<p>I attended a very small, tier 3, private college as an undergraduate student. And now I am heading to MIT for PhD in EE. Recently I have heard from a lot of my professors that had I attended top 30 universities as an undergrad and then went on to MIT, employers would have been more impressed with my academic record. I made an argument that it does not matter where I did my undergrad from as long as I do my PhD from one of the best schools in the world. Am I not right?</p>
<p>Absolutely. Ridiculous to even ask. Your PhD school is what matters far and away.</p>
<p>It’s impressive to have a strong pedigree of top tier institutions.
It’s even more impressive to come from “nowhere” into a top tier institution.
Its out of context but those professors sound a little pretentious to comment on your CV like that. Have fun at MIT :)</p>
<p>I guess by employers you mean academics.</p>
<p>Can’t speak for the private sector, but PhD is all that matters in academia. I agree with sydneya that it’s more impressive to go to a top tier school from a no name… everyone loves a “rags to riches” story, lol.</p>
<p>Of course the prestige of PhD >> BA/BS</p>
<p>a) How about landing a post-doc position at a top tier (1-10) from a mid / low tier PhD (15-40)?
b) How about attaining a professorship at a top tier (1-10) with post-doc at top tier (1-10) but PhD from a mid / low tier (15-40)?</p>
<p>Would you say working for the ‘hot shots’ or doing ‘Einstein’s’ level of research the only way to pull off case A & B?</p>
<p>I’d say you and your professors are both right. Obviously someone who went to a top undergrad, and received a Ph.D. from a top grad school is more impressive than someone who went to a no name undergrad, and then went to a top school. When looking for jobs however, they will still focus more on where you received your Ph.D.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I think the above is quite valid.</p>
<p>I’m sure this at least won’t hurt the OP down the road. Do well in your PhD and that is what will matter. No one will care where you did your undergraduate work.</p>
<p>I don’t think it matters at all. MIT is MIT is MIT</p>
<p>btw how does the tier system work? what’s considered tier 3?</p>
<p>Nobody cares where you went to undergrad in academia. What’s more important is where you did your graduate training and, in some fields, who your mentor/advisor was. Even more interestingly, if you do a post-doc after your Ph.D and before you go on the job market, the post-doc will matter more than where you did your Ph.D (even though the Ph.D will still matter), but your undergrad will matter even less.</p>
<p>Maybe in industry it might matter, I don’t know.</p>
<p>Tier 3 is considered the third 50 schools – so schools 1-50 are tier 1; 51-100 are tier 2, and 101-150 are tier 3.</p>
<p>The postdoc will be most important but the PhD work will also still be important. However, the undergraduate school will really not be important at all at that point.</p>
<p>Thank you all for your great inputs. I greatly appreciate it. </p>
<p>I don’t think I am going to go for post-doc in EE. Instead I want to go to either Harvard or Princeton for MS in Public Policy. I just found out this M.P.P( Masters in Public Policy) for Ph.D. Scientists at Princeton. [Woodrow</a> Wilson School of Public and International Affairs | M.P.P.](<a href=“http://wws.princeton.edu/grad/mpp/]Woodrow”>http://wws.princeton.edu/grad/mpp/)
But I am more inclined to attend Harvard beacuse of the brand name and the fact that I don’t want to relocate from Cambridge.</p>
<p>Of course this entire discussion rests on the assumption that the OP will actually finish the PhD. Without impugning the OP’s ability, I would just point out that many PhD students, including ones at MIT, won’t actually finish. </p>
<p>I mention that because of the OP’s latest quote:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That statement rings my alarm bells. I would counsel that if you just want to get a MPP and go into policy work, then you should just quit your PhD program and go do that directly. Don’t try to finish the PhD. It’s not worth it. It will be too painful. PhD programs fundamentally rely on self-motivation, and if you are more interested in something else, you should just do that, for you’re probably not going to have the motivation to finish the PhD, and even if you did, it would take too much time out of your life anyway.</p>
<p>Nor do I consider this to be a shameful choice. Lots of people drop out of PhD programs because they find out that they would prefer to do something else. Nothing wrong with that at all. In fact, I would say that it’s good that you know that now, rather than slogging through years of work only to find out that you’d rather do something else anyway.</p>
<p>Come on sakky, don’t make statements based on your assumptions. Did I ever say I “just want to get a MPP and go into policy work?” May be I am interested in both the engineering as well as the policy aspect. May be I want to work as a scientist as well as an administrative policy leader in my field. I do appreciate your input but it is COMPLETELY IRRELAVANT. I have noticed a lot that for some reason people in this forum can’t image a PhD scientist wanting a MPP degree. I think you all should read this:</p>
<p>"M.P.P. for Ph.D. Scientists </p>
<p>The M.P.P. for Ph.D. scientists was created, in part, because many of todays most pressing and controversial policy issues are rooted in science, such as global warming, stem cell research, the evolution of drug-resistant strains of disease organisms, and the protection of privacy in an increasingly wired world. While none of these issues are the exclusive domain of scientists, scientists will play an increasingly important role in addressing them. Therefore, WWS seeks to enroll leading professionals in the natural and physical sciences in such disciplines as physics, biology, engineering, information technology, atmospheric sciences, and the geosciences. Candidates for this one-year degree must have completed their Ph.D. when they apply to the WWS graduate program.</p>
<p>The vast majority of leaders and innovators in contemporary science have doctoral degrees, yet a Ph.D. in a scientific field typically provides no training in public policy. The result is a widening gulf between the scientific and policy communities, arising at a time when the need for dialogue, cooperation, and leadership is growing."</p>
<p>In defense of sakky…I thought the same exact thing when I read that post…</p>
<p>MITgradstudent, I’m sure the Princeton program is very competitive. I would still consider sakky’s advice. If you realize you will rather study policy, don’t be afraid to drop the PhD program for an MPP. Plenty of people drop out of PhD programs annually for better professional opportunities.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I can definitely imagine a PhD scientist wanting an MPP. In fact, I know some myself.</p>
<p>However, in their case, they got their MPP well after they obtained their PhD, had worked for a few years, and then decided that they wanted to change careers. Your case is entirely different - * you are already talking about the MPP right now while you’re in your PhD program.* That strongly leads me to believe that you don’t really want - or need - the PhD. </p>
<p>Look, not everybody needs a PhD. It ain’t no joke - it is a major commitment of your time. If you’re already seriously contemplating some other career while in the beginning of your PhD program, then you’re probably better off not getting it. It’s not worth it. Don’t waste your time. Again, there is a highly significant chance that you won’t even finish the PhD, even after years of trying. Something like half of all entering PhD students won’t finish. </p>
<p>Look, I know many MIT PhD students who dropped out to pursue what they really wanted. One girl dropped out of the ChemE program to go to dental school, and is far happier now. A bunch left to start their own companies. In fact, just on Monday this week, I was talking to one who’s in his first year of the PhD program who is probably going to drop out to take a job in strategy consulting. There’s no shame in it. If you already know you want a particular career in which you don’t really need a PhD, then you should probably pursue that path.</p>
<p>I think MITgradstudent is a long term planner which I attribute as a quality of an exceptional scholar/leader. I totally understand where he is coming from. I know bunch of Nuclear Engineers from UC-Berkeley who got their PhDs in Nuclear Engineering two years ago and they went to Harvard for MPP. Now they have top level jobs in the government as a scientist and a policy maker. Yes they do both jobs at the same time. We are talking about EXCEPTIONAL people here, not the ones sakky is talking about. There are many people who get MPP degrees because it gives them an edge over “regular” PhD scientists. And from what I have read, MITgradstudent seems to me like one of those exceptional person.</p>
<p>I don’t mean to make ungrounded accusations here, but it almost seems to me as if alixplate is either a sockpuppet account of the OP or is a RL friend of the OP…</p>
<p>In any case, I don’t get why the OP is so defensive over sakky’s comments. I think sakky makes some very valid points and if the OP chooses to ignore them then that is his/her call. Of course there are always exceptions to the rule, as alix has stated, but it seems to me to be presumptuous for one to just assume that him/herself would be an outstanding exception. However -shrugs- to each their own.</p>
<p>Same - not sure about the sockpuppet thing, although I do find it interesting that alix did just join yesterday and his only post was this one. Nevertheless, if you’re already thinking about another degree while you’re still finishing the Ph.D that rings alarm bells for people. Nothing to get defensive about. The Ph.D requires a singular dedication and motivation and if you just don’t want to do it, and would rather get another degree – there’s nothing wrong with that!</p>