3 replaced http://academia.stackexchange.com/ with https://academia.stackexchange.com/
source | link

Other considerations

Sometimes all of your offers are equivalent with respect to the "key" considerations, and you may want to take some "minor" criteria into account.

aesmail reportsreports:

I applied to six graduate schools in my field, and was accepted at all of them. The criteria I used to whittle down the choices were:

  • Did I like the people in the department I was visiting? (This surprisingly did eliminate one school.)
  • Did I want to go to live in the city where the school was for five or so years? (One more down, four left.)
  • Could I find enough people I was interested in working for, so that if I didn't get my top choice, I'd still be happy with the projects I'd be taking?
  • Can I financially afford to live in the city? (One more down, two left.)

At that point, however, the remaining criteria were all competing with one another: one school offered me a lot more money, the other had a lot better location. Both offered plenty of research, and both had excellent reputations in their field. Ultimately, for me, the location, combined with the slightly higher general profile of the school I attended, swayed the balance for me.

Dan C. emphasizesemphasizes the social and cultural benefits of leaving your comfort zone:

One big advantage of changing schools is that you meet new people. Most people have a few things they're really good at. By meeting new people, you get to learn the new things that they are really good at. More generally, you get to experience the culture of a different place and group of people (both academically and socially). This helps to give you a more developed sense of what is normal (reasonable to expect), and likely will expose you to new insights. All else being (close to) equal, I suggest that you move.

On a similar note, ff524 addressesaddresses the advantages and disadvantages of continuing in your bachelors/masters department for your PhD vs. leaving your academic comfort zone:

If you stay, you won't have to interrupt your research to apply to other schools and transition to a new group. Staying where you are is a "safe" choice.

If you go somewhere else, some of your weaknesses (which you are able to ignore in your current position) may be exposed, and you'll have to work on improving them. And you will probably meet new collaborators (especially if you go to anther country) and be exposed to new ideas and techniques that will be difficult to learn, but will make you a better and more capable researcher.

So the answer to your question depends on what you want to gain from your PhD: Do you want to get a degree and some nice publications? Then staying where you are sounds like the easiest way. Or do you want to improve yourself and broaden yourself as a researcher? Then you might be better off leaving.

Having said that - of course, even if you stay, you can still challenge yourself and improve yourself and your capabilities. But since you don't have to "prove yourself" in your current position, there's nothing forcing you to do so - you'd have to be exceptionally self-motivated and disciplined.

Other considerations

Sometimes all of your offers are equivalent with respect to the "key" considerations, and you may want to take some "minor" criteria into account.

aesmail reports:

I applied to six graduate schools in my field, and was accepted at all of them. The criteria I used to whittle down the choices were:

  • Did I like the people in the department I was visiting? (This surprisingly did eliminate one school.)
  • Did I want to go to live in the city where the school was for five or so years? (One more down, four left.)
  • Could I find enough people I was interested in working for, so that if I didn't get my top choice, I'd still be happy with the projects I'd be taking?
  • Can I financially afford to live in the city? (One more down, two left.)

At that point, however, the remaining criteria were all competing with one another: one school offered me a lot more money, the other had a lot better location. Both offered plenty of research, and both had excellent reputations in their field. Ultimately, for me, the location, combined with the slightly higher general profile of the school I attended, swayed the balance for me.

Dan C. emphasizes the social and cultural benefits of leaving your comfort zone:

One big advantage of changing schools is that you meet new people. Most people have a few things they're really good at. By meeting new people, you get to learn the new things that they are really good at. More generally, you get to experience the culture of a different place and group of people (both academically and socially). This helps to give you a more developed sense of what is normal (reasonable to expect), and likely will expose you to new insights. All else being (close to) equal, I suggest that you move.

On a similar note, ff524 addresses the advantages and disadvantages of continuing in your bachelors/masters department for your PhD vs. leaving your academic comfort zone:

If you stay, you won't have to interrupt your research to apply to other schools and transition to a new group. Staying where you are is a "safe" choice.

If you go somewhere else, some of your weaknesses (which you are able to ignore in your current position) may be exposed, and you'll have to work on improving them. And you will probably meet new collaborators (especially if you go to anther country) and be exposed to new ideas and techniques that will be difficult to learn, but will make you a better and more capable researcher.

So the answer to your question depends on what you want to gain from your PhD: Do you want to get a degree and some nice publications? Then staying where you are sounds like the easiest way. Or do you want to improve yourself and broaden yourself as a researcher? Then you might be better off leaving.

Having said that - of course, even if you stay, you can still challenge yourself and improve yourself and your capabilities. But since you don't have to "prove yourself" in your current position, there's nothing forcing you to do so - you'd have to be exceptionally self-motivated and disciplined.

Other considerations

Sometimes all of your offers are equivalent with respect to the "key" considerations, and you may want to take some "minor" criteria into account.

aesmail reports:

I applied to six graduate schools in my field, and was accepted at all of them. The criteria I used to whittle down the choices were:

  • Did I like the people in the department I was visiting? (This surprisingly did eliminate one school.)
  • Did I want to go to live in the city where the school was for five or so years? (One more down, four left.)
  • Could I find enough people I was interested in working for, so that if I didn't get my top choice, I'd still be happy with the projects I'd be taking?
  • Can I financially afford to live in the city? (One more down, two left.)

At that point, however, the remaining criteria were all competing with one another: one school offered me a lot more money, the other had a lot better location. Both offered plenty of research, and both had excellent reputations in their field. Ultimately, for me, the location, combined with the slightly higher general profile of the school I attended, swayed the balance for me.

Dan C. emphasizes the social and cultural benefits of leaving your comfort zone:

One big advantage of changing schools is that you meet new people. Most people have a few things they're really good at. By meeting new people, you get to learn the new things that they are really good at. More generally, you get to experience the culture of a different place and group of people (both academically and socially). This helps to give you a more developed sense of what is normal (reasonable to expect), and likely will expose you to new insights. All else being (close to) equal, I suggest that you move.

On a similar note, ff524 addresses the advantages and disadvantages of continuing in your bachelors/masters department for your PhD vs. leaving your academic comfort zone:

If you stay, you won't have to interrupt your research to apply to other schools and transition to a new group. Staying where you are is a "safe" choice.

If you go somewhere else, some of your weaknesses (which you are able to ignore in your current position) may be exposed, and you'll have to work on improving them. And you will probably meet new collaborators (especially if you go to anther country) and be exposed to new ideas and techniques that will be difficult to learn, but will make you a better and more capable researcher.

So the answer to your question depends on what you want to gain from your PhD: Do you want to get a degree and some nice publications? Then staying where you are sounds like the easiest way. Or do you want to improve yourself and broaden yourself as a researcher? Then you might be better off leaving.

Having said that - of course, even if you stay, you can still challenge yourself and improve yourself and your capabilities. But since you don't have to "prove yourself" in your current position, there's nothing forcing you to do so - you'd have to be exceptionally self-motivated and disciplined.

2 added 1 character in body
source | link

Other considerations

Sometimes all of your offers are equivalent with respect to the "key" considerations, and you may want to take some "minor" criteria into account: aesmail.

aesmail reports:

I applied to six graduate schools in my field, and was accepted at all of them. The criteria I used to whittle down the choices were:

  • Did I like the people in the department I was visiting? (This surprisingly did eliminate one school.)
  • Did I want to go to live in the city where the school was for five or so years? (One more down, four left.)
  • Could I find enough people I was interested in working for, so that if I didn't get my top choice, I'd still be happy with the projects I'd be taking?
  • Can I financially afford to live in the city? (One more down, two left.)

At that point, however, the remaining criteria were all competing with one another: one school offered me a lot more money, the other had a lot better location. Both offered plenty of research, and both had excellent reputations in their field. Ultimately, for me, the location, combined with the slightly higher general profile of the school I attended, swayed the balance for me.

Dan C. emphasizes the social and cultural benefits of leaving your comfort zone:

One big advantage of changing schools is that you meet new people. Most people have a few things they're really good at. By meeting new people, you get to learn the new things that they are really good at. More generally, you get to experience the culture of a different place and group of people (both academically and socially). This helps to give you a more developed sense of what is normal (reasonable to expect), and likely will expose you to new insights. All else being (close to) equal, I suggest that you move.

On a similar note, ff524 addresses the advantages and disadvantages of continuing in your bachelors/masters department for your PhD vs. leaving your academic comfort zone:

If you stay, you won't have to interrupt your research to apply to other schools and transition to a new group. Staying where you are is a "safe" choice.

If you go somewhere else, some of your weaknesses (which you are able to ignore in your current position) may be exposed, and you'll have to work on improving them. And you will probably meet new collaborators (especially if you go to anther country) and be exposed to new ideas and techniques that will be difficult to learn, but will make you a better and more capable researcher.

So the answer to your question depends on what you want to gain from your PhD: Do you want to get a degree and some nice publications? Then staying where you are sounds like the easiest way. Or do you want to improve yourself and broaden yourself as a researcher? Then you might be better off leaving.

Having said that - of course, even if you stay, you can still challenge yourself and improve yourself and your capabilities. But since you don't have to "prove yourself" in your current position, there's nothing forcing you to do so - you'd have to be exceptionally self-motivated and disciplined.

Other considerations

Sometimes all of your offers are equivalent with respect to the "key" considerations, and you may want to take some "minor" criteria into account: aesmail reports:

I applied to six graduate schools in my field, and was accepted at all of them. The criteria I used to whittle down the choices were:

  • Did I like the people in the department I was visiting? (This surprisingly did eliminate one school.)
  • Did I want to go to live in the city where the school was for five or so years? (One more down, four left.)
  • Could I find enough people I was interested in working for, so that if I didn't get my top choice, I'd still be happy with the projects I'd be taking?
  • Can I financially afford to live in the city? (One more down, two left.)

At that point, however, the remaining criteria were all competing with one another: one school offered me a lot more money, the other had a lot better location. Both offered plenty of research, and both had excellent reputations in their field. Ultimately, for me, the location, combined with the slightly higher general profile of the school I attended, swayed the balance for me.

Dan C. emphasizes the social and cultural benefits of leaving your comfort zone:

One big advantage of changing schools is that you meet new people. Most people have a few things they're really good at. By meeting new people, you get to learn the new things that they are really good at. More generally, you get to experience the culture of a different place and group of people (both academically and socially). This helps to give you a more developed sense of what is normal (reasonable to expect), and likely will expose you to new insights. All else being (close to) equal, I suggest that you move.

On a similar note, ff524 addresses the advantages and disadvantages of continuing in your bachelors/masters department for your PhD vs. leaving your academic comfort zone:

If you stay, you won't have to interrupt your research to apply to other schools and transition to a new group. Staying where you are is a "safe" choice.

If you go somewhere else, some of your weaknesses (which you are able to ignore in your current position) may be exposed, and you'll have to work on improving them. And you will probably meet new collaborators (especially if you go to anther country) and be exposed to new ideas and techniques that will be difficult to learn, but will make you a better and more capable researcher.

So the answer to your question depends on what you want to gain from your PhD: Do you want to get a degree and some nice publications? Then staying where you are sounds like the easiest way. Or do you want to improve yourself and broaden yourself as a researcher? Then you might be better off leaving.

Having said that - of course, even if you stay, you can still challenge yourself and improve yourself and your capabilities. But since you don't have to "prove yourself" in your current position, there's nothing forcing you to do so - you'd have to be exceptionally self-motivated and disciplined.

Other considerations

Sometimes all of your offers are equivalent with respect to the "key" considerations, and you may want to take some "minor" criteria into account.

aesmail reports:

I applied to six graduate schools in my field, and was accepted at all of them. The criteria I used to whittle down the choices were:

  • Did I like the people in the department I was visiting? (This surprisingly did eliminate one school.)
  • Did I want to go to live in the city where the school was for five or so years? (One more down, four left.)
  • Could I find enough people I was interested in working for, so that if I didn't get my top choice, I'd still be happy with the projects I'd be taking?
  • Can I financially afford to live in the city? (One more down, two left.)

At that point, however, the remaining criteria were all competing with one another: one school offered me a lot more money, the other had a lot better location. Both offered plenty of research, and both had excellent reputations in their field. Ultimately, for me, the location, combined with the slightly higher general profile of the school I attended, swayed the balance for me.

Dan C. emphasizes the social and cultural benefits of leaving your comfort zone:

One big advantage of changing schools is that you meet new people. Most people have a few things they're really good at. By meeting new people, you get to learn the new things that they are really good at. More generally, you get to experience the culture of a different place and group of people (both academically and socially). This helps to give you a more developed sense of what is normal (reasonable to expect), and likely will expose you to new insights. All else being (close to) equal, I suggest that you move.

On a similar note, ff524 addresses the advantages and disadvantages of continuing in your bachelors/masters department for your PhD vs. leaving your academic comfort zone:

If you stay, you won't have to interrupt your research to apply to other schools and transition to a new group. Staying where you are is a "safe" choice.

If you go somewhere else, some of your weaknesses (which you are able to ignore in your current position) may be exposed, and you'll have to work on improving them. And you will probably meet new collaborators (especially if you go to anther country) and be exposed to new ideas and techniques that will be difficult to learn, but will make you a better and more capable researcher.

So the answer to your question depends on what you want to gain from your PhD: Do you want to get a degree and some nice publications? Then staying where you are sounds like the easiest way. Or do you want to improve yourself and broaden yourself as a researcher? Then you might be better off leaving.

Having said that - of course, even if you stay, you can still challenge yourself and improve yourself and your capabilities. But since you don't have to "prove yourself" in your current position, there's nothing forcing you to do so - you'd have to be exceptionally self-motivated and disciplined.

1
source | link

Other considerations

Sometimes all of your offers are equivalent with respect to the "key" considerations, and you may want to take some "minor" criteria into account: aesmail reports:

I applied to six graduate schools in my field, and was accepted at all of them. The criteria I used to whittle down the choices were:

  • Did I like the people in the department I was visiting? (This surprisingly did eliminate one school.)
  • Did I want to go to live in the city where the school was for five or so years? (One more down, four left.)
  • Could I find enough people I was interested in working for, so that if I didn't get my top choice, I'd still be happy with the projects I'd be taking?
  • Can I financially afford to live in the city? (One more down, two left.)

At that point, however, the remaining criteria were all competing with one another: one school offered me a lot more money, the other had a lot better location. Both offered plenty of research, and both had excellent reputations in their field. Ultimately, for me, the location, combined with the slightly higher general profile of the school I attended, swayed the balance for me.

Dan C. emphasizes the social and cultural benefits of leaving your comfort zone:

One big advantage of changing schools is that you meet new people. Most people have a few things they're really good at. By meeting new people, you get to learn the new things that they are really good at. More generally, you get to experience the culture of a different place and group of people (both academically and socially). This helps to give you a more developed sense of what is normal (reasonable to expect), and likely will expose you to new insights. All else being (close to) equal, I suggest that you move.

On a similar note, ff524 addresses the advantages and disadvantages of continuing in your bachelors/masters department for your PhD vs. leaving your academic comfort zone:

If you stay, you won't have to interrupt your research to apply to other schools and transition to a new group. Staying where you are is a "safe" choice.

If you go somewhere else, some of your weaknesses (which you are able to ignore in your current position) may be exposed, and you'll have to work on improving them. And you will probably meet new collaborators (especially if you go to anther country) and be exposed to new ideas and techniques that will be difficult to learn, but will make you a better and more capable researcher.

So the answer to your question depends on what you want to gain from your PhD: Do you want to get a degree and some nice publications? Then staying where you are sounds like the easiest way. Or do you want to improve yourself and broaden yourself as a researcher? Then you might be better off leaving.

Having said that - of course, even if you stay, you can still challenge yourself and improve yourself and your capabilities. But since you don't have to "prove yourself" in your current position, there's nothing forcing you to do so - you'd have to be exceptionally self-motivated and disciplined.

    Post Made Community Wiki by ff524