[GBerritta]

Hi there,

My apologies if this has been posted thousands of times before, but I have recently been accepted on to an MA by Research at a low-ranking university and I'm thinking of applying for a PhD in the coming months. As for my MA thesis, I (obviously) think it's a good,interesting and worthwhile project and I would hope to expand upon it further if I were to progress onto PhD level study. However, I would like to know if the reputation and league table rankings of your postgrad university has a direct impact on whether you can get accepted onto a PhD? Is it likely that I could apply to study for a PhD at a middle-to-high ranking university and still get accepted despite the bad reputation of my current university? I'd like to think that if I can prove that I have passion and interest in my subject, as well as a unique and intriguing PhD proposal, that the reputation of my university won't matter, but perhaps I'm just kidding myself?

Any advice would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks!

[VENIVIDIVICI]

For PhD and P/G studies, the reputation and publications of the PI/supervisor & his/her team in your field of interest is what's important...not league table rankings.

Also, its best to do something you have a passion for and enjoy than do something at a high-ranking institution you don't really care about.

Personally speaking, I did my U/G degree at a low-ranking university and was told my a professor at one of the top uni's in the UK that they wouldn't normally take people like me in their department (cos of where I studied). I was quite taken aback by this, but worked hard to give myself more of an advantage...this was for admission to an MRes course.

I turned down a chance to apply for a funded PhD at my old uni, as I didn't feel that it would help my profile, but mainly because I did not feel the potential supervisor was that good, especially in terms of reputation. We also didn't seem compatible..seemed risky to go for for 3yrs.

So, I'll be doing a self-funded MRes at a so-called top uni as opposed to a funded PhD at my old low-ranking non research-intensive uni. Mistake? We'll see, but its a calculated risk I'm willing to take.

Make a decision that works for you and remember nothing is impossible.

I hope this helps.

[poohat]

All you can do is apply and see what happens, if you have good grades on your masters and strong letters of recommendation then you have a shot, but it really depends how competitive your field is.

[GBerritta]

Thanks for your replies, they're very helpful.
I guess another question I have is whether undergrad results matter as much when you apply for PhD? I got a high 2:1 at undergrad from a low-ranking uni, but I hope to get a distinction in my MA.

[gutenberg]

Undergrad can be important, especially if you'll be applying in the middle of your MA, as you won't have the distinction (if you achieve one) in hand to strengthen the application.

A 2.1 won't hold you back from getting a place necessarily, but I think it could impede you in getting funding. Assuming from the fact that you're doing an MA that you're in an arts/humanities-type subject, it is becoming increasingly difficult to get money, and in reality most who get it will have firsts. Just know that you're up against that, and that people will have very good firsts from very good universities, and be realistic about your chances.

[GBerritta]

Thanks for your response.
If I do apply for a PhD, I plan on applying for funding too, just because it would be silly not to. I'm not expecting to receive funding though, as I know people who are very talented in their subjects and received firsts at undergrad from top universities and still haven't been offered funding in a humanities subject.

I already have a rough idea of where I plan to apply and the universities rank from mid-table to high; to be honest, I'm not sure if I'm being completely unrealistic in applying to such places. As poohat said, I guess I'll just have to apply and see what happens...but nobody likes being rejected, right?

[gutenberg]

Well good luck; and remember that if you don't apply, then you definitely won't accepted!

If you're feeling unsure as to your chances, then perhaps have a 'safety option' where you feel confident you'll be accepted if you are really determined to do a PhD.

Would you be self-funding a PhD then, since you say you're not confident about receiving money? I'm not sure that's necessarily the wisest thing, especially for a humanities PhD...

[GBerritta]

I would be doing a self-funded PhD, yep. Why do you say it isn't necessarily wise?

[gutenberg]

Well it is very very expensive, for one thing! So many people I know that are self-funding are really struggling, with knock-on effects on their work.

Also if you're thinking of an academic career, then it looks so much better if you were successful in getting funding for the PhD. Think of it as Stage 1 of your career: you'll be expected to apply for research grants in the future, and if you got money as a postgraduate then evidently you can put together a successful application. This is not universally accepted by any means, but all of my academic advisors (I'm in the humanities too) told me to not even consider doing one unfunded if I had any interest in staying in academia. If you don't want an academic career then I don't think it's nearly as important (once you actually finish the PhD), but don't underestimate the financial commitment (unless you're super-rich of course!).

[GBerritta]

I see what you mean; I suppose it makes perfect sense that employers within academia would appreciate a candidate who had received funding at postgrad. I think working within academia would be a wonderful thing to do, and I'd hate to think I don't have a shot at it just because I probably won't receive funding to study my PhD.

[gutenberg]

Like I said, it's not a universally held opinion. If you produce a brilliant PhD, and one or two publications along the way, then of course you'll be a good candidate for academic posts afterwards. But with the number of PhDs being produced nowadays, and the ever-increasing scarcity of funding, it is seen (by some anyway) as a badge of recognition for your research and potential at an early stage of your career, especially if you were successful in getting funding at a very competitive university.

I don't think you should rule yourself out completely, but realistically it will be very very difficult: it is for everyone, but those who got funding have a little leg-up at the beginning. Also worth considering is that (and this is from personal experience only), most of the self-funders I know have to dedicate time to earning some money, be it through teaching or otherwise, and so they don't have as much time to dedicate to the 'extras' of doing a PhD, such as giving conference papers, and being able to pursue side-topics for potential articles and so on, whereas those I know who are funded have fewer (financial at least!) distractions.

[Ghost6]

(Original post by GBerritta)
I would be doing a self-funded PhD, yep. Why do you say it isn't necessarily wise?

Don't do this, especially at a low ranked university, it's a terrible idea.

As for the original question graduating from a low ranked university should not disadvantage you considerably, especially if you can get very strong letters of recommendation from famous academics. (Famous is not even that important.) Of course coming from a low ranked school where there is less competition and academic life is less intense means they want you to bring more to the table in terms of grades, research, etc to be competitive but it is definitely doable to attend a top school if you deserve it.

But never, ever, pay yourself for your PhD. It's one of the few things you can get for free if you make the right moves.

[GBerritta]

May I ask what you two (gutenberg and Ghost6) study? I'm quite curious to see which branch of humanities you are involved in, if you don't mind me asking.

Okay, so I've been thinking over what you said and now I'm wondering about the following scenario: say I get an unfunded PhD offer from a decent university, but I get a funded offer from a lower-ranking university...which one would be the best to accept?

[nulli tertius]

(Original post by GBerritta)
May I ask what you two (gutenberg and Ghost6) study? I'm quite curious to see which branch of humanities you are involved in, if you don't mind me asking.

Okay, so I've been thinking over what you said and now I'm wondering about the following scenario: say I get an unfunded PhD offer from a decent university, but I get a funded offer from a lower-ranking university...which one would be the best to accept?

Ghost6 is an American who has very little insight into the differences between US and UK HE. Gutenberg comments on UK PG are more reliable.

[gutenberg]

(Original post by GBerritta)
May I ask what you two (gutenberg and Ghost6) study? I'm quite curious to see which branch of humanities you are involved in, if you don't mind me asking.

Okay, so I've been thinking over what you said and now I'm wondering about the following scenario: say I get an unfunded PhD offer from a decent university, but I get a funded offer from a lower-ranking university...which one would be the best to accept?

Ghost is not in the humanities; he also advocates lying on your CV for the purpose of jobs and scholarships, so I wouldn't touch his advice with a bargepole.

I am a historian.

As regards your scenario, I was always told to 'follow the money': implying that getting funding trumps where you'll be studying. To give a not-very-representative example, a friend of mine was offered a PhD spot in Sheffield and in Cambridge. She was offered money in Sheffield but not Cambridge. She is going to Sheffield. Now, it's not exactly a massive step down as Sheffield is a very good uni, but she chose the money over being in Cambridge unfunded. I was in a similar position myself in that I had a funded offer from a university in Ireland, which I was going to take, until my funded Cambridge offer came through, which I am now going take. The uni in Ireland is the top-ranked one (TCD), so like the Sheffield example, probably not the most representative 'dilemma'. However, all the advice I've been given said to go where the money is offered; but ultimately only you can choose what you think is better for yourself.

[GBerritta]

I see, that's very useful. Thank you for your help
P.S. You must be a wonderful historian to get two funded offers! What's your secret?!

[gutenberg]

(Original post by GBerritta)
I see, that's very useful. Thank you for your help
P.S. You must be a wonderful historian to get two funded offers! What's your secret?!

Haha, not really But thanks. No secret really, I massively enjoy what I study, which I think comes through in my work. The topic I proposed for the two offers seems to have really grabbed attention, so I guess I was just lucky! Are you a historian as well?

[GBerritta]

I've heard luck has a great deal to do with funding offers, but I'm not quite ready to accept that possibility. No, I am a film theorist, which adds another problem to my funding dilemma. I'm not so certain there is as much funding going for film as there is for other humanities subjects. Well, saying that, I've looked on www.findaphd.com and there seems to be a few offers for funded film PhDs as long as you're not picky about where you apply to (which I'm not).
Which area of history are you interested in?

[gutenberg]

(Original post by GBerritta)
I've heard luck has a great deal to do with funding offers, but I'm not quite ready to accept that possibility. No, I am a film theorist, which adds another problem to my funding dilemma. I'm not so certain there is as much funding going for film as there is for other humanities subjects. Well, saying that, I've looked on www.findaphd.com and there seems to be a few offers for funded film PhDs as long as you're not picky about where you apply to (which I'm not).
Which are of history are you interested in?

I don't know anything about film studies, sorry When you say about the universities offering the film PhDs, have you looked at the professors behind them? Sometimes the world experts in a subject can be at the University of Nowhere, especially for a niche subject like film. I'm sure you know who the big names in film studies are, so check out where they are based: you might be surprised!

I'm an early modern historian, so sixteenth & seventeenth centuries, and I'm interested primarily in the British Isles and Europe. Issues of religion, history-writing (and myth-making!), emerging ideas of nationality and so on Some of the big names in my field are to be found in surprising places, including tiny universities in the American Mid-West; academia is a very disparate community!

[gutenberg]

(Original post by GBerritta)
I've heard luck has a great deal to do with funding offers, but I'm not quite ready to accept that possibility.

I forgot to add... I do think luck unfortunately has a role. When you have so many people applying, many of them with excellent academic results and so on, it does become in a sense a bit of a lottery. You can be lucky in that the assessor of your application for funding just really likes the project you've proposed; if you had been allocated to Prof Y, however, they might not have ranked it nearly as highly. With anything that involves so much human bias and judgment, I think you do have to be just a little bit lucky.