How important the ranking of the Uni for the future employment?
I know that the league tables are discussed many times in this forum, but I cannot help thinking that there is something wrong with them.
I have to choose between two unis for my PhD, the first one is in the top twenty and the second one is somewhere between 90-100 in the league tables.
The truth is that I have been in both for the two master degrees that I hold.
I have seen different "qualities" in each one of them. For example, the top-twenty one gathers all the extremely rich students from oversees, it has professors with many many publications, but they rarely have any time for their students. It's like a vanity fair going on in there. With your tuition fees you buy a specific amount of those VIPs time for your PhD, it doesn't matter if that is enough.
The one which is 90-100 in the league tables does not have the high profile professors, but it has people who are more interested to the student's research than their next publication, they can give you time to teach you, the environment is friendly and comfortable.
The ONLY reason I would go at the top-twenty one would be if the University's ranking is that important for the PhD in terms of future employment. What do you think?
I do not want to finish my PhD and find hard to find a job because it is not from a prestigious Uni, on the other hand I do not want to go to a top-ten uni and gain nothing as a student other than a good Uni in my CV.
I just am on the turning point where I have to decide about which uni will focus on my research and in which I will need to "say to the professor how great he and his new article are" less...
P.S. I know, you don't have to say tutors how "great" they are, but let's speak the truth, they choose students based on that...
I have to choose between two unis for my PhD, the first one is in the top twenty and the second one is somewhere between 90-100 in the league tables.
The truth is that I have been in both for the two master degrees that I hold.
I have seen different "qualities" in each one of them. For example, the top-twenty one gathers all the extremely rich students from oversees, it has professors with many many publications, but they rarely have any time for their students. It's like a vanity fair going on in there. With your tuition fees you buy a specific amount of those VIPs time for your PhD, it doesn't matter if that is enough.
The one which is 90-100 in the league tables does not have the high profile professors, but it has people who are more interested to the student's research than their next publication, they can give you time to teach you, the environment is friendly and comfortable.
The ONLY reason I would go at the top-twenty one would be if the University's ranking is that important for the PhD in terms of future employment. What do you think?
I do not want to finish my PhD and find hard to find a job because it is not from a prestigious Uni, on the other hand I do not want to go to a top-ten uni and gain nothing as a student other than a good Uni in my CV.
I just am on the turning point where I have to decide about which uni will focus on my research and in which I will need to "say to the professor how great he and his new article are" less...
P.S. I know, you don't have to say tutors how "great" they are, but let's speak the truth, they choose students based on that...
Scroll to see replies
It does matter...and it doesn't.
I mean, it wouldn't have mattered if you were choosing between a university ranked 30 and a university ranked 47.
In your case, though, I'd certainly say it matters.
I mean, it wouldn't have mattered if you were choosing between a university ranked 30 and a university ranked 47.
In your case, though, I'd certainly say it matters.
In my experience talking to friends in HR and recruitment it makes very little if any difference. My friend who works for Microsoft said in certain cases they prefer 'less prestigious' uni graduates due to their course actually teaching them what real life organisations are like rather than just academic jargon
Original post by fawc
*snip* +
P.S. I know, you don't have to say tutors how "great" they are, but let's speak the truth, they choose students based on that...
P.S. I know, you don't have to say tutors how "great" they are, but let's speak the truth, they choose students based on that...
Tutors choose their PhD students off the most random things. Most of the PhD students I know had not personally requested for that tutor, much less said how great they were!
Anyway, as for "employability", I assume you mean academic employability. Because talk of general employability and needing to get a PhD in the same sentence....well, that's just bad strategy! (Unless you're a science-degree going into industry or economics/business/finance going into finance with an explicit pay-grade rise.........or just fully-funded). If your PhD DOES have a very obvious direct career application, I'd think they just want to know if you'd do the job advertised, well. You'd have to pass their tests, interviews, and assessment centers just like every other PhD applicant. I don't believe they'd deny you based on your uni-rank.
Academic hiring can operate very differently per institution. Some would have a preference towards their own students no matter where their uni's ranked for the short-list. Some may want to increase their undergraduate quality/intake and so would like higher-uni-ranked applicants so they can dually use them as a marketing tool. Others won't have these kinds of selection biases. But all, even the previous two cases, won't have a good enough reason to hire you unless your publication list is up to snuff!
(edited 12 years ago)
Rank does matter, and in your case, it matters a lot. When people say rank doesn't matter it's for relatively similarly ranked universities, like 10 and 20.
You can't find a research job at a university if you have a PhD from a considerably lower ranked institute. If you have your PhD from a 90-100 ranked university the best academic jobs you can find are in the same ranked universities. If you get your PhD from a top 10 institute you have chances of employment in all institutes. Simple facts, look into the researchers in top institutes, they're all from well recognized universities. Getting your PhD from a top 20 university certainly is more than just looking nice on your CV.
You can't find a research job at a university if you have a PhD from a considerably lower ranked institute. If you have your PhD from a 90-100 ranked university the best academic jobs you can find are in the same ranked universities. If you get your PhD from a top 10 institute you have chances of employment in all institutes. Simple facts, look into the researchers in top institutes, they're all from well recognized universities. Getting your PhD from a top 20 university certainly is more than just looking nice on your CV.
Is that country ranking or world ranking? If world ranking, it probably doesn't matter much.
Original post by UglyDuckling
Is that country ranking or world ranking? If world ranking, it probably doesn't matter much.
Worlds ranking matters dude. Local rankings don't.
If you are interested in a career as an academic after your PhD then you need to go to the uni where you can be supervised by the best researchers in your field. To be honest... it is very unlikely (except in rare circumstances or particularly niche fields) that the best academics will be in a uni that is 90-100 in the league tables.
Academics at top20 unis may have their time stretched, but at PhD level you should be working independently anyway, with guidance yes.. but not hand holding. Being thrown into an environment where you supervisor has more than 8 PhD students on top of MSc project students and undergrads (like i have been) means that you really appreciate the time you get with your supervisor. It really teaches you to be an independent researcher - to make decision by yourself which you then have to justify to the supervisor rather than saying "what should i do here?" and having them make the hard choices for you.
A friend of mine has gone to a slightly lesser uni where she is the only PhD student her supervisor looks after. She sees him for about 2 hours a week. I see mine for about an hour a month (if that) - out most productive meetings are where we bump into each other in the cafe and have lunch. Yes it can be stressful not having lots of time with your supervisor, but... it's making me grow as a researcher, more so than my friend who has hours with her sup. I asked her "why are you doing xx" and the response was "well, because my sup advised me to"... i can justify every decision i have made in my PhD so far with literature because i have had to make the decisions and present them to my sup myself - often via email which means i have to be specific and detailed rather than vague and hand wavy.
PhDs are tough, especially at top unis where you will inevitably have less time with your sup as they are busy people (i would say my case is somewhat extreme - most get about 2 hours a fortnight rather than an hour a month!). But, if it wasn't for their publication record and high profile i wouldn't have met other academics and developed links with researchers at other institutions interested in my work. Working with this sup gives my work credibility even though it is in a slightly "out there" area. If Prof XX thinks it's worthwhile, then there must be something in it!
Academics at top20 unis may have their time stretched, but at PhD level you should be working independently anyway, with guidance yes.. but not hand holding. Being thrown into an environment where you supervisor has more than 8 PhD students on top of MSc project students and undergrads (like i have been) means that you really appreciate the time you get with your supervisor. It really teaches you to be an independent researcher - to make decision by yourself which you then have to justify to the supervisor rather than saying "what should i do here?" and having them make the hard choices for you.
A friend of mine has gone to a slightly lesser uni where she is the only PhD student her supervisor looks after. She sees him for about 2 hours a week. I see mine for about an hour a month (if that) - out most productive meetings are where we bump into each other in the cafe and have lunch. Yes it can be stressful not having lots of time with your supervisor, but... it's making me grow as a researcher, more so than my friend who has hours with her sup. I asked her "why are you doing xx" and the response was "well, because my sup advised me to"... i can justify every decision i have made in my PhD so far with literature because i have had to make the decisions and present them to my sup myself - often via email which means i have to be specific and detailed rather than vague and hand wavy.
PhDs are tough, especially at top unis where you will inevitably have less time with your sup as they are busy people (i would say my case is somewhat extreme - most get about 2 hours a fortnight rather than an hour a month!). But, if it wasn't for their publication record and high profile i wouldn't have met other academics and developed links with researchers at other institutions interested in my work. Working with this sup gives my work credibility even though it is in a slightly "out there" area. If Prof XX thinks it's worthwhile, then there must be something in it!
Original post by sadar
Worlds ranking matters dude. Local rankings don't.
First "dude" is a very disrespectful term. Second I think he was implying world 100 is pretty good while UK 100 is crappy.
(edited 12 years ago)
Original post by newDana
If you are interested in a career as an academic after your PhD then you need to go to the uni where you can be supervised by the best researchers in your field.
PhDs are tough, especially at top unis where you will inevitably have less time with your sup as they are busy people (i would say my case is somewhat extreme - most get about 2 hours a fortnight rather than an hour a month!). But, if it wasn't for their publication record and high profile i wouldn't have met other academics and developed links with researchers at other institutions interested in my work. Working with this sup gives my work credibility even though it is in a slightly "out there" area. If Prof XX thinks it's worthwhile, then there must be something in it!
PhDs are tough, especially at top unis where you will inevitably have less time with your sup as they are busy people (i would say my case is somewhat extreme - most get about 2 hours a fortnight rather than an hour a month!). But, if it wasn't for their publication record and high profile i wouldn't have met other academics and developed links with researchers at other institutions interested in my work. Working with this sup gives my work credibility even though it is in a slightly "out there" area. If Prof XX thinks it's worthwhile, then there must be something in it!
All of this.
Thank you all for your answers.
@ newDana & Thinker03
Your arguments make sense. I believe that my problem is with the specific top-twenty uni and not with good unis in general... just not happy with what I have seen in there. The professors with the big names have been totally demystified.
At this point it is too late to apply for another uni. So I have to choose the one of them.
@ newDana & Thinker03
Your arguments make sense. I believe that my problem is with the specific top-twenty uni and not with good unis in general... just not happy with what I have seen in there. The professors with the big names have been totally demystified.
At this point it is too late to apply for another uni. So I have to choose the one of them.
Original post by fawc
Thank you all for your answers.
@ newDana & Thinker03
Your arguments make sense. I believe that my problem is with the specific top-twenty uni and not with good unis in general... just not happy with what I have seen in there. The professors with the big names have been totally demystified.
At this point it is too late to apply for another uni. So I have to choose the one of them.
@ newDana & Thinker03
Your arguments make sense. I believe that my problem is with the specific top-twenty uni and not with good unis in general... just not happy with what I have seen in there. The professors with the big names have been totally demystified.
At this point it is too late to apply for another uni. So I have to choose the one of them.
Will you be working with one of these big name professors though? And have you worked with your potential supervisor before? Or is it just an impression you have of academics in this department? If it's the latter, you may find that the person who will be supervising your work is more supportive than you are expecting.
If you have worked with them before unsuccessfully then I would be wary of repeating the experience - a PhD is tough as i said before, and having a supervisor you can't work with will make it harder, you need to be able to have productive meetings even if they are infrequent. If your problem with the academics in this department is simply that you don't think you'd get enough time with them then I would suggest trying to find someone at the same uni who might be able to co-supervise - you don't have to have both supervisors present at meetings so you've got more chances of face to face help. Whilst it would be nice to have loads of time with supervisors there are advantages to not seeing much of them as i discussed before, so don't dismiss it out of hand based on time alone.
Another thing to consider is the content of your research - will it be exactly the same at both unis? Supervisors have particular areas of interest and it's unlikely they will be identical. Which work most aligns with your research interests?
Other things to think about include funding - would you receive the same funding at both? And what about opportunities to teach and take part in worthwhile extra curricular activities - for example, i do quite a lot of events to do with engaging high school students in science - for me it's a fun break from PhDing and i get paid extra for it which comes in handy on a studentship...
I would personally consider three things: is the PhD funded; reputation of the supervisor; and facilities available. The reputation of the university is completely meaningless if you have to self-fund, your supervisor is not ideal and the library is shocking. If you go to Oxford and produce mediocre research then you will struggle against someone who has produced strong research at less prestigious university; that is, if you intend to work in academia.
As newDana pointed out, it is unlikely that the supervisors have exactly the same research interests so it should not be too hard to pick one over the another on paper. Likewise, it should not be too hard to find out which has better facilities; even if this involves spending a few hours writing down a list of books you need and then searching through the university catalogues etc..
On Monday morning the University of Bristol were doing interviews for a lectureship in French. Of the five short-listed candidates, two came from Oxford (a current lecturer and the other was a junior research fellow [or whatever they are called]), one came from Lancaster, one came from Birbeck and one came from Roehampton. Universities clearly do not discriminate on principle, but there is clearly a correlation between good research and more prestigious universities, which works on a sliding scale. At my former university, which was not prestigious, all the lecturers had studied at prestigious universities at some point. But there are clearly not enough positions to go around in prestigious universities so people have work elsewhere. The best students from less-prestigious universities also seem to go onto more prestigious universities as well; in fact, I was encouraged to move on.
If you want to work within academia, people know, especially if it is a relatively small field, who produces strong research. If you go somewhere purely for the money or reputation and produce poor research then you will be found out, so to speak. From my experience, most academics are too honest when it comes to acknowledging who is good. When I spoke to UCL before Christmas, for example, they said they did not feel they could supervise me and suggested someone at Oxford. Likewise, one of my lecturers here at Bristol suggested individual departments and lecturers who would be good to work with (and who to avoid
).
As newDana pointed out, it is unlikely that the supervisors have exactly the same research interests so it should not be too hard to pick one over the another on paper. Likewise, it should not be too hard to find out which has better facilities; even if this involves spending a few hours writing down a list of books you need and then searching through the university catalogues etc..
On Monday morning the University of Bristol were doing interviews for a lectureship in French. Of the five short-listed candidates, two came from Oxford (a current lecturer and the other was a junior research fellow [or whatever they are called]), one came from Lancaster, one came from Birbeck and one came from Roehampton. Universities clearly do not discriminate on principle, but there is clearly a correlation between good research and more prestigious universities, which works on a sliding scale. At my former university, which was not prestigious, all the lecturers had studied at prestigious universities at some point. But there are clearly not enough positions to go around in prestigious universities so people have work elsewhere. The best students from less-prestigious universities also seem to go onto more prestigious universities as well; in fact, I was encouraged to move on.
If you want to work within academia, people know, especially if it is a relatively small field, who produces strong research. If you go somewhere purely for the money or reputation and produce poor research then you will be found out, so to speak. From my experience, most academics are too honest when it comes to acknowledging who is good. When I spoke to UCL before Christmas, for example, they said they did not feel they could supervise me and suggested someone at Oxford. Likewise, one of my lecturers here at Bristol suggested individual departments and lecturers who would be good to work with (and who to avoid
).(edited 12 years ago)
In the grand scheme of things, I don't think this factor would have too much bearing on employability. A PhD is a PhD, and it is an elite qualification which holds a lot of respect on a global scale. The course (even though the nature of it is likely to change slightly) should be the priority.
for a phD the school name is less importance in the sciences than the advisor you have. The advisor will be the guy introducing you to all the connections and people in the field will know what type of student you are if you have Mr. Nobel prize winner as your advisor even if he is at no name university. For the social sciences and humanities names are much more important and the strength of the department.
There seems to be so much more emphasis on university rankings in the UK (and I suppose the US) than there is in Australia. In Australia, you generally go to the University you live nearest!
But I think some things about academia are the same across the globe: the insitution you complete your PhD through will not make or break an academic career. It is not the factor that will determine whether or not you get an academic job. The things that will are the size of your publications list, the money you can pull in with grants and funded projects, and the length of time you're willing to hang around on the periphery in untenured positions.
But I think some things about academia are the same across the globe: the insitution you complete your PhD through will not make or break an academic career. It is not the factor that will determine whether or not you get an academic job. The things that will are the size of your publications list, the money you can pull in with grants and funded projects, and the length of time you're willing to hang around on the periphery in untenured positions.
Quick Reply
Related discussions
- UCL vs KCL Politics/ IR
- How bad is an MSc "Pass"? Is it worth it?
- Studying an MBA after studying a degree in sociology
- I don't know which choice to make!
- Do university ranks affect employability?
- Masters in International Relations
- Need Help deciding university (RG foundation vs Non-russel)
- HELP! Is it worth going to a more prestigious uni with a foundation year?
- URGET need advice on resitting a levels
- Universities for Law 2024
- is loughborough university good enough for investment banking ?
- Is going to mid tier universities bad?
- HELP!! really good uni and mediocre course VS alright good uni and good course?
- Cs uni firm and insurance help needed!
- Is prestige actually important?
- Uni of York vs. Uni of Nottingham
- University Choices
- How did you decide on a uni course?
- university rankings
- What uni should i go?
Latest
Trending
Last reply 2 days ago
UCL (University College London) Postgraduate Applicants 2024-25Last reply 2 weeks 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 2 days ago
UCL (University College London) Postgraduate Applicants 2024-25Last reply 2 weeks 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)
