Prestige vs. Fit

[clinicalpsyapp]

So I know this topic was discussed briefly on a number of threads, but I thought I would start a thread specifically discussing it. Now that a lot of us are down to the decision-making stage, most of us have probably realized that there are a number of ways to compare schools. I, personally, have struggled with the issue of prestige of the school.

I am down to two schools (fyi, my career goals are in research/academia):

#1: I actually haven't been accepted here yet--I am 1st alternate for two spots in my POI's lab. However, my POI has said that she feels like at least one of the students will turn down her offer after March 15 (long story). Anyway, this school is a top-ten, research heavy program with a strong reputation for my specific research interest.

#2: Have already been accepted. A little bit of a better match with my POI (but not significant). Definitely not a top ten program, (ranked 72 in the us news rankings, albeit not scientific rankings at all), not particularly known for being research heavy but they seem to really encourage and support you not matter what your interest--and my POI is very research-focused. Also, it is a relatively new program, and they have only had my specialty area for about 10 years...but the level of training in this area seems to be VERY strong.

As far as comparing the specific labs I would be working in, both of them have produced students that have obtained prestigious internships/post-docs, etc. Actually, they are comparable in a lot of ways.

What it comes down to, is that the programs and quality of training seem to be very similar... however, one is perceived as significantly more "prestigious".

An interesting point to add to this discussion, is that I know someone who was trying to decide between two schools that were similar to my schools like 20 years ago. She ended up choosing the more "prestigious" one at the time and now, 20 years later, the program she turned down is actually known as being a better school than the one she went to. She says she now regrets basing her decision on prestige & ranking, because those things change over time. To be honest, I feel like School #2 will end up being known as a "prestigious" school sometime in the next 10 years or so, based on the quality of their training and students who come out of their program, as well as the level of talent they have been attracting as far as professors go.

Thoughts?

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[PsychApps2009]

I am in a very similar position. Except for mine - the "prestigious" school has a relatively young POI, whereas the other program (well-recognized too but maybe not as high) has a very well established (famous) POI.

Ignoring that -

Some questions I have for you....
How were the internship match rates this year for the schools? *(This is a big concern for me looking down the road).
How is funding? How are the locations? And what's the length to internship at both (in terms of completing dissertation etc).?
Mentoring styles of POIs (mine for example, are at the opposite ends of the spectrum)?

 

[clinicalpsyapp]

I am in a very similar position. Except for mine - the "prestigious" school has a relatively young POI, whereas the other program (well-recognized too but maybe not as high) has a very well established (famous) POI.

Ignoring that -

Some questions I have for you....
How were the internship match rates this year for the schools? *(This is a big concern for me looking down the road).
How is funding? How are the locations? And what's the length to internship at both (in terms of completing dissertation etc).?
Mentoring styles of POIs (mine for example, are at the opposite ends of the spectrum)?

I think that's what is so difficult for me. Internship match is the same at both schools (100%), funding is higher at the less prestigious school (but in a more expensive location--so it cancels out). Mentorship style is very similar (both POI's even went to the same program at the same time so they know each other well!). The more prestigious school is probably about a year longer, but there seems to be good reason for that (more coursework in my specialty area)--so that also seems to cancel out! Each way I look at it, I find that I just come down to prestigious vs. not prestigious, and obviously the "minor" detail of not yet being accepted to the more prestigious school 🙂

 

[krisrox]

Prestige vs. Fit? How about just stipend? : P

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

It is a good problem to have. 😀

I had a similiar situation trying to decide the best fit for my fellowship training. I narrowed it down to 4 programs (all tier-I research universities). They all offered board elligible training, excellent mentorship, and placed into top positions around the country....so my points of comparison shifted to the "soft" criteria.

1. Which place felt like the best fit? Where did I feel the most comfortable?
2. Where will I feel the most supported?
3. Can I branch off and do my own research, or am I a cog in the system?
4. What kind of mentorship is available (Clinical / Research / Profession)?
5. Can I see myself integrating into the surrounding community? Does the community offer things that I want if I were to stay long-term?
6. Are the fellows happy? Do they have lives outside of work?

There were a few more questions, but I really tried to focus on the fit because I realized at the end of the day....all of the places were "name" places, so my career path would be adversely effected if I chose one over another.

It's been about a week and a half since I made my choice, and I still feel really good about it. In retrospect I was pretty set on my choice, but I wanted to make sure I wasn't missing something or overlooking another opportunity.

 

[PsychApps2009]

This also reminds me of research on choices.... You know, how people are actually happier with the choice they make if they have fewer choices. Or something. I've had a couple of offers, and turning one down - even when I am 99.9% sure it's not the right school for me - has been stressful...because you always wonder about the other .01% of possibility.

At the end of the day, though, in my book, you can only make your decisions based on what you know now. Because both programs could get better or worse as the years go along. I'm sure there's some way to predict it (funding of the program etc.) - but future what-ifs make decisions impossible.

The advice I've gotten is to mostly go with my gut and just how I 'feel' about the program. And most people tend to say fit is the most important. But if fit is about the same, I'd just go with where you can imagine yourself at best. Or you can always do the regret test (I always do this): What would you regret more in terms of worst case scenarios at both places?

Granted, it may not be worth stressing out over until you have an offer at both places.... :/. [I say this because I was stressing about this with another school I interviewed at, a great program but not a strong fit for me, and I was thinking about how I would decide... Come down to it - it seems I won't have to (no offer yet), and I was partially relieved 😀.]

 

[PsychApps2009]

An interesting point to add to this discussion, is that I know someone who was trying to decide between two schools that were similar to my schools like 20 years ago. She ended up choosing the more "prestigious" one at the time and now, 20 years later, the program she turned down is actually known as being a better school than the one she went to. She says she now regrets basing her decision on prestige & ranking, because those things change over time. To be honest, I feel like School #2 will end up being known as a "prestigious" school sometime in the next 10 years or so, based on the quality of their training and students who come out of their program, as well as the level of talent they have been attracting as far as professors go.

Thoughts?

I wanted to add something specific to this point too. I don't think this is something that you should be focusing on too much at this point. The more prestigious school will probably not lose it's "rank" in the time you are going for internship and postdoctoral positions. And the less prestigious school probably won't climb up worlds higher in that amount of time either (5-7 years), although it will have a more firm reputation. Depending on your intended career path, where those schools are 20 years down the line shouldn't matter as much - because you should have had postdoctoral and other work experiences that will matter more. Remember, 20-30 years down the line most of the training we have and research we were taught in graduate school will be irrelevant. So by the time you're looking for a job 20 years from now, your employer may care more about other things. Does that make any sense?

 

[Sendtrees]

I have been in your situation several times. I chose a lesser graduate program (at least in some respects) because it was situated in an elite institution. I just couldn't get past the prestige issue. I have regretted that decision So. Many. Times.

BUT

I think it was actually an advantage for internship. The problem with choosing "fit" over prestige is that prestige carries real advantages.

I can tell you, when it came to ranking my top internship site, I didn't hesitate to choose fit over prestige. Will I always wonder where my career might have gone? Yes, probably. But I don't think I'll regret it.

It helps that my first choice--a perfect fit--is also a great spot. It sounds like OP is in a similar position. Your number 2 sounds great. If that's where you think you'll be happier, go with it.

 

[lexicon]

All things being equal, at this point in your career I recommend prestige over fit. To be honest, prestige opens doors and among academia I do think name matters. However, I don't think you'll be screwing yourself if you pick #2. We're talking about a very slight advantage here.

 

[clinicalpsyapp]

All things being equal, at this point in your career I recommend prestige over fit. To be honest, prestige opens doors and among academia I do think name matters. However, I don't think you'll be screwing yourself if you pick #2. We're talking about a very slight advantage here.

I guess my issue is that as far as the name of the PROGRAM goes, #1 is significantly more prestigious. However, my POI at #2 is a very big name in the field and I'm pretty sure is more well-known than my POI at #1 for a lot of reasons (e.g. president of the professional society for my specialty area, collaborations with other big names, etc).

 

[PsychPhDone]

If you plan to stay in this specific area, I think the big name POI may trump the general program reputation. Also:

-do they both publish equally? with students? number of authors?
-what are the funding terms? (do you have to teach?)
-which lab did you mesh with more interpersonally? the other applicants?
-do you have a better personality match with one mentor over the other?

I'm at a highly-ranked program, but I turned down a couple of "Top 10" schools because I didn't like the fit as much. My place is slightly less than "Top 10" but still highly regarded and has incredible fit for me.

 

[lexicon]

I guess my issue is that as far as the name of the PROGRAM goes, #1 is significantly more prestigious. However, my POI at #2 is a very big name in the field and I'm pretty sure is more well-known than my POI at #1 for a lot of reasons (e.g. president of the professional society for my specialty area, collaborations with other big names, etc).

Ah, well in that case I'm seeing very little reason to go with #2, unless there is reason to believe you won't have enough support (in the broad sense: funding, facilities, mentoring, etc.) to pursue your research goals. Failing that, seems like #2 has everything going for it, including prestige.

 

[olychick65]

Hi everyone,

I am in the last stages of this application process (like most of you 🙂) and I've been accepted to two programs and waitlisted at two more. I didn't get accepted at my number 1 choice, which (coincidentally) was a top-10 program. One of the programs I have been accepted to seems like a good fit, although I haven't visited it yet- I missed the interview for my top choice, but will be visiting next week. This program is not top-10, although according to US News and World Report (however scientific or not that is😉), it's in the top 50.

My question is, in the grand scope of things, for internships, post-docs, and academic positions, does prestige matter? I want to be in a position where my CV and experience allows me to have exciting, well-funded (because the research I want to do needs funding!!!) prominent research and clinical positions- and not be held back because I didn't go to Yale or wherever. I feel like I may have had issues getting interviews at some schools because my undergrad is at private liberal arts, and not at a name school, and I'm worried that this could continue.

What do you think? Thanks in advance!! 😀

 

[jnine]

heres 2 cents worth (barely)...

university prestige opens doors in academia and the job market, but you'll be judged more on the quality of your work. If you want to be a prof at stanford or harvard (etc)., you generally need to attend a similar type of institution. but if you do great work i think you can get a job in academia with a doctorate from any good school (proiding you're willing to relocate). I think post-docs are judged less on prestige and more on fit/quality of work, and i'm not sure about internships. i bet there's a modest correlation between program prestige and the opportunity to conduct exceptional research/get good training, but every situation is individual and should be judged accordingly.

Hi everyone,

I am in the last stages of this application process (like most of you 🙂) and I've been accepted to two programs and waitlisted at two more. I didn't get accepted at my number 1 choice, which (coincidentally) was a top-10 program. One of the programs I have been accepted to seems like a good fit, although I haven't visited it yet- I missed the interview for my top choice, but will be visiting next week. This program is not top-10, although according to US News and World Report (however scientific or not that is😉), it's in the top 50.

My question is, in the grand scope of things, for internships, post-docs, and academic positions, does prestige matter? I want to be in a position where my CV and experience allows me to have exciting, well-funded (because the research I want to do needs funding!!!) prominent research and clinical positions- and not be held back because I didn't go to Yale or wherever. I feel like I may have had issues getting interviews at some schools because my undergrad is at private liberal arts, and not at a name school, and I'm worried that this could continue.

What do you think? Thanks in advance!! 😀

 

[teo3099]

.

 

[Enlightened1]

Can someone please explain to me this notion of "prestige." These rankings of programs seem completely arbitrary to me. Sure, I understand that some programs are better than others, but there are so many factors that go into determining what makes a good program, well, good. How do you accurately measure the overall strength of a program? How do you assess the quality of a program's clinical training? the quality of mentorship? the quality of coursework? How do you quantify the freedom in your research? How do you quantify support from faculty? and opporunities to collaborate? or opporunities to teach? What about considering the quality of internship placements? Frankly, I think the number of publications a program produces is an absurd barometer of a solid clinical program, even if you are exlusively interested in research and an academic career. The quality of a program is so complex and multi-dimensional that ultimately, it is pointless to rank programs like this. What do you think?

 

[clinicalpsyapp]

You raise some great points. I'm not necessarily stuck to numbers as far as rankings go (i.e. ranked 7th vs. 9th), but there are certainly levels of "prestige" when it comes to Clinical Psych programs. The school that I started this thread about is at the top of rankings based on publications, etc.... but it is also at the top of lists based on qualitative psychology faculty rankings (e.g. us news). Faculty in the department are at the top of their field and are very well-known in their subfields. Students who have graduated from their program have gotten top of the line internships in specific subfields (e.g. the behavioral med internship at Duke) and prestigious faculty positions (e.g. UCLA). It is the mixture of those things that puts it as a top program, not any one dimension individually. A weaker program might be strong in some of the areas listed (e.g. publication output), but lacking in others (e.g. internship placement).

Can someone please explain to me this notion of "prestige." These rankings of programs seem completely arbitrary to me. Sure, I understand that some programs are better than others, but there are so many factors that go into determining what makes a good program, well, good. How do you accurately measure the overall strength of a program? How do you assess the quality of a program's clinical training? the quality of mentorship? the quality of coursework? How do you quantify the freedom in your research? How do you quantify support from faculty? and opporunities to collaborate? or opporunities to teach? What about considering the quality of internship placements? Frankly, I think the number of publications a program produces is an absurd barometer of a solid clinical program, even if you are exlusively interested in research and an academic career. The quality of a program is so complex and multi-dimensional that ultimately, it is pointless to rank programs like this. What do you think?

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

How do you accurately measure the overall strength of a program?
How do you assess the quality of a program's clinical training?
etc.

Most of those things won't be quantifiable, so you'll be left with mostly subjective data. There are a few quantifiable things that may inform the quality of a particular program.

I'd recommend getting the following info from each program, some of which will be available on their Educational Outcome disclosure data*:

-Average completion time (mean, mode, etc)
-Typical funding options/packages
-Clinical orientation of staff/program
-Practica opportunities (on-campus, off-campus, speciality populations, etc)
-Expectations of clinical v. research commitments
-Publication/Presentation opportunities
-Research support/restrictions
-Internship Match %
-APA v. Non-APA match % (if applicable)
-List of recent match sites
-Where do interns go for post-doc/fellowship/jobs
-What types of positions for grads once they get licensed

*There was a recent study done that showed some differences in the reported match rates and outcome data, compared to what was on file with APA and APPIC. Some programs quantified things differently, so make sure you are comparing Apples to Apples.

 

[Enlightened1]

Most of those things won't be quantifiable, so you'll be left with mostly subjective data.

That was kind of my point. These dimensions aren't quantifiable, so to rank schools on some "master list" doesn't make much sense. 😀

 

[whypsy]

Lots of good points above. Also one thing to consider about the idea of prestige in academia is specifically your subspecialty. For example, School X may be considered the "best" at clinical psychology but may not be as well known (usually due to POI, research, and opportunities) in specifically PTSD and/or trauma research. It seems to me the more professors I talk to, it's not about where you go, it's who you know and what you've done.