Choosing a program outside top 60 (overall 2.0) over Top 30 and Top 20 programs?

[VentralStream]

Hi all, I have managed to convince myself of choosing a program outside top 60 (overall 2.0 rating) over Top 30 and Top 20 programs. I would greatly appreciate your input and warn you that this post is much longer than I expected (sorry!), though I also think it raises some interesting questions that we all are probably thinking about. 

I think we often speak of philosophy programs’ placement as it were like professional schools like law school or business where the type of job one is offered is directly related to the programs’ ranking. But philosophy is not really like that: people that get tenured jobs are actually successful insofar as they have published in good journals and it is therefore directly related to their craft and expertise. So why do most people get tenured jobs at top 10 programs (especially top 5)? Most people think that it is because of the quality of the program; but I think this is only partially true. This is true only insofar as the top programs tend to have the best professors and offer fellowships. In this way students can get the best supervision and spend 100% of time and effort on research. But there are plenty of top 20 programs (and some top 30) that have professors that can easily work in top 5 programs. For example, Adam Pautz at Brown turned down an offer from Rutgers a few years ago and Karen Bennett just moved from Cornell to Rutgers. Likewise, Brown and Cornell students hardly do any TA work and have at least 3 years without any duties (this is actually way better than Toronto where students have to Ta every year, though for only 9 hours a week). So why is it that Brown and Cornell’s placement rate are rather abysmal compared to top 10 programs if students have essentially the same resources? I think it’s simply because the best students go to the top ten programs and not top 20. Can we really say that for some student that got tenured coming out of a top 10 program, that he would not have got tenured coming out of Brown or Cornell (say in philosophy of mind and metaphysics respectively)? Why? Counterfactually, had Adam Pautz accepted the Rutgers offer, this student would have studied under his supervision and had essentially the same resources as he did in his top 5 program.

I am currently waiting on Notre Dame (I seemed to have made the final round) and Harvard, but if I don’t get into these, I am planning to choose Rice over Ohio State (where I have been accepted), UCSD and The University of Texas (assuming I get into these), for essentially the same reasons I outlined above with some caveats. The main Caveat is that I had some inside-information about Rice: Uriah Kriegel is headed to Rice starting this fall (he was previously a full professor at Arizona (top 15) before he went to Europe to have a research position). If your AOI is philosophy of mind, then I don’t need to tell you about Kriegel. But for those that are not familiar, he has written and edited many influential books and is currently the editor for the forthcoming Oxford Handbook to Consciousness. Rice also already has Charles Siewert and Timothy Schroeder (previously full professor at Ohio State) which are quite good at philosophy of Mind. Likewise, Rice is offering me a fellowship worth $27,000 a year (including summers) with only TA duties for four semesters 10/ hours a week (so essentially only TA duties for 2 years). Houston (where Rice is located) also has graduate housing for under $1,000 per month.  By contrast, UCSD, UTexas and Ohio, you have to TA for 20 hours a week(!) and you don’t get funding for the summers. I think at UCSD you can qualify to funding for the last year, but only at $20, 000 even though San Diego is quite expensive. So as far as I can tell, I have every opportunity (and more) than I would at these programs to get a job even though they are ranked way higher than Rice. Or to put it more modestly, If I don’t get a job coming out of Rice, then I probably wouldn’t have got a job coming out of these programs.

[759]

I think your choice is well reasoned and I can't find anything in particular to object to.

[Prose]

(1) (Top 20 vs. Top 10 comparison) vs. (Outside-Top-60 vs. Top 20/Top 30 comparison) --- Difference here is massive. You could argue that at the top programs the quality of each program is so high and the opportunities so abundant that fine-grained distinctions in newly minted PhDs' abilities make a significant impact on job outcomes, but you haven't really said much about how different that calculus might look when you broaden the gap as widely as you have (Top 60+ vs. Top 20/30), besides the bit about Kriegel and two other good figures.

(2) Related to (1), reputation might matter. Prestige bias is a thing.

(3) You should take into account some programs that are lower ranked and yet have excellent placement rates. If you accept your premise that the best/better students go to the best/better schools, on average, then these 'outlier' programs probably shouldn't exist, or at least not to the degree that they do. Are people at THESE programs also just better students? Probably not.

[Kantattheairport]

It sounds like you have some good reasons for wanting to attend Rice over some of those other programmes; I certainly think that the particular people you want to work with should be a big factor in your decision-making. One thing I would note about placements, though, is that it's probably not just about the academic resources you're afforded at these different places, but also the networking resources. I've seen a lot of job-seeking philosophers note how, apart from your academic records, your proximity to networks, people skills, and luck, all play a part in your likelihood of getting a job. So that's something that 'prestigious' institutions might be much better-able to offer than lower-ranked ones.

[bluwe]

Where are the editors, and board members of well-regarded journals, and anthologies, etc? You talk about publications like knowing the editor of Ethics doesn't give you a big in (just an example--I know the editor was at Georgetown but the editorship has recently changed hands). You'll see they're mostly the ones sitting at the top universities. So, while they may be just as good philosophers as some at lower ranked universities, I'm not sure that correlates to the kind of resource that is most important in landing a job after PhD.

Edited February 18, 2019 by bluwe

[hector549]

1 hour ago, VentralStream said:

Hi all, I have managed to convince myself of choosing a program outside top 60 (overall 2.0 rating) over Top 30 and Top 20 programs. I would greatly appreciate your input and warn you that this post is much longer than I expected (sorry!), though I also think it raises some interesting questions that we all are probably thinking about. 

I think we often speak of philosophy programs’ placement as it were like professional schools like law school or business where the type of job one is offered is directly related to the programs’ ranking. But philosophy is not really like that: people that get tenured jobs are actually successful insofar as they have published in good journals and it is therefore directly related to their craft and expertise. So why do most people get tenured jobs at top 10 programs (especially top 5)? Most people think that it is because of the quality of the program; but I think this is only partially true. This is true only insofar as the top programs tend to have the best professors and offer fellowships. In this way students can get the best supervision and spend 100% of time and effort on research. But there are plenty of top 20 programs (and some top 30) that have professors that can easily work in top 5 programs. For example, Adam Pautz at Brown turned down an offer from Rutgers a few years ago and Karen Bennett just moved from Cornell to Rutgers. Likewise, Brown and Cornell students hardly do any TA work and have at least 3 years without any duties (this is actually way better than Toronto where students have to Ta every year, though for only 9 hours a week). So why is it that Brown and Cornell’s placement rate are rather abysmal compared to top 10 programs if students have essentially the same resources? I think it’s simply because the best students go to the top ten programs and not top 20. Can we really say that for some student that got tenured coming out of a top 10 program, that he would not have got tenured coming out of Brown or Cornell (say in philosophy of mind and metaphysics respectively)? Why? Counterfactually, had Adam Pautz accepted the Rutgers offer, this student would have studied under his supervision and had essentially the same resources as he did in his top 5 program.

I am currently waiting on Notre Dame (I seemed to have made the final round) and Harvard, but if I don’t get into these, I am planning to choose Rice over Ohio State (where I have been accepted), UCSD and The University of Texas (assuming I get into these), for essentially the same reasons I outlined above with some caveats. The main Caveat is that I had some inside-information about Rice: Uriah Kriegel is headed to Rice starting this fall (he was previously a full professor at Arizona (top 15) before he went to Europe to have a research position). If your AOI is philosophy of mind, then I don’t need to tell you about Kriegel. But for those that are not familiar, he has written and edited many influential books and is currently the editor for the forthcoming Oxford Handbook to Consciousness. Rice also already has Charles Siewert and Timothy Schroeder (previously full professor at Ohio State) which are quite good at philosophy of Mind. Likewise, Rice is offering me a fellowship worth $27,000 a year (including summers) with only TA duties for four semesters 10/ hours a week (so essentially only TA duties for 2 years). Houston (where Rice is located) also has graduate housing for under $1,000 per month.  By contrast, UCSD, UTexas and Ohio, you have to TA for 20 hours a week(!) and you don’t get funding for the summers. I think at UCSD you can qualify to funding for the last year, but only at $20, 000 even though San Diego is quite expensive. So as far as I can tell, I have every opportunity (and more) than I would at these programs to get a job even though they are ranked way higher than Rice. Or to put it more modestly, If I don’t get a job coming out of Rice, then I probably wouldn’t have got a job coming out of these programs.

I suspect that the reason Rice is ranked as low as it is overall is simply because it's quite a small program right now. Due to several deaths in the department, there are only eight TT faculty, though Kriegel would make that nine. The addition of another strong faculty member would undoubtedly put it back on the top 50 as well. I think you're right that the faculty who are there are quite strong. And, of course, even though it's just off the top-50 right now, it's still on the specialty rankings for phil mind and 20th century continental. I know there are also some strong faculty in moral philosophy. The only drawback is that if you decide that you want to work on something other than mind, 20th century continental, or certain areas of moral philosophy, then you'd have a hard time doing so at Rice.

Also keep in mind that there can be a difference between contractual TA duties and what students actually end up doing. Just because the contract says students work 20 hours doesn't mean that that is always the case (it's not in my current program).

Also, I agree that funding can make a huge difference in quality of life, especially when it's between U Texas which has notoriously inadequate funding and a fat stipend like the one at Rice.

In any case though, it's worth visiting and talking to current students, I think, before you make a final decision between, say, UCSD/U Texas and Rice.

[maxhgns]

1 hour ago, VentralStream said:

But philosophy is not really like that: people that get tenured jobs are actually successful insofar as they have published in good journals and it is therefore directly related to their craft and expertise.

Well, kinda. Very, very often--especially at the tippy-top schools, but also further down the ladder--you get hired for your "promise" rather than your actual accomplishments, and you have the chance to develop your craft and expertise as a result of having won a decent job. Being affiliated with a tippy-top department gets you all kinds of trickle-down benefits which are entirely inaccessible to those further down the pyramid, because the prestige hierarchy is so ingrained in us. It's incredibly hard to even just get an interview if you're not coming from the right school(s) and working in the right subfield(s), even if you have a stellar publication record for your career stage.

 

1 hour ago, VentralStream said:

 But there are plenty of top 20 programs (and some top 30) that have professors that can easily work in top 5 programs. 

Oh, it goes way further down than that. Plenty of MA-granting programs have faculty who'd not be out of place in a top PhD-granting department, as do plenty of SLACs, etc.44

 

1 hour ago, VentralStream said:

Likewise, Brown and Cornell students hardly do any TA work and have at least 3 years without any duties (this is actually way better than Toronto where students have to Ta every year, though for only 9 hours a week).

You'd think that was true, and most people do seem to believe that. The reality on the ground, however, is that you need teaching experience to get a job (though not necessarily at the very top of the hierarchy), and one or two courses just doesn't cut it. The programs that exploit their students and have them solo-teach 2-2 from their second year onwards do very well at placing those students, because they come out with so much brute teaching experience. That's not especially good or desirable, however, and it causes real problems for completion rates. That said, TAing counts for nothing, no matter how much of it you've done. So if the program has less TAing but more solo-teaching available, then that's better, but it's not usually the case at programs that aren't especially exploitative.

 

1 hour ago, VentralStream said:

I think it’s simply because the best students go to the top ten programs and not top 20.

Plenty of people in philosophy believe this (I think most do, actually), but I'd be very surprised if it's true, especially at the intake level. There's probably more truth to the idea that the best students go to the schools ranked highest in their subfields, but I think even that claim is suspect (especially at the intake level, before they've benefited from 7 years of top supervision and resources). You'll find a lot of superb students and philosophers coming out of all sorts of departments, but outside the tippy top, they have access to many fewer opportunities to showcase that skill. Even leaving aside sociological factors (which exert a lot of influence), it's just easier to publish with a 2-1 or 2-2 load than with a 4-4 load.

A big part of why the topmost programs are so successful, and enjoy such a reputation, is the sheer quantity of graduates they churn out. A smaller program that graduates 1-2 students (like Brown) a year is just going to have a much smaller presence on the market, on the conference circuit, in major journals, in subfield associations, etc. than a program that graduates 7-10+ a year (like Oxford or Toronto). In that respect, the age of the program also makes a big difference. 

 

1 hour ago, VentralStream said:

I am currently waiting on Notre Dame (I seemed to have made the final round) and Harvard, but if I don’t get into these, I am planning to choose Rice over Ohio State (where I have been accepted), UCSD and The University of Texas (assuming I get into these), for essentially the same reasons I outlined above with some caveats. The main Caveat is that I had some inside-information about Rice: Uriah Kriegel is headed to Rice starting this fall (he was previously a full professor at Arizona (top 15) before he went to Europe to have a research position). If your AOI is philosophy of mind, then I don’t need to tell you about Kriegel. But for those that are not familiar, he has written and edited many influential books and is currently the editor for the forthcoming Oxford Handbook to Consciousness. Rice also already has Charles Siewert and Timothy Schroeder (previously full professor at Ohio State) which are quite good at philosophy of Mind. Likewise, Rice is offering me a fellowship worth $27,000 a year (including summers) with only TA duties for four semesters 10/ hours a week (so essentially only TA duties for 2 years). Houston (where Rice is located) also has graduate housing for under $1,000 per month.  By contrast, UCSD, UTexas and Ohio, you have to TA for 20 hours a week(!) and you don’t get funding for the summers. I think at UCSD you can qualify to funding for the last year, but only at $20, 000 even though San Diego is quite expensive. So as far as I can tell, I have every opportunity (and more) than I would at these programs to get a job even though they are ranked way higher than Rice. Or to put it more modestly, If I don’t get a job coming out of Rice, then I probably wouldn’t have got a job coming out of these programs.

Having said what I said, it's worth adding that who your advisor is makes a big difference at both the official and unofficial levels. Officially, for obvious reasons. Unofficially, because they'll be introducing you to their research networks, which is to say, they'll be introducing you to everyone in your subfield. If they're not very active in that community, then they can't introduce you, and that means that you'll have a harder time meeting people--especially senior people--in your field, and a harder time taking advantage of the opportunities that might come your way as a result (e.g. external letters, postdoc support, publication and book review invitations, editorial positions, etc.). Also, the money is a big deal, and makes a huge difference to your experience of grad school, time to completion, conference participation, etc. So: it's a perfectly good call, if that's what you decide to do.

 

Edited February 18, 2019 by maxhgns

[philosopuppy]

Is it really true that Brown and Cornell have "abysmal" placement ratings compared to other top-10 programs? My impression was that it was all kind of equally terrible-but-not-impossible among the various top 20-ish schools. (This might be a bit off topic, but would be good to know!)

[The_Last_Thylacine]

Uriah Kriegel is incredible. 

[VentralStream]

Thank you for your response. 

3 hours ago, Prose said:

(2) Related to (1), reputation might matter. Prestige bias is a thing.

(3) You should take into account some programs that are lower ranked and yet have excellent placement rates. If you accept your premise that the best/better students go to the best/better schools, on average, then these 'outlier' programs probably shouldn't exist, or at least not to the degree that they do. Are people at THESE programs also just better students? Probably not.

I think you are right regarding (2); but not with respect to the programs I am referring to: does Ohio State really have much more prestige than Rice? probably not. Moreover, Brown and Cornell's prestige does not seem to be helping them very much. I think this is more so with top 10 programs. 

 

Regarding (3), I agree! hence Rice! they have according to that APA funded study on placement almost 40% placement into full time academic jobs. And you can argue that those programs that have good placement but are lowered ranked are so precisely for the reasons that I have mentioned. Take University of Virginia for example. They have excellent faculty that could easily teach at top 20 (like Rice), and offer great funding ($22,000) for living in Virginia including $4000 for summers (the same as Cornell). Same with Emory and Northwestern. 

[VentralStream]

3 hours ago, maxhgns said:

Well, kinda. Very, very often--especially at the tippy-top schools, but also further down the ladder--you get hired for your "promise" rather than your actual accomplishments, and you have the chance to develop your craft and expertise as a result of having won a decent job. Being affiliated with a tippy-top department gets you all kinds of trickle-down benefits which are entirely inaccessible to those further down the pyramid, because the prestige hierarchy is so ingrained in us. It's incredibly hard to even just get an interview if you're not coming from the right school(s) and working in the right subfield(s), even if you have a stellar publication record for your career stage.

Thank you for taking the time to write such a long response! I think you are right in what you have written here. I think you are right that those coming out top ten, especially top 5, get hired because of their "promise" and not necessarily because of their publishing record at the time. I am not sure this applies to Rice vs. Ohio for example. 

3 hours ago, maxhgns said:

 

Oh, it goes way further down than that. Plenty of MA-granting programs have faculty who'd not be out of place in a top PhD-granting department, as do plenty of SLACs, etc.44

 

You'd think that was true, and most people do seem to believe that. The reality on the ground, however, is that you need teaching experience to get a job (though not necessarily at the very top of the hierarchy), and one or two courses just doesn't cut it. The programs that exploit their students and have them solo-teach 2-2 from their second year onwards do very well at placing those students, because they come out with so much brute teaching experience. That's not especially good or desirable, however, and it causes real problems for completion rates. That said, TAing counts for nothing, no matter how much of it you've done. So if the program has less TAing but more solo-teaching available, then that's better, but it's not usually the case at programs that aren't especially exploitative.

I totally agree with this. I forgot to mention that although Rice hardly makes you TA, you actually get training (because Rice greatly emphasizes undergrad education) to teach your own course in the latter year(s). 

3 hours ago, maxhgns said:

 

Plenty of people in philosophy believe this (I think most do, actually), but I'd be very surprised if it's true, especially at the intake level. There's probably more truth to the idea that the best students go to the schools ranked highest in their subfields, but I think even that claim is suspect (especially at the intake level, before they've benefited from 7 years of top supervision and resources). You'll find a lot of superb students and philosophers coming out of all sorts of departments, but outside the tippy top, they have access to many fewer opportunities to showcase that skill. Even leaving aside sociological factors (which exert a lot of influence), it's just easier to publish with a 2-1 or 2-2 load than with a 4-4 load.

A big part of why the topmost programs are so successful, and enjoy such a reputation, is the sheer quantity of graduates they churn out. A smaller program that graduates 1-2 students (like Brown) a year is just going to have a much smaller presence on the market, on the conference circuit, in major journals, in subfield associations, etc. than a program that graduates 7-10+ a year (like Oxford or Toronto). In that respect, the age of the program also makes a big difference. 

Totally agree about the shotgun approach of some schools that have misleading placement rates (number versus percentages). This is specially true of Toronto. 

3 hours ago, maxhgns said:

Having said what I said, it's worth adding that who your advisor is makes a big difference at both the official and unofficial levels. Officially, for obvious reasons. Unofficially, because they'll be introducing you to their research networks, which is to say, they'll be introducing you to everyone in your subfield. If they're not very active in that community, then they can't introduce you, and that means that you'll have a harder time meeting people--especially senior people--in your field, and a harder time taking advantage of the opportunities that might come your way as a result (e.g. external letters, postdoc support, publication and book review invitations, editorial positions, etc.). Also, the money is a big deal, and makes a huge difference to your experience of grad school, time to completion, conference participation, etc. So: it's a perfectly good call, if that's what you decide to do.

 

I hadn't thought about my supervisor introducing me to "research networks". Interesting! 

[VentralStream]

@hector549 You are absolutely right that I would be screwed If I changed my AOI. But I have already done two years of graduate work during my MA, so I am fairly certain about my AOI!

[Stencil]

On 2/18/2019 at 2:30 PM, VentralStream said:

@hector549 You are absolutely right that I would be screwed If I changed my AOI. But I have already done two years of graduate work during my MA, so I am fairly certain about my AOI!

Just a word of caution, I know someone who transferred out of the graduate program at Rice after his second year despite having a strong interest in philosophy of mind because he felt that the department wasn't well-rounded enough. Granted, he did have other AOIs, so if you're exclusively interested in working in mind, I could see that choice making sense. But realize that the department's lack of other strengths at the moment could potentially pose some issues down the road. 

[hector549]

24 minutes ago, Stencil said:

Just a word of caution, I know someone who transferred out of the graduate program at Rice after his second year despite having a strong interest in philosophy of mind because he felt that the department wasn't well-rounded enough. Granted, he did have other AOIs, so if you're exclusively interested in working in mind, I could see that choice making sense. But realize that the department's lack of other strengths at the moment could potentially pose some issues down the road. 

Yeah, I think that this could be a potential issue, not just if you change AOIs, but in terms of getting a well-rounded philosophical education/getting exposure to other ideas/etc.

[VentralStream]

@Stencil @hector549 I will definitely consider that! thanks for your input!