidacy exam format, etc.), which may swing your decision favors one over the other. Don't think / not sure if Rockefeller has TA duties/requirements. To some people who want to focus on teaching after getting their PhDs may make a difference.

[raisinbrain]

5 hours ago, aberrant said:

OP may also want to consider TA duties and the path to get your degree (e.g. candidacy exam format, etc.), which may swing your decision favors one over the other. Don't think / not sure if Rockefeller has TA duties/requirements. To some people who want to focus on teaching after getting their PhDs may make a difference.

I am really having a difficult time deciding. Rockefeller does not have TA requirements.  I can also pick my own course schedule where classes are pass/fail with no exams.

 

6 hours ago, Micecroscopy said:

What labs are you interested in at each? I'd suggest following up with them to hear more about possible projects to see which ones sound more interesting to you.

Also, I think the labs at those two places might have slightly different environments. Some of the labs at Rockefeller are quite huge and might not be the best place to do interesting work as a graduate student.

My decision is going to come down to who I want to work with. The thing is that there is no particular advisor I am dying to work under. Both institutions have amazing faculty doing very different work.

Labs interested at MIT ( No particular order):

Robert Horvitz

Guoping Feng

Feng Zhang

Susumu Tonegawa

and maybe Mark Bear

 

Labs interested at Rockefeller:

Cori Bargmann

Nathaniel Heintz

C. David Allis

and maybe Leslie Vosshall or Jeffrey Friedman

 

I am not exactly sure how to make an educated decision and where I would thrive. I am also having a difficulty deciding what particular scientific topic strongly appeals to me. I may just need to focus on working with a good mentor and my interests would be more apparent over time. I would appreciate any input !

[blacknighterrant]

MIT is a far better option. I wouldn't call Rockefeller world class. MIT is ranked #1 in the nation in Biology, with a #6 ranking in genetics and a #5 ranking in neuroscience. Rockefeller is ranked #14 in Biology and specializes in cell biology, not neuroscience or genetics (not in US ranking anyway, in global it is 22 for genetics and 35 for behavior, but if you look at global rankings mit is #2 in genetics and #5 in neuroscience). In addition, MIT is ranked #1 in Physics, Chemistry, and Engineering, which is important, because of the possibility of extremely interesting and cutting edge cross-departmental research. In addition, a degree from MIT is far more useful than one from Rockefeller (Global ranking of #2 for MIT vs #87 for Rockefeller), especially for jobs outside of the field, because biology related fields is all Rockefeller ranks well in. I know you plan on doing something related to biology and likely pursue a job in academia, but it is good to make your decisions with an open mind and plan for the worst. Which degree would be more useful if you can't get a job in biology or academia that you like or suddenly decide you want to do something else? It isn't a question people like to ask, but it is important nonetheless. What most don't know is that even many of those that graduate from MIT's PhD programs every year do not end up working in the field they got a degree in even though they are among the most qualified people in that field and there are many possible reasons for this. If you end up in that situation the MIT degree would be far more useful. Finally, if you aren't trying to get into academia and are pursuing a PhD as a means to increase your payscale upon graduation, going to MIT would probably considerably raise your chances of being admitted to MIT's business school for an mba if you decide to work outside of academia and that would considerably improve your promotability/pay potential.

[Neuro PolarBear]

9 hours ago, raisinbrain said:

I am really having a difficult time deciding. Rockefeller does not have TA requirements.  I can also pick my own course schedule where classes are pass/fail with no exams.

 

My decision is going to come down to who I want to work with. The thing is that there is no particular advisor I am dying to work under. Both institutions have amazing faculty doing very different work.

Labs interested at MIT ( No particular order):

Robert Horvitz

Guoping Feng

Feng Zhang

Susumu Tonegawa

and maybe Mark Bear

 

Labs interested at Rockefeller:

Cori Bargmann

Nathaniel Heintz

C. David Allis

and maybe Leslie Vosshall or Jeffrey Friedman

 

I am not exactly sure how to make an educated decision and where I would thrive. I am also having a difficulty deciding what particular scientific topic strongly appeals to me. I may just need to focus on working with a good mentor and my interests would be more apparent over time. I would appreciate any input !

Don't put too much weight on TA requirements. I don't think that matters at all.

As for labs, I think you really need to contact those people. A lot of those labs are huge and may not even be taking graduate students. I think it would be extremely hard to do well in Tonegawa's, Feng Zhang's, or Bob Horvitz's labs at this point in time. Also, all of those people do very very different things...nor should work with someone just because of prestige or because they have the nobel or are in line for it.

I think the same is also true of the labs you mentioned at Rockefeller, especially Nathaniel Heintz's. It looks like Cori has more graduate students, but for all the others at MIT and Rockefeller if you're actually interested in working with those people you really need to reach out to them to see if they are even taking rotation (and potentially graduate) students. Ask them about possible projects and see which ones sound the most interesting!

Some students even set up rotations with popular PIs over the summer, so once you decide that might be something that you could consider doing.

[Neuro PolarBear]

5 hours ago, blacknighterrant said:

MIT is a far better option. I wouldn't call Rockefeller world class. MIT is ranked #1 in the nation in Biology, with a #6 ranking in genetics and a #5 ranking in neuroscience. Rockefeller is ranked #14 in Biology and specializes in cell biology, not neuroscience or genetics (not in US ranking anyway, in global it is 22 for genetics and 35 for behavior, but if you look at global rankings mit is #2 in genetics and #5 in neuroscience). In addition, MIT is ranked #1 in Physics, Chemistry, and Engineering, which is important, because of the possibility of extremely interesting and cutting edge cross-departmental research. In addition, a degree from MIT is far more useful than one from Rockefeller (Global ranking of #2 for MIT vs #87 for Rockefeller), especially for jobs outside of the field, because biology related fields is all Rockefeller ranks well in. I know you plan on doing something related to biology and likely pursue a job in academia, but it is good to make your decisions with an open mind and plan for the worst. Which degree would be more useful if you can't get a job in biology or academia that you like or suddenly decide you want to do something else? It isn't a question people like to ask, but it is important nonetheless. What most don't know is that even many of those that graduate from MIT's PhD programs every year do not end up working in the field they got a degree in even though they are among the most qualified people in that field and there are many possible reasons for this. If you end up in that situation the MIT degree would be far more useful. Finally, if you aren't trying to get into academia and are pursuing a PhD as a means to increase your payscale upon graduation, going to MIT would probably considerably raise your chances of being admitted to MIT's business school for an mba if you decide to work outside of academia and that would considerably improve your promotability/pay potential.

I would disagree with a lot, if not all, of these points.

Both programs are consistently considered some, if not the, top graduate programs in the nation. Rockefeller is extremely well known within the scientific community, and traditionally has some of the best placement for postdocs and faculty positions. Moreover, trying to infer the utility of a graduate degree from each of these programs based on their arbitrary "global ranking" is laughable. I suspect Rockefeller doesn't do as well in the rankings you mention because it doesn't have as big of a program or as many labs and they are fairly spread out across many disciplines like cell bio, immunology, neuro, etc. However, the people it has, are true giants in the field and it would be a privilege to work with any of them. Doing so is not likely to put you in a worse position than if you went to MIT.

What matters most (if you want to stay in science) is doing a PhD with the best mentor for you on an exciting project. The reason I'd recommend MIT is that they have many more labs so it might be easier to find one with a better fit for you, but if there's people at Rockefeller that you'd prefer to work with then you should go there!

[Bioeng123]

1 hour ago, Micecroscopy said:

I would disagree with a lot, if not all, of these points.

Both programs are consistently considered some, if not the, top graduate programs in the nation. Rockefeller is extremely well known within the scientific community, and traditionally has some of the best placement for postdocs and faculty positions. Moreover, trying to infer the utility of a graduate degree from each of these programs based on their arbitrary "global ranking" is laughable. I suspect Rockefeller doesn't do as well in the rankings you mention because it doesn't have as big of a program or as many labs and they are fairly spread out across many disciplines like cell bio, immunology, neuro, etc. However, the people it has, are true giants in the field and it would be a privilege to work with any of them. Doing so is not likely to put you in a worse position than if you went to MIT.

What matters most (if you want to stay in science) is doing a PhD with the best mentor for you on an exciting project. The reason I'd recommend MIT is that they have many more labs so it might be easier to find one with a better fit for you, but if there's people at Rockefeller that you'd prefer to work with then you should go there!

Agreed. Ultimately, the ranking of the school doesn't matter but the quality of the research that you perform. All top schools have great professors where you will have the opportunity to do fantastic research. You should choose faculty that you are interested in working with and are great professors. If more of those professors are at MIT, then go there. If more of those professors are at Rockefeller, go there instead.

I would recommend OP to contact the faculty at these two schools. Have a phone call or Skype conversation with them. That will help you a lot in making your decision.

[raisinbrain]

1 hour ago, Micecroscopy said:

I would disagree with a lot, if not all, of these points.

Both programs are consistently considered some, if not the, top graduate programs in the nation. Rockefeller is extremely well known within the scientific community, and traditionally has some of the best placement for postdocs and faculty positions. Moreover, trying to infer the utility of a graduate degree from each of these programs based on their arbitrary "global ranking" is laughable. I suspect Rockefeller doesn't do as well in the rankings you mention because it doesn't have as big of a program or as many labs and they are fairly spread out across many disciplines like cell bio, immunology, neuro, etc. However, the people it has, are true giants in the field and it would be a privilege to work with any of them. Doing so is not likely to put you in a worse position than if you went to MIT.

What matters most (if you want to stay in science) is doing a PhD with the best mentor for you on an exciting project. The reason I'd recommend MIT is that they have many more labs so it might be easier to find one with a better fit for you, but if there's people at Rockefeller that you'd prefer to work with then you should go there!

I also agree. Rankings are BS. I just want to note that I am not selecting advisors based on their status or Nobel Prize. I am basing it off of research I find interesting, which  probably should not be the sole criterion. @Micecroscopy, you seem to be very knowledgeable on the process of selecting an advisor. I really am not aware of the best way to assess my choices. All I want is to have a productive and enjoyable time during my PhD. What do you believe are criteria for narrowing my choice of faculty ? Lab size never seemed to be something I considered but I probably should. Which additional labs do you recommend I look at MIT or Rockefeller ? I am overwhelmed with the number of faculty and would appreciate any suggestions. I definitely agree that I should reach out to more faculty and students to better educate myself. Thank you for the amazing advice so far ! I really need it.

[mwgskol]

9 hours ago, blacknighterrant said:

I wouldn't call Rockefeller world class.

.... What did you just say?

Anyways my suggestion is to look outside of research - would you be happy living in the area? There are some schools that I initially loved when I was only looking at the research but when I actually got there

...Holy **** it's cold who am I kidding

Edited March 2, 2016 by mwgskol
more info!

[Neuro PolarBear]

10 hours ago, raisinbrain said:

I also agree. Rankings are BS. I just want to note that I am not selecting advisors based on their status or Nobel Prize. I am basing it off of research I find interesting, which  probably should not be the sole criterion. @Micecroscopy, you seem to be very knowledgeable on the process of selecting an advisor. I really am not aware of the best way to assess my choices. All I want is to have a productive and enjoyable time during my PhD. What do you believe are criteria for narrowing my choice of faculty ? Lab size never seemed to be something I considered but I probably should. Which additional labs do you recommend I look at MIT or Rockefeller ? I am overwhelmed with the number of faculty and would appreciate any suggestions. I definitely agree that I should reach out to more faculty and students to better educate myself. Thank you for the amazing advice so far ! I really need it.

Hmm, I'm not entirely sure what you're interested in, nor am I as familiar with the biology and genetics side of things. I would suggest trying to schedule some phone or skype conversations with the people you mentioned above, or email graduate students in their labs (or your student hosts) and see what they say about the lab (or ask their general opinion / if they can put you in touch with other students or professors).

One person who I think you should definitely look into is Myriam Heiman at MIT. She did her postdoctoral work with Greengard and Heintz at Rockefeller and developed the TRAP method to purify mRNAs that are actively being transcribed and her works lies at the intersection of genetics / mol bio / neuroscience. I think she'd be a great person to work for. At Rockefeller, more on the neuroscience side, I'd also take a look at Vanessa Ruta and Gaby Maimon.

Edited March 3, 2016 by Micecroscopy
added info

[aberrant]

OP, I have little to no knwoledge on genetics / neuroscience-related field, but if you know enough about CRISPR and interested working with it / using it in cells, then Feng Zhang is the person to go. Not only did he "win" the pattern war on using modified CRISPR  in human/eukaryotic cells, he also seem to be a very fair person (e.g. includes his then-graduate student in the patent application as co-inventor) with broad network for collaborative research (structural biology with Riken, bioinformatics with Eugene Koonin at NIH, etc.). Not to mention that when Nobel prize awards the discovery and application of CRISPR-Cas9 enzyme in either Chemistry or Medicine, Zhang will very likely to be one of the three winners.

[Neuro PolarBear]

1 minute ago, aberrant said:

OP, I have little to no knwoledge on genetics / neuroscience-related field, but if you know enough about CRISPR and interested working with it / using it in cells, then Feng Zhang is the person to go. Not only did he "win" the pattern war on using modified CRISPR  in human/eukaryotic cells, he also seem to be a very fair person (e.g. includes his then-graduate student in the patent application as co-inventor) with broad network for collaborative research (structural biology with Riken, bioinformatics with Eugene Koonin at NIH, etc.). Not to mention that when Nobel prize awards the discovery and application of CRISPR-Cas9 enzyme in either Chemistry or Medicine, Zhang will very likely to be one of the three winners.

Feng Zhang's lab is certainly the place to go to if you want to work on CRISPR. However, I personally can't imagine trying to do a graduate thesis on CRISPR at this point. The field exploded so fast in the past 3 years, and I can't imagine what it will be like in the next 4-5 years from now. Trying to get someone published without getting scooped seems almost impossible and more stress than it's worth.

[ballwera]

10 hours ago, Micecroscopy said:

Feng Zhang's lab is certainly the place to go to if you want to work on CRISPR. However, I personally can't imagine trying to do a graduate thesis on CRISPR at this point. The field exploded so fast in the past 3 years, and I can't imagine what it will be like in the next 4-5 years from now. Trying to get someone published without getting scooped seems almost impossible and more stress than it's worth.

CRISPR at this point is just another molecular technique. Personally, I just couldn't imagine working in a lab like that as a graduate student. As a postdoc? Maybe. My PI as a tech was prominent in his field and was never around as was the first PI I rotated w/ in grad school. 

Edited March 4, 2016 by ballwera

[Infinito]

On 3/2/2016 at 11:57 PM, Micecroscopy said:

 

One person who I think you should definitely look into is Myriam Heiman at MIT. She did her postdoctoral work with Greengard and Heintz at Rockefeller and developed the TRAP method to purify mRNAs that are actively being transcribed and her works lies at the intersection of genetics / mol bio / neuroscience. I think she'd be a great person to work for. At Rockefeller, more on the neuroscience side, I'd also take a look at Vanessa Ruta and Gaby Maimon.

Oo, I'm interviewing with Dr. Heiman next week. I've heard awesome things about her work and lab. I also have Tonegawa on that list. Not intimidated at all. 

But, back to @raisinbrain; going into the interview season I was all starry-eyed and looking at the big names, but then I realized that a lot of them are now heavily admins, very busy to be effective PhD mentors, or are not even taking students anymore. I would not recommend picking a school based on the availability of those people. Them being present at those schools reflects the caliber of research that goes on there, and hopefully opportunities to thrive and collaborate. Though, there are some exceptions to that (schools which will not be named) where PIs are poached because they have/will win fancy awards that the university can claim on their info sheets. That being said, you should pick the schools based on the programs, availability of other labs you may be interested in, and then where you want to live. Rockefeller will be the cheapest housing you ever have in Manhattan, for instance, if you wanted to live in NYC in your late 20s. 

My own personal choice of school will mostly come down to where I will see myself happy and the external-to-lab opportunities available after all things are considered equal.

[Dr. Nerd]

Very simple and objective reply. MIT is huge Rockefeller tiny. If you take the Nobel Prizes received by each as of now both have 20 Nobel Prizes (genuine). Thus quality per person Rockefeller is much greater also admissions tougher since Rockefeller is tiny thus has less openings. MIT is extensive and good in many disciplines, and also has undergraduate programs, Rockefeller has only graduate studies that too mainly related to Bio and Medical Sciences.