Job Placement Concerns in Academia

[historyspace]

My apologies if this has already been discussed or if this is the wrong section of forum to hold this discussion. Since obtaining my MA degree I have been preparing for PhD applications. There is a school on my list, that isn't ranked too high in my field (history). In fact for whatever this is worth, its probably not even a top 50 school in history grad program rankings. However, one of the books that inspired my MA thesis, was written by a professor in that dept. The legends in my field have highly praised his work, which makes him seem like a "rising star" type in the field. Plus I had a conference call with him and I am really impressed by his advisement approach. THE REAL QUESTION IS, if I want to become a professor someday, am I, for lack of a better term, "shooting" my academic career in the foot by obtaining a PhD from a school that does not have a great job placement record? I get that even Harvard PhDs are having a hard time in the academia job market, but how much does school brand matter for your PhD versus the pull of your adviser? 

[klavierstucke]

I can't speak for your field, or really any outside my own (music history), but I suspect the case is similar. Though take this with a grain of salt.   

For example, for music theory,  generally phd holders that win jobs come from only a handful of institutions: https://medium.com/@krisshaffer/so-you-want-to-be-a-music-theory-professor-b81e72751603. Perhaps that won jobs in "the institutions with one job won" category came from less "prestigious" schools that had a good advisor. I imagine if you google around theres some  similar studies about History.

I'm planning to apply to Music History PhDs this fall. I have about 15 schools on my list, the 15 that best place phd graduates into tenure track academic positions. If it means anything--almost every faculty at all 15 of these schools received their PhDs from one of these very 15 schools. Almost without fail. Mind you these are the "tippy top" institutions, and it would be madness for anyone to fixate on getting one of those spots, but it's not a particularly encouraging sign. I'd be personally willing to sacrifice a potential better advisor for a school that places very well. 

I would see what has happened to the advisees this professor has taken on.

 

Edited June 25, 2018 by klavierstucke

[maxhgns]

I'm in a different (but related) humanities(ish) field, but...

Pedigree is (depressingly) important on the job market. It makes you a contender for a lot more jobs, and helps you stand out from the crowd. It'll even do this for people who didn't have superstar advisors. On the other hand, your letters will mean a lot on the market, too. And having strong letters from superstars intimately familiar with you and your work will help a lot, and will help you stand out from the crowd. They can also do more to help you build a network. And it actually shows when an applicant attended a program that's very strong in their area of specialization, and had stellar advisors (as opposed to students who went to higher-ranking programs weaker in their areas of specialization).

So my advice would be to try as hard as you can to get into a high-ranking program. But it's defeasible advice, especially if your alternate program is tops in your area of specialization. (I, for example, opted to attend a relatively low-ranking program so that I could work with one of the top living scholars in my area of specialization. It's worked out well for me so far (especially for jobs in my AOS), although I've definitely noticed the absence of a prestige bump when I apply to jobs listing open specializations.

 

Note, however, that a program is tops in an area because it has well-established first-rate scholars working in that area. Up-and-coming doesn't quite cut the mustard yet.