10 ms·

The general advice I give to anyone considering grad school, and the same advice I was given by professors, is: unless you are absolutely certain it will be wor

The general advice I give to anyone considering grad school, and the same advice I was given by professors, is: unless you are absolutely certain it will be worth it, do not go to grad school unless you are paid to do so by the school or through some other form of compensation.

rejectedandsad 5y ago
This is always interesting, because when I went to my crappy state school people always said "Oh, but you can always go to a top grad school!". It seems like if you're not cut out for success at 17 you'll never have it.
- BeetleB 5y ago
  > because when I went to my crappy state school people always said "Oh, but you can always go to a top grad school!". In engineering, you definitely can, and it's not unusual. This doesn't conflict with your parent. Do not pay for it out of your own pocket. Get funding (teaching/research assistantship).
  - rejectedandsad 5y ago
    From my school? Yes it is. To get into a top grad school you need multiple first author papers. Most research groups at state schools straight up don’t have that research capacity. I had 2 2nd author papers and people that I've shown my profile to say I have straight up no chance at good schools. They then trot out the 'ol "It matters more who your advisor is".
    - BeetleB 5y ago
      > To get into a top grad school you need multiple first author papers. What field are you in? Most engineering programs will not require this.
      - rejectedandsad 5y ago
        I’m in CS. I’m basically hopeless at this point of ever being considered more than an untermensch.
        BeetleB 5y ago
        I'm curious: What are you considering as a top CS school? At the one I went to, virtually no incoming student was a first author. Granted, this was a while ago, but it was still the case about 10 years ago. 2nd question: Did you actually apply, or did you merely ask around and get discouraged? My experience is that most of the advice people give on this topic is wildly off. That includes advice from professors in top schools. Finally, GPA mattered in my time, and I'm sure it still does. It's not at all sufficient, but a poor GPA would almost always kill your chances. I those days, beneath 3.5 would be a guaranteed reject, and around 3.5 would be a weak candidate.
        rejectedandsad 5y ago
        1) I'd consider MIT, CMU, Stanford, Berkeley as the top, as well as the top schools that aren't CS top schools but are still well regarded (Columbia CS PhD, Cornell CS PhD, Princeton, Harvard). University of Washington and UIUC among the top as well, as well as Georgia Tech, UMass Amherst, and UMD, though those are hardly of the same recognition outside of the field as the other ones that are well regarded. 2) I talked to a 7 (off the top of my head) professors at a few institutions about this as well as a 5 PhD students, one from my undergrad (people from my undergrad don't generally go to top schools for PhDs in CS). All of their profiles had multiple first author papers and none of them got into any other top school than the one they went to. Ofc, the ones that went to top undergrads did get into multiple. The circles your professors runs around in at state schools absolutely matter. Mine is very well regarded in the research niche but that doesn't transfer well to even adjacent research niches. I got a 3.92 at my undergrad, CS GPA around 3.98 or so.
        BeetleB 5y ago
        I went to GaTech, picked a random PhD student and looked at his CV. He had only one paper prior to starting at GaTech, and he was the last author. Picked another one and that one did have a first author paper. Couldn't find CVs for the others I picked. Went to UIUC. First random student I picked had no publications prior to joining UIUC. 2nd one I picked had one, but not as first author. 3rd one I picked had none prior to joining UIUC. Might be a subdiscipline thing.
- lallysingh 5y ago
  Plenty of top grad schools are worth it, pay for their students, and are accessible from students who went to state schools in undergrad. Also, top school names only matter when starting your career. What you do counts a lot more and can easily get you to many good jobs. It turns out good 17 yr olds can ride their momentum only so long. At some point you have to produce in your career.
  - rejectedandsad 5y ago
    > Also, top school names only matter when starting your career Yes, and then it determines the next phase, and then the next.... I'm sure there are some mediocre (strictly career wise, not academically) people who graduate from Styvescent and Columbia and go to work at no-name mid-tier companies (I've met one personally). But these people are still orders of magnitude better off than people like me, who are destined for failure and disappointment. If you ever looked at my resume you'd agree.
    - lallysingh 5y ago
      No they don't. What you actually do in your job matters a lot. If you're actually good, you get picked up by better firms. I've interviewed literally hundreds of candidates for top-tier companies I've worked for, and those candidates mostly cone from the 'rest' of the schools, not the top 10. I didn't come from the top 10 either. Also, for grad school, the top 10 don't matter as much to an employer as relevant research to something they care about. Grad rankings are nearly useless. I went to state school (VT) undergrad and grad. I've worked in plenty of very good places.
      - rejectedandsad 5y ago
        I only work at Amazon so I’m not actually good. The “rest” are still only large in proportion because of their population size - most are like me and will never get into companies like Two Sigma or Google. I sure can’t.
        5y ago
- dodobirdlord 5y ago
  Fundamentally, it's about whether the university views the applicant as a valuable resource or as a bag of money. At good research programs, professors convene to decide which PhD applicants they want to accept, with the knowledge that the people they accept are going to work with them for years as on their research projects as advisees. To receive an un-funded acceptance means that the consensus of the professors reviewing applications was that covering the applicant's tuition and stipend to have them as an advisee would be a waste of grant money. It's essentially a rejection, because it means nobody actually wanted to be the applicant's advisor. Starting a PhD under those circumstances is just setting yourself up for failure. If a PhD program in science or engineering (or any discipline where professors have a fair amount of grant money to spend) isn't willing to pay you to attend, take that as a rejection and move on. Edit: This is why you generally have to pay to attend a Master's program, but get paid to attend a PhD program. Teaching Master's students is just a waste of time, while teaching PhD students pays off when they become productive research assistants for the remainder of the time it takes them to write a thesis. The pro tip is that if all you want is a Master's degree, you should still apply for a PhD program and then leave with your Masters degree after a year or two.
lucas_membrane 5y ago
Nothing to see here. The system is performing its desired function -- creating a reserve army of the underemployed to sustain a continual erosion of workers' real wages at all levels of skill and education.

rejectedandsad 5y ago

This is always interesting, because when I went to my crappy state school people always said "Oh, but you can always go to a top grad school!". It seems like if you're not cut out for success at 17 you'll never have it.

BeetleB 5y ago
> because when I went to my crappy state school people always said "Oh, but you can always go to a top grad school!". In engineering, you definitely can, and it's not unusual. This doesn't conflict with your parent. Do not pay for it out of your own pocket. Get funding (teaching/research assistantship).
- rejectedandsad 5y ago
  From my school? Yes it is. To get into a top grad school you need multiple first author papers. Most research groups at state schools straight up don’t have that research capacity. I had 2 2nd author papers and people that I've shown my profile to say I have straight up no chance at good schools. They then trot out the 'ol "It matters more who your advisor is".
  - BeetleB 5y ago
    > To get into a top grad school you need multiple first author papers. What field are you in? Most engineering programs will not require this.
    - rejectedandsad 5y ago
      I’m in CS. I’m basically hopeless at this point of ever being considered more than an untermensch.
      - BeetleB 5y ago
        I'm curious: What are you considering as a top CS school? At the one I went to, virtually no incoming student was a first author. Granted, this was a while ago, but it was still the case about 10 years ago. 2nd question: Did you actually apply, or did you merely ask around and get discouraged? My experience is that most of the advice people give on this topic is wildly off. That includes advice from professors in top schools. Finally, GPA mattered in my time, and I'm sure it still does. It's not at all sufficient, but a poor GPA would almost always kill your chances. I those days, beneath 3.5 would be a guaranteed reject, and around 3.5 would be a weak candidate.
        rejectedandsad 5y ago
        1) I'd consider MIT, CMU, Stanford, Berkeley as the top, as well as the top schools that aren't CS top schools but are still well regarded (Columbia CS PhD, Cornell CS PhD, Princeton, Harvard). University of Washington and UIUC among the top as well, as well as Georgia Tech, UMass Amherst, and UMD, though those are hardly of the same recognition outside of the field as the other ones that are well regarded. 2) I talked to a 7 (off the top of my head) professors at a few institutions about this as well as a 5 PhD students, one from my undergrad (people from my undergrad don't generally go to top schools for PhDs in CS). All of their profiles had multiple first author papers and none of them got into any other top school than the one they went to. Ofc, the ones that went to top undergrads did get into multiple. The circles your professors runs around in at state schools absolutely matter. Mine is very well regarded in the research niche but that doesn't transfer well to even adjacent research niches. I got a 3.92 at my undergrad, CS GPA around 3.98 or so.
        BeetleB 5y ago
        I went to GaTech, picked a random PhD student and looked at his CV. He had only one paper prior to starting at GaTech, and he was the last author. Picked another one and that one did have a first author paper. Couldn't find CVs for the others I picked. Went to UIUC. First random student I picked had no publications prior to joining UIUC. 2nd one I picked had one, but not as first author. 3rd one I picked had none prior to joining UIUC. Might be a subdiscipline thing.
lallysingh 5y ago
Plenty of top grad schools are worth it, pay for their students, and are accessible from students who went to state schools in undergrad. Also, top school names only matter when starting your career. What you do counts a lot more and can easily get you to many good jobs. It turns out good 17 yr olds can ride their momentum only so long. At some point you have to produce in your career.
- rejectedandsad 5y ago
  > Also, top school names only matter when starting your career Yes, and then it determines the next phase, and then the next.... I'm sure there are some mediocre (strictly career wise, not academically) people who graduate from Styvescent and Columbia and go to work at no-name mid-tier companies (I've met one personally). But these people are still orders of magnitude better off than people like me, who are destined for failure and disappointment. If you ever looked at my resume you'd agree.
  - lallysingh 5y ago
    No they don't. What you actually do in your job matters a lot. If you're actually good, you get picked up by better firms. I've interviewed literally hundreds of candidates for top-tier companies I've worked for, and those candidates mostly cone from the 'rest' of the schools, not the top 10. I didn't come from the top 10 either. Also, for grad school, the top 10 don't matter as much to an employer as relevant research to something they care about. Grad rankings are nearly useless. I went to state school (VT) undergrad and grad. I've worked in plenty of very good places.
    - rejectedandsad 5y ago
      I only work at Amazon so I’m not actually good. The “rest” are still only large in proportion because of their population size - most are like me and will never get into companies like Two Sigma or Google. I sure can’t.
      - 5y ago
dodobirdlord 5y ago
Fundamentally, it's about whether the university views the applicant as a valuable resource or as a bag of money. At good research programs, professors convene to decide which PhD applicants they want to accept, with the knowledge that the people they accept are going to work with them for years as on their research projects as advisees. To receive an un-funded acceptance means that the consensus of the professors reviewing applications was that covering the applicant's tuition and stipend to have them as an advisee would be a waste of grant money. It's essentially a rejection, because it means nobody actually wanted to be the applicant's advisor. Starting a PhD under those circumstances is just setting yourself up for failure. If a PhD program in science or engineering (or any discipline where professors have a fair amount of grant money to spend) isn't willing to pay you to attend, take that as a rejection and move on. Edit: This is why you generally have to pay to attend a Master's program, but get paid to attend a PhD program. Teaching Master's students is just a waste of time, while teaching PhD students pays off when they become productive research assistants for the remainder of the time it takes them to write a thesis. The pro tip is that if all you want is a Master's degree, you should still apply for a PhD program and then leave with your Masters degree after a year or two.

lucas_membrane 5y ago

Nothing to see here. The system is performing its desired function -- creating a reserve army of the underemployed to sustain a continual erosion of workers' real wages at all levels of skill and education.