State university, ivy graduate school? Possible?

[sakky]

<p>

I’ve yet to meet one wavering student at grad school in my undergrad or at Stanford in a phD program

</p>

<p>Ha! Well then I think you should investigate some more. </p>

<p>Since you brought it up, I’ll give you an example from Stanford - my own brother. He went to Stanford for his PhD, but then wavered significantly, and now he isn’t pursuing his field of study at all. Nor is he a lone exception; he knows quite a few other former Stanford PhD students who did the same thing. Many of them didn’t even finish the PhD at all. Of those that did, some of them took immediately took jobs outside of their field of interest. Then of course there are those who did pursue academia for awhile but then found out that they didn’t really like it, and so later on switched to other things. </p>

<p>

What happens if you are dedicated to research and a career in academia? In the long term, it is therefore better to go to UOklahoma as it may indeed net you more connections to fields you are interested in than Harvard. Thats probably why people choose to go to great but not elite schools like GT above ivies and even MIT depending on specialty. You might be better off going to harvard if you are wavering on a phD, but then again you shouldn’t be going anyways if you are.

</p>

<p>The question on the table is how do you know that you really are dedicated? Lots of people think they’re dedicated, but then find out that they really aren’t. That’s why the attrition rates of PhD programs are so high (only about 50% of incoming PhD students will finish). I think every PhD student, whether at Harvard, Stanford, or Oklahoma, can tell you stories about people they knew who came in who thought they were dedicated, but then found out that they didn’t really like the academic lifestyle at all and hence didn’t finish the PhD. Or about people who actually took assistant prof jobs, but found out that they didn’t like that, and so left to do something else. </p>

<p>The other aspect, as I have stated, is that even if you are dedicated, you still might not get a job simply because - particularly in certain fields like the humanities - there aren’t enough research jobs for everybody.</p>

<p>The real problem, again, is that you just don’t know. That’s where the risk comes in. You don’t know what the future is going to hold. You don’t know what you are going to want to do in the future. You also don’t know what jobs are going to be available in the future. You just don’t know. Yes, you can try to make guesstimates, but at the end of the day, you still don’t really know. Since there are no guarantees, it is entirely rational for you to be risk-averse. </p>

<p>

Did these kids actually FINISH their PhDs and get their degree? Then they don’t have the bragging rights that they went to Harvard. They’d be drop-outs. Now if they got the MA as a consolation prize, then never mind.

</p>

<p>Most of them will in fact get their consolation masters.</p>

<p>But that’s irrelevant anyway, because even if they didn’t graduate, they can still say they went to Harvard. After all, Harvard dropouts (like Bill Gates and Matt Damon), are still in the Harvard alumni database, simply because Harvard defines alumni to be anybody who has actually attended Harvard, whether they actually graduated or not. What that also means is that these attendees have full access to the alumni database and hence full access to the networking, which I would argue is the real value of the Harvard experience. </p>

<p>

Just because Bill Gates went to Harvard doesn’t automatically make him cool. School just wasn’t cool for him.

</p>

<p>It’s not that I am saying that any school makes anybody “cool”. It’s that certain schools provide certain benefits - i.e. a powerful social networking advantage - that other schools do not. Bill Gates, to be sure, would probably have been successful going to any school. But somebody like Steve Ballmer would not be the billionaire CEO of Microsoft today if he hadn’t gone to Harvard. Granted, Ballmer would probably be a successful business manager somewhere. But would he really be a billionaire and head of the largest software company in the world? I find that doubtful. Let’s be perfectly honest; Ballmer is the CEO of Microsoft because he is Bill Gates’s old college pal from Harvard.</p>

<p>

I agree with this statement. When one of my LOR writers showed me her letter, her last paragraph basically said this. That I could stick out when things get tough and I possessed enough passion, drive, and determination to finish the process. This specific writer challenged me MORE than anyone else about me wanting to get my PhD- I spent WEEKS trying to convince her that I wanted to go for my PhD. She would ask me all kinds of questions to measure my common sense whether I was insane or not.

</p>

<p>Well, I don’t know what to tell you: I think it may be a matter of certain (smart) students who can figure out what the adcoms want to hear and then saying it. In fact, I distinctly remember one PhD student who said, in regards to his personal statement: “The lies don’t matter now, what matters is that we got in, and now we can figure out what we really want to do.” </p>

<p>Besides, let me posit the situation this way. If you guys really believe that adcoms really are so careful about admitting the ‘right’ people, then consider the following questions:</p>

<p>*Why are PhD attrition rates so high at even the best programs? After all, if you really are admitting only highly dedicated and passionate people, then how is it that so many of them end up not even finishing at all? For example, regarding the Finance PhD program at Chicago - which is one of the best finance programs in the world - well over half of the incoming PhD students will never finish the PhD. Nor is Chicago Finance unusual, as high attrition rates seem to be quite common across the board.</p>

<p>[The</a> Chronicle: 1/16/2004: Doctor Dropout](<a href=“http://chronicle.com/free/v50/i19/19a01001.htm]The”>http://chronicle.com/free/v50/i19/19a01001.htm)</p>

<p>*Concurrent with the above point, why do so many PhD programs use ‘weeder’ tactics? For example, again to reference the Chicago PhD finance program, something like 50% of them won’t even get past the first year, which is the weeder year. Nor is this a peculiar tactic at Chicago - as numerous programs use their qualifying exams or other such hurdles to eliminate a significant fraction of their students from the PhD program (generally sticking those who fail with the consolation master’s). Why even have qualifying exams if all of your students really are passionate and driven anyway? </p>

<p>*Why offer ‘supplementary’ career services to its PhD students? As I mentioned before, MIT’s Career Office has an entire section devoted to PhD students who are looking to enter ‘alternative’ careers (usually finance and consulting). Why do you need this, if all of your PhD students really are dedicated to their field of interest anyway? </p>

<p>As a corollary question, I would ask why exactly do so many MIT engineering PhD grads end up in consulting/banking anyway? After all, I think we can agree that MIT is arguably the best engineering school in the world. Yet the fact remains that a significant portion of the PhD grads enter other industries, as can be seen in p. 16 of the following PDF. For example, of the newly minted MIT PhD’s in aeronautics/astronautics engineering, one of them reportedly took a job at UBS (an investment bank). It’s not clear to me what exactly investment banking has to do with aerospace engineering. </p>

<p><a href=“http://web.mit.edu/career/www/infostats/graduation07.pdf[/url]”>http://web.mit.edu/career/www/infostats/graduation07.pdf&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>Look guys, my point is simple. The future is uncertain. Nobody really knows what they are going to want in the future, and nobody really knows what jobs are going to be available. You might want to keep pursuing what you’re doing, but then again, you might not. Even if you want to keep pursuing it doesn’t mean that you can, as somebody has to actually offer you the job.</p>

[tenisghs]

<p>

Look guys, my point is simple. The future is uncertain. Nobody really knows what they are going to want in the future, and nobody really knows what jobs are going to be available. You might want to keep pursuing what you’re doing, but then again, you might not. Even if you want to keep pursuing it doesn’t mean that you can, as somebody has to actually offer you the job.

</p>

<p>So true. Someone has to offer you a job, and people need to keep their options open and flexible. Your life won’t shatter if you choose an alternative career to academia. Follow your gut instinct because fate might be leading you to a different and more meaningful path.</p>

[sakky]

<p>

As a corollary question, I would ask why exactly do so many MIT engineering PhD grads end up in consulting/banking anyway? After all, I think we can agree that MIT is arguably the best engineering school in the world. Yet the fact remains that a significant portion of the PhD grads enter other industries, as can be seen in p. 16 of the following PDF. For example, of the newly minted MIT PhD’s in aeronautics/astronautics engineering, one of them reportedly took a job at UBS (an investment bank). It’s not clear to me what exactly investment banking has to do with aerospace engineering.

</p>

<p>To be clear about this, the above is only talking about those MIT PhD’s who switch to other careers like consulting or banking immediately upon graduation. It’s not even talking about those people who switch careers later. For example, I know quite a few people who got their PhD’s at MIT, pursued research careers for awhile, but then got tired of it, went back to school to get their MBA’s, and are now working in other careers (i.e. banking, consulting, entrepreneurship, etc.) </p>

<p>But certainly the reverse practically never happens. For example, I seriously doubt that that MIT PhD aerospace guy who switched to investment banking at UBS is going to decide to switch back into aerospace research. It seems that once you’re gone, you’re gone.</p>