Phony Prestige vs the Real Deal

The Undeserved Prestigious vs The Unrecognized Best


  • Total voters
    22

Hygro

soundcloud.com/hygro/
Joined
Dec 1, 2002
Messages
26,820
Location
California
Say you could finish your education with a 5 year Ph.D program at one of two schools

A) This school has the top reputation and gets all the credibility and attention, but unfortunately almost everything you learn those five whole years is going to be useless and fake. Anything you learn in the field will be on your own accord, removed from the real top expert.

B) This school has no reputation but has the best people in your field doing unrecognized work. Much of your learning will be the real deal from the real people whom you will have direct access to. Any reputation you build or leverage outside the few in the know will based on your hustle as an outsider.

Which do you choose?
 
School B. Actually, it is almost a real-life choice I have made. I could chose between the University of Amsterdam and the VU University, and after spending a year on the former with talking head teachers who love to ideologically flatter you while standing no. 1 on most Dutch university rankings, I opted to transfer to the VU instead.
 
That's a very good question. Say you are versed enough in the field to be able to spot the difference and you were lucky enough to find the unknown cutting edge folks' stuff and identify its significance (rather than, say, merely its peculiarity).
 
In my mind then it looks like these guys are gonna be the future leaders of the field I want to be in. Obviously I should pick them. Prestige will follow.
 
What is your purpouse if you're planning to be a academics and become a scientist. School B is better choice. But If you're planning to go private sector Then School A will make doors open easier.
 
Depends what I want to do with my PhD.

If I want a career in academia, and I am in the US, the answer pretty much has to be A. If I'm answering based on my current career, picking A would make more sense as well.
 
If I want a career in academia, and I am in the US, the answer pretty much has to be A.

Q. Does Hygro want to stay in the US of A?

This school has the top reputation

Q. Top reputation in general, or for this specific PhD program?

Q. How well connected are the people at university #2? Most careers in academia seem to be based on the people you know, and the people who know you. If these guys are sitting there in their isolated place and not getting their work under the attention of the broader field, then this could lead to problems later on.
 
Go with school B. The prestige of school A may help you with your initial placement, but everything else about school B will be better. Most crucially, you will actually learn to do the work of your field, and long term that will count for much more than your initial placement. If you have recognized the scholars at B as doing important work in the field, so will other people working in that field; the recommendations from such scholars will count for almost as much as the overall prestige of school A. It's good to work with scholars who are themselves hungry, not resting on their laurels; your experience through the whole five years themselves will be more enjoyable and satisfying. School Bs often work much harder on behalf of their students than do School As, precisely to compensate for having less prestige. And nothing beats early mentors who are invested in you and active on your behalf.

P.S. I don't know your field, but do get ready for the fact that, in most Ph.D. programs, most of what you learn will be "on your own accord." That will be true whether you pick school A or school B. And it's one of the great joys of graduate study!
 
Assuming one is smart enough to learn adequately in the field of their own accord, removed from the real top expert in the field, you are better served in almost every way by going with school A. The leg up in knowledge from school B will still put you at a disadvantage entering your field as opposed to school A, and assuming you can learn on your own the vast majority of your learning in your field is going to come from practicing and continuing education, rather than what you learned in school. You'll "catch up" by doing. And you'll probably start out in a better position from A. Now the super scary bit of this is that it's still probably true even in a field such as, say, medicine. Caveat: if you are planning on going into business for yourself, opening your own practice, becoming an instrumental partner in a small unit straight out of school(kudos for bravery here), school B is probably better.
 
Depends what I want to do with my PhD.

If I want a career in academia, and I am in the US, the answer pretty much has to be A. If I'm answering based on my current career, picking A would make more sense as well.
Before I read your post, this was more or less the reason why I chose A, even in my career field.

In the US, the reputation of the school will get you a job, period. It's much more of an iffy proposition at schools without huge reputations, regardless of how good they are.

What is your purpouse if you're planning to be a academics and become a scientist. School B is better choice. But If you're planning to go private sector Then School A will make doors open easier.
This too, but I'm not even that sure that science/engineering careers would be helped out that much more by School B. I think School A makes all doors open easier.

If B is unrecognized, how do I know it's better?
This.

Also, can we have some examples Hygro?

I find it hard to believe that any school could be known for having excellent graduates/research/whatever and not also have a great reputation and be high in the rankings.
 
That's a very good question. Say you are versed enough in the field to be able to spot the difference and you were lucky enough to find the unknown cutting edge folks' stuff and identify its significance (rather than, say, merely its peculiarity).

So how does one spot the difference without mastering at least part of the field through a Ph.D. study? Could it just be that the undergrad is overestimating his abilities/knowledge a little in judging A and B?
 
3 years in any field of study is long enough to make massive jumps in ability in any field, be it STEM, social sciences or whatever. By that point, anyone should be able to accurately judge how well their own institution stacks up, but comparing it to others is much trickier unless you have a chance to visit the other institutions.
 
Say you could finish your education with a 5 year Ph.D program at one of two schools

A) This school has the top reputation and gets all the credibility and attention, but unfortunately almost everything you learn those five whole years is going to be useless and fake. Anything you learn in the field will be on your own accord, removed from the real top expert.

B) This school has no reputation but has the best people in your field doing unrecognized work. Much of your learning will be the real deal from the real people whom you will have direct access to. Any reputation you build or leverage outside the few in the know will based on your hustle as an outsider.

Which do you choose?

I am curious - Is this a personal choice that you are currently facing and are you asking us for opinions?

I have not answered yet, but I think the answer depends on where you are pursuing a career and if you end up in industry or not.

What about School C?

Otherwise known as the University of Hard Knocks?

in my field (chemical engineering) there isn't much prestige to begin with so choosing school b seems to be the obvious choice.

Out of curiousity, is getting a Ph.D a kiss of death in your industry?
 
Back
Top Bottom