I graduated with a first and have been offered a 3-year PhD back at my old uni and also a 4-year MSc/PhD at a top 3 uni.

As the 3-year PhD is available to start immediately, overall it would take 18 months longer to go to the top uni.

Seeing as I don't need the MSc, what are your thoughts on sacrificing 18-months in order to obtain a PhD from a better name uni?

They both include funding.

Thanks in advance.

Well, what is your subject? How likely is it that you will finish in 3 years? In a lab work based PhD 3 years are often not enough. Don't look at the uni- look at the reputation of the lab itself. Look for the publications of the lab of the past few years and then decide which has a better reputation

Go to an interview with both and then see if you will get on with the supervisor. Which position will give you more support during your PhD? Are there other postdocs or PhD students there to help you?

I totally agree with anon german. PhDs often take longer than 3 years to complete and the reputation of the supervisors is vastly more important than the Uni. What is of utmost importance is whether you will enjoy working there and whether you will have the support that you need and a productive working environment. There is also the small matter of which project interests you more! Good luck.

I'm considering a similar move, or rather an attempt to go to a top 3 uni for a 4 year MSc/ PhD (Hmm, are we thinking the same thing I wonder), alhough I only have a 2:1. I think I'd benefit from doing the MSc before the PhD, but you might be doing something else or already know what you need to know.

For the course I'm looking at, the supervisor and project wouldn't be determined until after the MSc, so that shouldn't be a worry for you either.

The main advantage of the 4 year programme is that you are in a much better position when it comes to choosing your research project. You will know the people involved, so will have a better chance of selecting a supervisor who you can work well with. You will also know a lot more about the very specific areas of research from which you will be given a choice.

As others have said here, you're also far more likely to finish on time, partly because you won't waste the first 6 months of your PhD filling in forms, finding out where the coffee room is and learning to pronounce the title of your project.

Just what I am considering now. Whether to
continue at a top university, to take a (pre-PhD) Masters, and then go into PhD - hoping to finish in 3 years though almost all take four in my subject, *or* enter a particularly interesting Masters and PhD programme which might take less time at a top 3 university. Professors there are people I know I can work with very well. I have no one in mind right now to approach re strong, enthusiastic supervision at my present uni. I wonder how much difference it makes: top or top 3.

Don't think about the reputation of the university, it's the reputation of the supervisors and the department that's important. Either way the difference between top and top 3 is irrelevant.

By reputation of the supervisor, do you mean their fame or just how much their publications appeal to your own research interests?

Point taken. Department where I am is generally considered top, and is probably the most selective in the country, so has a certain cache (in the sense that people who don't know the subject might be impressed), but, the supervisor (a professor) at the top-3 is a world authority and keen for me to apply, and I've had a message of encouragement from the head of graduate studies there, so I'm going to look into it further. Have prepared my application. Thanks very much indeed, *finda*, for the sound comments.

Reputation of Supervisor/Department:
'international standing in the field', 'academic reputation'. Of course, the relevance of their work to your own research interests is of crucial importance, but 'reputation' means just that; to what extent they are reknowned. This, in turn, affects the academic status of the degree.

So when it comes to applying for a postdoc, the first thing they'll do is look up the reputation of our PhD supervisor(s)? Sounds a little ridiculous to me. Surely a good PhD project is a good PhD project regardless of whether it was completed under the shadow of renown or obscurity?

Yes, but a good PhD project is something you need to start with. If your supervisor is renown it will be because he/she thinks ahead of the pack and has good projects that don't just follow up other peoples research.

Plus, your supervisor will have conections to other top labs in the field and will recomend you to do your postdoc in one of these. Good labs will swap postdocs with other good labs.

It does seem to be a bit of who you know, not what you know... but that's the way it works. Someone with high status has it for a reason and will be able to give you a better start, because they will have a better lab with more interesting cutting-edge work which you can get into.