Is it worth to do a PhD if you can't get accepted into a top-10 university?

>he fell for the Chomsky meme

I do indeed like Chomsky's work in linguistics quite a bit. It's impressively elegant.

This is a lie. Faculty matters more than ranking.

whats your opinion regarding universal grammar?

which part? also the top ranked places are ranked highly for a reason, and also give you better exit options if you don't land an academic job vs. going to a lesser-name place with faculty more specialized in your area of interest.

It's an interesting hypothesis, but since I don't in acquisition, I prefer to remain agnostic. I have seen however some interesting developments in computational linguistics that offer some neat mathematical models of UG. In any case, while the term UG is very loaded, I think it should be accepted at the minimum that there is an upper- and a lower-bound on what constitutes a possible language.

I say my money last longer than a nascar race

yes, a lot more important

Sure, but top departments tend to draw the researchers with the highest reputation.

With enough experience, is it possible to get into a good graduate school if you went to a low tier undergrad?

eh, if its true he pretty much doomed the field of natural language processing/understanding to a meme status

by experience you mean pubs in top-tier conferences/journals? if yes, then you have solid chances

I think the reality is probably much more subtle than what Chomsky has in mind, and much more complex. But either way I don't think it impacts NLP much. Acquisition and processing are pretty different things. Moreover, the linguistic theory introduced by Chomsky is not really related to processing. It's wholly focused on 'linguistic competence' as opposed to 'linguistic performance'.

brainlets should not pretend to be something that they are clearly not.

Yeah but if you didn't go to a top 5 kindergarten you won't get accepted

Not easily. You need to signal competence with an elite undergrad in addition to having good reference letters and a 4.0, and a near-perfect subject GRE. The Putnam helps if you are doing math too. Lacking any of those just makes it an uphill battle.

It would be paradoxical, because there are hundreds of unis who offer PhD programs. So...

>you're vastly less likely to get an academic job or good placement in industry without elite pedigree
Stop talking out your ass.

We aren't talking about undergrad finance majors anymore. At the point when you have a PhD you are selling yourself to employers based on the research projects you've done, the papers you've published from it and the skills/highly specialized expertise you built up doing that research.

If you spent 4 years doing intense research and somehow the best thing you have going for you is the name Harvard you've failed miserably and it's a miracle you even made it into an "elite pedigree" university

Think of it this way. Every time you apply for an academic position, there is a graduate from a top school applying there.

That may be how it should be, but that's not how it is in the real world.

Most people doing their PhDs outside a top 10-15 are brainlets or are working with one particular faculty who is among the best in their field.

The people who get into top grad schools have both the Harvard name and good research output, reputable references, and perfect or near-perfect test scores. Why take a chance on someone who is less than perfect? The elite demonstrate elite abilities early on and would've done an elite undergrad if they weren't lazy or brainlets.

Obviously, but you can still work in many places or stay in post doc hell till you find an open place somewhere.

Yes, getting into a PhD program the name of your school is relevant. That's not what you said.

You have tangible work to show to "academic and industry" employers after a graduate degree. If you lose to a Harvard PhD for the adjunct position you applied to you didn't lose because he went to Harvard and you didn't, you lost because he has better work than you do.

>implying academia is a meritocracy

Plenty of well-paying companies (like many wall street firms) will almost never look at someone without an elite pedigree. Also the name of your advisor matters a lot for getting work accepted or getting into the right postdoc.

oh
I'm talking to a /pol/tard

explains the baseless alternatively true statements

It is, and the reason why you've always gone to shit schools is because you are dumb.

>tfw in second rate state school
>keeps slipping in undergrad rankings, but is so so for grad rankings
>jewed my way into a co-authorship in two papers with stanford groups
feels good, man.

It is. People who aren't brainlets and have work ethic will from a very young age signal elite ability through performance in things like math competitions, then go to an elite undergraduate school, get a perfect GPA and a publication or two along with strong recommendations from reputable advisors, then get into an elite PhD program for their field of interest and be on track for an academic job or high-paying industry job with companies that are only interested in elite talent. If you fall off this path you're basically just a genetic inferior who shouldn't be trying to do science. Research outside the top 10 really doesn't matter anyway.

then why Chinese/Indian professors create labs where the majority of PhDs/PostDocs have the same ethnicity as them? is it a mere coincidence?

it's not, and if you think it is then you're either a retard or an undergrad.

my adviser took on a mexican guy with a 3.0 GPA who had an F in one of his courses in his final semester. soon as he took him on he started boasting in all his proposals about minority recruitment/membership in the lab and shortly after received nearly 1.5 million in funds after a funding drought that lasted 4 years.

Yeah actually that is true, there is a lot of getting undeserving members of minority groups into good schools. For white and asian people though, it is about merit.

are you some ESL dipshit or is there another reason why you overuse the same words in all your posts?

You don't study a real subject. You're probably a sociologist or economist. There is no way something like this would happen in physics or pure math.

No, I'm just trying to demonstrate the standards you need to meet to have a chance at getting a decent outcome from doing a PhD in science and not ending up in postdoc hell or as an adjunct.

And you are? Even if you lie to us, you'll know the truth yourself.

It's pretty clear you're some third or fourth year undergrad.

Well I didn't go to an elite undergrad (yes, I am a brainlet) so I gave up on science, because I knew I had no chance at competing with genetic superiors.

i'm in engineering. from what i've heard from my friend in economics it actually seems to be less common there. i guess it's because there's more "minorities" in more bullshit majors so they aren't as sought after.

also, last i heard my adviser is already eyeing another prospective "minority" student to join the lab despite the fact that the mexican guy is nowhere near close to graduating. i'm pretty sure he'll have to force the mexican guy through because i just don't see that guy writing a thesis.

>undergrad with no grad school experience at all is making sweeping generalizations about how grad school, academia, and postgraduate industry work at the same time

i can get into imperial for a phd solely on the fact that my supervisor is a friend with a professor there and can guarantee for me.

I dropped out of my PhD program because continuing was pointless.

/thread

It's almost as if your supervisor knows you work well and can recommend you based on that.

It's almost as if having good connections plays an important role everywhere and academia is not an exception to that.

also even though i graduated first my university is known for its brainlets

Is it worth taking a slower graduation track to fit in more classwork (maybe some graduate level work), nab a summer REI and boost your application for grad schools?

Or is it better to just graduate as fast as possible with good grades?

I could graduate next spring since I'll be taking summer classes, or I could graduate in fall of 2018, after taking a summer REI and some grad work. I don't really know what my best option is.

success in academia science is ultimately controlled by bros who all know each other and they know how to interpret each others letters of recommendation.

Also in the real job market, the official letter of recommendation doesn't matter as much as the unofficial email your supervisor will be sending to his bros who already have jobs wherever you're applying, telling them that you're a bro too.

how exactly do you plan to do this when some schools have application deadlines as early as fall, and nearly all schools require enrollment decisions towards the end of the spring semester?

you would have to wait about half a year if you gradate in winter unless you find a professor that really wants you, but depending on the school/program, you might not even have a thesis advisor your first year.

this guy fucks

Why should I listen to opinions from a genetically inferior?

you might think you're memeing but this is literally how it works.

the letter that goes to the HR drones is not the same letter that gets you the job.

Fuck, okay, so should I try to graduate in 2018 spring by finishing up my course work and sacrifice a summer REI so I can get apps in on time or should I take an extra year and just take more classes, possibly a double major?

I want to go into math grad school, but I am a transfer and was behind on credits due to a non-traditional path. I just finished vector calc, diff eq and linear algebra, but still need to take a years worth of Abstract Algebra, Real Analysis and whatever else for graduate school, starting this coming fall. I have very good grades so far, but I really don't know what my timeline should look like

not worth it unless your specific advisor is pulling in big research $$$, is publishing in baller journals, and his/her ex-students are consistently getting tenure-track jobs

Some Universities are not top 10 but are really good for what they do. In Math, SBU isn't a house hold name but they are a good school for Geometry and Topology. A lot of people are not wow'ed by the name Rutgers but it is a good school for combinatorics. Pedigree is very important if you are a humanities major, but for something like math it's a mixture of two. If you get a Math PHD at Harvard and publish absolute garbage because you don't get along with your adviser then you might as well as have done it in a place where you could have published good stuff.

The majority of PhD's and postdocs aren't white, period

There is no economic reason for a white to pursue a doctorate

I'm not sure if you mean immigrants pursue PHD because it gives them an easy ticket into America, this much is true, but I think people born in America who decided to pursue a PHD do a much better job simply because they are there because they want to be.

Dunno in my field your post doc matters more than your PhD. And a lot of random shit tier schools have that 1 faculty member whose the top researcher in a particular subfield (within my particular field). Also a lot of the top researchers in my field are at the NIH and not a university so a post doc is your main access point to them.

The top 2 PI's in my particular subfield of my field that aren't at the NIH are at university of michigan and university of connecticut.

Also depends on what kind of faculty position you eventually want. Small liberal arts college faculty often have people who did their PhDs at bumfuck nowhere just because they're charismatic and good with students/other faculty like them.

if it were me i wouldn't stay the extra year, but that doesn't mean it's the best choice. you could also do a year as a coursework only masters student, and most likely finish a masters degree in that year.

that in theory should make your more competitive since you'd have more courses finished than undergrads, but you won't be able to do REU. there are science internships available for grad students, too.

True, but one of the main reasons to attend an overall top-tier school is for the opportunities to meet and collaborate with brilliant people. For experimental sciences, there are also benefits in terms of better research infrastructure.

this

> be me just out of undergrad
> research experience, but no papers, no real original research ideas
> applied to a bunch of random top-10 PhD programs, universally rejected
> do a funded masters at a good school for 2 years
> during that time, get an NSF fellowship, come up with some research ideas that aren't complete trash, publish three papers
> ended up in #1 ranked program

You're an idiot who has no knowledge in an area, and yet still gives advice.

lol not even trying to meme except insofar as memes represent reality

It's so ridiculously idiotic to state that only ten schools in a given field have people producing worthwhile research. Every time I come to this wasteland of a board, I'm reminded why I've been away.

t. state universitylet

just get a nobel and it won't matter

Those are all meaningless distinctions, especially arbitrary private schools and public ivies. Neither produces better research just because of that tag.

I've discussed such a topic with many people within academia, and I have always heard the same answer.
In industry, the name is only a significant (negative) factor if it is something no one has ever heard of. Obviously ivies like MIT, Harvard, etc. are well known, but University of Podunk Nowhere is not, and would make you less of a potential candidate for an industry position. As far as academia goes, Ivies typically only hire Ivies as professors. So if you are from anything but an Ivy, don't bother looking for a position at an Ivy school unless you have become very well-known in your field. Other than that, other schools will higher other schools, provided you have some good work and a few good post-docs.

>The elite demonstrate elite abilities early on and would've done an elite undergrad if they weren't lazy or brainlets.
Or unless they were victimized by their powertripping high school teachers

>ivies like MIT

>Is it worth to do a PhD if you can't get accepted into a top-10 university?

Yes. If you want to do a PhD (for whatever reasons that may be: you love research, you want to be a professor, etc.), going to a non-Top-10 ranked school shouldn't stop you.

>also, is the supervisor's reputation more important than the university's ranking?

Yes, there are a few factors at play.

First, rankings, well, rank universities and/or colleges in the same field. Hence, undergrad rankings, med school (primary care/research), law school, MBA rankings, etc. But, grad school is a different beast because "the field" in research is much more loosely defined, and much smaller. So, you can have the eminent figure within a particular "field" (say, protein design) at a non-Top-10 school. Then, if you want to work in protein design, you go to that school and work with that person over, say, going to Harvard or Stanford.

The second thing to keep in mind is that there are far less PhDs than JDs or MBAs or MDs, so there really isn't a stratification. There are around ~1700 physics PhDs awarded each year in the U.S (aip.org/sites/default/files/statistics/graduate/trendsphds-p-12.2.pdf); and, if I recall, there are ~2300+ chemistry PhDs. In my field of biophysics (hence the protein design example, though that's not my area of expertise), there are ~100 PhDs awarded every year in the U.S.; there are ~800 biochemistry PhDs awarded.

I don't mean to bludgeon you with these values, but compare this to however many tens and hundreds of thousands of JDs and MBAs, respectively, graduate every year. My point, long story short, is that the difference between an MBA from State U. and an MBA from Harvard or Wharton or Stanford is huge. But, a PhD in physics or chemistry is a brainiac, whether he or she is from State U. or is from Harvard or Stanford.

>Is it worth to do a PhD if you can't get accepted into a top-10 university?

Is your field useful to industry?

If so, a bachelor can set you up with six figures

If not and you're forced to stay in Academia, a PHD is almost a necessity.

At what point in undergrad should someone start preparing for the GRE?

People don't get PhDs because they can't get jobs with a non engineering bachelor. Jesus fucking Christ. What do you imbeciles think people without college degrees do for a living? Beg and sleep under a bridge?

if you are not memeing then you are the definition of a brainlet

>Every notable figure in the field has gone through MIT's graduate program
Obviously not true outside of syntax, but even within Generative Grammar
>Rizzi
>Pullum
>Haegeman
>Hornstein
>Epstein
>Newmeyer
>Pollard
>Roberts
>Citko
>Kitahara
>Uriagereka
>Sprouse

Yes it was an overstatement, but it remains that there is an overwhelming number of MIT graduates among the notable figures in the field.

I'm just a bachelor bby, but the way i see it, you should want to get a PhD to do research above anything else. if you're just after money, a Master's should suffice (in most fields).
If you get into a university that researches a topic you want to research, it should be fine.
My university is mostly crap, but they're known for their research in big data, and some linguistics stuff. If you get a PhD here, there's a good chance they will take you as a researcher. They'd rather take an "insider" than an "outsider" whose Master's programme and PhD had nothing to do with the field.
Maybe i'm just naive though and it's all about getting that huge 10million dollar research fund you'd get at MIT

I quit my job to go back to school and get a PhD. Currently doing a masters program at a low tier private school, because they offered me a full ride and stipend.

My advisers suck, and try to get me to work on silly projects. I have a small portfolio of mediocre projects, a few of them published but not in any high tier venues. All of my work is completely independent, but I put my advisers name on the papers just to make them look more legitimate.

I was kind of delusional in thinking that my passion, and obsession for my subject could propel me past the bureaucratic barriers of entry, but I am starting to see how delusional that was. I've been looking for summer internships, and am getting no where, because my CV doesn't say "Stanford" or "MIT" on it.

Being a researcher is literally the only thing I want to do with my life, but the goal seems to be more and more out of reach the closer I get to it. There is literally no way I can compete with the resume stuffing kids who have been going at this since age 12.

I hear stories about people who quit their jobs at like 30 to get get a Phd, but I don't see that is even possible if you don't already have networking connections.

why are americans so obsessed with ivies? in europe, providing that you have a solid CV, you can even get to oxbridge for a phd without having a bsc/msc from an elite university.

It's like that here in America, as well. The issue is just that, for example, Harvard might take 10 new grad students a year so it's hard to get in generally.

this is why

you're not gonna work with the entire university dumbass

of course that's the most important thing

>ivies like MIT

>he fell for the europe is utopia meme
don't worry i can assure you that even sweden is a shithole

>he fell for the america is the greatest country in the world meme
don't worry i can assure you that america is an africa-tier nation that just happens to have a strong economy

care to explain? and please don't mention universal healthcare because this is a reddit-tier argument. in most european countries only """refugees""" actually use public hospitals

I have a specific question. If I have already completed a 2 year masters concentrating on synthetic organic, but didn't get to publish anything, while also scoring 320 total on the regular GRE, do I have a chance of getting in somewhere decent? I am also planning on taking GRE Chem next weekend. If I do well on this does this make me decently competitive?

Looking for answers from people with some similar experience. Also, I did NOT complete undergrad or master's at a very good school, just a mediocre state school. Both the same one too. I realize that looks bad...

Tbh I am not even looking for the most well paying high status jobs. I really want to just do good chemistry research and have a part in the academic environment. I fell in love with it.

PS Can you tell I'm on adderall? Haha

I mean getting in somewhere decent for PhD. Sorry.

take a year off and go do a research internship somewhere reputable in your field. try to publish at least 2 papers

What about Rutger's? They are technically just an X state, but my dad who went there says that oftentimes people think it's an Ivie because of how old and decently prestigious it is. I am trying to go there for PhD in chemistry. They seem to have a very well-equipped department, include chemical biology research, and are known for being one of the most well-funded schools there are. Johnson and Johnson nearby has a hand in that. Anybody go here?