The advisor matters more than the university ranking for graduate study, including master and PhD. Publication is one of the best things to measure your quality. Good advisors will help students to publish their work, but some bad advisors never care about students. Well, if you have chance to pursue your MS in a really top university, such as Harvard or MIT, I think the reputation matters. But for most universities, advisor comes first.

It will all depend on your faculty / thesis advisor as well as the quality of work done. If we follow the path of Nobel laureates, we will find that the institution where they did their graduate work had a lesser relevance than to the kind of work and guidance received and how they were able to leverage both in their future endeavors. In few words, content has greater importance than location.

In Poland, there are general requirements to get Ph.D. and higher degrees. According to the newest legal act from Ministry of Science and Upper Education a Ph.D. candidate must have at least three publications in high IF journals. Moreover, Ph.D. candidate has to pass three exams (english, minor subject and major subject) and write a dissertation reviewed by at least two professor (only one can be from candidate's University). Hence, in Poland getting Ph.D. is quite prestigous. The University where You get Your degree also matters but the most impoartant is the degree.

In the US, there are several steps needed to obtain the PhD. Step 1, need to obtain a score high enough for the general and specialty part (chemistry / chemical engineering) of the graduate review examination (gre). Each institution has their minimum scoring requirements. Step 2, good grading and ranking from the institution awarding the 1st degree (here is called bachelors). Step 3, letters of recommendation from faculty where you received your bachelors / undergraduate (1st degree). Step 4, sometimes you may to go for an interview with the graduate school(s) of your choice. Step 5, financial support, some schools may offer it for the PhD and some may initially not until seeing your performance for the first 18 - 24 months. Step 6, passing Doctoral qualifying exam which allows you to proceed with the PhD research. Step 7, passing the Doctoral research proposal, this will allow you to start your research. Step 8, publishing / presenting the results of your research to your peers. There is no minimum and all depends on the topic and nature of the work. But it is usually more than one. Step 9, defending and passing your research / thesis. So, this is why the nature of the research and mentorship / guidance is more relevant than where you get the degree from.

Of course it matters. You can do good work but at a lower ranked university, you will have very slim chances of getting it recognized by a wider public. To add, if you live and work in a politically "suspicious" country, your cahnce will be weakened further. But, with some luck and perserverance, it it possible to bypass these problems.

in my opinion, mainly the publications matter. I disagree with Vladan. I know publications of Professor from Your University - S. Stojadinovic -and his research are outstanding in the subject I'm reseaching. Rank of the researcher is based on his publications, citations and h-index. For example, every one who is doing something in the field of anodization, knows and cites publications from prof. Stojadinovic, because he does a really great work!

I have to agree with Robert - the most important is Your work, your publications and your attitude. The rest will come, sooner or later.

Nevertheless, science funding in middle Europe is much lower than in western Europe, USA or Japan, so it is much harder to get funding for research and employment.

Robert - In Poland a Ph.D. student is more independant, however a Ph.D. student usually has to get funding for research, what is also difficult. We learn how to be indepentant scientists and ... managers and book keepers as well ;-)

For the value of a PhD it is most important that you make a few good papers. Secondly come the reputation of the supervisor.

It is my experience that the reputation of the university is more important for the value of the master degree. If you have graduated from a good university it is easier to get a PhD position.

The ranking of your university does matter. What may matter most is whether your dissertation supervisor is a mentor or just someone who sees you as cheap, temporary labor to advance his/her career or reputation. With the latter, once the grant runs out, or if you are working on a bad project (this happens too often in science) you may be treated like yesterday's newspaper. Why does that type succeed? Because if you go nowhere with your PhD (say, you have to take a position with far lower qualifications to pay the bills) you are no longer part of the community, so you have little chance to warn others.

As for rankings: The recent NRC rankings are revealing to see which programs have a great discrepancy between, say, publications and student outcomes.

Your best move is to visit the universities in which you are interested to speak not only with faculty but with students _who are about to graduate_. Are they going where they want to go? Are they getting positions at the PhD level? Have they more than one offer of a postdoc, or industry, government, or teaching position?

Also, try to gauge they overall attitude of students in the department. One visitor whom I met where I did my PhD had already noticed that grad. students in my program were not that happy. I helped convince him to go elsewhere.

Finally, if you find you are not in a win-win environment, transfer elsewhere or choose another endeavor.

Our professors and deans have to remember that slave is not a good employee. The should know, that If Your are excited with Your work You will publish a lot and If You are forced to do something You don't want to do - You will work just as much You have to get the salary.

Publishing mere 2-3 research articles is not a guarantee that you will get a professor level job. in Indian Universities. The disgusting thing is that you also require an approach to get a job even if you are PhD.+ 1-2 years post doc. experience and have 25+ research articles in high impact factor journals!!

Unfortunately that is the ugly truth about India. Even most of the scientists and professors treat their research as a mere job, no passion what so ever. Some of my professors used to strongly discourage us from entering academics, suggesting us to join Banks etc... If the facilities are available then the will isn't there and vice versa. That's why I'm looking to do my PhD from foreign universities.

But if you go by the internet it seems like PhD's are now redundant and anyone opting to do a PhD is doomed, no job prospects whatsoever, even in countries like America, Canada, and Singapore.

Very disheartening for the likes of us who want to start their PhD's. Even if you have passion for research.

I agree with Robert, rather than university what matter most is the quality of your work. The good work always will lead to good publications in some good IF journals. But you should also ensure that you have good guide. And if you want a good career in academia that too in IIT or IISc, then you should have Ph.D from outside Indian Universities (US, UK, Germany). Or you can get Asst Prof job in any Engg college, if you have Ph.D.

The advisor matters more than the university ranking for graduate study, including master and PhD. Publication is one of the best things to measure your quality. Good advisors will help students to publish their work, but some bad advisors never care about students. Well, if you have chance to pursue your MS in a really top university, such as Harvard or MIT, I think the reputation matters. But for most universities, advisor comes first.

Actually, I think it depends a lot on the career path you choose after graduate school. If you do your PhD in a specific area and end up wanting to stay in that field, then it's often the reputation of the group you're working with that people consider. If you change fields or get a job outside of academia, then you'll be applying to jobs where the people won't know your adviser or group, and so they'll go more by the overall reputation of the school.

.Actually be part of a top University can help a lot, especially for an experimentalist. If you have Top infrastructure (Like facility and Instruments ) I do not say would be easy but for sure you will have more change to find something new and going to the route of publication more easily than working in a small Lab with less money for research.

Also normally in Top University the are ''Top' advisor that can help you a lot

especially during PhD where you need someone following you regularly.

Sometimes these are already famous and there is a reason why they are there

so you are followed by the best you can get for what you are doing.

Some times very good things can happen also in small University or research centre

but is more challenging. Maybe you have to travel to do experiment somewhere or to

take instruments from other group but it always up to you.

I think If one work hard and is strong does'nt matter much where he come from at the end

but is true that If you come from good University and don t produce a lot can be viewed as

not so good..

Mostly, it depends on the Ph.D. candidate. If one is briliant - he won't have a problem with finding job in R&D on University or industry. If one is not the sharpest pencil in the drawer, even Ph.D. diploma from MIT won't be helpful.

Although the University name matters but one should not be dishearted if he or she gets admission in a low ranked University. The main things which matter are the facilities, the staff and ofcourse the good supervisor. One main thing which matters a lot is the selection of research topic.

Partially, I have to agree with Syed, but in my opinion, he Universities rank can only help, but its minor component of the total Ph.D. , M.Sc. or whatever, impact.

For example, lets imagine a guy who obtained luckily Ph.D. in one of the best University in world. Imagine now, he goes to work to a kind of innovative, hi-tech company. After few weeks a manager gives him a responsible assingment and he does not make it. He will be simply fired. On the other hand, one can imagine a brilliant guy who graduaded on irremarkable University, but he is motivated to work. If You were employer, who would You prefer?

For me, how you carry your research life seems to be more important. Application oriented research will be more challenging and more valued, there will be a lot of opportunities to take the problems and to work on it. In one sentence, The project your are working with, should grow!

In my opinion rank of university is important but not for all of people. It is important for person who have all of potentials for doing a research. For example if a person have all of ability for doing a research and is student in a low rank university can not do that thesis properly because he has some restricts but for person who is week having all of materials can not be helpful.

The major difference between a graduate program and a research institute is that the former has not just technicians, but also graduate students and post-docs. the latter are expected to move on at some point to careers. The success of these students is what is meant by "student outcomes".

It is reasonable to expect success after graduate school. Supervisors (should) teach and mentor grad students and post-docs. Grad students and post-docs do the research for the supervisor, and the supervisor's reputation increases as a result. In other words, the relationship should be a two-way street. If it is not, the principal blame lies on the supervisor.

If a significant minority of students complete the degree or the post-doc but can not find jobs at their degree level after working in a particular laboratory or program, then the lab or program has failed. In tough fiscal times, such as we now have in much of the world, I fail to see why tax dollars should continue to go to those labs or programs. Such programs are predatory or parasitic, ecologically, and deserve neither tax funding nor grad students and post-docs.

The factor which matters (so it seems to me) is a combination of the rank of the university, the rank of the advisor(s) and of course, the quality of the person who is preparing the Ph.D. There is no use in working for a Ph.D. at an excellent university if the person is "not up to it", or if the advisor is an excellent scientist but not so as an advisor.

I have to disagree with some of your post, Aditi Dubey-Jhaveri. Many people choose to go to a university that, say, ranks 300 because of the cost, the proximity to family or current employment, or interest in the projects available. Also — and I speak from personal and vicarious experience here — the official rankings of a graduate program may not reflect how well peers at other institutions regard that program. Finally, if one's project turns out to be a bad one, it doesn't matter where one earns one's degree.

Aditi Dubey-Jhaveri, please re-read my post. You missed my point. I did not say that rankings do not matter at all. I did say that the ranking of a program at a school is not the only criterion and that publically known ranking is not necessarily the way potential employers regard that program.

Furthermore, what is the potential employers' perception of one's thesis or dissertation supervisor no mater what program (which you did address in your second post)? How many publications did one have before graduation? In what journals were those publications published? It's not that simple really.

Of course it does. Specially when you want to apply for a lectureship in the future or any possible funding opportunity.