<p>Are there any taboos about going to the same school bachelors-phD? One person I talked to likened it to academic inbreeding. Is there anything to this?</p>
<p>Most schools do not approve of you doing both degrees at the same institution, and it is a bit of a disadvantage in job hunting. The issue is that you aren't exposed to anything new, which is bad for both scholarship and collegiality.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I talked to likened it to academic inbreeding. Is there anything to this?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>That's what it is. But is there anything inherently wrong with it? I say no - it can often result in great research, even as far as great research goes. Also it may give you an edge when applying for jobs at your school - everyone will know you and you'll probably be more well liked than some outsider. Plenty of great researchers have been at their institutions since they were seventeen year olds.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Most schools do not approve of you doing both degrees at the same institution,
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Yeah, that can happen. But why? I think it's probably more due to the fact that for many grad schools, you pretty much apply to a specific prof in some area of research. If a prof at your undergrad school does the research you want to be doing for the next couple of years, I see no reason why you shouldn't apply.</p>
<p>
[quote]
and it is a bit of a disadvantage in job hunting.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I disagree. Look, most people who go on the academic job market probably didn't even do that much in undergrad - so why does it even matter? The REAL issue is whether or not you have a good publication record in your subfield. If you've been working with the same prof for like a decade, you probably have a better publication history in the field than someone who did something for 5 years and something sort of related but not really for another 5 years.</p>
<p>
[quote]
The issue is that you aren't exposed to anything new, which is bad for both scholarship and collegiality.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Once again, it's not like most undergrads who plan to become academics even expose themselves to that much at their undergrad institution...I'd say most just stick to one or two profs and pray that those recs get them into grad schools for the fields they want to be in. But if the undergrad prof is a big person in the field you want to go into, I fail to see why you shouldn't apply to their program.</p>
<p>My post is based on what every prof I have ever met and spoken to has said, all of whom have been on search committees. Publication record is not all that matters. Institutions frown tremendously on academic inbreeding. I wouldn't bet my career on there being a position open in my field and subfield the very year I earn my PhD, and they aren't going to create a new position just for you.</p>
<p>How much you did in undergrad is entirely besides the point. Unis want you to have experienced different environments and viewpoints. Also, most people who go on to grad school do quite a bit of research at their undergrad - at least a thesis. I did a 35 pg thesis based almost entirely on primary sources, and I only went to a small regional LAC.</p>
<p>I don't know of any great researchers who have been at their institutions since they were 17, at least not any that were hired in the last 25 years. The culture is what it is. But certainly speak to several profs at different universities to get their opinions. Perhaps you can post on the Chronicle of Higher Education Forums - there is a grad school one, and you can get the opinion of the very people who will be looking at your resume in the future.</p>
<p>As DSP indicated, think what you like, but you'll likely be wasting your $85 application fee and antagonizing the very people you're depending on for (typically) at least one more semester of grades and references not to mention the beginning of your career after the PhD.</p>
<p>However - some programs are different, particularly at the "state flagship" type universities. Even in a relatively small field like Classics, places like Ohio State for example, may have a number of their own undergrads in the grad program. But here at Penn, if you ignore the warning not to bother, they'll simply cash your check and toss the application. </p>
<p>There is no way to know in advance whether you'll be welcomed or laughed out of town. And even if a program has accepted their own undergrads previously, things can change very quickly and utterly without notice (at least as far as you are concerned).</p>
<p>So ask your advisor, believe what s/he says, and get on with your career. If you don't like it, you can do things differently when you're the chair of an adcom.</p>
<p>
[quote]
My post is based on what every prof I have ever met and spoken to has said, all of whom have been on search committees.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>As is mine.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Publication record is not all that matters. Institutions frown tremendously on academic inbreeding.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I'm not saying this might not be the case at certain levels. For example, I think doing a postdoc at your grad and maybe even at your undergrad might be very bad things careerwise. But as far as doing grad at same place as undergrad, I just don't think it matters much as far as job hunting is concerned, especially if you are already at a big research university. Perhaps the department frowns on getting its own undergrads, but will a future department looking to hire you care all that much? I say no because that's what I've learned from talking to some people in the know and doing a bit of research myself. But it's entirely possible you've found my findings to be generally untrue.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I wouldn't bet my career on there being a position open in my field and subfield the very year I earn my PhD, and they aren't going to create a new position just for you.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Well, it does happen in some rare cases so don't rule it out completely.</p>
<p>
[quote]
How much you did in undergrad is entirely besides the point. Unis want you to have experienced different environments and viewpoints.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>What you did at your undergrad is completely relevant because although universities do in fact like it when potential faculty members have experienced different environments, the real question is how far back is that supposed to go? In my opinion the "being exposed to different schools of thought" compenent of academic job hunting is really only relevant as far as grad school and beyond goes. Really, few people will care about your undergrad. What matters is that you have good research in your subfield. If you go to the same institution for grad as you do for undergrad, it's much more likely that you will already have more significant research contributions and that (plus your "fit" with the department) is what REALLY counts.</p>
<p>On undergrad/grad:
<a href="http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/showthread.php?t=367237&highlight=inbreeding%5B/url%5D">http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/showthread.php?t=367237&highlight=inbreeding</a>
<a href="http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/showthread.php?t=147365&highlight=inbreeding%5B/url%5D">http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/showthread.php?t=147365&highlight=inbreeding</a>
<a href="http://www.helium.com/tm/174687/school-english-creative-writing%5B/url%5D">http://www.helium.com/tm/174687/school-english-creative-writing</a></p>
<p>On hiring:
<a href="http://chronicle.com/forums/index.php/topic,31618.msg428314.html#msg428314%5B/url%5D">http://chronicle.com/forums/index.php/topic,31618.msg428314.html#msg428314</a>
<a href="http://chronicle.com/jobs/news/2006/07/2006070501c/careers.html%5B/url%5D">http://chronicle.com/jobs/news/2006/07/2006070501c/careers.html</a>
<a href="http://chronicle.com/forums/index.php/topic,28082.0.html%5B/url%5D">http://chronicle.com/forums/index.php/topic,28082.0.html</a>
<a href="http://chronicle.com/forums/index.php/topic,31511.0.html%5B/url%5D">http://chronicle.com/forums/index.php/topic,31511.0.html</a>
<a href="http://chronicle.com/forums/index.php/topic,15256.0.html%5B/url%5D">http://chronicle.com/forums/index.php/topic,15256.0.html</a>
<a href="http://chronicle.com/forums/index.php/topic,39589.msg610020.html#msg610020%5B/url%5D">http://chronicle.com/forums/index.php/topic,39589.msg610020.html#msg610020</a>
<a href="http://chronicle.com/forums/index.php/topic,17928.0.html%5B/url%5D">http://chronicle.com/forums/index.php/topic,17928.0.html</a></p>
<p>What I came across is that some fields, such as computer science and engineering, tended not to care about this issue so much. This is likely because those fields are less competitive on the job market (lower supply). In the humanities and social sciences, particularly, there are significant biases against that kind of inbreeding. Additionally, when on the job market, it is beneficial to have experience with different types of departments, as unis tend to want to hire a person who has some experience with their general "type" - public vs. private, comprehensive vs. LAC, etc. The other major issue is networking - attending more institutions means having more connections, and that is always a good thing. More connections leads to publications and reputation, which in turn leads to jobs.</p>
<p>I think you can safely say that in some fields attending both the same won't hurt you, but it won't help you, either. In other fields, it will actively work against you. The only time this may not be true is at the Ivy League-MIT level, where significant inbreeding takes place (but almost no one gains tenure, so something to consider there as well). If you are in a competitive field, to me, it's not worth limiting my job prospects.</p>
<p>How about just getting a masters at the same school? Most engineering programs at my school have a 5-year BSE/MSE plan. I want to ultimately get a PhD but since my undergrad is one of the top schools in its field, I'd have to get into a very strong program elsewhere to go. Is this not good for ultimately getting a job (in industry, not academia)?</p>
<p>I think a 5-year combined program is fine, as they're relatively common. A master's, in general, isn't going to get you a career in academia anyway. So a combined program at one school with a PhD in another should be absolutely fine. And I don't think industry cares one bit if you get all your degrees in one place or seven. It's just an academia thing.</p>
<p>I don't think there's anything technically wrong with BS/PhD from same school. I think the point is that, if you do you're BS/PhD at a institution, don't expect a job there (minus MIT). :)</p>
<p>I never really saw this as a problem in engineering because most of the graduates move onto industry (where the $$ is at). Industry, as far as I know, hire based upon your demonstration of intellectual capacity, not how often you relocate every 4 years. I can't say the same about the arts/social sciences due to the fact that they are highly academia-based fields. Academia, as stated above, tends to delegate a not so inbred faculty pool with efforts to maintain diversity in ideas. </p>
<p>Unless you're in California weather and would hate to lose it (and/or engaged), I'd probably say start fresh somewhere else for your own benefit.</p>
<p>As a side note, I don't really see a huge problem with a person doing a BS in say chemical engineering and moving into fields of biomedical engineering and material science engineering at the same institution (as long as they like it and are a good fit). You are simultaneously broadening your intellectual horizons and your professional connections with new department professors.</p>
<p>If I were hiring in my (humanities) department and saw a CV from a candidate with a bachelors degree and a doctorate from the same institution, I would conclude that the candidate was both ill-advised and narrowly trained. (And perhaps couldn't get into any other PhD programs.)</p>
<p>However, if a candidate did a bachelors and a masters at the same institution, and went elsewhere for the PhD, I would (and have) evaluate(d) them in a much more positive light. </p>
<p>As a side note, I've been an academic for many years, and have neven seen an example of the former in either candidates or colleagues, while I certainly have come across the latter.</p>
<p>
[quote]
If I were hiring in my (humanities) department and saw a CV from a candidate with a bachelors degree and a doctorate from the same institution, I would conclude that the candidate was both ill-advised and narrowly trained. (And perhaps couldn't get into any other PhD programs.)
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Professor X, are most humanities departments that fast at making those presumptions? :) Academia is so harsh nowadays.</p>
<p>I would venture to guess that when humanities depts are wading through several hundred applications, they have to make a few snap judgments. That's why this is more of an issue in the humanities and social sciences than elsewhere, as I pointed out. Supply is way, way more than demand. Imagine top grad program admissions times 10.</p>
<p>
[quote]
If I were hiring in my (humanities) department and saw a CV from a candidate with a bachelors degree and a doctorate from the same institution, I would conclude that the candidate was both ill-advised and narrowly trained.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>As someone who has helped profs on search committees narrow down the options, I can honestly say I think that the behavior you describe here is both not universal and professionally irresponsible.</p>
<p>What if the degrees aren't even from the same department? And if they are, what if they're not from the same area? For example, say someone did most of their undergrad training on South America with the faculty members in the department who study South America, but for their PhD they've moved over to modern European history and the corresponding faculty in the department. Do you look at those issues? If you don't you are essentially making the ridiculous assumption that between-department scholarly differences are without a doubt more significant than within-department scholarly differences.</p>
<p>Really, what in the world leads you to believe that simply because someone has experience with more than one institution, s/he is less "narrowly trained" than someone who only has experience with one institution? Did you ever stop and think that maybe the undergrads who DO go to different institutions for grad school are going to schools where the researchers in their fields are in the same school of thought as the undergrad mentors? Going to different schools for undergrad and grad in no way assures that potential job applicants haven't been "narrowly trained."</p>
<p><a href="And%20perhaps%20couldn't%20get%20into%20any%20other%20PhD%20programs.">quote</a>
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Yeah, PERHAPS. But you shouldn't let your prejudices guide your hiring decisions. What you should be looking at are quantity and quality of publications (as measured by peer-reviewed status,) the degree to which the potential hiree's research augments scholastic diversity in the department, whether or not the hiree will, within a reasonable and professional degree, fit in with the existing departmental culture, and (lastly!) whether or not they will, as a function of their demographic profile, diversify the department in some way. If you're going to make snap judgements of CVs, do them on these criterias- not on strictly biographical factors. Indeed, if a department has no faculty who did both undergrad and grad at the same school, hiring someone who did will lead to higher diversiy of background. Why is that a bad thing? Why do you insist on punishing people for being different? </p>
<p>For the good of knowledge, I sincerely hope that at some point in the future, your practice of tossing out the CVs of people who did both undergrad and grad at the same institution (if true) will be formally terminated from the academy. When you stop to think about it, it's really no different than the practicies that once lead (and continue to lead!) to the exclusion of women, ethnic/religious/sexual minorties, disabled people, etc. In place of "a bachelors degree and a doctorate from the same instiution" we could just insert "the last names Gomez, Mehta, and similarly telling last names" and we'd be left with this:</p>
<p>
[quote]
If I were hiring in my (humanities) department and saw a CV from a candidate with the last names Gomez, Mehta, and similarly telling last names, I would conclude that the candidate was both ill-advised and narrowly trained.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>^The overriding assumption being that these people with these last names were ill-advised to pursue grad training in the first place and narrowly trained in the process of doing so. ("Because of course, minorties always stick with their own people and world-view.") Please note that I'm not accusing you of having this racist view, simply pointing out that your undergrad/grad prejudices are the modern parallels of these slowlly ebbing racists views.</p>
<p>People are different - understand/accept that and move on to the advancement of human knowledge, which together with teaching quality, is what should actually matter in the hiring process. That one job applicant who got all three degrees at the same place might be the hottest young scholar in the field. They might not be and probably aren't of course, but they should be treated on as equal a footing possible - just like everyone else in the pile.</p>
<p>dobby,</p>
<p>If you had read the entirety of my previous post, you would have noted that I have NEVER seen a CV with undergrad and grad at the same institution. In my discipline, it is just not done. I have never "tossed one out" because I have never seen one.</p>
<p>(And of course it would make a difference if the candidate had studied in different departments for undergrad and grad.)</p>
<p>Although I do find your race/gender analogy to be logically flawed, I do thank you for your thoughtful advice about how I should perform my job. I will surely strive to meet your standards in the future.</p>
<p>It does happen at Harvard quite frequently. Undergrad/grad/professorhip. Often, as Professor X, without getting tenure. But, Jeffrey Sachs and Larry Summers were Harvard products all the way through, to take a couple of examples. There's no presumption of weakness. I know lots of Harvard profs with Harvard doctoral degrees.</p>
<p>Although medical school faculty is different, you see lots of people with Harvard Medical School faculty appointments who are Harvard undergrad/Harvard MD. Similarly, at Harvard Law School, you'll see Harvard undergrad/Harvard JD now on the faculty, although I think this is happening less frequently.</p>
<p>Perhaps a wee bit of institutional arrogance in evidence? But a lot of the people I'm thinking of are very strong.</p>
<p>Sachs and Summers are both economists, and of course a professional degree (an MD or JD) is a dramatically different example. Sach's career in particular seems to have been exceptional, as he was apparently invited to join the Society of Fellows as an undergraduate.</p>
<p>I suspect much of the discussion here has been orienting around soon-to-be English or History PhD's.</p>
<hr>
<p>In a hyper-competitive market, branding matters much more.</p>
<p>For one thing, you get the chance to tap into two alumni networks if you attend two schools.</p>
<p>More importantly, it opens up more doors for socializing. I did my undergraduate work at Duke (true), and went somewhere else for medical school. We'll pretend it's Princeton (it's not). As an undergraduate, I still get to talk about the moving bookshelves in the bottom of the law school library if I ever meet a law student, or the ATMs in the hospital if I ever meet a medical student from Duke. And, of course, there's always Duke basketball. As a Princeton medical student, I can still talk about the best places to eat near campus if I ever run into an undergrad alum. These sorts of conversations help with interviews, talking to your boss about his kids, etc.</p>
<p>I don't know how important they are in the academic world, but in many fields they can help quite a bit. My father just hired a new partner for his group, and I suspect part of what made this interview memorable was that this young physician did medical school at my school, "Princeton". ("Best school in the world!", my father tells him with a grin. Was it any surprise that he got the job?) He went to school at the same place as his prospective boss's son -- and he could have doubled his odds of doing so had he gone to different places to get his bachelor's vs. his MD.</p>
<p>Third, diversity helps people isolate whichever brand is their favorite. Again, I can tell people that I went to Duke and (in my fake story) Princeton, and Southerners feel like I'm from the South while people from Jersey tend to feel that I'm from Jersey. </p>
<p>Fourth, diversity is simply helpful branding-wise on its own. I can't explain this one in psychoeconomic terms, but it's just *cooler *to go to Duke and the Princeton than it is to tell people I went to Duke for all eight years.</p>
<p>You would be less "cool" if you went to Duke for 8 years instead of 4 in the arts/history departments? For a physical science student, I almost laughed out loud.</p>
<p>In engineering, just in one specialized department, I know some pretty cool and successful faculty who did ug/grad from the same institution... let me look up where they're from.. hold on.</p>
<p>UIUC, Cal, UCSB, Stanford, UMelbourne, UChicago, UDel.. </p>
<p>Anyways, after skimming through their profiles, these people are, I'd say pretty worldly. Many have international appointments in teaching and consulting. I didn't really look at the history department. But from what I've been reading on this thread, seems as though they are more prone to biasing the few who got their degrees from the same institution. I'm not part of any admissions faculty, but if I were I'd be open to anyone as long the candidate has demonstrated their expertise.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I don't know how important they are in the academic world, but in many fields they can help quite a bit. My father just hired a new partner for his group, and I suspect part of what made this interview memorable was that this young physician did medical school at my school, "Princeton". ("Best school in the world!", my father tells him with a grin. Was it any surprise that he got the job?) He went to school at the same place as his prospective boss's son -- and he could have doubled his odds of doing so had he gone to different places to get his bachelor's vs. his MD.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>So I guess what you're saying is that bigger population of alums = connections = better chance for hire. I think you're right. But I think at the PhD level, it's more like more conferences/papers/interdisplinary research = connections = better chance for hire. I'm a grad student and that's about how I feel (different ug/g btw). If you have been accepted at various places, I think it's a personal choice. For whatever reason, go to the institution that you think you're the best fit (even if it is the same as your undergrad).</p>
<p>Oh, sorry. I didn't mean to discuss "coolness" in terms of eventual-career-success. I simply meant it's more... what's the word I'm looking for? It's more fun to get to talk to people about the fact that I've been to a lot of different places. And I suspect it's a little more fun to listen to, too. (At least, I hope it is.)</p>
<p>I dunno. I'm very grateful to have gone to high school, undergrad, and medical school all in entirely different regions of the country. It seems like not just a fun thing to have done, but a fun thing to talk about, too.</p>
<p>Obviously it's a very small factor. But it does feel to me like I've gained from being in different institutions.</p>
<hr>
<p>I did mean to discuss eventual-career-success in the other points I made. (i.e. having things in common with more people helps with networking).</p>
<p>
[quote]
I don't know how important they are in the academic world, but in many fields they can help quite a bit.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Well, in my experience the conversation starters you describe are pretty useless in the academic world. When interviewing for grad school and faculty positions, your interviewer is unlikely to care about eateries in and around your alma mater - even if their kid goes there. Much more important is how your research stacks up against that of your peers. You'll come across as a good candidate not simply through charm, but though your ability to demolish theory A and, in its place, loudly and efficiently proclaim your theory B.</p>