Advising someone about PhD program

[Caracal]

Location constraints and academia don't tend to mix well. No matter the field, people who are mobile and willing to go anywhere-at least in the short and medium term-have a much better chance. That sucks, and contributes to lack of diversity in the profession, but people going into academia need to understand that. The sooner you start having constraints, the worse it is. If you come out grad school limited to applying for jobs in a particular area, it is often going to be very tough, but if you went to a top ranked institution, at least you will have made yourself more competitive for the limited number of jobs you can apply for. Your friend is going to dramatically limit his opportunities right from the start.

The idea is bad enough if everything goes to plan, but I doubt it will. Most of us become less geographically mobile as we get older, not more. But yeah, I would try to get this friend to stop thinking of going to grad school as something he has to do. Maybe they will be too old if they waits, but they shouldn't consider it unless and until they can go to a stronger program.

That makes sense. They would be able to move in about five years which would give them time to finish a PhD program here before moving. After those five years, they will be able to move practically anywhere. They've considered other countries as well.

I agree that most of us become less mobile as we get older, but they are in a unique position where they can after five years. They are married but spouse is happy to move anywhere, they are unable to have biological children and do not wish to have any so will not be adopting, neither of them have much family, nor are they at all close to existing family.

Makes sense, but five years is a long time and a lot can happen.

Still, if anything, all of that strengthens the argument for applying to top ranked programs and not considering the lower ranked local option that is very unlikely to lead to what they want. I had sort of assumed the reason they were stuck where they are now was an ailing parent, or young kid or something like that, but seems not? Most other things have more wriggle room. If this person really wants to pursue this career, they should be willing to incur the temporary pain and inconveniences involved to put themselves in the best possible position to make it work.

Of course it would be totally reasonable to decide none of that is worth it, but then the alternative isn't to go to a lower ranked school and pretend it is going to result in getting what you want. That would be an indication that it would be better to do something else besides go into academia.

[Golazo]

They should do something else for the 5 years (if possible) that would help them develop the profile to get into an elite phd program. Going from lower levels to the big leagues so to speak is probably hardest in the hard sciences because of limited access to expensive equipment. If I have a brilliant second book, I could perhaps move up, and I don't need expensive equipment to write it.

The only except is if the lower ranked program has a pipeline into top postdocs. But this doesn't seem to be the case at all. Particularly since the priorities are research rather than teaching, this is not a good fit.

[Ruralguy]

The problem with this approach is similar. Geography is likely to be too limiting for finding hard science non academic jobs.  I'd say either do the program, work hard to get what you want, but be accepting of what you get, or leave now realizing odds are that you won't get what you want.

[Kron3007]

I really do think this is field dependent.  In my field, the school isn't a huge factor for us, but it is true that most come from universities that can support research.  So, if they can find a solid advisor in a low ranked school (not super common), it can work.

I would also ask if their field has a lot of industry positions and they are open to that as a plan B.  If so, doing the PhD may be ok, most industrial jobs will be more concerned about your skill set than university.

Of course, a low ranked school will not help matters, but it is not a death sentence in my field.

[Ruralguy]

It depends on how low ranked, and really whether or not there are opportunities to work on research people care about and connect with others in the field. At the time of my graduation, my school was like about 30th ranked in my field, and was possibly much lower when I entered. Yet, at least since the mid to late 70's, there were always a couple of people who got real funding, and the rest would just leave or retire. The 80's was a a big transition time, and by the mid to late 80's it was really expected that everyone be getting big money. One or two hold overs got it but supplementing with pedagogy research, but even back then that was considered OK. I don't think much of anyone was cutting edge until maybe a bit after that period, but they were widely respected, always getting grants, many with a few students at a time, and starting to regularly get post docs. But even with all of that, most students got faculty jobs (those who wanted faculty jobs) at SLACs, regionals, etc. Maybe 3 people in the last 30 years got permanent R1 jobs? That's out of nearly 50 PhD's most likely. This is an area of physical sciences that some consider esoteric, but depending on sub field, can run on small amounts or huge amounts if you need to say, take something to space!

[Ruralguy]

Bottom line: Your friend should just do this and accept consequences and work with the results, or just move on now if they find this unacceptable. But is not as if everyone I know from top R1 programs got top R1 jobs either. Its all a bit of a gamble.

[Kron3007]

It depends on how low ranked, and really whether or not there are opportunities to work on research people care about and connect with others in the field. At the time of my graduation, my school was like about 30th ranked in my field, and was possibly much lower when I entered. Yet, at least since the mid to late 70's, there were always a couple of people who got real funding, and the rest would just leave or retire. The 80's was a a big transition time, and by the mid to late 80's it was really expected that everyone be getting big money. One or two hold overs got it but supplementing with pedagogy research, but even back then that was considered OK. I don't think much of anyone was cutting edge until maybe a bit after that period, but they were widely respected, always getting grants, many with a few students at a time, and starting to regularly get post docs. But even with all of that, most students got faculty jobs (those who wanted faculty jobs) at SLACs, regionals, etc. Maybe 3 people in the last 30 years got permanent R1 jobs? That's out of nearly 50 PhD's most likely. This is an area of physical sciences that some consider esoteric, but depending on sub field, can run on small amounts or huge amounts if you need to say, take something to space!

Three out of 50ish sounds bad, but it really isn't that far below the curve.  Last time I saw the numbers, it was only about 8% of postdocs in my field that ended up as faculty across the board.  Not great odds for anyone, but definitely worse if you are coming from a low ranked school.  My only point was that it isn't necessarily a death march, and many postdocs (in my field) that dont become faculty still have productive careers in government or industry.  Some even make the leap back later on.   

This type of question is really hard to answer well since we are working with a sliver of the information. 

[Ruralguy]

Three out of 50 in about 30 years became R1 faculty. Probably more than twice that many became tenure track faculty at other places.  Another few became permanent staff scientists. That is to say, all told, probably more than half found permanent work in the field, and several more found temporary work and then probably left the field, or retired (I can't be sure what happened with everyone).  I know one who did quite well as a grad student, but then left just before finishing the diss to do a Wall Street job (figuratively speaking--he was actually in another city that isn't NYC). Anyway, that's  not to brag about the program. As Kron says, its probably about typical, and if you go to a higher ranked program you *might* do better than typical on average, but not necessarily by much. Probably any PhD program with funding will be able, on average, to get you a decent job in the field, meaning decent pay, ability to maybe eventually become permanent, so long as you are willing to post-doc somewhere else for a bit. And they can probably, on average, get you a good if not great (national fellowship) sort of post-doc. 

[fizzycist]

Does "hard science" mean physics/chemistry/biology? If so, there is something very strange about the advice your friend is getting.

Most folks in those fields go into positions outside academia that are well paid and often involve some type of research. If your friend is planning on moving to a decent sized city they will likely have options even with OhD at low ranked place.

And most folks in those fields who seek tenure-track faculty positions at R1 schools do ~5 years of postdoc after PhD. So your friend would be looking for a postdoc in a top lab in their desired city. That is not a particular unlikely outcome even if they got PhD at a low-ranked place.

Finally, the probability of getting a tenure-track faculty position at a top school in a desirable city is low no matter what. Suppose they are deciding between doing a PhD at a 100th ranked Chem Dept vs waiting it out and doing one at a 25th ranked place. Their odds of getting a tenure track offer at an R1 in a predetermined city (say, one that has 3 R1s) is very small. Maybe it increases from 1% to 3% or something.

[fizzycist]

Oops just noticed ruralguy and kron said similar things.

But I am more idealistic than most about these things. If your friend loves their discipline and wants to dig deep for several years and do a PhD then they should do it now where they can, not wait 5 years when it may no longer be an option. They just need to recognize that their dreams about exactly what type of job they will have are just dreams and their outlook will probably evolve anyway.

[Hibush]

It sounds as if the program on offer is good at what they do, and have focused on doing that thing well. If your friend chooses that program, they should also expect to find a career in that realm and develop their PhD training for that purpose.

Trying to buck trend is really not a good idea. With a program this specific, going in to a career of a different type is no more likely than going into a career in a substantiallly different field. I would characterize Fizzicists numbers above as overly optimistic.

This situation really goes back to that basic and difficult question, "What do you want from life." Sometimes it can be narrowed to "what do you want from your professional life", but here it is really the whole thing. If they prioritize one thing, that really means eliminating some others. THey need to have a good understanding of the tradeoffs. Moving ahead trying to do two mutually exclusive things will lead to frustration and low satisfaction.

That question is of course difficult for everyone to answer.

[Caracal]

It sounds as if the program on offer is good at what they do, and have focused on doing that thing well. If your friend chooses that program, they should also expect to find a career in that realm and develop their PhD training for that purpose.

Trying to buck trend is really not a good idea. With a program this specific, going in to a career of a different type is no more likely than going into a career in a substantiallly different field. I would characterize Fizzicists numbers above as overly optimistic.

This situation really goes back to that basic and difficult question, "What do you want from life." Sometimes it can be narrowed to "what do you want from your professional life", but here it is really the whole thing. If they prioritize one thing, that really means eliminating some others. THey need to have a good understanding of the tradeoffs. Moving ahead trying to do two mutually exclusive things will lead to frustration and low satisfaction.

That question is of course difficult for everyone to answer.

Right, exactly. When I think of people I've known over the years who seem consistently angry and unhappy with their career and professional life, most of the unhappiness stems not from the actual circumstances, but from a failure to make clear eyed assessments about goals, tradeoffs and their chances of success.

I'm not talking about people who find themselves unhappy with their current job, or discover upon getting what they wanted, that they don't really enjoy it. That can happen to anyone. The stuckness, however, often comes from a mindset that sheer force of will can make everything work out. That can curdle really quickly when it turns out that isn't how it works.

[Durchlässigkeitsbeiwert]

I have a friend who is looking at a PhD program. They were quite honest with him that their program is designed to fill the need for professors at regional schools—they are not competing with large schools and do not think their students will go on to be hired at large schools and definitely not R1 schools.

Is there any supporting evidence showing that outcomes actually match the design at this specific school?
I would advise to try to estimate relevant numbers (actual attrition and placement rates) themselves.
Also, contacting several current / former students via LinkedIn can resolve quite a few questions. E.g. "are there sufficient resources to be successful?"; "are graduates getting interviews?" etc


Also, one can contact

Does "hard science" mean physics/chemistry/biology? If so, there is something very strange about the advice your friend is getting.

Most folks in those fields go into positions outside academia that are well paid and often involve some type of research. If your friend is planning on moving to a decent sized city they will likely have options even with OhD at low ranked place.

Biology is notoriously poorly-paid with few exceptions. They may even be the original inventors of "eternal post-doc".

[AvidReader]

Do we have any independent researchers here? I'd love to hear the perspective of someone who doesn't necessarily have support from their university to do research but still manages to research.

That is the main priority for them. They enjoy teaching too though. I believe their hope is to end up at a location with at least masters level programs so they will know that the university will provide support for research.

I cannot advise your colleague on the grad program, but I don't know that being at a lower-ranked school will necessarily limit research, depending on field. In my humanities field, I've met researchers at R1s who consider themselves limited by resources and faculty at well-situated but less prestigious schools who can get to major libraries with ease. My most recent school with abysmal library facilities (and, it should be noted, a MA program) had borrowing agreements with every other university library in the state pre-COVID; my community college before that had borrowing agreements with three R1s in the area (and, it should be noted, better research support than my most recent school). I've had the benefit of living in two regions with public libraries that had interlibrary loan agreements with nearby universities and one with a major public research library that anyone could access. Though I am limited in my experience of being well-supported by my home institution, the proximity of friendly libraries can make a huge difference for scholars who don't need labs.

AR.

[bio-nonymous]

I just wanted to chime in that typical advice in my field (biomedical) is that, if you manage to get a faculty job, you will likely end up at an institution "ranked" below where you got your PhD--with exceptions of course. Publishing your way out is sort-of possible though far less likely than, and must be combined with, "granting" your way up--money talks, so they say. That being said you need a strong PhD with good publications to get a good PostDoc to get a good job. You need a good job with a good start-up to get the data to get the grants to move. I attended a seminar a few years ago and the data presented was that 1 out of 7 postdocs (biomedical) will get a tenure track job. That is any tenure-track job--not just an R1 research intensive position. It costs a lot of money for wetlab science, so start-ups are expensive for the universities, and competition is fierce. I would tell anyone to position themselves to gain skills needed for industry, if they were considering a PhD.