I'm also in politics and been told similar - that your external and your supervisor (and even who your supervior's supevisor and external were in certain respects) are more important that the overall reputation of the University.

I agree that the reputation of the Uni has more significance at the Masters level, but that for a PhD you have to choose someone who knows, and is known in, their field. Who cares if you went to the best Uni in the country if they don't actually specialise in your area?

It appears that I'm going against the grain here but in my opinion university reputation/standing is massively important. Bearing in mind that you will be competing against individuals who will also be as qualified as you after you finish, irrespective of what field you move into. Consequently, having a big uni reputation to boost your CV is a great tool. Moreover, I suppose it is to some extent fair to say that "better" universities have that reputation for a reason. I'm not saying that all supervisors there are great but presumably a large proportion would be at least very preficient. As a result, you will have some expertise in your field even if you are not sure how 'big' that particular supervisr is. Put it this way; I've never heard of someone saying that they were not impressed with a candidate because he/she went to too good a university, the opposite, however, I have heard.

btw i totally agree with o.stoll that the whole reputation of anyone (uni, department, supervisor, external, ...) won't help you at all if you don't get that PhD in the first place. so all previous advice was meant on the condition that the situation will be favourable enough for you to safely be able to complete your PhD in any of the choices.
given that you are aiming at a non-academic career however i disagree with o.stoll - except if you are going into an area which is stronly related to academia, the reputation of your supervisor will in many cases hardly mean anything to prospective employers. especially if you are moving around geographically. thus i guess the ideal would be a supportive, helpful supervisor (experienced or not, you get good and bad both) in a uni with a good name.
so try to find out as much as possible about your potential supervisors no matter where you go!

"o.stoll - except if you are going into an area which is stronly related to academia, the reputation of your supervisor will in many cases hardly mean anything to prospective employers. "

I agree with that statement, sorry, seems to be a misunderstanding.

so the reputation of my supervisor will mean hardly anything, since I'm not aiming for a academic job?

I know this is a really silly question but what factors can you take into account when assessing the academic reputation of your supervisor?
I know obvious things like publishing record but what other factors do you need to take into account. Its too late for me now since ive already started my PhD but am just curious.

Do things like sitting on research council funding boards count? and consulting for hospitals and industrial companies count?

For me, it's their cv and titles. Publications, international conferences. And very often, if he's good at what he does, he would be invited by a lot of places to give lectures. Most people in the field would know who he is.

sunnyday, don't get me wrong - if your supervisor is a nobel prize winner, his/her reputation would sure make a difference on your non-academic job prospects. i guess you just have to evaluate: will a prospective employer, when I write on my CV that I was supervised by x, recognize the name and be aware of that person's reputation? if not, well, how should the reputation have an influence?

the "reputation" can mean a lot of things that could help or hinder you successfully completing a PhD in a reasonable time. it can mean that that person is constantly away giving lectures on all continents and never available for advising you. it can mean that he/she is very much focused on his/her own career and not prepared to sacrifice time (which could be used for own research) on any PhD students. it could mean that he/she looks down on people who do not want to go into academia.

it could also mean that that person has developed means to successfully advise PhD students, makes supervision meetings into "win-win" situations, enjoys talking to PhD students because he/she realizes how much can be gained from them, has a great overview over the subject area and will thus be able to advise you perfectly, ...
so, really, at the end of the day, the "reputation" does not answer your question. i would advise to focus more specifically on what you expect from a supervisor - and then go see if your "candidate" supervisors will give you that.

Hi, thanks. Yeah I agree that it could mean so many things. But as a prospective students, I can't judge/assess how suitable a supervisor is for my research, based on 1 meeting with him.
Also, when choosing supervisors I notice that some of them have very strong opinions in what should be changed in my research outline. And some of them told me that there's no need to change. This has started to worry me because I want to do what's been proposed in the outline. Do you have experience working with supervisors who are very strongly opinionated, and does this make your life a bit more difficult?

I agree with sunnyday, you cant tell all of these things by just having one meeting with the supervisor, so appart form looking at the obvious things such as publications, what else can one look at except the department RAE rating and the repitation of the university?

You can't look at much until you've tried it or at least get him to tell you his supervising style.

well, since you are heading for a non-academic job, i WOULD look out for the university's reputation.

since you don't know the people in question personally, i would look out less for their reputation, but for their research interests. do they have the necessary expertise to guide you in your research? do they have similar research interests? if they have tons of publications on the topic in the 1990s but not any since then, it seems their interests have changed...

people who know more about your topic will tend to be more opinionated, i'd say. this can be a good thing - you can grow by rubbing with your supervisor. at least the advice they are giving you is founded on expertise. you can still always take it or leave it but it has its value in any case.
if they know less about your topic or are less opinionated that is fine - as long as you don't need any guidance. they will just keep on saying "that's fine, just go ahead"...

(the worst, it would seem, of course, is if they don't know much about your topic but ARE very opinionated. that, i guess, should be avoided )