USC vs MIT Media Lab

Graduate School
1

I have recently completed my undergraduate study and I have been offered an admission in MIT media lab for a MS/PhD program (Signal Kinetics Department) and also in University of Southern California (USC) - Viterbi School to pursue a direct PhD degree in Electrical and Computer Engineering (ECE) . The MS/PhD program at both universities is fully funded and USC is also offering me a fellowship for 1 year . The POI at both universities are working in the research area which interests me however I have heard that getting a job in industry after getting a PhD from MAS department is harder as compared to USC ECE department because of the following two reasons:

1.) USC is situated in LA which means that graduates from USC will have an easier time finding jobs because there are many companies in LA and most of them give preference to students who are already living in LA.

2.) Since I will have a degree in “Electrical Engineering” if I choose USC as compared to a degree in “Media Arts and Sciences” if I choose MIT, so companies will be more inclined to give jobs to those graduates with a degree in “Electrical Engineering” because they might think that this degree is more relevant to their job description.

So I am really confused as to which university should I join for my graduate studies and I would really appreciate if someone could help me in making a decision. Does anyone know about someone who recently got a job in industry after completing his/her PhD or MS from the Signal Kinetics department at MIT? Are the reasons mentioned above really something to be worried about?

2

Not a PhD expert. And not an engineer.

But I have experience with seeing the backgrounds of people and clients in my profession.

Entrepreneurs. Top execs and academics researching and teaching from ivy level schools. I work in finance and merchant/investment banking. So I’ve seen a lot of resumes and backgrounds over the years.

My two cents…

I would say it depends on the type of employment.

Consulting (think Bain) , think tank (think Rand), specialized academia (both — but MIT is big)

Hedge and finance. Both would be great, but not really the normal types of specialty you see.

If you are socially comfortable, investment banking firms - especially with a focus in your area of expertise would love to talk to you from either school.

Focused Engineering. Say Intel, US Gov’t or Texas Instruments as examples — USC.

Start ups and tech. Both, but proximity to the action is USC.

Although Boston is no slouch.

It’s just as important in start up tech as to who your friends are in school and outside life. That’s were the early ideas hatch.

Also work type depends on you.

Are you a lab person, deep research type or an applications type. Are you comfortable with navigating corporate waters, communication and consensus building needed in many corporate and consulting environments.

Both options sound wonderful.

Congrats. You must be one smart and hard working cat.

MIT sounds more specialized and USC more broadly applicable.

And hate to say it. But MIT PhD will be mentioned in every meeting with clients or others before you walk in the room. And if not academic, consulting or tech environment. No one will care or understand the differences in your underlying research area. It’s just MIT and PhD. Drop the mic.

USC will have big time cache as well.

And a PhD is door opener to begin with for sure.

3

Sort of. The biggest companies won’t really care where you come from, as they have the resources to fly students in from all over the country. With a PhD from MIT, you can easily compete for those jobs. However, even at big companies, physical proximity helps - you can always grab coffee or lunch very easily with employees there, participate in enrichment opportunities, and socialize at networking opportunities with people who work in that area. And medium-sized and small companies do tend to prefer local candidates; some simply don’t have the resources to fly people away.

But that’s true for Boston, too - Boston’s not exactly a slouch in terms of job opportunities, including in the technology sector. So really, I think it depends on which scene appeals to you more. It may help to think about where you could potentially see yourself staying after graduation - you don’t HAVE to, especially with a degree from either of these schools, but it can be convenient to do so. Also, if there is a special niche part of the industry you’re interested in that’s more present in one or the other, that could help, too. LA is home to a lot of media companies, including video game companies, so if working in creative/entertainment media appeals to you then the proximity of LA could interest you. Boston has a different type of technology industry, which also could be appealing to you depending on your interests.

Not necessarily; this depends on you. It’s up to you to appropriately describe and market your degree to be sure that people understand what you do. You also don’t have to perfectly replicate your department name on your resume - I technically have a PhD in a field name that few people understand (there are only two so named programs in the country) so on my resume I instead put “Social Psychology and Public Health” because most people know what that means and it is an accurate reflection of what my PhD is. If your work at MIT is reflective of electrical engineering, you could always say “PhD in Electrical Engineering and Media Arts” and you can explain if you need to in a cover letter. (That said, you need to be sure that your curriculum and capabilities line up with that of other electrical engineering doctoral students. It looks like it does, though.)

Instead of relying on what you’ve “heard,” why don’t you ask each department about their placement records? Ask them where their doctoral student graduates tend to end up after they finish. What kinds of jobs do they get?