The Student Room Group

Scroll to see replies

Reply 20
Original post by ChemistBoy
Do you have a PhD or are you a PhD student? If not, I think it is pretty patronising to dismiss the experience of those of us who have achieved that qualification and gone out to the job market with it.

Of course if you don't want to use you PhD and just get a graduate job then you may well be right, but anyone who regularly employs PhDs quickly looks beyond the brand name.

Also, it would be a very odd CV indeed if a PhD holder didn't include the title of their thesis and name of their supervisor at the very least when describing their PhD.



Do not tell me wrong - i do not disagree with you. I just pointed out that it is absurd (wishful thinking?) to trivialize the name of the institution and imply that it is only supervisor/topic that matters.
Reply 21
a phd from any uni is a lot better than an undergrad degree from a good uni tbh
Reply 22
Original post by betaglucowhat
There's huge competition for all PhDs. "Prestige" of the university is 100% irrelevant for a PhD, and Oxbridge PhD students publish the same amount of papers and defend the same thesis as everyone else.


1. "There is a huge competition for all PhDs"
This is a patently false statement. Just go and check the credentials of Oxbridge PhD candidates next to other ones. It seems that the fact that the PhD selection process is not equally formalized and "objective" makes you think that it is somehow easier.

2. '"Prestige" of the university is 100% irrelevant for a PhD"
Your statement is 100% irrelevant to reality.

(I suspect that it is somewhat politically incorrect to state the obvious: Oxbridge is a league of its own and no European university can be a serious competitor)

3. "Oxbridge PhD students publish the same amount of papers"
Where is your evidence??

THAT SAID:
I do not imply that ALL Oxbridge students are superior to ALL non-Oxbridge ones. But likewise neither are ALL Oxbridge academics superior to all non-Oxbridge ones and so forth. Even further, I would argue that it is not true that university students are necessarily more intelligent than ones who do not attend university - even high school!

We are only talking about statistical tendencies.
Reply 23
Original post by smd4std
a phd from any uni is a lot better than an undergrad degree from a good uni tbh


agree
Original post by james_78
1. "There is a huge competition for all PhDs"
This is a patently false statement. Just go and check the credentials of Oxbridge PhD candidates next to other ones. It seems that the fact that the PhD selection process is not equally formalized and "objective" makes you think that it is somehow easier.


I know many Oxbridge and non-Oxbridge PhD students, and Oxbridge and non-Oxbridge postdocs, including people who moved between Oxbridge and elsewhere within their PhD and after their PhD for their first postdoc. They all have a fairly standard educational background.

You also seem ignorant of the fact that you do not apply to a university to do a PhD like it is an undergraduate or postgraduate taught course. You apply to work with a specific supervisor on a specific project, if a university does not have a PI who is looking for a PhD student in the field you are interested in there is nothing for you to apply for there. There are many people who wouldn't even try to apply for a PhD at Oxbridge because none of their researchers are relevant to their own research interests.

2. '"Prestige" of the university is 100% irrelevant for a PhD"
Your statement is 100% irrelevant to reality.

(I suspect that it is somewhat politically incorrect to state the obvious: Oxbridge is a league of its own and no European university can be a serious competitor)


You either have no experience in academia or need to get a new supervisor because they are advising you horribly for when you start looking for a postdoc. A PhD student from the bottom-ranked university with a strong publication record, relevant skills, and a well-respected supervisor who gets on with the prospective PI (though by far the first two matter the most - and many would argue they are all that matter) will get a postdoc over an average Oxbridge PhD student 10 times out of 10.

edit: I should clarify I'm talking about science here, depending on subject humanities PhD students often just publish a book.

"It doesn’t matter whether you got your PhD at glittering Harvard University or a humble regional institution like the University of Ballarat. The supposed prestige of the academic institution has almost no bearing on your long-term success, once other key variables are accounted for.
...
Finally, by far the best predictor of long-term publication success is your early publication record - in other words, the number of papers you’ve published by the time you receive your PhD."
https://theconversation.com/predicting-who-will-publish-or-perish-as-career-academics-18473

3. "Oxbridge PhD students publish the same amount of papers"
Where is your evidence??


"Finally, we found a surprisingly weak role for university prestige once the effects of other predictors were accounted for statistically (figure 2). This finding held even when we used two other leading university-ranking systems (see the supplemental material), which indicates that it was not merely an artifact of the ranking system that we employed (i.e., the Academic Ranking of World Universities). One possibility is that individual mentors or lab environments vary widely and are more important than is university reputation in determining long-term publication success. Alternatively, key personal attributes, such as motivation, might vary so widely among individuals that they simply swamp the effects of university ranking. Whatever the expla- nation, our findings suggest that, if two job candidates in biology have comparable publication records, there would be little justification for automatically favoring the candidate from the more-prestigious university."
http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.1525/bio.2013.63.10.9?uid=3738032&uid=2&uid=4&sid=21103168668827

THAT SAID:
I do not imply that ALL Oxbridge students are superior to ALL non-Oxbridge ones. But likewise neither are ALL Oxbridge academics superior to all non-Oxbridge ones and so forth. Even further, I would argue that it is not true that university students are necessarily more intelligent than ones who do not attend university - even high school!

We are only talking about statistical tendencies.


You sound like an undergrad.
(edited 10 years ago)
Doing a phD anywhere is more impressive than doing an undergrad at oxbridge.
Reply 26
It doesn't matter where you did your PHD. So I'd say undergrad.
Original post by MacroDan
A comment in another thread got me thinking, what would you guys perceive as being of higher "value" or prestige? Getting into Oxbridge as an undergraduate, or Oxbridge as a funded PhD student after having studied at a non-Oxbridge uni for the undergraduate degree (either UK or elsewhere, who cares). While both are clearly a good achievement, a case can be made for either I am sure.

N.B: Unfortunately A-level kiddies are banned from giving their opinions in this thread. In fact, the older the better.

Now talk.


In my opinion, an Oxbridge undergrad degree is more impressive (all else being equal, e.g. subject area) than the PhD without the undergrad degree.
Reply 28
Well a PhD from anywhere is obviously better than just an undergrad from Oxbridge,

however, (from the same/similar arguments of previous posters) an undergrad from Oxbridge followed by a PhD anywhere would be regarded generally as better than doing an undergrad degree anywhere and then a DPhil at Oxbridge.
Reply 29
Original post by betaglucowhat
I know many Oxbridge and non-Oxbridge PhD students, and Oxbridge and non-Oxbridge postdocs, including people who moved between Oxbridge and elsewhere within their PhD and after their PhD for their first postdoc. They all have a fairly standard educational background.

You also seem ignorant of the fact that you do not apply to a university to do a PhD like it is an undergraduate or postgraduate taught course. You apply to work with a specific supervisor on a specific project, if a university does not have a PI who is looking for a PhD student in the field you are interested in there is nothing for you to apply for there. There are many people who wouldn't even try to apply for a PhD at Oxbridge because none of their researchers are relevant to their own research interests.



You either have no experience in academia or need to get a new supervisor because they are advising you horribly for when you start looking for a postdoc. A PhD student from the bottom-ranked university with a strong publication record, relevant skills, and a well-respected supervisor who gets on with the prospective PI (though by far the first two matter the most - and many would argue they are all that matter) will get a postdoc over an average Oxbridge PhD student 10 times out of 10.

edit: I should clarify I'm talking about science here, depending on subject humanities PhD students often just publish a book.

"It doesn’t matter whether you got your PhD at glittering Harvard University or a humble regional institution like the University of Ballarat. The supposed prestige of the academic institution has almost no bearing on your long-term success, once other key variables are accounted for.
...
Finally, by far the best predictor of long-term publication success is your early publication record - in other words, the number of papers you’ve published by the time you receive your PhD."
https://theconversation.com/predicting-who-will-publish-or-perish-as-career-academics-18473



"Finally, we found a surprisingly weak role for university prestige once the effects of other predictors were accounted for statistically (figure 2). This finding held even when we used two other leading university-ranking systems (see the supplemental material), which indicates that it was not merely an artifact of the ranking system that we employed (i.e., the Academic Ranking of World Universities). One possibility is that individual mentors or lab environments vary widely and are more important than is university reputation in determining long-term publication success. Alternatively, key personal attributes, such as motivation, might vary so widely among individuals that they simply swamp the effects of university ranking. Whatever the expla- nation, our findings suggest that, if two job candidates in biology have comparable publication records, there would be little justification for automatically favoring the candidate from the more-prestigious university."
http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.1525/bio.2013.63.10.9?uid=3738032&uid=2&uid=4&sid=21103168668827



You sound like an undergrad.



I do not mean to be rude but I have not found anything relevant or stimulating in your reply. I lose time "debating" with you

However, I cannot but notice that you evade (?) making an intelligent discussion by making ad hominem accusations about (inaccurate) stuff that you postulate about me

Also, interesting to see that you are "accusing" me of being an undergraduate or academically inexperienced whereas it is rather obvious (from what you are writing) that i am quite ahead of you in the academic ladder (it seems that you are still doing your phd or your postdoc)
Original post by james_78
I do not mean to be rude but I have not found anything relevant or stimulating in your reply. I lose time "debating" with you


The most stimulating part should have been where I cited research that showed you the name of the university you attended for your PhD is irrelevant.
Reply 31
Original post by betaglucowhat
The most stimulating part should have been where I cited research that showed you the name of the university you attended for your PhD is irrelevant.


Fair enough. However "irrelevant" is too strong. I guess that at some point we could probably analyze it further.

That said, I do not think that I ever argued that the name of the university is deterministically correlated with academic performance/career. And it seems that this article challenges this precise presumption without however implying that Harvard PhDs are not a better predictor of academic performance than low-ranked universities

(In fact, I know some truly top Professors who do not even hold a PhD)
Original post by james_78
Do not tell me wrong - i do not disagree with you. I just pointed out that it is absurd (wishful thinking?) to trivialize the name of the institution and imply that it is only supervisor/topic that matters.


Well, in my experience, if you want to use your PhD, supervisor and topic matter far, far more than institution of study. Certainly in chemistry you would be much better off studying with a big name professor at another institution rather than a junior lecturer at either Oxford or Cambridge due to the connections you will gain and the value of that supervisor's name both in academic and industry (this is especially true in synthetic chemistry where the huge chemicals and pharma sectors recruit from). Academic pedigree (i.e. who you studied with) is incredibly important (as references really matter).

Again this is just my experience as someone with a PhD who has worked in academia and industry and now regularly interviews people for PhD-level positions.
(edited 10 years ago)
Original post by james_78


(In fact, I know some truly top Professors who do not even hold a PhD)


Very, very few and entirely subject dependent (I'm guessing creative arts, possibly engineering (although all engineering academics I know have PhDs) and maybe medicine). You simply wouldn't get an academic position in my subject without a PhD and international post-doc experience.
Original post by Zenomorph
I Say undergrad


A PhD from a Russell group university definitely looks more impressive than a Bachelors from Oxbridge. But that is just my opinion.
How is an undergrad considered prestigious? Regardless of where it is from it's 3 taught years of education and only requires A levels for access. A PhD demonstrates an exceptional level of dedication and intellect and probably culminated in some original, worthwhile research.
Original post by Quilverine
How is an undergrad considered prestigious? Regardless of where it is from it's 3 taught years of education and only requires A levels for access. A PhD demonstrates an exceptional level of dedication and intellect and probably culminated in some original, worthwhile research.


This rather misses the point. The question doesn't ask whether an Oxbridge BA is more prestigious than a PhD. It asks which of these two permutations you should think confers the more prestige:

1. Oxbridge Undergrad + Bigtown Doctorate
2. Bigtown Undergrad + Oxbridge Doctorate

For whatever it's worth, I think it will more often but not always be the first.
Original post by cambio wechsel
This rather misses the point. The question doesn't ask whether an Oxbridge BA is more prestigious than a PhD. It asks which of these two permutations you should think confers the more prestige:

1. Oxbridge Undergrad + Bigtown Doctorate
2. Bigtown Undergrad + Oxbridge Doctorate

For whatever it's worth, I think it will more often but not always be the first.


They're equal in my opinion. The prestige would come from whether or not your subject is what the institution is renowned for.
Reply 38
Original post by frogs r everywhere
A PhD from a Russell group university definitely looks more impressive than a Bachelors from Oxbridge. But that is just my opinion.




nah an Oxbridge UG can take you to any Phd you want but a cheap run of the mill RG2 Phd don't mean much.
Reply 39
Could I say both? :smile:

The thing is, when you get in as an undergrad, you'll have a higher chance of getting funding for your PhD (DPhil in the case of Oxbridge) anywhere you choose to do your doctorate. :smile:

Posted from TSR Mobile
(edited 10 years ago)