<p>Here is my dilemma:</p>
<p>I am trying to decide between two great neuroscience programs, UCLA and Emory. I am finding that when it comes to research it is a safer bet to choose UCLA, much variety in my topic of interest (Alzheimer's disease) and great facilities and funding. On the other hand, Emory is safer in terms of program (in my opinion, please feel free to disagree, I'd love to hear other views) and location. I think that the program there is well structured and organized, the students are a high priority and the location is safer and more affordable. So, my question is this, which is more important when it comes to choosing a graduate program, the research or the everything else?</p>
<p>I appreciate any and all comments and advice!</p>
<p>Thanks all :)</p>
<p>-M</p>
<p>Shebelle, </p>
<p>I am in a similar situation. I am trying to decide btwn UCLA neuroscience and Mt Sinai (NYC) bioscience umbrella program. The PI’s and post docs in my lab tell me to base my decision upon the labs i can potentially work in to complete my doctorate. That will determine the amount of papers we publish as well as how soon we graduate. </p>
<p>If these factors are the same then find out how economically stable each institution is. For example with me Mount Sinai guarantees funding for its grad students through the school for the entire time they are matriculating there (32,000/12mo) where as after the first 9 months (27,000) at UCLA the faculty in your rotating lab has to fund you- this is very important to know. If both of these factors are the same observe how happy the students are in general and know the lifestyle you want to live for the next 5ish years; I know ATL is very different from the LA’s feel.</p>
<p>I would say make a check list of things that matter to you, like labs, funding, location, quality of life, student activities, etc and compare UCLA and emory and see how it works out; that might simplify your decision a bit.</p>
<p>I hope this helps.</p>
<p>Maybe I’ll see you in september…</p>
<p>-W</p>
<p>Hmm, if I follow your excellent advice, I think ucla would come out on top. They certianly have a wider variety of labs in my field of interest and just got a 30 million dollar funding grant. Also their students often graduate in 4 or 5 years rather than 5 or 6. If I were to go into one lab in particular I could def get out in 4 with a large number of publications but very little one on one mentoring, which I feel is a downside. What you say definitely makes sense, I am just having a hard time letting go of Emory for the largely supportive atmosphere and very happy grad students. So I guess is research or mentoring the most important?</p>
<p>Shebelle,</p>
<p>I think that’s a really important question. But you can only answer it based on personal choice. For me, I am a very independent worker so I know research is most important to me. However there are some that feel most comfortable having their PI’s readily accessible. You just have to decide what you need in a grad school program.</p>