I've been browsing through the lists of alumni posted by graduate programs and professors at my prospective graduate institutions (you know, those "where are they now?" pages), and I've observed something odd. Seems to me like the alumni of Ph.D. programs at very prestigious private institutions (I'll call them "Ivy" schools--see note below) overwhelmingly end up in one of just a few career tracks soon after graduation: (1) for the lucky/superstar ones, as an Assistant Professor (that is, tenure-track) at an R1 university (those with 'Very High Research Activity' in the current Carnegie classification); (2) as an Assistant Scientist or Assistant Research Professor (non-tenure-track) at an R1 institution; or (3) have fallen off the face of the Earth (more like still slaving away on soft money somewhere after a postdoc or three).
I have only come across just a handful of names of former students who are now employed at a no-name state university or a community college. Assuming that basically all (>90% or so, from what professors tell me) of the students who attend these graduate programs based at Ivies that are highly regarded in academic circles actually wish to stay in academia on the tenure-track after receiving a Ph.D., why aren't there more of them employed at these (less-well-regarded) types of institutions?
Is it
because Nowhere State University (at which a professor's research/teaching ratio is ~40/60 or less) won't hire a Ph.D. from Columbia, or because your average Ph.D. from Columbia wouldn't want to work at Nowhere State University (and would much prefer a >70% research job, even if it means relying on soft money for their entire career as a research scientist, given the competitiveness of the academic job market)?
TL;DR: Does a Ph.D. from an "Ivy" restrict your academic job options such that it makes it difficult to obtain a position that is not primarily focused on research?
Thanks!
waddle
P.S. This question is most relevant to the STEM fields, but feel free to chime in even if you're not in the natural sciences/math/whatever. Thanks!
P.P.S. I'm using "Ivy" in a non-strict sense to encompass all very prestigious private institutions with huge research output (think not only Columbia, but also Stanford & co.). Also, yeah, I picked on Columbia today. Sorry Columbia people, if you're out there.
P.P.P.S. Although I posted this in the Jobs forum, this is more relevant for my decision as to which Ph.D. program to attend (i.e. non-"Ivy" but still R1 graduate institution (the alumni of which tend to find jobs at Nowhere State Universities) vs. an "Ivy"), as I intend to stay in academia after my degree, but hopefully in a position in which I can do at least as much teaching as research.
In total there were 27,538 posts made this month (20,021 in March 2010). There were 658,942 visits, 179,111 Unique Visitors and 3,904,239 Pageviews to the forum.
I don't know why the original post is getting many negative votes. I think it's a legitimate question, and a good one at that. I realize that someone who asks such a question about vacation days risk sounding lazy and not as serious about grad school. I totally agree that this is a question for students, not the professors. However, that being said, wanting 3-4 weeks off, especially for international students is not unreasonable, especially taking into consideration how much work is being done the rest of the year. Some professors are fine with longer vacations as long as you produce results the rest of the time. Others balk. It varies from prof to prof, and where you are in your degree at the time. It is also something to be negotiated with the professor.
Also, American grad students tend to have this self-flagellatory approach towards grad school, taking almost a grim sense of satisfaction in clocking hours working weekends, and comparing how few days of vacation taken. It does seem to be the norm, but that doesn't mean it's healthy! If you can work out something that suits you and is acceptable to your prof, go for it!
