>>>

it's worth noting that the first bar-graph (in particular) is raw #, not scaled for program size, which obviously varies between the listed programmes and departments; and that these show standing faculty, not new hires; hence the chart broken down into rank may be more useful: the visiting and associate professor categories would (i imagine) give a better sense of the recent placement rates of different programmes. for these reasons (among others) these stats are perhaps interesting less as a projective or predictive assessment and more as a demographic study of current departments -- which seems to be how they were intended, and thanks to jon for that.

Visit weekend is this weekend. not sure how conclusive that is, though.

(yes it would be surprising for any dept to supply the arithmetic mean as the "average time" to degree for the very reason hrea∂emus describes)

thanks for all the useful info! the stats in the higher ed article, though, are median -- not mean. so, wouldn't be unduly weighted by the 40-year-later-phd.

does berkeley really take so few per year? they have close to 150 grad students listed on their website. if they were taking even 15 a year, some of these grad students would be like ten years in.

especially the highly deregulated mode of realism which emphasizes the accumulation of the real over public dejection

i blame realism

thanks ! + more congrats

Q for the princeton admit, who was it who called? and congratulations!

REOSlowdeath, do you know how many they are interviewing? Have heard inferences of 30 and 15..