<p>Quick hypothetical situation--would you choose:</p>
<p>(a)
Decent match with a professor in a top 15 program, heavy research institution and department as a whole publishes in well-respected journals regularly</p>
<p>(b)
Strong match with a professor whose research you find interesting, dynamic, and more eclectic, in a mid-tier program whose faculty regularly publishes in some well-regarded, but not "best-of-the-best" journals.</p>
<p>If this was in the realm of Psychology, would a department's prestige have a profound effect on post-doc/academic employments? This is assuming my quality of work at both would be similar.</p>
<p>Honestly I would choose (a). The notions I had about “fit” (research interests, personality) when I was deciding between grad schools were incorrect. I see many cranky older grad students who misgauged their interest/ability to work with their professor so my case is not unique. If it turns out you don’t enjoy your professor/project after all, how much would you resent your “mid-tier” program? It’s so hard to get an academic career after grad school even if you are from the most well-respected labs with papers in great journals. And don’t forget the benefits (travel funding grants, less teaching) which R1 universities seem to have in spades. My 2 cents.</p>
<p>Thanks for the help, BrownParent. Good to know the older community here shows enough maturity to shed some light on something I actually didn’t find in search results.</p>
<p>The REASON I ask is because I can already barely afford college as it is, and doubt I can borrow enough money to finance my applications this upcoming fall. If strong matches in weaker schools aren’t seen so favorably (and now I have at least ONE person’s helpful opinion–thanks, snowcapk), I can save several hundred dollars not applying for 4-5 safe schools, but rather only 2 and have 4-5 reach/slight reach schools.</p>
<p>I’ve already began contacting some of my advisor’s ex-colleagues in several universities in experimental programs. A lot of them who first piqued my interest upon reviewing CV’s actually seemed all the more interesting after a few email were exchanged. I can argue that this is great and will give me diversity when applying to competitive and not-so-competitive programs so I don’t shut myself out of admissions, but given my financial situation, it makes my decision harder when choosing where not to apply. Perhaps if the economy improves and banks start lending more liberally to students, I won’t have this problem in a few months–but in all seriousness, I don’t think it’ll be happening.</p>
<p>So thanks, BrownParent (again). At least you showed enough interest in this thread to show your annoyance rather than deleting your post and moving on.</p>
<p>It’s also possible that your interests will change before you begin your dissertation (when do Psychology students usually do this?), and the advisor at the mid-tier school may not seem as good a fit. I think, in this case, being in a better department would be advantageous–you’ll have a lot of excellent faculty to choose from.</p>
<p>I am surprised that I am coming down on the opposite side of the issue from everyone else. Go with the place that will be the best fit. A bad fit is a bad fit at any tier. Find someone with whom you feel a good connection, in terms of personality, goals, methods etc. Your research interests need to be a decent match as well. I wouldn’t put any stock in tiers, rankings or other crap. Ultimately, you will be judged based on your publications, not the publications in the department or the school as a whole.</p>
<p>The good school with the great match is a high-risk, high-return scenario. If you like working under him/her you are set. If you change your focus or have problems working with them you are in a lesser school with few options.</p>
<p>The great school with the good match is a low-risk, low-return scenario. You will always have the name to trade on, but will be advancing in an area in which you are less interested. If you have problems with your advisor, you are likely to have more high-quality back-ups available.</p>
<p>Personally, I would go with the better school, mainly because my interests are pretty wide and I have not identified a very specific research focus yet.</p>
<p>Not quite the scenario you describe—but my daughter chose to go to a grad school ranked in the 20’s in her field instead of a top ten one–because she was pretty sure about the sub-field she wanted to work in, and there were about four faculty members at the first school and only one at the higher ranked one who fit this description. She was afraid she would be unhappy if she was not able to join this specific group at the second school.
It turns out her advisor is an up and coming hotshot in his field, doing cutting-edge research, and winning a myriad of prestigious national awards–so she is very happy with her decision!</p>
<p>Just<em>A</em>Mom raises a very good point here - there are so many diverse areas of interest that any decent school generally has one or more world-level experts in some areas. If those are your definite areas of interest, that is where you should go, regardless of ranking.</p>
<p>I still feel that if you are unsure, that’s where you figure in general program prestige - the better the university, the more of those experts you will find and the better your chances of studying under one when you finalyl make a choice.</p>
<p>The top 10 schools hire graduates from the top 10 schools. The top 10-20 schools hire from the other Top 10-20 school. Even the diploma mills tend to hire “doctorates” from the other diploma mills. The only way to generally go up in level is with outstanding research or a great adviser with connections. But it’s much more common to go down a band. </p>
<p>The good thing about a Top 5 or Top 10 school, is that you’re going to be pretty much guaranteed a job. Even a bad engineer from MIT can find a job at a Top 50 school, just because the lower schools are willing to give him a chance (“I mean, he did graduate from MIT, so he can’t be THAT bad”), and they want that MIT name attached to their faculty. </p>
<p>That being said, a great adviser (and by “great”, I mean incredibly well known and respected in the field), can place students almost anywhere. The problem is that it’s hard to find a great adviser at a lower ranked school.</p>
<p>What G.P. Burdell said, essentially. It all depends on what you want to do after graduation. If you aspire to teach at an R1 or a do research at a top government firm or teach at a top liberal arts college, that top 15 program will be a better bit. If your ambitions are a bit lower, than the lower-tier school will probably be okay for you.</p>
<p>Before you make a decision, inquire about placement rates. Where do graduates of this program normally end up working? What kind of work to do they do? Reputable programs with good placement keep records of such. If a school says they do not keep records of this, that is a bad sign.</p>
<p>And yes, in the field of psychology your department’s prestige has a lot to do with where you get post-doctoral fellowships and where you eventually get hired.</p>