Masters/PhD programs in the US will be looking at your body of work in your subject and possibly test scores (you don’t say what field, but many programs require standardized testing such as the GRE, GMAT and so on. I won’t say that it doesn’t matter at all which uni you go to- but any solid uni that is strong in your subject will be just fine.
Depending on your field you may want to consider how you use your summers- most American students aiming for competitive post-grad programs will be spending their summers doing something related to their field. For example, my final year undergrad is currently applying to STEM PhD programs, having done full time (paid) research every summer of undergrad, resulting in several publications; a friend of hers applying to a Humanities Masters program has spent the summers working in the field, and so on.
@chzbrgr, the equivalent to Manchester is probably UIUC/Minny. Strong in STEM subjects (like Manchester) and certainly pretty good, but nobody would say those two unis are right behind the Ivies (the way that UMich/UCLA and UCL are right behind the the Ivies and Oxbridge).
@collegemom3717 I am applying for Philosophy, does that change anything? @chzbrgr yeh definitely not, I’m surprised you would place it in the second tier - what is your reasoning for it out of curiosity? imo most Brits would place UCL, St Andrews, Durham and Warwick in the second tier after Oxbridge, LSE and Imperial. @PurpleTitan For philosophy.
Based on the responses so far, I am going to apply to LSE, St Andrews, UCL and Edinburgh. Not sure what my last choice will be.
Departmental rigor/reputation is more important/narrow in philosophy than in may STEM subjects. In the US, that means that a top philosophy PhD program will be chock full of Ivy/equivalent/near-Ivy grads with almost no representation from “regular” schools besides Rutgers and Pitt (which are 2 of the top unis in philosophy).
BTW, that’s how I would tier the UK uni as well:
Oxbridge, LSE, Imperial = Ivies/equivalents
UCL = UMich/UCLA (solidly near-Ivy and close to the Ivies/equivalents)
Edinburgh/Warwick/St. A’s/Durham/KCL = UT-Austin/NYU/W&M/UNC/USC/UW-Madison (near-Ivy or close; some departments highly-esteemed, some not so much; entry requirements may also vary by subject and there may be a mismatch between entry requirements and faculty reputation).
“Departmental rigor/reputation is more important/narrow in philosophy than in may STEM subjects. In the US, that means that a top philosophy PhD program will be chock full of Ivy/equivalent/near-Ivy grads with almost no representation from “regular” schools besides Rutgers and Pitt (which are 2 of the top unis in philosophy).”
This is not true in the US. Many top students for undergraduate go to state schools or schools below what they could get into that offer scholarships. Probably most humanities graduates from top 20 schools go to law or MBA school, not graduate school in humanities. Not sure the reputation of the department is that important in graduate admissions either.
Top US law, medical, and MBA programs definitely do have mostly students from top undergraduate schools.
@sattut, what part of what I said do you consider “not true”?
In any case
Yes, many top students from HS enter schools outside the elite for various reasons in the US, but that doesn’t really refute my point. Unlike (say) law school admissions, the training you get as an undergrad actually matters for top philosophy PhD programs.
Compared to law school and b-school entering cohorts, philosophy PhD program cohorts are tiny, so most could be heading to law school or business (very few enter b-school directly these days) and top philosophy PhD programs can still be filled with elite college grads.
If you’re not sure that the departmental reputation matters, then why are you commenting? In any case, it’s not the reputation that matters but the training.
For law and med school, actually, where you go for undergrad probably matters less than it does for a top philosophy PhD program (in the US).
Ah, I just saw that you are looking at a philosophy Masters (terminal Masters, I assume) in the US after the UK. In that case, I’d have to ask what you are considering in terms of career plans (that’s probably worth asking if you are looking at philosophy PhD programs as well).
That is interesting, but not evidence that the distribution for undergraduate schools for other departments at Princeton is less weighted towards top schools than Philosophy is.
I agree that lower ranked US schools are generally stronger in STEM than humanities. However, most humanities graduates from top schools don’t go to graduate school in humanities. I have seen the school distributions for top medical schools and they are even more weighted toward like top 6 schools.
@sattut, I have provided at least some evidence to support my views. Do you have any to support yours?
BTW, if you bothered to read the body of the link, he breaks down the philosophy PhD program composition of Princeton+Berkeley, which should give a representative sample at top 10 philosophy programs as one is an elite private and the other an elite but big public.
And again, the intake in to any humanities PhD program is tiny, so I’m not sure what point restating that most humanities grads from top schools don’t enter PhD programs is suppose to make. Most humanities grads from non-elite colleges also don’t enter PhD programs.
I’m also interested in seeing the distribution at this top med school that you mentioned. I have also seen some, and they did not look even more lopsided than philosophy PhD programs at first glance.
Another thing too to keep in mind is that the graduate of any American medical school who passes boards is a doctor. (and will be doing at least pretty well).
Yes, the MD-PhD programs are concentrated at the top med schools, but most doctors aren’t going to be doing significant research.
On the other hand, if you’re not getting a philosophy degree from an elite school, you should ask yourself why you are doing it.