next »

[rusieeping]

Hi all. I have a dilemma for you. Let's say you got into a top-tier school, ranked in the top 5, say Stanford or wherever. But you also got into a school ranked in the 20s, say Minnesota or wherever. (Sorry if you disagree with the rankings, but follow my drift here.) Where would you go?

At first, it seems like that Stanford would be the top choice. But I've talked to a few professors at my undergraduate institution (a public Ivy). They've told me that I should also give some thought about going to top-ranked schools.

Competition there is fierce. Professors have their own agenda -- they need to perish or they won't have a job at Stanford or wherever. PhD students are very competitive, and you either do extremely well, or you don't. I've checked a few student profiles (current PhD students at top-ranked schools like Stanford or Northwestern), and there are students who have absolutely NO publication record at all. Some presentations, but no publications.

So in this sense, it may be better off at the top 20 school. You have professors who care about your work. And if you do well, and have a strong publication record, you'll have a good job and an extremely good chance of working at a top-20 school.

So brand name is important, but your abilities, your drive, your motivation, your will is important too.

What are your thoughts on this? Choosing between a top-ranked school and a slightly-out-of-top-rank school?

(FYI: I'm applying to PhD programs in marketing, and got into Minnesota and Stanford GSB. I like Northwestern/Kellogg though, personally.)

[dubitocogito]

Professors have their own agenda -- they need to perish or they won't have a job at Stanford or wherever.

Um...

[rusieeping]

Yeah, sorry, they need to PUBLISH, not perish, lol!

[t_r_b]

Professors have their own agenda -- they need to perish or they won't have a job at Stanford or wherever.

Um...

Wow: who knew life in Palo Alto was so cutthroat - literally!

[croaker]

Go to Northwestern or Stanford (for B-school).  You're right - it doesn't guarantee pubs, but you will automaticaly get on a lot of short lists and you will always be able to find a job.

Also look at the benefit packages as these schools (e.g., fellowships vs RAships).  You may have more resources and freedom at the top schools as well.

[dubitocogito]

Yeah, sorry, they need to PUBLISH, not perish, lol!

I'm so on edge with applications that this comment, or typo, was exactly what I needed.  So funny.

Congrats on the acceptances!   

[t_r_b]

More seriously, the usual advice for choosing a grad program applies:

1. it all depends on your field. Minnesota (or wherever) may be a great place to be in your field, or not.
2. it depends even more on your advisor. If you find someone who is interested in mentoring you, who has successfully mentored others in the past (and they've ended up in places where you'd like to end up), and you believe that person can help you become the best scholar you can be, then that's much more important than where the institution falls in the rankings.
3. it also depends on the culture (and funding available) at the particular place. Some highly ranked places are very supportive and collegial and well funded, some less highly ranked places are snakepits where you'll be treated like a serf. So visit the places, talk to current grad students and faculty, and go with whichever your gut tells you is most likely to help you thrive intellectually.

[minorleaguer]

Agree with raisedbar.  Stanford is ranked above Minnesota generally, but there might be a handful of fields that Minnesota ranks above Stanford.  Berkeley, Michigan and MIT are ranked above Harvard in a number of fields.  Because this can be ever so slightly confusing, a lot of people don't understand this concept.

Ask your advisors at your undergraduate institution to help you get a feel for how this works in your field.  If you get equal financial packages from both places, it is really important to look into this.  Very often, however, the top programs are top-tier in the first place because they can throw money around.  But it isn't always a public/private or ivy vs. ivy deal. 

Let's say your potential advisor at Minnesota just won an NSF, NIH, Mellon or Whatever Grant, is a super big shot in the field, and gives you a great package.  You'd be insane to pay 40K a year out of pocket to go to Stanford instead, in my opinion.

Oh, and top tier places aren't always cutthroat.

Plus Minnesota's mascot is way better than Stanford's creepy tree thing. 

http://blog.sportscolumn.com/images/storyimages/tree.jpg     

[imawakenow]

Competition there is fierce. Professors have their own agenda -- they need to perish or they won't have a job at Stanford or wherever. PhD students are very competitive, and you either do extremely well, or you don't. I've checked a few student profiles (current PhD students at top-ranked schools like Stanford or Northwestern), and there are students who have absolutely NO publication record at all. Some presentations, but no publications.

You probably want to do more research about marketing departments and marketing Ph.D. programs in general. The "top tier" and "slightly top tier" tend to be varying gradations of extremely competitive. Further, professors at all three of the schools you mentioned--especially assistants--will be under pressure to publish. In fact, at any of three of these programs, you will feel the pressure to publish as a grad student. I know people at two of the three programs you reference, and I can tell you that the if you can't publish at either of those programs, you will wash out.

Also, I don't know where you did your research about publishing and Stanford marketing Ph.D. students, but you're dead wrong if you think that these students don't have extensive publication records. (Hint: this is one of the programs where I know someone. Her adviser is Dr. Hugenameinthefield, and she is on SCADS of papers with him and other grad students in his lab, in addition to multiple journal articles. When she leaves, she will be competitive for any academic job--both because of her publication record and her adviser's reputation in the field.)

Anyway, I agree with the two previous posters. You need to decided what you want to study and let that guide your decision.

Who is doing research about the topic you want to pursue? What is his or her reputation like in the field but also with previous or current graduate students? Is she or he accepting new students to work with?

[rusieeping]

Um, I'm sorry, but there ARE current PhD students (in marketing) at Stanford, Northwestern and even Chicago GSB WHO HAVE NO PUBLICATION RECORDS AT ALL. Only conferences. Please don't assume I haven't done any of my own research in this manner (PhD programs), because, trust me, I have. I have a BA, and I already have one article published in JCR. Granted, it's one, but it's still more than some students from Stanford or Northwestern or wherever.

[imawakenow]

You don't know what you are talking about. But have a nice life wherever you decide to go.

[rusieeping]

Go, take some time and look at current phd marketing students at Stanford, Northwestern, and Chicago GSB. I'm not saying most, but there are (some) students who have no publication records at all, and they are on the job market.

I don't go to schools just because of the "brand name." But it seems most people who have replied on this forum are. I take my time and look at every detail of each and every program. Now I'm not saying Stanford, NW or Chicago are bad schools (they're excellent, of course), but to assume that ALL students in those programs do well is just wishful thinking.

Go to their websites and look at their student profiles.

[rusieeping]

And, I will have a nice life, better than yours, at the very least.

Went to Berkeley as an undergrad, got my master's at Cornell. And I've been published already, once in JCR, and another (in another field). Now I've been accepted to a top5 phd program. What about you? ... [Edited for personal attack. - moderator]

[goingcrazy]

OP --- I was on your side until the last post. I am openly elitist and even to me your last comment was a little bit crappy. Good luck . . . I guess.

[rusieeping]

To say that ALL has been published? Gimme a break.

And I only posted my previous statement in response to "rusleeping," who quite rudely rejected my ideas without anything to back his point up. But, I won't apologize here. I'm not being elitist or anything. Perhaps I'm boasting, I admit that, but I also have evidence to back my point up. So far, those on this post who say I'm wrong, have none.