Does it matter where you get your PhD?
Some of my colleagues only want to interview candidates from top-10 PhD programs. Others (I guess the ones who didn't go to top-10 PhD programs...) don't think that the ranking of the PhD program matters.
I'm not really sure what to think.
Is the degree snobbery valid?
15 comments:
ok i'm a lowly ph.d student at a middle tier school so keep that in mind for the following. i don't think the school matters. grade inflation is rampant in top tier schools and its widely acknowledged. i think the mentor (and her/his reputation), the project and subsequent pubs and the person in question are much more important than the school. so you follow the crowd and only interview from top 10 schools and the candidates can't think for themselves/have unoriginal ideas but have the prestige of the coursework education. BFD in my opinion. when i get to a hiring stage i want to see originality, persistence and the ability to learn from their mistakes and their lab mates. i don't care if that means they came from harvard (and trust me, all i ever wanted and didn't get was a harvard degree! there's still time.) or the local state uni. not all top scientists and mentors are at top 10 schools. i personally have met several at less prestigious uni's not for lack of offer, but because it was a better move to stay put or stay in a smaller place due to a 2 body (or family) situation.
i feel like those who only want a top 10 school candidate either came from one or always wanted to attend one.
my $0.02 for what it's worth.
i agree with the comment above. in terms of an undergraduate degree (which is in a bit of a different category), i feel that i received a better foundation education and a more well-rounded chemistry education at my cheap-o state school than the undergrads who pay 4 times what i did to attend a prestigious uni.
I got my PhD from one of the most respected schools in the land far, far away and that carries a lot of weight at home. Even though the school is consistently ranked in the top 50 worldwide, few people in the US have heard of it so it doesn't get me very far here. I would think that at the PhD level, who you work with and what you did during that time would be more important that the school. .
I'm pretty neutral on this point, but I lean toward thinking that the school does matter. However, it's still important to judge individuals by what they bring to the table.
I'd hope that it matters more who you worked with and what you did! I'm not at a top-ten university for chemistry, but the materials program IS ranked up there, and there's a fantastically collaborative cluster of research groups in my subfield--which is much better represented here than at higher-ranked schools. Plus, my group publishes like crazy, and our work is good. Shouldn't that count for something?
If the degree and the place it is from are the only information you have, then the snobbery is valid and a PhD from Harvaleton trumps one from Southeast Nowhere State.
But if you have two candidates - one from Harvaleton and one from Southeast Nowhere State - who both have n publications in journals ABC and XYZ (yeah, granted , papaer counting is not a great way to evaluate people), then I do not see why the one from Harvaleton should be considered better. One might even argue the opposite, because the better resources and better discussions at a good place make it easier to do good work. If one of them needed a much better environment just to achieve the same result as the other one managed to get with less, then it might be reasonable to assume that the one from SNS might be more productive if both are in equivalent surroundings.
Grad student at one of the top 20 institutions for my field and I have two points:
1. I bust my ass to get good grades and they curve the fuckwads up who should be failing and are complete morons. They will graduate scientists who are too invalid to pour piss from a boot. I'm embarrassed to be associated with some of these folks. We have a huge international contingent of students who are quite adept at cheating (as I have blogged about) while the administration looks the other way. If this idiots can't do well on tests, they are probably also falsifying data in your lab too.
2. Top tier institutions give students better access to core facilities, resources, big name PIs. The latter is what really can place you somewhere.
Eventually you cannot make your entire career off of your PI's name or legacy and have to strike out on your own. If you are competent and lucky, you will suceed. If not then the scientific community will eventually discover that you are indeed an imposter in their midst.
I think it depends on the job. If you're at an elite undergrad institution where faculty pedigree is part of the selling point to potential students and parents, it matters. However, at a research institution, what you've accomplished and what you've worked on (and your potential for funding which doesn't seem tied to pedigree at all) rule.
FYI, although this article at IHE is mainly about affirmative action issues at MIT, it fully documents the (well known?) fact that MIT hires almost exclusively from a very small group of schools. Even Cal Tech ends up in the "other" category!
They also grant tenure to less than half of the faculty they hire, but you have to do the elementary arithmetic that the IHE staff seemed incapable of doing (multiply percentages) to see the pattern.
The answer to your question depends on the school. Most R1 universities try to hire "above" themselves, but true talent sometimes comes from below. (Like the Div 1A or 2 football players who make it in the NFL for a decade while Div 1 stars are gone in a few weeks.)
I will answer your question with a question: Does teaching matter more than research?
If you are selling teaching to the parents putting up the $$$, it would do well to look at universities that invest in "teaching excellence" programs for their TAs. If you are selling status, hire that person from Harvard who teaches calculus in bad Russ-lish. If research is the top item, go for the person who will come in with a Presidential Young Investigator award and $$$$$.
disclaimer: Every case is different.
One huge benefit to those that attend the best of the best schools is your colleagues. Those people you form friendships with and will edit your papers, job props, grant props, and give you advice. The gap going INTO grad school may not be as big as the gap coming OUT of grad school after you have seen a lot of people go through it all. This is dependent on the student going the extra mile to be involved, but that should be the case no matter where the student is if they fancy a TT position.
Another benefit is a sense of perspective. A lot of people can describe some really cool experiments which will show new, interesting science. Far less can justify the value to society (i.e. funding agencies) of these neat-o experiments.
Believe me, it matters. I am a chemist in big pharma. The PhD level positions are populated by people who did PhD's/postdocs in elite schools with very famous advisors. Where one goes to school and who they worked for is often the first screen for resumes. Also, keep in mind that the elite institutions and professors have an established network with universities and biotech/pharma companies via their former students they have placed there. Lesser schools and professors often do not.
When I (and you!) was/were in undergrad and grad school - you take notice of the people who come to give faculty candidate seminars. Post-docs from certain groups and certain schools.
If you want to be a prof at at top 25 R1 school or get a PhD level job in big pharma or big biotech, where you went to school and your pedigree is very important.
I think unless you know that a school has a tendency to be overly political, touchy-feely about letting crappy students through, or generally prone to grade inflation and low-quality performers, it shouldn't matter.
I agree that it matters more about what the candidate did, and sometimes who they worked with. There are plenty of great people at undervalued schools, and it's possible to do groundbreaking work anywhere.
Having said that, I totally agree with most of these comments. I went to a highly ranked school for my PhD, and many of the students my year were utterly unimpressive. Should they get a bonus for having gotten into that school and somehow scraping through? Huh? That makes no sense to me whatsoever.
I don't think you should automatically award points to someone for going somewhere highly ranked; nor can you assume that just because someone went somewhere you've never heard of that they aren't really smart, hardworking, creative, persistent, etc.
I think it's really a shame that so many people buy into this and encourage others to propagate it as if it's a meaningful form of evaluation (like Anon 5:47). The networking aspects may be true, but the quality part is not correlated at all.
can I point out that less than 1 in every 100 people in the world have a UNDERGRAD degree! As people plot for the perfect school to get your PHd to have the career you want etc etc. Remember you are so lucky and to use a word from my mother blessed to have the opportunity to obtain a PHd from any school. just saying...
Of course it matters where you get your Ph.D., to an extent. Rankings exist for a reason (i.e. real discrepancies exist in training quality), and to ignore them is absolute wackaloonery.
Now- is there a difference between school 12 and school 14? Probably not. But is there a difference between school 4 and school 14? Certainly.
But even still, I'd take your best candidate from school 14 before I take one of the lower half from school 4.
Everything is a matter of context.
I would like to hope that if you just "scraped" through, it would be noted in your recommendations. And most likely, those people would not be applying/getting TT positions at top tier institutions.
I agree with whoever up there commented about how the main benefit of coming from a top tier institutions is the peers/colleagues that you've developed. Working with smart people makes you smarter, I believe that. Working in an environment where there are high expectations, and everyone around you is driven to succeed (while not for everyone) fosters incredibly growth. And that is the benefit of attending a school like Harvard.
With that said, of course there will always be that super talented candidate from a non top tier institution, but those are few and far between.
And obviously what you did and who you worked with matters a lot, but fact is, at higher level institutions you have a higher rate of working with driven professors, you have often a higher rate of publication, so attending a higher level institution increases your chances, but you still have to put the work in regardless. I don't believe that attending upper tier institutions gets you a free pass, but it does give you some opportunities that are unique.
All this is just my opinion, of course.
Post a Comment