<p>My question is how much where you got your PHD from matters if you want to have a career doing research at a place like NASA langley or Sandia or becoming a professor at a place like Caltech or Stanford.
Would someone with a Phd from a school like TexasA&M or VAtech make less than someone from MIT? Would it be easier for them to become a professor at a big name university?</p>
<p>What does your question have to do with the study? The study only applies to holders of a baccalaureate, not an advanced degree.</p>
<p>As far as doing research after your PhD, it has a lot more to do with who your advisor was and what your research topic was than it does what school you went to. The biggest advantage of going to a prestigious school is that they have a larger number of big, visible research projects and faculty, so you are more likely to be in one of those good situations. Personally, I am working on my PhD at Texas A&M and my advisor is an NAE fellow and was an editor for several journals in my area and the project I am on is sponsored by NASA Langley, so I really doubt I would have a hard time getting a job at a decent research school or at NASA as long as my grades and other stats are fine when I am finished. I feel like the biggest thing about a place like MIT is that everyone is in on projects/groups like that, not just some or most.</p>
<p>I don’t believe the government pays graduates of xx university more than graduates of yy university if they both have the same degree.</p>
<p>People with certain types of experiences, backgrounds, and such might be paid more. But I don’t think they alter the offer based on the school.</p>
<p>Over the long haul, your personal motivation and desires will have more to do with salary than the school you graduated from. You have a lot of options out there and have a lot of trade offs in deciding where you work and how much you make.</p>
<p>Some of the trade offs include:
Contract vs full time employee
Which city you want to live in
If your job offers overtime pay, and if so, how much you want to work
Whether you want to work overseas or stay in the US</p>
<p>First of all, that was a survey not a scientific study, which is a big difference. </p>
<p>Second, even if it was scientifically performed, you have correlation not causality. That’s a big deal. Think about it: who gets into Ivy League schools? Exceptional students because of intelligence and commitment and students with important connections (children of the wealthy, famous people, etc). Who does well in business? Individuals that are intelligent and committed and/or that have important connections? </p>
<p>What does that mean? People aren’t necessarily successful after college because they go to an Ivy League school; they have a propensity towards success that allows them to attend Ivy League schools and do well after college.</p>
<p>An example: Chelsea Clinton attended Stanford and Oxford. After graduation she gone on to be a highly successful consultant and later hedge fund manager. By all accounts, she has been wildly successful at her age. Would you argue that Stanford caused that success? No. In reality, she has very wealthy and powerful parents, which (in all likelihood) is why she was admitted to Stanford. She has very wealthy and powerful parents, which is why she was hired by the hedge fund (run by major Clinton donors). In reality, she could have attended the University of Arkansas and still have been hired by that hedge fund. </p>
<p>An appropriate study would be to follow admitted Ivy League students that both chose to attend and that chose to attend state schools. Then, controlling for socio economic factors, test whether or not the Ivy League component is statistically significant.</p>
<p>The strength of the specific PhD program/department is almost always more important than the overall reputation of the school. I would assume that schools like Caltech or MIT most likely have strong PhD programs in most or all areas. However, you also will find stellar graduate programs in schools that USNWR has ranked as 3rd tier. There are also weak graduate programs in otherwise highly ranked schools, so it is not always safe to assume that the overall reputation of the school directly translates to uniform quality among all of its departments or programs.</p>
<p>with regards to science phds:
because the whole program is researched based, the big thing is having equipment and money.yes there are individual professors that become important, but its just so difficult to do research at the same lvl as an MIT or Berkeley if you go to U. of south dakota (no offense to u. of s. dakota). additionally, people who are really good at science (to become professors and leaders) are small enough in numbers that it is kind of a boy’s club. this is where those connections come in.</p>
<p>additionally with a science phd, you really have to go to a top 25-40ish school. i figure its really difficult to say “hey im really good at science and should be in hired to do research” and not get into one of those top phd programs.</p>
<p>I’m certain it helps. Just look at the schools that visit Dartmouth compared to Ohio State - even an average Dartmouth student has more opportunities than the top Ohio State student because of the companies that target the two schools.</p>
<p>I just really dislike poorly designed “research”</p>
<p>G.P. I’m not sure what you have to support your comparison, but I know OSU has a much higher USNWR graduate program ranking for engineering than Dartmouth. Dartmouth has a much smaller number of engineering grad students than OSU. Also, OSU is the largest university in this country so I would think based on the program size and overall size, they would get many more companies targeting graduates than Dartmouth. Frankly, I didn’t even know Dartmouth had an engineering program.</p>
<p>Moreover, I would have to disagree that an average Dartmouth engineering student would have more opportunities than a top OSU student. Now for programs outside of engineering I couldn’t comment on (business, liberal arts, etc…). If you are just talking about recruiting for Wall St. positions or the like, your claim might be closer to the truth.</p>
<p>I was talking about the school in general, not the engineering program. Even so, the Dartmouth engineers have more opportunity as far as non-traditional positions (hedge funds, banking, business consulting, etc.)</p>
<p>That is a false statement. On a single campus, Arizona State is the largest, though just barely (about 500 more than OSU). As a University System, Penn State is the largest and it really isn’t even close… 34,000 more students system-wide than OSU.</p>
<p>If your goal is to become a professor, publications are all that matters. Even if you went to Podunk U, if you graduate with 10 publications in your field’s top journal and are well cited, you’ll be hired at a top school. </p>
<p>The thing is, that rarely ever happens. It’s the top school’s students that graduate with the most publications. Why? To be well published as a PhD student, you usually need a well known adviser (publication is often very political). Well known people tend to be at top schools. Also, you need access to a well equipped lab and some money for research. Those also tend to be at top schools (people like to cite “according to a Stanford study…” rather than “according to researchers at Podunk U…” so prestige impacts money). </p>
<p>So, does prestige matter? Not directly, but indirectly it does. And in my above comparison of “Stanford” and “Podunk U”, I don’t mean something like Stanford and Texas A&M (where there would be minimal difference in facilities and researchers in most fields) but rather Stanford and a 3rd tier school. </p>
<p>Now, at lower tier schools, prestige absolutely matters. A second or third tier school might hire an MIT PhD graduate based just on the school (as long as he is at least a half-way decent interview).</p>