Top Tier Schools

[strokeofmidnight]

I was actually VERY careful to avoid precisely this assumption. I think it's fairly safe to say that, as a very general rule, higher-ranked programs (especially if we take field strengths) into account will have better placement, particularly in the R1/SLAC positions that some scholars find to be more desirable. I NEVER suggested (or even assumed) that "only those who attend top schools have a solid chance of finding employment, and that everyone else, is, well, kind of screwed"...I even gave examples of situations where this was precisely not the case. I was trying to point out--as I think you are as well--that whether or not one should "reach for the top" really depends on what one wants out of one's career. Far from assuming that very narrow causation which I think I'm being accused of, I went to great lengths to point out that whatever correlation exists between employment and prestige is fuzzy, and at least somewhat in your hands as a graduate student.

I do think that (assuming that one puts in the same amount of effort, work, foresight, etc) that a degree from Stanford-Berkeley-Ivy's may open doors to a wider range of jobs--particularly for the first job (all bets are off, I think, past that point). But this is again a generalize that doesn't take into account the particularities of fit, the draw of certain advisers, resources, etc.

I would disagree, actually, that Berkeley and Harvard (or their "elite" counterpart) students are unable to land jobs at less-than-prestigious programs (though it's probably safe to say that the majority of students from these "top-tier" schools do aim for R1/SLAC jobs, and tend to orient their search accordingly). I know of several who have happily done just that--and several, in fact, who prefer a more student-oriented environment and turned down R1 jobs. I also wouldn't lump Berkeley and Harvard in the same category. Berkeley is, for all it's prestige, a public university. Most students in this program will teach for at least 2 or 3 years (3-4 seems to be the average) before landing their first job (same goes for its "elite public" counterparts such as Rutgers, UCLA, Michigan, and UVA). My sense is that while many of the elite private schools require less teaching--though with the exception of a few--2 years min. still seems to be the norm.

I'm also somewhat baffled by what I viewed (not unfairly, I hope) to be a rather negative tone toward Berkeley, Harvard, & co. I'm pointing to this section in particular: "Because there are so many schools out there--and no, not just in the hinterlands or the deep south--who don't want to hire Harvard or Berkeley. Who want to hire someone who will stick around and not run off when an R1 position opens up. Who won't sacrifice teaching to pursue research. Who will "fit in" to a collegiate culture that privileges students over pursuing some obscure research topic. Harvard and Berkeley PhDs are going to fit in at certain teaching-oriented colleges as well as a Ball State PhD would fit in at Northwestern."

What it seems to suggest, if I'm reading this correctly, is that Berkeley, Harvard, & co grads won't fit into a collegiate culture that privileges students, and can't balance research and teaching. Not to mention, the quiet dismissal of academic work as "pursuing some obscure research topic" may be, on the one hand, somewhat true...but on the other hand...profoundly pessimistic coming from a fellow scholar.

I can't speak for Harvard directly--I don't know of many graduate students there. But the students that I've encountered at Berkeley, Brown, Michigan, (etc) tend to take their roles as a teacher seriously. Certainly, they seems themselves as researchers who strive to contribute to their field, but they don't seem to think that one MUST choose between teaching and research. It's always a juggling act (and not an easy one), but the best scholars are able to strike a workable balance.

Also, I do want to point out that Berkeley, Harvard, & co students don't tend to rest on their laurels. (It's probably safe to say that most of them were overambitious type A personalities who worked their tails off to get there in the first place!). Most of these students do work on publications--though granted, the emphasis is heavily on quality over quantity. Many (likely most) of them do pursue "extra" work--on journals, in corroboration with other scholars, working groups, etc. Many of the students that I know of in "light" teaching programs (2 years or less) will search out extra teaching over the summer, or at other programs.

There's not exactly--as your last sentence suggests--pampered pets who can only work in R1's--though most of them, I'd wager, have an advantage at landing that particular job (though like any advantage, it can be compensated for).

I understand what you're saying here, but I want to offer an alternative viewpoint. There's an assumption emerging here that ONLY those who attend top schools have a solid chance of finding employment, and that everyone else is, well, kind of screwed.

I went to a "low tier" school for my MA. As in, ranked in the 70s. The program had a TT job placement rating of over 90%, and when factoring in non-TT work or visiting assistant professorships, a placement rating of 100%.

Why? Simple. People had different expectations. The students graduating from this program knew that they were never going to teach at Penn State, Wisconsin-Madison, or UCSB. Or most national SLACs for that matter. So they built solid teaching portfolios, worked on publishing, and took on other extra projects (journals, writing programs, writing centers, etc.). When they went on the job market, many of them were pleasantly surprised. Why? Because there are so many schools out there--and no, not just in the hinterlands or the deep south--who don't want to hire Harvard or Berkeley. Who want to hire someone who will stick around and not run off when an R1 position opens up. Who won't sacrifice teaching to pursue research. Who will "fit in" to a collegiate culture that privileges students over pursuing some obscure research topic. Harvard and Berkeley PhDs are going to fit in at certain teaching-oriented colleges as well as a Ball State PhD would fit in at Northwestern.

This, I think, is why the placement rating is such a big concern for people who go to big-name programs. There are certain jobs they just can't (or won't) do. And schools know this. Many people graduate from top-tier programs with a mere year of teaching experience. Yeah, they better find a job at an R1. What else are they going to do?

So, it all depends on what you want out of life. If you are driven to publish your books and monographs and feel just so-so about teaching, then you will probably be very disappointed in the job market. Most jobs out there are for teachers, and yes, most research positions go to those who graduate from big-name schools. But if you're like me--okay with the possibility of teaching students of ALL levels (from community college to elite SLACs), under no illusions about my own capabilities of actually etching a name in a field where most everything has already been said--then you may be pleasantly surprised by this field. I think the most important thing is to keep your expectations low, and get some teaching experience, and you may be pleasantly surprised.

[strokeofmidnight]

This relates to an earlier topic in the thread, but one that I'd like to share as an encouragement, anyway. I have been admitted to four programs this year: two top ten, two ranked somewhere in the twenties, and wait listed at two others (both top ten). My GPA is okay (3.6), GRE's pretty good (Verbal: good, Quant.: miserable, Writing: miserable), but nothing exceptional overall. I also come from a little-known college in the South. At every school, the DGS indicated that my writing sample was what got me in. My numbers just (barely) got me through the initial cuts.

All in all, if you and your professors think you've got an excellent writing sample, you have a crack at getting into a top program. While fit is a crucial matter, departments still want the best. The most tried-and-true indicator of success in graduate school and beyond is, in the end, the writing sample.

This, this, this. So true. I've seen it happen again and again. The numbers mean very little, past a certain (and fairly flexible) point. It's the writing that counts...in any case, congrats!

[woolfie]

I see what everyone's saying here; I think everyone has made good points that are not necessarily mutually exclusive.

I guess my problem is that, my goal is to get a tenure-track position at a decent university and dedicate my career to both research and teaching. I don't need to be the top in my field, but it would be nice to get my scholarly writing read by someone. Also, my relationship is very important, as we are both academics and will be applying for jobs at roughly the same time. I think that the top R1 schools are more likely to hire on couples than community colleges. Correct me if I'm wrong though.

I do wonder if I will change my mind though. I see what lifealive is saying about fleeing when another position opens up and that kind of life. I don't think that that kind of career is pampered or that those kinds of professors are uncaring about students, maybe they are, I don't know. But they aren't dedicated to a community in the way that someone who lives there for 25 years is. Which, I'm not saying, is a bad thing; it's the way American life can be. It's just that, as far as myself is concerned, the problem I have with that lifestyle is that it comes down to simply I want to have a family and live in one place. I don't know if I could handle the stress of being rejected for tenure and having to move constantly. Maybe I have a misconception of what the lifestyle is like, but I see that as a personal hindrance more than anything else.

So I guess I find myself wanting to be in between? Or maybe I'm trying to have it both ways and that's impossible?

[lifealive]

I was not necessarily disagreeing with most of your post, strokeofmidnight--and apologies for cherry-picking the quote which I admittedly took out of context--but I wanted to challenge the overall, wide-reaching assumption that going to a low-tier school spells doom on the job market. You seemed to be suggesting that instances of low-tier success were merely anecdotal; in my experience, it depends on how one defines "success."

Moreover, I think it's naive to think that the job market doesn't work both ways. Yes, we know that having a degree from a brand-name school opens up so many more job possibilities ... we know. We've all heard this so many times--we know that where you get your degree largely determines the kind of job you can apply for or even fantasize about. We know that degrees from different places carry a certain currency. But it's foolish to think a degree from the top program in the country will really "mesh" with the expectations of certain less-prestigious schools. Say you're the program director at Third-Tier Regional State U-branch campus looking to hire someone for a 4/4 load (the most common teaching load), and an application from an Ivy PhD crosses your desk, an application from a candidate who has probably, barring unusual circumstances, taught only a few sections of upper-level English courses to the nation's best and brightest. Is this person really going to be appropriate for the job? Ivy PhDs might not despise the idea of teaching or teaching at certain places, sure. Perhaps they're great teachers who genuinely like students and who look at teaching and research as complementary goals. But if they haven't actually taught all that much--and if they haven't taught the kind of student one typically finds at most universities--how can they really tell? How is anyone supposed to know? And I would argue that prestigious graduate programs do instill in their graduate students an attitude toward teaching that is, at best, problematic. They keep them away from the classroom for the first few years. Service-free fellowships are viewed as a "reward" for good work--and they usually carry more money than the actual "grunt work" of TAing.

My main goal here is to offer some hope for the rest of us who don't attend top-15 schools, those of us who start teaching comp on Day 1 and teach it for four or five years straight, those of us who have encountered and know how to work with a wide variety of students. Sometimes Third-Tier Regional State U-branch campus is not a terrible place to be. It probably is if you want to make major interventions in your field and have a long career publishing the kind of scholarship that colleagues and grad students read. But otherwise, it's okay. It can lead to a rewarding career if you are open-minded and willing to make the best of what your professors probably tell you is an undesirable result.

I saw the superstars at my #70+ ranked program, with publications in flagship journals out the wazoo and fascinating dissertation topics, get swiftly and immediately rejected when they tailored their applications for R1 positions. But I have also seen quite a few Ivy-Duke-Stanford grads get turned down for more teaching-oriented positions--precisely because they did not have the experience teaching or teaching the kind of student one encounters at most public universities. All I'm saying is that it works both ways.

And this is highly anecdotal, but I find it interesting:

http://rateyourstudents.blogspot.com/2009/12/do-we-feel-like-were-talking-to-kid-or.html

http://rateyourstudents.blogspot.com/2009/01/so-who-did-you-get-in-draft.html

http://rateyourstudents.blogspot.com/2008/10/ike-insider-spills-it-some-insight-for.html

[Pamphilia]

I don't know, lifealive. Many, many "top tier" programs still instill good pedagogical training. Some do not, as I have discovered for myself. But to assume that all or most Ivies or peers-to-the-Ivies neglect to train their grad students adequately in pedagogy is problematic. Also, I'm currently taking language classes at a "third tier regional state university" and almost ALL of the English profs have degrees from Hopkins, Penn, Stanford, and the like. I think you do make some very valid points that we don't often recognize or consider, but in many ways I think your assumptions may be as problematic as those suggesting one is doomed unless she makes it into Harvard.

Edited March 12, 2010 by Pamphilia

[callmelilyb]

lifealive, while I don't mean to disagree with your posts (because I do think you make some interesting and possibly valid points) I want to point out that similar to Pamphilia I attended a completely unranked, largely regional, public university, and off the top of my head my professors were from: Harvard, Cornell, Rutgers, Stanford, Princeton, Brown....so while I do see what you're saying it doesn't seem to hold true, at least at my undergraduate campus.

[lifealive]

On 3/12/2010 at 5:07 PM, callmelilyb said:

lifealive, while I don't mean to disagree with your posts (because I do think you make some interesting and possibly valid points) I want to point out that similar to Pamphilia I attended a completely unranked, largely regional, public university, and off the top of my head my professors were from: Harvard, Cornell, Rutgers, Stanford, Princeton, Brown....so while I do see what you're saying it doesn't seem to hold true, at least at my undergraduate campus.

But it holds true on my undergraduate campus, where the majority of profs were not from Harvard and Yale but schools like Rochester, Indiana, Ohio State, WashU, etc. and many were widely published. At the barely-second-tier public university (with a low-ranked PhD program) where I took classes, the profs were from places like SUNY Stony Brook, UGa, U-Mass Amherst, and U of Oregon. There were a few Ivies thrown in, but very few. It almost seemed, from my point of view, that Ivy grads just would not quite have "meshed" with this program.

I will say that the mid-Atlantic R1 where I did my low-ranked master's was almost completely Ivy.

I guess it's a matter of personal experience, then, so I'm not quite sure how far swapping anecdotal evidence can get us. I could also probably tell you that most top-tier program graduates I've come across have very little teaching experience--an Ivy grad asked me the other day about a basic pedagogical term, and my other Ivy PhD friend recently told me that she was confronted again and again on the job market with her lack of teaching experience--but again, that would largely be anecdotal.

[Enzian]

I can see the logic in what lifealive is saying (and thanks for those links; some fun reading there). Going through a lower-tier school which is oriented toward teaching qualifies you best for schools A, B, and C who are, themselves, mostly concerned with teaching, but not for schools X, Y, and Z who are obviously also concerned with teaching (as any school is...because it's a school) but place a premium on high-profile publications and scholarship. On the other hand, going through a top-tier school magically qualifies you for all of the above simply because they don't neglect pedagogy? I don't think that's very honest. No program can do everything to the utmost quality and programs that place a premium on research are going to have to sacrifice something in the way of classroom time.

This is not say anything about the people in those programs who may very well be naturally stronger teachers than anyone in the lower-tier programs. But I do think that all departments do some things really well and no department could possibly be churning out hordes of beautifully sculpted scholars/teachers who will blow students' minds in the classroom and knock in heads in the publishing world. Of course, going to a top-tier school always has its benefits (not the least of which is prestige and name recognition) so I would argue that those programs might qualify you for X, Y, and Z who are all really heavy into scholarship and publication and also A and maybe B whose priorities are the classroom but certainly wouldn't mind adding prestige to their program with someone who's going to (or already has, to whatever possible extent) make a name for herself in some big journals.

Which leaves school C. My point is (and it may just be conjecture - I'm not faculty or even close) that there will always be programs who find better value in lower-tier hires. I think the rules of "fit" which are talked about so much from the applicant's side with regard to entering grad programs really still apply when looking at hiring practices, even in academia.

But maybe, since the big research institutions aren't in my top choices for applications this coming year, I'm just arguing to justify my own sad little plan. :-)

[Branwen daughter of Llyr]

lifealive, while I don't mean to disagree with your posts (because I do think you make some interesting and possibly valid points) I want to point out that similar to Pamphilia I attended a completely unranked, largely regional, public university, and off the top of my head my professors were from: Harvard, Cornell, Rutgers, Stanford, Princeton, Brown....so while I do see what you're saying it doesn't seem to hold true, at least at my undergraduate campus.

I'll add to that - every single one of my profs in the English department in my tier-3 State university undergrad was a top-notch university phd - Yale, Northwestern, Stanford, etc. And this is an English department that doesn't go beyond the MA...

Also - every single ivy or comparable school I've looked at has extensive teaching - at least 3 years out of the 5. And every single one has a pedagogical seminar as a requirement.

Edited March 13, 2010 by Branwen daughter of Llyr

[divinemg]

Just to add my two cents: the university I attend is virtually unknown unless you live in the state, and within the state it is considered to be of lesser quality than at least two other instate universities (one public and well known, the other private).

As a freshman, my expectations of the quality of faculty/teaching in English were admittedly low due to the fact that I was attending a smaller, unknown school. I was more than pleasantly surprised! The faculty of our English department is phenomenal and many come from top 20 programs. For example: Rutgers, Yale, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Washington University in St. Louis, and the University of Iowa (creative writing). I would like to point out that the institution I attend is virtually unknown and, yet, a number of young and exciting scholars have chosen to teach here, as opposed to an R1 university.

Also, I will be attending the University of Wisconsin-Madison in the fall and the common practice in the department is to teach for 4 years. Additionally, students are encouraged to teach at a variety of levels, including freshman composition and sophomore introductory surveys. I am particularly excited to be attending UW because not only will I reap the benefits of an outstanding faculty and a highly ranked program, but I will also gain a considerable amount of teaching experience at a wide range of levels and be encouraged to teach composition, literature, and creative writing.

While I think some good points have been made, I (like Branwen and others) would like to point out that my experience of professors trained in top 20 programs has been very positive. (My experience of professors from lower ranked programs has also been great.) I have been more than impressed with their teaching methods, the course design, etc. Of course, there are exceptions to every rule; it should be acknowledged that all programs will turn out the occasional graduate that is inept in the classroom.

I disagree with the notion that top 20 programs, in general, produce graduates focused solely on research and/or career gain. The professors at my institution are an example. As for myself, I began my undergraduate career as an education major and, while my career goals have changed, my commitment to teaching remains just as strong. I am looking forward both to my future research and the opportunity to inspire students to enjoy, and be passionate about, literature. (That probably sounded corny, but that is the truth.)

Lastly, I am bothered by the suggestion that English is a field in which "most everything has already been said." Taking Romanticism into account, new ground is broken in research everyday. The significance of women writers has only recently come to be identified; aural sublimity (which I explored in my writing sample) is virtually untouched; the connections between literature and the history of science, as well as the signifance of natural philosophy in Romantic poetry, has just begun to be explored; etc. I am sure that many others on this forum, from a variety of fields, would support the idea that there are always new things to be said. Otherwise, what would be the point? Why teach students about literature if all has been said and there is nothing left to contribute? English is such an exciting field *precisely* because much of the surface has yet to be scratched.

[Christian O.]

I attended two undergraduate schools, transferring after two years, and I would say that at the smaller, "tier 3" school I went to, there was a healthy mix of professors produced at Ivies, "top 20 research universities," and lower ranked schools like Temple, Syracuse, Michigan State, Texas Tech, etc. At the big "public ivy," it was mostly professors from top 20 schools. I think what tends to get overlooked is how good YOU are. The best professors I've had are those who didn't come out of graduate school embittered and cynical, as many young scholars do, but who are still passionate about pedagogy and scholarship, whether they are more focused on one over the other or not. If you are a great scholar, you will be wanted somewhere. If your scholarly work is not the greatest but still pretty good, yet you are a fantastic teacher, you will most likely be wanted somewhere. However, obviously if you are good at neither and you aren't still ambitious after six or seven years of literature, you may just drift away from academia. At my small, state college there were professors from WashU, UPenn, and Rutgers who are completely dedicated to that school, it's principles, and it's community and who don't ever seem to plan on leaving. There was also a young prominent PhD (in New Media Studies) who was poached by a large top-20 California school after teaching there for just one year, and the Literature department, just as lifealive said, decided to look for someone who was interested in teaching at a college which allows its professors a great amount of freedom as far as syllabi and course topics. In essence, someone who would stick around.

What I really want to say is that people are people and we are not just entering factories with better or worse processes for pumping out automatons who will slide into the appropriately ranked tenure tracks. Randall Fuller is one of the most prominent scholars in 19th Century American Literature and attended Washington University in St. Louis (a program ranked in the 30s). There are Ivy league PhDs teaching at tiny unnamed programs across the country who care deeply about pedagogy over scholarship. And yes, there are a lot of young PhDs from lesser known programs who have to take a job in editing or a non-profit or even in high schools, especially in this economy. But you know yourself and your own skills and ambitions. This is a field where people are valued for those skills and if you are damned good at what you do, the name on your degree will matter, but you will be able to find a place that values your abilities. Go to the program where you think YOU can do good work, not a program that you see as a means to an end. I have tried to always remember what one of my letter-writers told me when I first told him I wanted to do this with my life, that it's very important to pick the schools with the people, the environment, and the resources so that even if you drop to your "safety" school, it's still a place where YOU can do good work and thrive.