I’ve been offered two amazing PhD opportunities and am having a hard time weighing the costs/benefits. For a career, I’d love to go into academia, even at a state school or liberal arts college because I love teaching. However, I’m fully aware that the job market is so cut throat. My field is in the physical/biological sciences, and I’m also open to working in a museum setting, for a government agency, or in some other capacity that utilizes my training. That said, here are my two offers:
Program A:
Regarded as the #1 program in my field, with superstar faculty and at a top university
Intellectual think-tank where everyone lives and breathes science
Very interesting projects in multiple labs, and I’d likely collaborate with others
Graduates often easily (relatively) find academic positions
However, deserving reputation for draining the life out of students, with people working non-stop
Computation-driven research with seemingly not a lot of field work
Students appear to manage 1-2 papers by the time they graduate due to high expectations, but in pretty good journals
Program B:
If US News rankings are really your thing, program is roughly in the 40s
However, potential advisor is still extremely well known in the field, moved here from previous institution to be closer to collaborators
Amazing field work opportunities (scuba, international travel, etc.), and most takes place within the state
Seemingly more opportunities beyond research: more TA experience, outreach, networking outside academia
Research is somewhat closer to my own interests, if not as groundbreaking
I’ll also say I’m a semi-finalist for a Fulbright fellowship (will defer a year if I get it). Here, it could easily contribute to my dissertation, while it would be less related to my work at Program A
So to sum up, Program A has prestige and national networking on its side, but requires unruly dedication. Program B isn’t as prestigious outside of the region, but can open more doors beyond academia. My current advisor advocates Program B based on what appeals to his tastes, but someone has also told me I’d be crazy to decline an offer from Program A.
I suggest doing your PhD at B, work hard, have fun, do well, figure out what you want to do with your life (academia vs not) - then get a postdoc at A, work hard and do well, and then fly.
Physical/biological sciences is broad. In some of those fields, academic positions have less (not easy, but less) competition, so graduating from a mid-ranked program isn’t as much of a ding against trying to get academic careers. In others, going to a top-ranked program is really a necessary piece of the puzzle when it comes to getting an academic job. So ask your advisors what kind of field you’re in in that sense - what do they recommend?
Also, look at the PhD institutions of people who teach at the kinds of colleges you might like to teach at some day. I spent a lot of time going to the department websites of the kinds of top LACs I wanted to teach at and took a look at whatever CVs or profiles were posted publicly. Most websites, even if they don’t post CVs, say what institutions their professors went to. So take a look: do all of them come from top programs or do some come from mid-ranked programs?
Also, ask your potential advisor at Program B what placement looks like from that program. Where do graduates end up? Do some find academic jobs, and if so, where? You can talk to some advanced grad students, too, as they probably know where their recent predecessors ended up.
Also, valid question: if the students at Program A are basically working non-stop, why are the students only getting 1-2 papers by the time they graduate? In the sciences, that’s on the average to low end for a doctoral student, and at a place where people are described as working “non-stop” I’d expect doctoral students to be graduating with like 3-7+ papers. What are they working on?
@julliet At the top schools and some top labs in the sciences, a PI might not let a paper out in the world unless it’s a Science/Cell/Nature, or at least the highest IP journal in their field. Depends on the group, but this can be particularly severe with young professors or ones who have and are trying to keep a certain reputation.
@geraniol - I’m not saying that I don’t believe you! But that seems counterintuitive and not great for either the professor’s career or the student’s. Papers in Science, Cell, and Nature are rare - even many of the very top researchers in these fields may never get a paper in one of those three journals. Aiming for top journals is also pretty common, but especially for doctoral students it’s very common (and expected) that you’ll have a couple papers in some mid-to-lower-tier journals as well. Young professors, especially, need publications to go into their tenure files and their grant applications. It’d be career suicide to hold back good work for a Science or Nature publication (that may never happen - and, in fact, is unlikely to happen).
Honestly, a program or PI that held students back from publishing good work in good journals because they were S/C/N or the tippy-top journal in that particular field would be a red flag for me, personally. Journal articles are the currency of academia; the number of publications in addition to their quality are important for getting postdocs and jobs.
@julliet Haha, I’ve had way too many conversations with my colleagues about this. It’s a problem, but at a top ranked school, an assistant prof. will need some way of getting a CNS even if it’s with a senior collaborator to feel good about tenure chances.
There are a few big name profs who don’t worry about the number of pubs anymore and only the prestige. They can still get jobs for their students, since so much of hiring in academica and industry is based on pedigree and reputation.
There are things that nepotism can get you in academia. If you look at new hires at the top schools, you will find a good number of people with 2 CNS first-author papers from PhD and 1-2 CNS or adjacent papers from postdoc. These are absolutely brilliant people. Just the way the field is shifting now - esp. at the top schools, there’s a strong emphasis on impact and quality over quantity. I would say there’s even a bit of a stigma against groups who publish too much in the humdrum journals. They get teased for ‘doing derivative science and publishing stuff nobody wants to read.’
For students, having few papers and a very well-regarded PI with a certain reputation works just fine. I would say it’s better than a having a lower-tier degree with a ton of pubs unless you also get a very high IF paper.
My experience as a physics professor for the past 35 years at a “not top” school, is that my students get the jobs they want, including faculty positions at places like Oxford University. It very much depends on the individual and their choices after finishing their Ph.D. The most important this is to have a good advisor who will encourage you to publish, provide you with the training in being an independent researcher who can develop his/her own projects, and give you an opening to a good position after you graduate. A good advisor will not insist on having papers only in the highest impact factor journals but will balance that with the need for a student to have a decent number of publications.
Frankly, you will do fine with either school. The only difference is really in the selectivity of the graduate program, not the quality of the faculty. Pick the one which will inspire you to put in the kind of focuses effort which will ensure your success.
