question about PhD
I understand that the most important factor choosing where you are going to do your PhD is your supervisor and the area. not the name and the reputation of the university. However, I have seen that most of the lecturers in the top universities and top business schools have a phd from really good universities. There are some lecturers and professors from decent universities but are the minority. For example at LSE most of the lecturers are from US. It is very hard to find lecturers who work in a top university with a phd from Manchester University, Nottingham University and Bristol. I mentioned these universities because I believe that are really good but is hard to find people who finished their phd and workin a top uni.
My question is whether or not the university name matters for a phd.
My question is whether or not the university name matters for a phd.
It matters to an extent, but what really makes the difference is the quality of your research and the publication record that emerges from it. There are 'better' and 'worse', more and less prestigious universities - it's probably the case that lecturers are top universities did their PhDs at top universities because they were really talented, able, students. In many cases their PhDs will have led to jobs at the same or similar institutions. Social networks are powerful too.
If you're going to do a PhD and aim for an academic career you need to be prepared to love the subject rather than the institution. There's no point in studying something that doesn't really fit you just because the university is highly-regarded. Better to be happy at a less prestigious uni than miserable in the Russell Group.
If you're going to do a PhD and aim for an academic career you need to be prepared to love the subject rather than the institution. There's no point in studying something that doesn't really fit you just because the university is highly-regarded. Better to be happy at a less prestigious uni than miserable in the Russell Group.
Original post by nonswimmer
it's probably the case that lecturers are top universities did their PhDs at top universities because they were really talented, able, students. In many cases their PhDs will have led to jobs at the same or similar institutions.
I agree with the vast majority of what you said, but I think the above quote is questionable...although, yes, I'm sure people doing PhDs at 'good' universities are generally fairly able. Often, though, some of the very top unis are terrible places to do a PhD in certain subjects (my subfield in my discipline is an example) - the top students, unless they are solely concerned with prestige, will know this and, imo, the top students in my field are usually at places like Nottingham, Birkbeck, Sussex etc.
The following is my sincerest opinion (only with the academic career in mind).
Once upon a time, when our Profs were students, having a PhD alone could get you a job in academia; having one from a top university was probably a guarantee of a job at another top university. This is probably why we're seeing so many top unis staffed by people from other top unis at the moment. But those times are gone - for our generation coming up, it's going to be harder to get in but probably also a bit more meritocratic.
The name of the university per se does not matter. What matters most is the number and quality of your publications and the innovation you show in your work. What matters second-most is networking opportunities. Of course, it's not 100% meritocracy: while your individual performance matters above all else, people will also employ you if they like you and have heard from credible sources that you are good.
And this is where the name of the university sort of links in. The top universities attract the biggest names. That makes it more likely that you'll find a concentration of the kinds of people you would network with in order to boost your chances at a career. You will be working with them directly (your supervisor; your panel) and if you stand out they might mention you to their equally renowned colleagues over lunch or at the next conference. You will simply have more exposure to the top networks at a top university.
But, which is the top option can differ sharply from subject to subject. Oxford's and Cambridge's Politics & IR departments for PhD are not comparable in my view - having Cambridge on a CV might look nice, but for IR, you'd preferably want Oxford or LSE or Warwick or Aberystwyth. This is why I usually stress department, and not university. Hunt out your PhD opportunities according to where the best academics in your specific (sub-)field are located, and depending on the topic, this might not necessarily be a top 10 university. Ask yourself, which academics would I love to chat with about my topic X if only I had the right to knock on their office door? Then apply where they are.
If you are not at a top department for your field, you can try to make up for this by presenting your work at as many conferences as possible. You can also make up for this by publishing kick-arse stuff as early as possible (frankly, you should be trying to do this irrespective). Because a PhD student from the University of Average with publications trumps the PhD student from the University of Oxbridge without publications. Research university these days just don't give a damn if you can't help them get up in the league tables and/or get funding.
What I haven't yet been able to figure out is whether or not being located at a top department in some way relates to being more likely to publish - either because you're pushed harder to do this or maybe you have more freedom at a top uni (unlikely)? It wouldn't surprise me, but I don't even have anecdotal evidence of this.
Once upon a time, when our Profs were students, having a PhD alone could get you a job in academia; having one from a top university was probably a guarantee of a job at another top university. This is probably why we're seeing so many top unis staffed by people from other top unis at the moment. But those times are gone - for our generation coming up, it's going to be harder to get in but probably also a bit more meritocratic.
The name of the university per se does not matter. What matters most is the number and quality of your publications and the innovation you show in your work. What matters second-most is networking opportunities. Of course, it's not 100% meritocracy: while your individual performance matters above all else, people will also employ you if they like you and have heard from credible sources that you are good.
And this is where the name of the university sort of links in. The top universities attract the biggest names. That makes it more likely that you'll find a concentration of the kinds of people you would network with in order to boost your chances at a career. You will be working with them directly (your supervisor; your panel) and if you stand out they might mention you to their equally renowned colleagues over lunch or at the next conference. You will simply have more exposure to the top networks at a top university.
But, which is the top option can differ sharply from subject to subject. Oxford's and Cambridge's Politics & IR departments for PhD are not comparable in my view - having Cambridge on a CV might look nice, but for IR, you'd preferably want Oxford or LSE or Warwick or Aberystwyth. This is why I usually stress department, and not university. Hunt out your PhD opportunities according to where the best academics in your specific (sub-)field are located, and depending on the topic, this might not necessarily be a top 10 university. Ask yourself, which academics would I love to chat with about my topic X if only I had the right to knock on their office door? Then apply where they are.
If you are not at a top department for your field, you can try to make up for this by presenting your work at as many conferences as possible. You can also make up for this by publishing kick-arse stuff as early as possible (frankly, you should be trying to do this irrespective). Because a PhD student from the University of Average with publications trumps the PhD student from the University of Oxbridge without publications. Research university these days just don't give a damn if you can't help them get up in the league tables and/or get funding.
What I haven't yet been able to figure out is whether or not being located at a top department in some way relates to being more likely to publish - either because you're pushed harder to do this or maybe you have more freedom at a top uni (unlikely)? It wouldn't surprise me, but I don't even have anecdotal evidence of this.
(edited 10 years ago)
Original post by DeMoomin
The following is my sincerest opinion (only with the academic career in mind).
Once upon a time, when our Profs were students, having a PhD alone could get you a job in academia; having one from a top university was probably a guarantee of a job at another top university. This is probably why we're seeing so many top unis staffed by people from other top unis at the moment. But those times are gone - for our generation coming up, it's going to be harder to get in but probably also a bit more meritocratic.
The name of the university per se does not matter. What matters most is the number and quality of your publications and the innovation you show in your work. What matters second-most is networking opportunities. Of course, it's not 100% meritocracy: while your individual performance matters above all else, people will also employ you if they like you and have heard from credible sources that you are good.
And this is where the name of the university sort of links in. The top universities attract the biggest names. That makes it more likely that you'll find a concentration of the kinds of people you would network with in order to boost your chances at a career. You will be working with them directly (your supervisor; your panel) and if you stand out they might mention you to their equally renowned colleagues over lunch or at the next conference. You will simply have more exposure to the top networks at a top university.
But, which is the top option can differ sharply from subject to subject. Oxford's and Cambridge's Politics & IR departments for PhD are not comparable in my view - having Cambridge on a CV might look nice, but for IR, you'd preferably want Oxford or LSE or Warwick or Aberystwyth. This is why I usually stress department, and not university. Hunt out your PhD opportunities according to where the best academics in your specific (sub-)field are located, and depending on the topic, this might not necessarily be a top 10 university. Ask yourself, which academics would I love to chat with about my topic X if only I had the right to knock on their office door? Then apply where they are.
If you are not at a top department for your field, you can try to make up for this by presenting your work at as many conferences as possible. You can also make up for this by publishing kick-arse stuff as early as possible (frankly, you should be trying to do this irrespective). Because a PhD student from the University of Average with publications trumps the PhD student from the University of Oxbridge without publications. Research university these days just don't give a damn if you can't help them get up in the league tables and/or get funding.
What I haven't yet been able to figure out is whether or not being located at a top department in some way relates to being more likely to publish - either because you're pushed harder to do this or maybe you have more freedom at a top uni (unlikely)? It wouldn't surprise me, but I don't even have anecdotal evidence of this.
Once upon a time, when our Profs were students, having a PhD alone could get you a job in academia; having one from a top university was probably a guarantee of a job at another top university. This is probably why we're seeing so many top unis staffed by people from other top unis at the moment. But those times are gone - for our generation coming up, it's going to be harder to get in but probably also a bit more meritocratic.
The name of the university per se does not matter. What matters most is the number and quality of your publications and the innovation you show in your work. What matters second-most is networking opportunities. Of course, it's not 100% meritocracy: while your individual performance matters above all else, people will also employ you if they like you and have heard from credible sources that you are good.
And this is where the name of the university sort of links in. The top universities attract the biggest names. That makes it more likely that you'll find a concentration of the kinds of people you would network with in order to boost your chances at a career. You will be working with them directly (your supervisor; your panel) and if you stand out they might mention you to their equally renowned colleagues over lunch or at the next conference. You will simply have more exposure to the top networks at a top university.
But, which is the top option can differ sharply from subject to subject. Oxford's and Cambridge's Politics & IR departments for PhD are not comparable in my view - having Cambridge on a CV might look nice, but for IR, you'd preferably want Oxford or LSE or Warwick or Aberystwyth. This is why I usually stress department, and not university. Hunt out your PhD opportunities according to where the best academics in your specific (sub-)field are located, and depending on the topic, this might not necessarily be a top 10 university. Ask yourself, which academics would I love to chat with about my topic X if only I had the right to knock on their office door? Then apply where they are.
If you are not at a top department for your field, you can try to make up for this by presenting your work at as many conferences as possible. You can also make up for this by publishing kick-arse stuff as early as possible (frankly, you should be trying to do this irrespective). Because a PhD student from the University of Average with publications trumps the PhD student from the University of Oxbridge without publications. Research university these days just don't give a damn if you can't help them get up in the league tables and/or get funding.
What I haven't yet been able to figure out is whether or not being located at a top department in some way relates to being more likely to publish - either because you're pushed harder to do this or maybe you have more freedom at a top uni (unlikely)? It wouldn't surprise me, but I don't even have anecdotal evidence of this.
This is all intriguing stuff. And, I am sure, true. I know that m,y son chose his PhD place on the basis that he was far more likely to get stuff published while there, because they go out of their way to do so, than the other offer he had. And they were both good unis.
I did my undergrad at a post-92 uni. They encouraged me to publish a summary version of my undergrad dissertation research (which I did, in a peer-reviewed regional journal). In my faculty, publication was built into the taught Masters courses; each student was expected to produce and submit a short publishable paper as part of their assessed coursework. MRes students were expected to submit a major paper to a national or international journal in addition to their thesis.
I did my Masters at a Russell Group uni. They were absolutely gobsmacked at the idea that undergrads could produce anything publishable, let along have work accepted. The concept of publication being expected at Masters level was alien to them as well. Whilst occasional Masters students who were being mentored very closely might publish, it was only expected once you reached PhD level.
So you can't really generalise about the type or name of the university, and their approach to student publication. It seems to depend on their historic ethos and the cultural acceptability of student publication in each organisation. In my case. I found the post-92 gave much more encouragement and support towards publication right from the start, for anyone producing publishable work.
I did my Masters at a Russell Group uni. They were absolutely gobsmacked at the idea that undergrads could produce anything publishable, let along have work accepted. The concept of publication being expected at Masters level was alien to them as well. Whilst occasional Masters students who were being mentored very closely might publish, it was only expected once you reached PhD level.
So you can't really generalise about the type or name of the university, and their approach to student publication. It seems to depend on their historic ethos and the cultural acceptability of student publication in each organisation. In my case. I found the post-92 gave much more encouragement and support towards publication right from the start, for anyone producing publishable work.
Quick Reply
Related discussions
- PhD Woes - Too Late?
- LIDo DTP Interview
- PhD interview is over.
- PhD The Early Process, Application and Interview advice
- Medical Education, NHS, UK, CLINICAL ACADEMICS
- Should I do a PhD?
- Part-time PhD at Cranfield advice
- Question about potential PhD opportunities, not advertised
- uni students... ask me anything
- Changing topics in a PhD program
- what steps to take to become a doctor who does research
- What should I specialise in after Biomedical Sciences? Highest paying?
- Advice for PhD
- PhD application introductory meeting?
- Masters or PhD?
- PhD applications
- How do you do a PhD in an area of research with very little published work?
- MPhil vs PHD
- UCL Wellcome PhD Mental Health
- Do you look at prestige/reputation for PhD applications?
Latest
Trending
Last reply 3 hours ago
UCL (University College London) Postgraduate Applicants 2024-25Last reply 1 week ago
University of Edinburgh 2024-25 Postgraduate ApplicantsLast reply 2 weeks ago
MPhil in Basic and Translational Neuroscience at Uni of CambridgeLast reply 2 weeks ago
Cambridge University MPhil in Management (2024-2025)Trending
Last reply 3 hours ago
UCL (University College London) Postgraduate Applicants 2024-25Last reply 1 week ago
University of Edinburgh 2024-25 Postgraduate ApplicantsLast reply 2 weeks ago
MPhil in Basic and Translational Neuroscience at Uni of CambridgeLast reply 2 weeks ago
Cambridge University MPhil in Management (2024-2025)
