Choosing between CogSci/Neuroscience PhD programs

Graduate School
1

<p>I have some questions about choosing between graduate programs.</p>

<p>First of all, some background information about me: I graduated from UC San Diego last spring with a B.S. in Cognitive Science (neuroscience specialization) and applied to graduate programs last fall.</p>

<p>I know that the fit between my research interests and that of my adviser should be the most important factor when selecting a graduate program, but I was also wondering about the role that prestige plays in impressing an employer. Assuming that two or more potential advisers are tied for first place when it comes to the interest factor, which of the prestige factors is likely to be more important? The prestige of the adviser, the prestige of the program, or the prestige of the university? I'd suppose that if I'm looking for a job in academia, the adviser's reputation would likely hold more sway, but if I'm looking for a job in industry, the prestige of the university would likely be more important. What if the industry position is specifically meant for people with a cognitive science background though?</p>

<p>In general, would prestige be less important for grad programs than for undergrad programs, especially since there are so many other important factors that would influence an applicant's decision?</p>

<p>Also, when it comes to choosing an adviser, is it generally preferable to choose an older one who's had time to build a reputation and has lots of advising experience? On the other hand, I'm wondering if younger advisers might have more time on their hands or be more motivated to publish a lot of papers. (Of course this is no substitute for actually talking to the individual advisers and getting a feel for how they do things, but I feel like the general trends would be good to know anyway.)</p>

<p>Also, it's difficult to find comprehensive rankings for cognitive science or neuroscience graduate programs. I can typically only find rankings for the very top ones, so I'm wondering about how these particular programs rank relative to each other overall, as well as which specific research areas each program is most renowned for:</p>

<p>Psychological and Brain Sciences, UC Santa Barbara
Neuroscience, UC Los Angeles
Psychology (concentration in Cognitive Neuroscience), UC Irvine
Neuroscience, UC Riverside
Neuroscience, UC Davis
Cognitive and Information Sciences, UC Merced
Cognitive Psychology, UC Santa Cruz
Neuroscience, University of Southern California</p>

<p>Anyway, sorry for the long post. Feel free to answer only the parts that you know how to answer.</p>

2

<p>For the prestige question, it really depends on your goals post-PhD. If you want to go into academia, the reputation of your adviser and your department are more important, as you guessed. If you want to go into an industry job, it varies. If it’s a job specifically designed for cognitive scientists, you are right in guessing that they will be familiar with departmental reputation and with the bigwigs in the field and in that case, you might also want to go with the better ranked department. If you are considered non-academic, non-cogsci jobs (like consulting or banking or something), then the name of the university plays a big role. I attend an Ivy League PhD program and a LOT of PhDs from here who decided academia wasn’t for them - in all KINDS of fields - end up at McKinsey or BCG.</p>

<p>Is prestige less important for grad programs? No, it’s actually more important, I would argue. The reputation of your department can really influence where you get a job, particularly in academia. It’s often said that in academia, you can only teach at universities/departments at your level or lower. So if you go to a top 15ish program you can teach in the top 15 and down, but if you go to a top 50ish department you can’t reasonably expect to get hired in the top 15. But it’s not prestige in terms of U.S. News/undergrad name-based rankings; it’s prestige in terms of departmental reputation and research rankings. (Also, your publication record and any postdocs can change this.)</p>

<p>The question about advisers is an age-old one, but generally speaking I would say that more junior advisers definitely do not have more time on their hands. If anything, they have less, since they are trying to get tenure and establish themselves in the field. I have two advisers - one is junior and up for tenure this year, and the other is a full professor. The full professor has generally had far more time than the junior one, and the junior one is always traveling to give talks and establish himself nationally. The full professor also has more connections - he’s fairly famous, to the point that when I go to national conferences people ask me about my adviser and they’re like “OH, I know him, you do X research! And he taught me Y stats course/I saw him speak at Z conference/I knew him in grad school/whatever.” That can work tremendously in your favor. On the other hand, the junior professor is definitely more motivated to publish a lot of papers because he needs tenure, and is definitely not opposed to me writing a paper and putting him as second or third author on it. Therefore, he has lots of data and projects going on. Personally I have found it very rewarding to have one of each.</p>

<p>Try the NRC rankings. You will have to compare two lists because psychology and neuroscience are ranked separately. Exact placement isn’t as important as general group. Psychology is my field, so I know that for psychology UCSB is in the top 20-30 (NRC = #15-47), UC-Irvine is mid-ranked (NRC has them at around #55-93) and UCSC is lower-ranked (NRC has them at #130-176). I’m not as familiar with neuroscience, but UCLA and UC-Irvine seem to be top 10-15 programs and USC and UC-D seem to be around top 30-50ish programs. No information about UCM’s CIS program. </p>