I'm looking to do a PhD and have started looking at several top 10 institutes in the UK including LSE and UCL. I noticed that the department I'm interested in at LSE has a lot of young lecturers from MIT, Harvard, Princeton, who have the same research interest as me. But am worried about their lack of experience in supervising students. As for UCL, their department doesn't have anybody that can supervise me as far as my research interest is concerned. So I am starting to widen my options, that is to consider universities outside the top 10 or 20 league. There are a couple of professors with good publication records and reputation in their specialisation, the only thing is that they don't work in so well-known universities (Essex, Liverpool and Reading). My question is that I'm pretty sure that with my grades I can get into the top 10 universities. Now for my career prospect, any advice on what I should do?

Unfortunately, I really do think that if you have really specific goals in your life (and it sounds as though you do), it's far better to go for the top institution which is well-equipped and well respected than it is to choose a supervisor over the university. Personally, though, I'd do the opposite - but that's because I'm doing a PhD for my own personal goals and not for a glittering academic career. I think that if you can get into a top department, with good lecturers who have the same interests and goals as you, you should go for it. I wouldn't worry about their lack of experience in supervision - most of the time during a phd ANY supervisor will be too busy to help you anyway!!

not true.

The supervisor is much more important. If he/she is unwilling to provide the necessary support/read drafts, etc., then you simply won't get a PhD. And it doesn't matter if Harvard Professor XY supervises you, a failed PhD hurts the same. Departments or the choice of university are only secondary with regards to PhDs, as you will find out soon.

So I should go with whoever I'm comfortable working with and disregard the name of the university?

Yes. IMHO

I'm going to be an absolute hypocrite here and play devil's advocate. I've always gone for smaller institutions where I'm more valued and respected. I've always had tons of support and good grades. But it HAS excluded me from the top research positions, and it HAS made me feel a bit left out. Intellectually I agree with o.stoll on every point. But you alone know how much academic snobbery there is in your targeted field - some subjects it is very high, in others it doesn't matter. In theory I'd put your success over the next three years as a top prority - but ONLY if that won't undermine your possible success over the next 30.

Institute is that important? I don't know if I've given you the impression that I could get a place at Oxbridge. I don't even know if I could get into LSE. But certainly the well known ones like Manchester or Birmingham. So let's say comparing these with the Reading, Liverpool, Essex, is there really that big of a difference?

In my opinion it is the supervisor that is the most important- or rather their importance/ reputation in the field- if they are well known and of a very good reputation, with an extensive publication record it is almost irrelevant which uni they are at. And bear in mind that some of the lower tier universities will have world class departments in certain subjects. Those working in the field will recognise which departments and/ or supervisors those are. Going for one of the top unis will not guarantee that your supervisor will be top in his field... And they may not have the expertise that you need for your particular project. It's only potentially useful to choose by overal university reputation if you are trying for a job in an unrelated area where the employer will only be able to recognise the overal prestige of the university.

i would say that the reputation of the supervisor is very important. it is he/she who will be writing references for you and it just makes a huge difference if the reference is from a "nobody" or from a famous person. but being young and inexperienced in supervising PhD students doesn't mean they are "nobodys" nor that they will be bad supervisors, so consider this to.
the reputation of the university probably matters most for non-academic careers, and overseas academic positions/funding agencies. for local academic careers, you might find that the reputation of the department is more important than the reputation of the university.

Hiya, thanks.
I'm not considering academic career at the moment. This is not to say that I want to work in a private sector. I'd probably want to try a job in the public sector. Now does that make a difference going for a more reputable supervisor than a university?

Listen, I repeat myself - it is NOT primarily the reputation of your supervisor that counts. More difficult than finding a job post PhD completion is completing the PhD in the first place. For this reason, choosing a supervisor who believes in your project and sincerely helps you is more important than the number of his/her publications or the ability to act as an outstanding job reference. There is a certain degree of illogicality in some of the previous statements - completing the PhD should the first priority and quite often those famous professors display very little time or interest in their students and are thus less likely to make the task any easier. Remember, the choice of your supervisor will affect your life for the next three or four years, and a wrong choice could possibly make your life miserable, regardless of the reputation of institution, department or supervisor and regardless of the quality of publications. That is what counts NOW, not a job after you have your PhD.

With regard to Shani's post, maybe I should add that my supervisor was a so-called "nobody", but without this individual I wouldn't have received a PhD and that is what counts. There is no point in having the greates reference from a research god if you don't manage to get the doctorate. Does that make sense?

I also disagree with the statement that the reputation of the university counts for non-academic careers - this might apply to masters but not to PhDs.

Yeah, Thanks for the insightful comments. I know being supportive is very important too. But I can't really tell wheather they are supportive or not based on the communications I had with them. This will probably only be tested half way into my phd? which means it would be too late to change a supervisor anyway.

Hi everyone
I'm not sure how far this applies but in my area (soc sci/pol) I have been rold over and over again that University reputation was once fundamental, but more and more it is the reputation of the external examiner at your viva that holds sway when you go to interview. Who cares if you went to the LSE or Oxbridge if the person who assessed your work was Dave the bin man?
I would strongly suggest that you go to a smaller university but get a supervisor who has the same outlook on things as you and same approaches. Then, when it comes to the end, get the biggest and best name you can to be external - and brag about that. You'll have had the support to write a great thesis, then proven to the best you can do it - whichever uni you have attended.
Good Luck!