<p>I heard one of those truisms that you don't hear until you know it to be true, today.</p>
<p>"When people apply to undergrads they focus on the school, when they should be focusing on the department. When people apply to graduate school, they focus on the department when they should be focusing on the lab."</p>
<p>You don't come across these kinda things until it's too late.</p>
<p>well... you don't want to go to a school just based on one lab. Lots could happen that would make it impossible/the wrong choice to join a lab which initially you were very attracted you. You probably want to choose a place where there are ~4-5 labs that you would be very interested in joining, and take it from there. There are also a lot of differences between departments in terms of requirements and philosophies and the amount of beauracracy, all of which can affect your experience regardless of the lab that you end up joining.</p>
<p>I disagree belevitt. Although this has not been my case so far (still interested in the same thing since my 3rd year in undergrad), many people change what their interests are in grad school. I saw a poll once that suggested most grad students are not sure of their area until their first year.</p>
<p>For those still on the edge about what they want to do, a good, large department is the safest bet.</p>
<p>I agree with what belevitt says. I changed majors when I was attending Northwestern. I spoke with a social work admissions director last year, and she said my coursework would opt me out of several grad school core courses. I can also work in the real world up to 5 years and return back to grad school with advanced standing. It really helps (even if you're unsure at the undergrad level) to pick a school that offers strong majors in your potential field. Northwestern provided that background for me, and it makes the graduate school process less difficult.</p>
<p>General advices do not apply to everyone.
In some fields, thinking specifically about labs is the prudent thing to do, while that is not true for other fields.</p>
<p>Best piece of advice I've ever read: "it's easy for someone to tell you what to do, but you're the one who has to live with your decisions (I'm horrified by the idea that my advice might influence someone else's life, as I rarely think the same thing two days in a row)."</p>
<p>That was from Dr. Cori Bargmann, a very renowned neuroscientist.</p>
<p>Glad to see this has sparked some lively discussion. I definitely agree with the point made by ec1234 about ensuring a backup plan and having your eye on more than one lab. This was something I was sure to do, I didn't apply to any programs that didn't have at least a few (one department there are seven) labs studying what I want to study.</p>
<p>GThopeful brings up a point that I would like to get some feedback on- how sure should you be of what you want to study before you start grad school? The system appears to be designed for people who know what they want early eg. picking rotation labs, picking who you meet with at interviews, personal statements with intended interests spelled out, designing course plans when you first begin. However, I have also heard that you don't really specialize until post doc. What does everyone think?</p>
<p>I just want to know why it's labs, labs. I don't think everyone works in labs in grad school. or do you refer to a research team as a lab? If you mean that people should research a professor that they want to work with, then I see the point.</p>
<p>And I don't think you can pick an undergrad school for a department if you haven't chosen a major. I don't think it is necessary to know your major as a freshman. some people do go on a journey of discovery, no matter how cliche that sounds. As a upperclassman advisor to freshman CS concentrators, sometimes my dd's biggest role is to try to get people to explore and get out of the 'comfort zone', look at cross-disciplinary opportunities.</p>
<p>Another parent chiming in here: I have to respectfully disagree with the assertion in the OP that when applying to undergrad, one should focus on the "department" and not the "school". Attending an excellent undergrad program which provided an incredible Liberal Arts education, and thus exposure to all sorts of subjects and topics is what led my daughter from thinking she wanted to major in some type of English and dance to her passion for neuroscience. If she had only focused on the "department" she would have attended somewhere that only offered great dance training. </p>
<p>Many, if not most students are hopefully open to much exploration of topics and potential during those first couple of years....</p>
<p>That kind of thing is a given if you apply to Canadian schools where you apply <em>to</em> a lab as well as to the department. But you have to contact PIs, interview with them, etc., but you need the acceptance from both the program and the PI wanting to take you. I guess that's what you get when you don't have rotations (for most programs).</p>
<p>I do agree with Belevitt's advice. At least you should know what PI's you'd like to work with, have a couple at each school. I have consistently heard the same thing from, well, pretty much everyone. The fact that you went to Harvard, or MIT, or whatever, might sound amazing to anyone on the street, but the truth of the matter is, there are AMAZING labs in these places, and uh, not so amazing ones. So to someone who doesn't know, a PhD from Harvard = amazing. But within the field, if you are working in a ****ty lab (for whatever reason this may be), it is not good. </p>
<p>I think it has to be a mix of both, because for the most part, the top schools/best departments have the best labs, kind of thing. But, sometimes they don't, and sometimes there are unheard of schools, that have one or two labs with PIs that are top in their field, and no one is going to care you went to some unknown university, cause in that field, everyone will know that person, etc.</p>
<p>Brownparent, the science/engineering folks have taken over the Grad forum.</p>
<p>I admit, some of us, including me, are not pursuing science careers and must follow different admissions guidelines. When I made my post, I did receive an undergrad liberal arts education and specialized during my upperclassmen years. I plan to attend a professional school(s) for my graduate studies. I believe one should try to get into the best undergraduate school that provides the best academic fit and overall breadth of programs.</p>
<p>
[quote]
"When people apply to undergrads they focus on the school, when they should be focusing on the department. When people apply to graduate school, they focus on the department when they should be focusing on the lab."
[/quote]
</p>
<p>While I understand the points, I don't quite agree with them (and I am a sci/eng person).</p>
<p>The only way it makes sense for an undergrad to focus on the department is if they are already sure what they want to study. But many undergrads are not. And the overall academic quality of a school (and of one's undergrad peers) does make a difference in one's experience.</p>
<p>A prospective grad should be focusing on prospective labs and advisors, yes. But they should also be looking at various department-level factors. For instance, they should look at the attrition rate for the department, the department's funding policies, the average time to graduation for students in the department, the politics of the department, and so on.</p>
<p>I believeit.</p>