Supervisor vs Institution?

[eBopBob]

When choosing a university to do your PhD, do you place more emphasis on the supervisor or more emphasis on the actual university?

 

 

In the following example, which would you choose:

 

1- Supervisor is in the Top 5% of authors on IDEAS RePEc. Approx #400 to be more accurate. The university however isn't regarded highly in academic terms, is more business/industry focused, and isn't really on the academic radar in truth. But the students of the supervisor have gone onto academic posts at good institutions and also into good non academia positions with central banks etc. The research area of the supervisor exactly matches mine, and he is a leading expert on this area in Europe.

 

2- Supervisor is in the 10th percentile on IDEAS RePEc. The university is well regarded in Europe and has good placement records generally, ranked in the top 40 world wide in the article by Amir and Knauff. The research area is broadly similar to mine but not exactly matched.

 

 

I suppose, my concern is, which is more important: the supervisor or the institution?

Edited April 15, 2014 by eBopBob
Typos

[thuswindburn]

Institution. You never know when a specific person may leave.

 

However, it may be worth contacting thay supervisor to see what their plans are and to show your interest.

[pch]

Not enough information.

 

Both are important, but it is really risky to base your decision on one professor. Also, rankings can be largely meaningless unless they measure what you're interested in and they do it well.

[PhDPlease]

I would go with the 2nd, given that in the 1st place you identify only 1 professor (who could leave) and you say the 2nd has a research area that is similar (even if not exact).

 

I think it would be a harder choice if the 1st had a group of professors (not just 1 professor) in your field and the 2nd didn't have anyone who was reasonably similar.