Hi guys!

Just wanted to ask you how important is the University reputation for when we get our PhD and apply for jobs, such as post doc?

I thought it wouldnt make much difference (only the big 4 such as Cambridge, Oxford, UCL and Imperial) and that the most important thing would be the project and the techniques that you got to work with during that project!

Can I have some of your feedback on this?

Thanks everyone!

In my opinion, it depends. If you're going to stay in academia, then a PhD from an amazing, world-renowned group at a poor university is a lot better than a PhD from a poor group at an amazing university, although I suppose the better universities tend to have a greater percentage of "really good" groups. On the other hand, if you get a job outside academia, and especially if it's outside your field, they'll probably pay more attention to the university rather than the group.

Example:

PhD with a poorly renowned group at Oxford vs PhD with world-renowned group at University of Neasden.

In academia circles, the PhD at Neasden would look better. In non-academic circles, and certainly outside your field, the one at Oxford would look better. If it was my choice, I'd go for the group which is best.

======= Date Modified 17 Aug 2010 15:54:28 =======

The only problem is that you might find it hard to actually find such a group at Oxford and if you do they tend to get culled very quickly! Oxford is peculiar in that it lacks tenured lectureship positions at junior levels so if you do get a lectureship at Oxford you will normally be quite well established already and probably doing some top work.

There are always a few exceptions but in general you will find that senior faculty at top institutions often will not tolerate underperforming staff for too long.

Of course, conversely, a well-renowned academic at a under-performing university is very likely to get pinched by someone like Oxford!

I would go with the best supervisor/research group over the university every time! I left a top university with an average department to an average uni that are top in the country for my subject and world-renowned! I have never had regrets! My supervisor is fantastic (the (95% of the time she isn't being a psycho!) and has hundreds of publications and the group I work with are great, and producing really great work. I think the most important things are that your supervisor is well known and has a good reputation and that you get some good publications out of your PhD, if you want to make progress in academia! And of course you want to be in a place where you will be able to live happily- it's definitely worth bearing your happiness in mind! Best, KB

This is a question that bothers me too!

How about an 'expoly' (oh how I've grown to hate the term!), average to good department in a particular subject, but very good in a specific topic within that subject? This (honestly) won't be sneered at in academia? Also, what if I did my degree, MA and PhD in this same expoly? I don't really, and never did, have much of a choice; I'm a mature student with a mortgage etc so I went local (and I love my uni anyway) but I wouldn't want to be unpleasantly surprised if this caused me difficulties later.

I think, given that these matters vary so much between disciplines, the only way to really guage this situation is t look at departments where you would like to work and find out where their staff studied.

For example, in some new subjects, like mine, until recently, most of the places you could study them were ex-polys - or pretty pollys - as I think of them, so many of the top people in the field did their PhDs at 'em. Although this has changed in the last 15 - 20 years because more prestigious unis are now getting in on the act and nabbing the top talent.

I think the most important thing is the quality of your supervisor's reputaton, and then that of the department - your other influences. It just happens that the research unis usually have the money and reputations to employ the top people, so often they can be the best choice, but I don't think the ranking of the uni should matter in itself - although it does usually impress mums and dads etc.

I just thought I might add a couple of tips to find out how good a potential supervisor may be (quite difficult sometimes!).

1. Look at the supervisor's page on the university website, and find where their publications are.

2. Look at the publications in, for example, google scholar. Are their publications cited regularly by others? Are the publications frequent? What kind of journals do they publish in? One publication a year in a top, top journal is probably better than 12 in something with a very poor impact factor.

3. Try to find out progression of their PhD students - how many complete, what do they go on to afterwards? You might be able to find this out from the university, or perhaps even the supervisor themself.

4. What kind of groups does a potential sup collaborate with? I know in my field (medical science), international collaborations are very mnuch flavour of the month.

Thanks for the tips. But doesnt it happen that a young supervisor might be in the early stage of is career and then later on turns out to be top class?
I think the most important thing for me now is that the supervisors are both friendly and receptive to student input. They dont publish a lot . just the normal. I think I would feel very good and welcomed there. This is also important isnt it?

I'm just a little bit scared that afterwards I dont get a good career in academia because of the Uni or group I was in. I thought that the PhD thesis would be worthy to this cases and the broad techniques perfomed...but by your answers probably I'm dreaming :D

Thanks!

This is a question that I've pondered on quite a bit - we all advise getting a top sup over a top uni, but how do newbies to the academic world get to be a top sup if students don't want them? I guess that maybe you prove yourself over time as being a top sup by having students who choose to work with you as they are interested in your speciality and yes, you may well then go on to be world renowned and head hunted by people like us :-)

======= Date Modified 17 Aug 2010 20:22:11 =======

This is a tough question Nakatoy and it is the subject of much debate! There are no hard and fast rules, so the final choice will have to be yours. But I'd been asking the same question for a long time, and from the various academics that I spoke to about this, my final conclusion is that "it's a bit of both" and "every little counts"!. Meaning, if you do an amazing job at your PhD, then that puts you in good stead. If you also managed to do it with a brilliant sup, then even better! Now if you add an excellent list of publications to that, and top it off by having worked with a great group, and at a world-renowned uni, then you're laughing. I tend to consider each of these components important:

- a good supervisor (i.e. a nice person!)
- a supervisor with a good academic reputation and standing.
- a good group/lab/department/faculty (in terms of environment and reputation)
- a good university
- a good PhD programme
- a good PhD project/topic
- a good list of publications at good journals
- a good teaching portfolio (if that's the avenue ou want to take in future).

Very few PhD-ers will have all of them. Think of them as 'brownie-points' - the more you have, the better. But remember that few people have all of them. So, all of those components are important and each makes a difference in its own way. I know one person who has managed to obtain all of them and she is (obviously) a rising star in her field. That doesn't mean that others who don't match her didn't get a job! Good thing is, you can compensate for one missing component by working on strengthening another (e.g. not so renowned group, but can offer you loads of teaching experience vs. internationally renwoned group but no teaching opportunities. If you want to teach in future, go with the first but then work on publishing in good journals to make up for the small group). The real question is, which one of them matters the most to you and which one doesn't. If getting into a world-class uni comes at the expense of living somewhere really awaful, will you be able to stomach it? What about if you're living in a lovely city but the environment in the department is not that great? Different things appeal to different people, I think. If you can have all of them - have you're cake and eat it - then go for it! But if not, then you have to do a balancing act and see what counts most for you.

I had a relevant dilemma recently, in relation to a collaborative arts & humanities PhD, and opted for a world-class collaborative partner + weaker institution, over a regular (ie. non-collaborative) PhD at world-class institution, given that my post doc end goal is in a professional rather than academic sphere. The collaborative route, to me, is a win-win scenario, as it involves "real world", extensive engagement with an employer. Maybe my views will change when it's underway, but it seems an ideal route for candidates with ambitions outside academia.

Thanks for all your very helpful replied. I will think about it with more information now.