This discussion is now closed.

Check out other Related discussions

Does the University's reputation matter (PhD)?

Scroll to see replies

Reply 20

BO'H

Original post by LostRiot

At new universities there are less PhD students

fewer

Reply 21

kka25

Original post by the_alba

but there will always be applicants who benefit from other people's snobbery, insecurity or ignorance, when it comes to getting on the academic job ladder. This is as true within Oxford (which loves to recruit internally for its junior lectureships) and it is outside of it.

Will see how long they'd last..

Reply 22

LostRiot

Original post by BO'H

fewer

Its a good job I'm a scientist and not an arts student isn't it. :smile:

Reply 23

LostRiot

Original post by the_alba

I used to think this too, but unfortunately there is still some Oxford/Cambridge snobbery at some universities, particularly when it comes to applying for academic posts outside the UK. It's ridiculous and unfair, but it is true. Trinity College Dublin just gave a job someone with no publications fresh out of his DPhil, overlooking some very much more senior, well-known, and downright better candidates in the process. Nothing has changed with them since they overlooked the great poet Louis MacNeice for a job, in favour of some Oxbridge nobody called H.O. White who then spent his whole Trinity career writing letters about church matters to the Irish Times. There are some universities who can't seem to shake their crushes on Oxford, and recruit accordingly. This is despite the fact that doing a DPhil at Oxford is just a choice one makes about where to live as a postgrad student; it's not some huge achievement in itself, at least not more than any other PhD is.

In general, good people with good publications and obvious intelligence do rise to the top eventually, but there will always be applicants who benefit from other people's snobbery, insecurity or ignorance, when it comes to getting on the academic job ladder. This is as true within Oxford (which loves to recruit internally for its junior lectureships) and it is outside of it.

Hmm, to be honest so much of getting a post doc position is based on knowing the right people anyway it all evens out overall, there was a lecturer at my old university who we described as having a 'circle of trust' basically because everyone who has completed a PhD with him has gone on to the most amazing post doc positions, he used to work at Oxford actually, but hates it with a passion now. But anyway, really he just knew slots of people, made sure his students got to know the right people and he was respected enough that people listened when he said his students were smart.

Maybe it helps abroad, but the last two phd students to graduate from my department have both now got jobs in the USA, one with NASA, so it probably just depends on who is doing the hiring.

Reply 24

kka25

Original post by LostRiot

he used to work at Oxford actually, but hates it with a passion now.

did he say why?

Reply 25

LostRiot

Original post by kka25

did he say why?

Usually just a load of expletives :/

Reply 26

LostRiot

Original post by Seagull234

i was wondering the same a while ago, so what i did was simple; i looked at the academic staff of various UK universities and where they did theyr PHD. very very few were from outside the top universities, especially with the younger and newer ones. Interpret into that what you will, but id at least factor in university reputation strongly.

Big flaw here. Most new universities were made Universities in 1992, before that they were polytechnics. While polytechnics could award PhDs they generally didn't as they didn't get funding for research ( PhDs were generally awarded to lecturers who conducted research on the side). So anyone who got their PhD before 1995 couldn't have got it at a new university.

In fact most post-1992 universities are only just starting to build research facilities now, before my studentship, there were 8 other studentships granted in the history of my department, and only 3 people have actually achieved a PhD (no one is yet to drop out or fail), they are all now in employment as post docs or have fellowships, which are generally a pre-cursor to a lecturing position..

So I can see what you're saying, and you're right, most academics do have PhDs from russell group or 1994 group universities, but you've got a big hole in your reasoning.

Wait 25 years and do the same thing again, then your results might be valid.

Reply 27

Craghyrax

Original post by LostRiot

I'm doing a PhD at a 1992 ex-poly, I had an offer from a Russell group university too but I chose the ex poly, and I'm glad I did, I did my undergrad and MSc at a Russell Group uni, these are my thoughts....

At new universities there are less PhD students, my department has 10, compared to my old department which had 30, with roughly the same number of staff, the advantage of this is that you get more access to facilities and get more contact time with staff disadvantage is that there are less people to hang out with.

New Universities love 'encouraging research', which basically means spending money on stuff, in addition to my studentship I can fully expense conferences, and I can go to up to 2 a year, there is no maximum spend although only one of them can be abroad. As well as this I needed a 64bit pc, so they gave me a catalogue of computers and I ordered one for £5k and spent £1k on monitors and no one batted an eyelid! Also, I can request the University buys any book (takes them about a week to get it in) and subscribes to any journal (but only at the end of the academic year) oh and I get the same sized office/desk as the post docs. Basically if I can justify that something will aid research I get it, its brilliant!

Number one thing that matters is supervisor, this is more important than anything else, you have to work with this person, you need to know that you can bounce ideas off each other and work well together, but it does help that you can have a good department, and this is one of the downsides to a new university, there are less world renowned academic staff, but this is changing, and I've not found it to be much of a set back.

Assuming you're going to carry on into academia I really don't think it will set you back at all, what you publish is the most important thing, nothing else makes a jot of difference, apart from maybe your reference, and that's got nothing to do with your university either. Anyone who says otherwise is living in some kind of dream world where employers care about more than research output. Or trying to justify to themselves that they'll 'do ok' despite not having a publication record. If you're going to go into industry it might make more of a difference, I don't really know about that.

Sounds like you're doing a scientific subject. In Arts, Humanities and Social Sciences there is a difference between traditional Universities and post-1992s in terms of wealth, and things aren't as rosy as you make out.

I'm not saying this should put people off of applying. Supervisors and winning funding is the priority. I'm just trying to say that richer Universities offer students more perks. Its only because sciences are well funded generally that your department can provide for you in that way. Speak to some English PhDs (or something similar) at your Uni and see whether their department buys them new equipment and new books :p:

Reply 28

LostRiot

Original post by Craghyrax

Perhaps, but a lot of it is at a University level (i.e. the library have a budget for buying in books that people request - but there is always money left over at the end of the year (I know this because they send round emails encouraging people to order books before the end of the academic year)), there are some things that I know other universities get money for that we don't, for example the research group has a seminar series, but we can't afford to pay expenses to get people to travel in, which I know my old university could, so as a result its a lot of internal speakers and whoever happens to be visiting which isn't ideal. But in terms of facilities can't fault it. Except that they turned the staff room into an office, so now we don't have anywhere to mingle. :frown:

I'm in a geography department btw, the faculty is social science, but I look into cold regions hydrology, so its really the opposite of a social science, pretty anti-social on the whole.

edit: oh also they really really care about teaching, at my last uni teaching was something lecturers did because they had to, and no one really cared how good they were at it, they did the minimum possible and PhD students filled in the gaps. Here the undergrads have roughly double the contact hours that I did, and most of that is made up of extra lab time, which is quite staff intensive, also PhD students aren't allowed to run tutorials, so the lecturers have to do that too. Whole place bloody loves their teaching, makes my education look crap.

(edited 12 years ago)

Reply 29

kka25

Original post by LostRiot

edit: oh also they really really care about teaching, at my last uni teaching was something lecturers did because they had to, and no one really cared how good they were at it, they did the minimum possible and PhD students filled in the gaps. Here the undergrads have roughly double the contact hours that I did, and most of that is made up of extra lab time, which is quite staff intensive, also PhD students aren't allowed to run tutorials, so the lecturers have to do that too. Whole place bloody loves their teaching, makes my education look crap.

At this moment, I would leave the Uni if the teaching is just being forced to the lecturer. From my experience, it's a waste of money and time seeing them struggle doing their job. Also, I'd never found PhD students that run tutorials helpful. I went to two different Unis and I find the most satisfaction where the lecturers took absolute control of their class.

At the moment, I'm tempted to actually tell any lecturers to pull their socks up and lecture the damn thing properly.

Reply 30

danny111

ceteris paribus, of course.

question is, what would you do if a slightly lower ranked uni offers you significantly more funding?

and other questions like that. but of course, go to the highest ranked uni that you can (considering things like above)!!!!!!!!

Reply 31

LostRiot

Original post by kka25

To be honest no (or certainly very few) lecturers really want to teach, but its part of the package so they've got to do it. Going to a new university however has really opened my eyes to the fact that the best teaching really does not happen at the best universities, but I think its a fine line, because research is what matters in the long run. My current university actually has staff members who do not conduct research, they only teach, they're weaning them out, but its not a bad idea, for first years at least.

Reply 32

kka25

Original post by LostRiot

Going to a new university however has really opened my eyes to the fact that the best teaching really does not happen at the best universities

I have the same sort of experience. So do you find that positive or the otherwise?

Reply 33

Craghyrax

Original post by LostRiot

I disagree with this as a generalisation. In my experience whether or not an academic wants to teach depends on their personality, not what kind of University they go to. Many lecturers at my old institution were outstanding. Others weren't outstanding. I'm sure the same is true for academics everywhere. Of the PhD students I know with teaching experience, a lot of them really like teaching and hate research, and some are the reverse. You get positions for University teaching without research, and people go for that.

Original post by LostRiot

Spoiler

I think you're missing my point. By all means gush about the one post-1992 University you've studied at, and encourage people to apply there (or at least to its Geography department), but don't imply or suggest that it represents post-1992 Universities everywhere. A lot of them have considerably less funding, facilities and resources than you suggest, and if people take your word they're bound to be disappointed, tbh.

As for Geography... well actually its the same here. Physical Geography does have money thrown at it because of environmental issues. The Env Science grads here have really cushy resources. But those of us in other faculties don't. I imagine you're seeing your University through slightly rose-tinted lenses as a result.

LostRiot

Again I'd be wary of generalising about Russel Groups versus post-1992s. I think a lot can vary by University. I had bundles of contact time - often one to one contact time - with the best academics, and PhDs never taught lectures at my institution. At my new University, PhD students do huge amounts of lecturing and seminars.

Original post by danny111

I'd say that depends on the supervisor. I'd definitely go for a lower ranked University that offered poor funding (if it was enough funding for me to afford my PhD) if they had the better supervisor.

Realistically - you know a good deal of research funding is administered by research councils and they ofter the same funding nationally. A lot of University offered funding gets matched to the Research council rate as a guideline. The only people who get offered more funding are those doing PhDs where there is additional sponsorship for some or other reason; and that's usually in the sciences. So the hypothetical choice you suggest seldom comes up for people.

Reply 34

danny111

Original post by Craghyrax

In my course what you said is not really true, people do get funding from uni directly. And supervisor is one of the other issues I meant. Not that you would know for sure who your supervisor will be before you start (at least not in my subject*) and if you go to one uni coz of one great guy - guess what, everyone wants him/her as their supervisor.

*econ

Reply 35

Craghyrax

Original post by danny111

In a lot of situations people can choose their supervisors before starting. And actually if you read my post more carefully you'll notice that I mentioned cases where the funding is provided from the University. I mentioned that Universities often use the research council stipulated rate as a model for their own studentship allowances.

I'm sure it may be different with international funding of course.

Reply 36

danny111

Original post by Craghyrax

In a lot of situations people can choose their supervisors before starting

I don't believe this to be accurate. What are a lot of situations? Surely this is highly subject dependent.

And actually if you read my post more carefully you'll notice that I mentioned cases where the funding is provided from the University. I mentioned that Universities often use the research council stipulated rate as a model for their own studentship allowances.

I'm sure it may be different with international funding of course.

I see, I did indeed not read very carefully. However, I maintain that for economics it is entirely possible that you will get funding from one uni but not another or that you get more from one (my friend got straight onto phd program and he will not just have his phd fees paid, but will also receive a yearly 'living allowance' which I know he would not have gotten at our undergrad uni).

Reply 37

Nathanielle

Why are so many here saying that teaching of PHD students is a sign of bad teaching?
1. Some very intelligent students are fully capable to hold tutorials even at their class mates, thus it is more a matter how you choose these students, not of age. Often younger ones tend to be better, as they aren't so far away of the struggle that the students are facing as the Professor, who teaches since twenty years the same subject.
2. At research intense universities there exists also very good lectures and sometimes you just recognize your advantage over the "we spoon fed you, so you can get a good grade"-student, later.
3. PHD students (okay, I never had one, who hold a lecture) can hold marvellous tutorials and I don't think that is because they had to do a Master before in my country.
Probably it is more the question of the personality and ability than of the hierarchic position somebody hold at university.

(I have absolutely no problem that teaching assistants and PHDs are doing teaching, so that the Professor just has to answer the difficult questions of students.)

Reply 38

kka25

Original post by Nathanielle

2. At research intense universities there exists also very good lectures and sometimes you just recognize your advantage over the "we spoon fed you, so you can get a good grade"-student, later.

So...what? You're saying it doesn't matter if the lecturer is bad and the students have to self teach themselves anyway? This is ridiculous and utter garbage. I'm at to uni to learn from people not from books. If that's the case, the there's no need for me to go Uni. Stay at home and study by myself. The books are there to aid me not to teach me. The lecturers are there to teach me.

If I get you right, so if the lecturer is bad, we just self teach our self and we have an advantage later on? I thought like that during my 1st until 3rd year of uni. So I didn't complain much about poor lecturing style. I stopped thinking like that once I found great lectures who give a damn and lecture their topic properly. Not only my understanding improve significantly, I also can go further deep with the topic by myself without the lecture holding my hands. Now you tell me, is that spoon feeding or just plain good teaching?

If you're giving me arguments that good uni students should self teach themselves. Lame. You can't self teach yourself everything. What's the point coming then?

My point here is that saying things like "not being spoon fed" or "expected to explore" is really a poor excuse to defend lecturers who can't teach.

If they are so damn concern about their research and can't teach, then don't teach!
I had the so called brilliant research lecture who can't teach squat. Because of him, my grades suffered and I still can't grasp the basics of the theory. Directly because of that, can't do much with my grad work and was left behind. If I did get him to at least teach well, then I wouldn't be having my current problem at all.

(edited 12 years ago)

Reply 39

the_alba

Original post by kka25

If they are so damn concern about their research and can't teach, then don't teach!
I had the so called brilliant research lecture who can't teach squat. Because of him, my grades suffered and I still can't grasp the basics of the theory. Directly because of that, can't do much with my grad work and was left behind. If I did get him to at least teach well, then I wouldn't be having my current problem at all.

Almost all lecturers *have* to teach now, it's not something you can opt out of; and not everyone is a naturally gifted teacher, but that doesn't mean they shouldn't be able to be academics, because research is important too.

University study *is* about becoming an independent learner; of course you can learn from and be supported by lecturers, but if you're completely dependent on them, you're doing something wrong. A lot of what you learn at university is, necessarily, from books, not teachers. In many Humanities subjects, for example, a student can expect only between five and eight actual contact hours a week; the rest of the time, they are expected to be reading and grappling with their subject independently. University is not and should not be about being told what to do and how to do it every step of the way. If you had extra problems with theory and sought help you didn't get, then fair enough; but it's misguided to expect a seminar or lecture to replace the hours of reading and thinking required to fully understand difficult concepts.