mbrown0315
-
Posts
65 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by mbrown0315
-
-
The school is tennessee if you were wondering. The website hasn't been updated with some of the newest faculty, however.
And just for the fun of it, I just pulled another program from the rankings randomly. Georgia state (both graduate degrees offered and around 30k students as well) does not have many faculty members from top 20 universities. Only two are from top 15 universities, one a 1977 phd from Chicago (so this doesn't even remotely factor into today's placement rates).
I suppose we could randomly pull more middle of the line programs, but I'm not sure it's worth the time. I think this top 20 program or bust beief is a myth, perhaps created by the top 20 themselves. Of course the top 20 may rarely hire outside of themselves, but who in the hell cares? I'd be perfectly fine attending or teaching at a school not in the top 20.
GSU is currently ranked 76 and Tennessee is, I believe, 84 (I thought you meant a higher ranking when you said R1). The lower you go in the rankings, the less of a presence T20 grads have in general. I did not intend to suggest that T20 grads dominate all the way down. There are definitely openings out there for non-T20 grads, though I would maintain my recommendation to not enroll below T40.
-
That's odd. I go to a R1 school with 30k students. Although they're not high in the rankings, they do offer a PhD and MA. So we're not even talking a small school with no grad program. Only three faculty members here went to top 30 schools for their Phd.
That is odd, indeed.
-
Say there are only 2-3 schools in the top 40 that has faculty doing something similar to what I want to do? But 40-60 has 2-3 more. I should ignore those even if they tend to place their students? Take, for example, a place like UConn. I think they'd be a great fit, but they are ranked 52 or something like that. Keep in mind not everyone has the goal of teaching at at top 20 university.
Depends on what you mean by top 40. Are we comparing 52 to, say, 38? In that case you might as well go with UConn. Still, you have to keep in mind that you'll be in grad school for a long time, and many students end up changing their research plans. It's true that many students do not plan on teaching at a top 20 university, but graduates from T20 schools tend to dominate faculty positions at lower-ranked schools, as well.
-
To prospective grad students:
Don't get hung up on individual rankings in the top 10-15. You'll be in grad school for probably at least five years. Lots can happen in five years. A professor here at UChicago recently explained to me that Princeton does so well in placement because they undertook a major "professionalization" initiative a while back to encourage their PhD students to specialize and finish relatively early. One of the more controversial developments here at Chicago is the recent effort to do the same--lots of administrators (and some faculty) are pushing professionalization. So, maybe in five or six years some other school will occupy the #1 position and will be known for wonderful placement. You don't know, and trying to make predictions is a waste of time.
That said, there is little dramatic change over time in terms of which schools occupy the top 10 or so. So, if you get into the top 10-15, stop thinking about the rankings. That's especially true if you crack the top 10.
If you're going to enroll in the 20-40 range, make absolutely sure that you know statistics and have experience (including summer internships, unpaid if necessary) with data analysis. I would say do not enroll below the top 40.
- moda and TaewooBurns
-
2
-
UCLA comes in at 20, with only several at top departments.
Good things have happened since that article was published. UCLA has been placing a lot of grads at prestigious departments.
-
Interesting. Anyone account for why programs like UCLA and other programs classified as "top 10-15" have lower placement?
UCLA has very good placement.
-
Do you think Burris is really correct that "the graduates of more prestigious departments will tend to monopolize employment not only in elite departments but across the discipline" (Burris: 245)? The "tend to" in that sentence is one of the only vague glimmers of hope in an otherwise very discouraging article.
I wonder if really productive grads of lower-prestige departments can make up for their lack of social capital. It sounds like it would require a lot more aggressive networking to make up for being academically born as lower-caste Untouchables. In the social sciences, I wonder how possible it really is to transcend your caste, even if you publish like crazy and are a networking whiz...
About a half hour of market research would answer that question. Look at departmental websites of programs ranked sub-40 or 50 and note where recent hires (assistant professors) got their PhDs.
Stony Brook University (ranked 42) is a convenient example: http://www.stonybrook.edu/commcms/sociology/people/faculty.html
My advice would be to make sure you have a strong command of statistical software and methods if you dip below top 20. The academic job market seems particularly unkind at this level, and knowledge of quantitative methods makes finding a job outside of academia substantially easier. In reality, though, you should leave any program with a strong command of stats.
-
Would you say it is more beneficial to be a top-performer at a mid-ranking program or an average performer at a top-ranking program?
Depends on how you're measuring performance, but I think it's probably better to be a top performer at a mid-ranking program. If you leave a mid-ranking program with three publications in top journals, a book contract, and a smattering of awards, you're set.
-
You should feel comfortable yet challenged at your program, so fit is important. Judging fit by your interests, however, is a questionable strategy. Many students change their research interests after the first year or so of graduate school or find that there is enough opportunity to interact with faculty on other campuses (conferences, summer fellowships, email exchanges, etc).
Rank, for better or worse, is important, though that importance fluctuates with your own aspirations. Look up a few schools you'd be happy to be employed by in the future and check their academic faculty listings (putting more weight on more recent hires). Where did they get their degrees?
-
Most people will start hearing back in February.
-
Not me. This was practically my home page, I'm sorry to say.
-
The protests over the men's rights speeches? I did see those videos. Pissed me off, too.
-
Oh, I'm sure there are plenty of people like this at other schools. I just thought UChicago peeps would be interested in the goings-on.
-
http://dailysophist.com/stories/280-is-uchicago-full-of-hidden-bigots
To those of you going to UChicago, read the posts and comments on the Facebook page. I can't wait to TA classes with some of these undergrads.
-
That's what I was getting at. I think statistical discrimination is actually a ubiquitous social sorting mechanism that is unavoidable, and that gender, racial, and other discrimination are a tiny subset of myriad criteria agents use to send and receive signals about the groups and behaviors they ascribe to.
True. I just think it gets really tricky. I think assuming that a woman can do fewer push-ups than a man can is reasonable statistical discrimination. Does that mean women in the military shouldn't serve in combat? Sounds like a lame argument to me.
-
David and Goliath stories, though mesmerizing in drama, are an incorrect way to frame economic activity.
I guess. Still, I think a case could be made that statistical discrimination is not necessarily unfair if the information is good.
-
Why are employees more substitutable in larger firms? Retraining employees for positions is costly no matter how many there are, and in fact as the firm gets larger, so too does the division of labor and particularity of the native skill set any one worker will acquire within the firm.
Consultants?
Anyway, I wasn't suggesting that large companies don't take a hit from employees leaving. I was only suggesting that people usually frame the debate in terms of large corporations versus little workers. You get this with the minimum wage, as well. People who are more skeptical of the minimum wage often bring up the point that big business loves the minimum wage because they can stomach the labor costs while smaller (and potentially competitive) businesses can't deal with it. I'm not saying I agree or disagree. I'm just talking about perceptions.
-
Thus in logic you state that men are able to become parents without incurring any form of penalty, actually becoming a parent tends to be correlated with increased occupational attainment for various reasons, whereas women are stuck between a rock and a hard place. One of the aspects of discrimination (one of many) is that there is virtually zero support within most companies and workplaces, along with zero institutional support for that enable men to see and take the decision to stay at home. The motherhood penalty is not a question of individual agency but the result and artefact of socio-cultural and structural factors.
14 weeks (100%) 6 before birth, 12/14 months (65%, but not more than 1.800 Euro/month) (14 only for single mothers)[citation needed] 84% 12/14 months (65%, but not more than 1.800 Euro/month) (14 only for single mothers/fathers or if both mothers and fathers take parental leave, so called "partner months") Until child turns 3 Until child turns 3 Must have public health insurance for part of paid leave, rest of paid leave paid by employer
Re: Germany--- wow, that's generous. Good for them
What about biology? Do any of you think that women on average are just more interested than men are in being involved on a more constant basis with their children? Are any of these social structures built on genetic foundations?
-
How does it work in Germany? You get financial assistance for kids regardless of how wealthy you are?
-
Why not compensate motherhood for its economic contributions?
Who would be doing the compensating?
-
I have not yet breached the JSTOR paywall, but it looks like the study AaronM cited deals with stereotype threat. My understanding is that the jury is still out on how much stereotype threat can explain various achievement gaps.
Reading is good for you. There is compelling evidence that the era of deliberate discrimination against women is as commonplace today as 20 years ago. Statistical discrimination is to me 100% deliberate.
Mandel, H., and Semyonov, M. Family policy, wage structures, and gender gaps: Sources of earnings inequality in 20 countries. Am. Sociol. Rev. 70:949–967, 2005.Datta Gupta, N., and Smith, N. Children and Career Interruptions: The Family Gap in Denmark. Discussion Papers 263. Institute for the Study of Labor, Bonn, 2001.Mandel, H., and Semyonov, M. A welfare state paradox: State interventions and women’s employment opportunities in 22 countries. Am. J. Sociol. 111(6):1910–1949, 2006.Misra, J., Budig, M. J., and Moller, S. Work-family policies and poverty for partnered and single women in Europe and North America. Gend. Soc. 21(6):804–827, 2007Aisenbrey, Silke, Marie Evertsson and Daniela Grunow. 2009. ”Is there a Career Penalty for Mothers’ Time Out? A Comparison of Germany, Sweden and the United States.” Social Forces 88: 573-606. (34 p.)or this one, which is a classic in my world, No Exit, No Voice: Women's Economic Dependency and the Welfare Stateor just this simple ppt: http://db.tt/cl0GDaDzKey line from the second Mandel study you cited (which is very similar to the first): "Although we cannot empirically separate employer discrimination from women’s employment preferences, we have suggested that the two are interrelated and jointly have detrimental consequences for women’s occupational achievements."I think it's a bit awkward to claim that a woman's "employment preferences" could be "detrimental" to her "occupational achievements," but I guess you could claim that these employment preferences are driven in part by beliefs about employer discrimination (if I believe there's a glass ceiling, I'm going to prefer a more modest career path) and are, therefore, not true preferences. I think the Mandel studies deal quite a lot with "statistical discrimination" and how it relates to family-friendly policies that are uniquely intended for women (if I'm an employer and believe women are going to take more time off than men are after having children, I'll be more inclined to hire men). Personally, I find this to be a difficult subject.On the one hand, it's tragic when a woman is not hired just because there is some suspicion that her having a child will lead to her taking paid time off. On the other hand, that might be a reasonable suspicion, and if I'm a small business owner, I might think it's my prerogative to use that information when considering whom to hire. It's easy to talk about family-friendly policies at Fortune 500 companies, but if we're talking about businesses in general, then it's important to acknowledge that owners of smaller-scale enterprises may have legitimate concerns about hiring women that are not rooted in misogyny per se.Regarding the Gupta study, doesn't it acknowledge that childbirth leads to "loss of human capital accumulation"? How does this relate to deliberate discrimination? Again, I can't access it, so I apologize if I'm misrepresenting it. I'm just going on the abstract.Regarding the Aisenbrey study, can this be called deliberate discrimination? I get that it's unpleasant, but is there no basis whatsoever to issuing a "career penalty" to someone (man or woman) who takes a long break from the job? Again, I understand that it's unfortunate, but if it's an economic liability, it's useful information. All of the childless alpha females I've ever met have understood this perfectly well. They passed on children because they seemed to understand that having children is going to take you away from the job and raising them is going to keep you away unless you find a man who's willing to spend more time at home or find a nice daycare that will raise the kids for you. -
When I visited UChicago I was told that all but one of the female tenured faculty members are childless. I can't confirm this independently and I don't know how much UChicago soc faculty are earning, but it does seem to conform to Kay Hymowitz's somewhat recent piece "The Plight of the Alpha Female." The gender gap (when properly assessed) may be shrinking quickly, but it won't be disappearing as long as the motherhood gap is part of it.
- La_Di_Da and gilbertrollins
-
2
-
I had a really tough time deciding between two great options, but it looks like I'm going to the University of Chicago.
- amlobo, sociologo, oilandvinegar and 2 others
-
5
-
Hi all. Looking for some advice as decision time approaches. I am strongly considering two schools, a top 5 school and NYU. I know this has been discussed a bit, but how important do you think rank is in finding a job placement? I really enjoyed visiting NYU and believe it is an excellent fit for my interests, but am doubting the decision because of the difference in rank. I haven't been to the higher ranked school yet, but based on the faculty I'm guessing it is not as good of a fit.
At the outset, I didn't want to consider rank at all in making my decision, but visiting schools and hearing grad students talk about the pressure to find a job has given me second thoughts. Advice? Assurance? Your experience finding a job?
As you noted, there has been a lot of discussion on this point, and I'm not sure if there is any consensus. From what I can tell, the most important thing you can show when entering the job market is your productivity. If you have a solely-authored AJS publication, that's going to count for a lot regardless of where you got your training. Still, I think rank is a meaningful variable. Coming out of a T10 school does give you some competitive edge, and I don't think that it necessarily results from better training. In other words, I think there is an independent benefit to graduating from a T10.
Definitely visit your T5 and pitch your research interests to anyone you think might be interested. Also, remember that there may be opportunities for interdisciplinary collaboration. Perhaps you'll find an adviser from a different department at the university. That said, if you can't find anyone who can really support you, then I recommend going to NYU. NYU is ranked high enough that being highly productive there is far better than being moderately productive at a T5. However, you should also keep in mind that your fit with the program could change if your interests change.
holy shit
in Sociology Forum
Posted
Yup.