<p>so a big question for me as the signing deadline looms closer is on whether or not to return to my UG school to get piled higher and deeper (PhD if you haven't caught it).</p>
<p>i am currently in a lab working for a reputable prof in my field who also happens to be a surreal advisor. i have enjoyed talking to her about work and classes and even my grad school prospects thus far, and given that i've been in my lab for a little over a year, and have done a decent amount of grad-level coursework in our department, i can accelerate my PhD program by coming back. her students all go on to great postdocs and some even get faculty offers straight out of this lab. it is a great situation to be in.</p>
<p>with my other admits, the top two in consideration are not necessarily as well known for my desired specialty - biomaterials/cell eng. Vanderbilt (#20 USNews) is traditionally well-known for imaging and its new chair happens to specialize in cellular engineering and calls for the hiring of 4-5 new profs over the next few years. it is also a very solid program with a work environment comparable to that which i have been used to. however, as far as I have been told, not much is known about Vanderbilt's biomaterials/cell eng alumni. ASU (#33 USNews) seems to have been on the decline in recent years in the USNews rankings, but i have already been assigned to a lab - that of the dean of engineering. </p>
<p>i had positive vibes from both visits, but to me, ASU seems more like a career-building choice and Vanderbilt the more science-oriented choice. assuming i weren't already here for my UG degree, Rice would be hands down the clear-cut best choice. this is a very difficult decision to make, though to me there's no such thing as a bad choice. what do yall think if you were in my place?</p>
<p>Note that my response is probably not going to be the majority response.</p>
<p>I would stay at Rice if I were you. You have a department (a very strong one, no less) where people know you and like your work, where they want to see you succeed, where you already have a community, understand the politics and the social scene, know which professors are good and helpful and which ones are exploitive or bad, know how the bureaucracy works and can function in it. You already have a mentor who wants to be your mentor, who you know you can trust, who has a good job placement rate (no small feat in the academic job climate).</p>
<p>Why, then, would you give that up to try to impress a new department where you don't have/know any of this? Where you don't know who the good profs are, where you don't already have relationships, where you risk ending up with a "mentor" who is abusive or exploitive (and don't think it doesn't happen - it's happened to several people that I know personally)? Keep in mind how high the attrition rates are in PhD programs. You are being given a tremendous advantage in that respect...why throw it away?</p>
<p>Because you'll get "inbred"? The stigma over that seems to be lessening, and my impression is that it was always less in engineering anyway. You can get "broad exposure" to your field at academic conferences, through collaboration with people at other universities, through Internet communication...this is the information age. And really, it's not like tacking on another department will automatically give you a "broad" view of your field. Fields are bigger than that.</p>
<p>I think Rice sounds like your fit too. I would not sacrifice what you want because someone will call you "inbred". As a PhD student, you will get plenty of interaction with other researchers nationwide, if not worldwide. Sounds like you like your work there, and enjoy working with your current PI. The career prospects look great so why trade? Like mentioned above, I think the "inbred" label is more prominent in the arts and humanities. As an engineering grad student, I know several who came from the undergrad of the same institution and if anything they seem better prepared. They found great jobs afterwards too. </p>
<p>Good research is good research. Doesn't matter if you do it at ASU/Vandy/etc IMHO. The argument for going somewhere else is usually about exposure and making more academic connections... this is a good argument for smaller departments. But in terms of large departments with plenty of faculty, I'm sure there's still many new academic connections to make.</p>
<p>Unless you really want to migrate somewhere, I'd say stay also.</p>
<p>No professional will give you less respect because of something trivial like you got your PhD at your undergrad institute. This is highly common anyways and don't think you're the first.</p>
<p>I'm gonna diverge from the previous comments. I had to a similar situation although my choices were more notable than my undergraduate school in reputation. Point being, I would have gone elsewhere even if a school that wasn't the top school in my program had accepted me. I have a really strong relationship with my prof and it was really because of him I was able to get into top schools as all the profs at the top schools during my interviews knew him. Nonetheless, we had a conversation about me staying. The gist of it resulting in him saying "You have been productive already and I know its kind of selfish but I would love for you to stay and if you came here, you would get your PhD faster than anywhere else you would go to. But if you want hard and fast advice, get out and get a different perspective." He then rattled off names of some people who had gotten a BS, and PhD within my undergrad. While you won't suffer at all by virtue of staying at a great school like Rice, I feel learning under a different professor at different school will result in more contacts, more skills acquired, and new experiences which are crucial in the publish or perish world of academia. To me, its a world that is beginning to require versatile engineering professors that can apply for research funding at a variety of places.</p>
<p>thanks everyone for the comments.</p>
<p>very good to see both sides of the equation here. definitely good food for thought. i've heard similar things for both sides from grad students in my lab, my recommenders, etc. in general, it seems like the stigma affects people heading into academia more so than people heading into industry.</p>
<p>these are i guess factors i'm going to have to weigh. i guess now it comes down to which labs projects am i more willing to dive into...</p>