Confused about the importance of departmental rankings

[jaio]

I’m at the point in my career where I’ve been accepted to a few grad schools and am currently deciding where to go. My top priority is advisor fit, since I plan to stay in my field. Talking to multiple professors/scientists at different institutions, it seems that my success in grad school is all contingent on how hard I work and who my advisor is, not the name of the school or even the ranking of the department. This makes total sense to me, seeing how well-connected everyone is in my field (a subfield of particle physics). I’m lucky that I’ve already met with potential advisors in person during my time as an undergrad, so I was able to apply to schools based on who I would work with. I’ve found that the schools the great professors are at are totally independent of departmental and general rankings, which also makes sense to me, since it’s hard to get a faculty position in the first place.

I have noticed, however, that general institution ranking does (unfortunately) correlate with the school's funding (how much of a stipend has been offered to me) and facilities (how “run down” the physics building is), at least in my case. So even though there are some great advisors at some schools with better physics programs, I may end up going to a school with a higher general ranking and lower physics ranking just for this reason. (Note: Nowhere I’m considering is a top 30 physics department.) I will also mention that my subfield is pretty “new”, so some universities with very high ranking departmental physics programs only have 0-2 people in my field while some lower ranking universities already seem to have 3+ profs.

So I’m wondering how much departmental physics rankings should play into my decision. It seems pretty irrelevant unless I want great flexibility in multiple fields of physics. Will going to a lower ranked physics department hurt me in any way?

 

[jedishrfu]

School ranking may affect your future job chances, and advisor ranking will affect how well you'll succeed at getting your PhD. So you're kind of caught in a crap shoot here. I guess I would go with the advisor ranking and place the school second. As a graduate student you have to think minimalist survival.

My brother had a fickle advisor in Physics who would lose interest in student topics. He had several students just hanging around until the department wondered why none of his students were graduating and forced the issue. So having a good advisor who is interested in your thesis is really important for your survival and health.

On the other hand bigger schools have better facilities and better pay but not by much and you will still have to struggle. Look at the cost of living at each of these institutions. It may be that the one with the good advisor while having a lower paycheck will have a decent cost of living too.

 

[kuruman]

Will going to a lower ranked physics department hurt me in any way?

I can see a few considerations to think about. Right now you plan to stay in your field. Suppose you change your mind and are looking for a different subfield of physics. Where will you be better able to do the switch? I am intrigued with your statement that "very high ranking departmental physics programs only have 0-2 people in my field while some lower ranking universities already seem to have 3+ profs." Why do you think that is? My guess is that the major league institutions are hedging their bets; they are waiting to see who the leading people are in the field and then make them an offer they can't refuse. On one hand you should not pick a department with 0-2 people especially if the number is closer to 0 than 2. On the other hand if you pick a 3+ department, you should be prepared for the eventuality that your advisor may decide to leave for a better place especially if he/she is well funded. Some advisors take 1-2 of their advanced students with them, but in most cases they leave them behind. When I was in grad school, a fellow student lost his advisor that way when he was a year away from finishing. He stayed put, changed fields and it took him an additional 3 years to finish his Ph.D. I'm not saying this will happen to you, but it's something to consider.

 

[jaio]

Thank you for the responses. I want to note that I only applied to work with advisors that I heard were good or that I met in person and connected with, so it's not a choice of good vs. bad advisor necessarily but rather which advisor is a better fit. (I think I'm extremely lucky that I was able to do this, for the record.) In my case the better ranking school also has the best advisor fit, but the physics department rank is lower than some of my other choices.

@jedishrfu How will school/department ranking affect my future job chances? Is this for academia or industry?

 

[jedishrfu]

As an example, if two A+ grad students applied for a job then an employer would take the one from the more prestigious university. It might even happen that the A+ student came from a good university and another with a B average came from MIT then I think MIT student would win out. It’s very subjective but you get the idea.

My old manager preferred hiring students from his old alma mater over other universities because he knew and trusted the engineering training they got.

Academic jobs are different and different criteria would apply but I think prestige would play a big role in hiring along with papers published and fields of interest.

 

[Vanadium 50]

Stipend size is often more a function of geography than anything else. It's expensive to live in Manhattan, so NYU has a relatively high stipend compared to, say, Johns Hopkins, even though Hopkins is generally regarded to have a stronger program.

As far as "brand recognition", it depends on who you are trying to impress. If you do nuclear physics, SUNY Stony Brook is more impressive than Harvard to someone who understands the field. If you're trying to impress someone who doesn't know the field, Harvard is more impressive. I don't think anyone who doesn't know the field sees any difference between NYU and JHU, though.

 

[Dr Transport]

As an example, if two A+ grad students applied for a job then an employer would take the one from the more prestigious university. It might even happen that the A+ student came from a good university and another with a B average came from MIT then I think MIT student would win out. It’s very subjective but you get the idea...

Although I agree with @jedishrfu , I have direct experience, I have a staff member in another section who has an undergrad from Cal Tech and a PhD from MIT. I'll never make that mistake again, I am staying away from those schools for my future hires, no matter how impressive their qualifications are.

 

[Vanadium 50]

I am staying away from those schools for my future hires, no matter how impressive their qualifications are.

We hired a woman once. It didn't work out.

Anyway, the point Dr. Transport made is relevant - when applying for a job you don't know what the past experience of your prospective employer is, and you certainly don't know it when deciding what school to go to, These external factors are out there, but there's relatively little you can do about them.

 

[StatGuy2000]

Although I agree with @jedishrfu , I have direct experience, I have a staff member in another section who has an undergrad from Cal Tech and a PhD from MIT. I'll never make that mistake again, I am staying away from those schools for my future hires, no matter how impressive their qualifications are.

If you don't mind my asking, what were the problem(s) or issue(s) you encountered with the Caltech or MIT graduate(s) that you've had direct experience with?

I ask because in my personal opinion, it is a little unfair and irrational to tarnish an entire school based on the experience of one or two graduates from that school.

 

[jedishrfu]

It doesn't matter about their issues, once an employers perception is affected there's littlle you can do to change it. As I said earlier, my boss would recruit annually at his old school and prefer hires from there.

 

[StatGuy2000]

It doesn't matter about their issues, once an employers perception is affected there's little you can do to change it. As I said earlier, my boss would recruit annually at his old school and prefer hires from there.

I understand what you're saying, and also understand that employers (like people in general) have their preferences.

I was just curious about the experience of @Dr Transport, since he brought it up in his post in this thread.

 

[jedishrfu]

Sometimes these are sensitive issues particular to an employee that's why i posted. Managers can get into lots of trouble for spilling too much and need to be very cautious.

 

[Dr Transport]

If you don't mind my asking, what were the problem(s) or issue(s) you encountered with the Caltech or MIT graduate(s) that you've had direct experience with?

I ask because in my personal opinion, it is a little unfair and irrational to tarnish an entire school based on the experience of one or two graduates from that school.

Not so much Cal Tech, but I've not had positive working relationships with MIT grads at any level. First of all, they are pretentious, being an MIT grad usually comes out pretty quickly and I'm mostly interested in your skill set, not where you got your degree. Secondly, when you tell them they are wrong and have proof, they'll argue that your data is faulty and their technical opinion is correct.

As for tarnishing a school, when your making a decision and your entire comparison set is negative, it's really hard to put a positive spin on it.

My particular current case involves a graduate degree from MIT, undergrad Cal Tech, who is pretty much breaking every rule where it comes to actually showing up to work. He continually calls management incompetent because they have not provided an environment where they can thrive (everyone is working under the same conditions and the rest of us are productive and thriving). He walks around spreading false rumors about everyone and asks why no one would talk to him before he brought in his current program and it's associated funding. He asked when I was going to finish my PhD, my response was that I had mine before he had his and that is why I was hired at the pay-grade I was. When he asked where I got mine, he said, "Well that isn't a real school, how could you get hired at this lab with those credentials..." Thankfully my cell phone rang during the awkward silence that followed and I asked him to excuse me I needed to take this call. So you can see, I've not had positive interactions with graduates of that school, so I won't consider them for employment in my group.

Frankly, I have had good interactions with PhD's from Cal Tech, although we did try to hire one and they turned us down saying we weren't prestigious enough for them.