Choosing between two offers

A good problem, and people routinely decide it on the wrong criteria — usually whichever name sounds more impressive.

Here’s the order that tends to hold up two years later.

1 · Funding. Not a close call. A fully funded place at a good programme beats an unfunded place at a famous one for most people, most of the time. Debt constrains everything afterwards: which jobs you can take, whether you can stay, whether you can afford to move. Compare total cost including living, not tuition alone — post 26.

2 · The supervisor, for research degrees. The single largest factor in whether a PhD is a good experience. A supportive, available supervisor at a mid-ranked department beats a distant one at a famous department, comfortably. Before deciding, talk to their current students. Ask how often they meet, how quickly drafts come back, whether students finish. People answer these questions honestly.

3 · The curriculum, for taught degrees. Read both module lists side by side. One will genuinely fit your gap better. That’s a real difference, unlike a few places in a ranking.

4 · Where graduates actually go. Departmental pages, LinkedIn, alumni lists. If one programme reliably sends people where you want to be, that’s stronger evidence than reputation.

5 · Location and cost of living. Two years is a long time. Cost, climate, distance from home, whether you can work, whether there’s a community you’d connect with. This is not a soft factor — it affects whether you finish well.

6 · Prestige. It matters. It matters less than the five above it, and least in research careers, where people know which groups do good work regardless of the institution’s name.

One question that clarifies things: imagine you’ve accepted each one and it’s six months in. Which version of that are you more relieved about? That instinct is usually reading something your spreadsheet isn’t.