Advice from an actual PhD

[FuzzyDunlop]

5th year grad student here.

In my experience, realist's advice is very sound, as much as some of you don't want to hear it. The definition of a decent career in this discipline is of course contested. But there is virtually nobody who believes that being off the tenure track fits the bill - you are miserably paid, often in a constant state of insecurity about your future, and often (reprehensibly) treated like a second-class citizen by your coworkers. Basically, its a really bad outcome, especially given the opportunity costs of getting a PhD.

Given that being off the tenure track is not a good future, the question you should be asking involves the chance of you landing on the tenure track while coming from different tiers of schools. That some good LACs or R1s have people with PhDs out of the Top 25 is basically meaningless. We're dealing with probabilities here. I'm not saying that means nobody should go to a school outside the Top 25, but you should definitely think long and hard about it. More than anything, if you're in that position you need to be brutally honest with yourself. What are your true life and career goals and how well do they match the likely outcomes here? That goes not just for people trying to figure out whether their school can give them a tenure track job but also for those who (perhaps secretly) will not be happy unless a bunch of other criteria are met. Will you be disappointed if you don't land in a cosmopolitan city on one of the coasts? Forget top 25, you better be going to a top ten program.

I also think realist's advice about advisers is very sound. Don't pick a school because of a single person, who may move or turn out to be unhelpful. Pick the school that is strongest across the board, gives you the most support, and has the methodological approach that best fits your interest.

Somebody downthread asked about advice for graduate school, so here is one general thought: Understand that its all about self-motivation and maintaining focus on long term goals. There is a tendency among some people to treat the first few years of grad school like an extension of undergrad, with the idea that classwork basically encapsulates your responsibilities. No, no, no. Don't think about your coursework as defining the parameters of what you need to do on a regular basis. What you need to do is absorb what the discipline is about, what the debates are, and how scholarship is produced and then get to churning out your own scholarship as quickly as possible. Don't take the undergraduate attitude that, "Ok, well what I have on my plate at this point is reading these 200 pages for the one class and then writing that response paper by the end of the week for the other." Rather, think about those tasks as part of a loose set of guidelines set up by the program. Clear those hurdles, but always keep your focus on the question of how scholarship is produced and on the goal of getting there yourself. This is easier said than done.

[applicantZERO]

As someone who is going to start a PhD next year, I was very interested in Realist's advice.

Realist's advice is extremely obvious. It is easy to verify. Why, if there are so very few tenure track jobs, are there so many departments awarding PhDs? What is going on here?

It is obvious what is going on: PhD's get paid about 1/2 of the national average salary in most cities in which they live, to teach and help teach undergraduate classes. This is a great thing for universities great and not-as-great.

There is no formula for getting a tenure track job. Whether you should go to a school to work with one individual is a question each person must decide. It is a risk, but going somewhere where there is no clear advisor is also a risk.

All those who berate Realist for being an elitist are laughable. He is a "realist." Tenure is one of the very last "sure things" in the modern economy. It is given by insiders who are obviously protecting their turf. And numerically, it is easy to see there are easily four times more PhDs than there are jobs.

The ivory tower is no less professional than any other area of modern America. Get used to it.

[polisciphd]

Man, as we say in the deep south, yall sure can beat a dead horse...

[eve2008]

Man, as we say in the deep south, yall sure can beat a dead horse...

LOL!

Anyway, I'm stickin' with my story, that it's worth it to try twice if you didn't get into a top program (or more importantly, your top program) and think you can improve some part of your application or could benefit from a master's degree...

[ontrack]

Recent tenure-track hire with a non-top-25 Ph.D. here. I'd take the OP's advice with a huge grain of salt. Depending on the kind of research you do and how well you do it, there may very well be plenty of job opportunities out there for you regardless of your pedigree. Your job prospects certainly aren't doomed just by virtue of attending a top-35 or -40 program instead of a top-10; you just might have to be a bit more proactive about networking over the next 5-8 years.

[Quarex]

Anyway, I'm stickin' with my story, that it's worth it to try twice if you didn't get into a top program (or more importantly, your top program) and think you can improve some part of your application or could benefit from a master's degree...

Yeah, this really seems like the best advice. Sure, I finally got a couple of Ph.D. acceptances--but the funding situation is dire at best, and every place that rejected me told the same story, that my academic preparation (not my research interests or GRE or height/weight ratio) was the problem. So taking the time to complete an M.A. in the field and shore up most glaring weakness seems like a good way to continue dragging out my delusion that I will be accepted somewhere wonderful with funding next time around!

Recent tenure-track hire with a non-top-25 Ph.D. here. I'd take the OP's advice with a huge grain of salt. Depending on the kind of research you do and how well you do it, there may very well be plenty of job opportunities out there for you regardless of your pedigree. Your job prospects certainly aren't doomed just by virtue of attending a top-35 or -40 program instead of a top-10; you just might have to be a bit more proactive about networking over the next 5-8 years.

Glad to have your perspective. I think ultimately the reason that the advice goes down the way it does is that most people who get into top-25 programs are the kind of aggressive go-getters who would likely succeed regardless of the extra oomph that comes from their pedigree; sort of an academic momentum-propulsion system. Those who do not end up in a great program either have to figure out why their work was not quite enough and fix it, or accept that they are likely not determined, intense, or other adjectives enough to get what they want out of a less-prestigious program.

[ordinonuovo]

I think I can agree with all the main tenets of Realist's posts, but the real question regarding his views is:

why the arbitrary/or real cut-off at the top 25 which he makes? Why not the top 20, 15, or 10. S/He

says you should not pay to go to a below top 25 school, but what if the choice is between paying to go

to a top ten school and not paying to go to a top 25? What are the standards and critera for making a

decision then? I am asking this because I hope that he, or others at this cafe can be of help regarding

a real-life dilemma that I face: Non-funded graduate studies or UCLA or fully supported studies at

Northwestern. I believe you can easilty substitute other schools into that sentence, but the question

will remain. Mr/Ms Realist, can you be of some help? Any others want to try?

In case this helps, I am an internationa student(Asia), and my sub-field is IR(dual interests in

security studies with and political/IR theory). The regional focus would be Northeast Asia.

[polisciphd]

Neither of those schools are known for NE Asian security, so I don't think that it would make much difference. If you wanted to go to a school that was a NE Asia powerhouse, you should have looked at Berkeley, UCSD, Michigan, or even UW. But, having said that, just because a school isn't "known" for a particular subject, doesn't mean you can't research and write about it yourself. Both schools have great placement records and very solid IR faculty. I would go with which place you feel more comfortable, ie the midwest vs. the west coast.

[silencio1982]

I think I can agree with all the main tenets of Realist's posts, but the real question regarding his views is:

why the arbitrary/or real cut-off at the top 25 which he makes? Why not the top 20, 15, or 10. S/He

says you should not pay to go to a below top 25 school, but what if the choice is between paying to go

to a top ten school and not paying to go to a top 25? What are the standards and critera for making a

decision then? I am asking this because I hope that he, or others at this cafe can be of help regarding

a real-life dilemma that I face: Non-funded graduate studies or UCLA or fully supported studies at

Northwestern. I believe you can easilty substitute other schools into that sentence, but the question

will remain. Mr/Ms Realist, can you be of some help? Any others want to try?

In case this helps, I am an internationa student(Asia), and my sub-field is IR(dual interests in

security studies with and political/IR theory). The regional focus would be Northeast Asia.

Personally I would say go to Northwestern unless you are very, very, very independently wealthy and the thought of paying graduate tuition for 5 to 7 years doesn't bother you at all. The fact is that most professors, even tenure track professors, do not make extravagant salaries. If you have to take out loans to pay tuition you are looking at at least $70,000, even if you got in-state residency in California after your first year, never mind living expenses-- it will take you years to pay that off. Northwestern is a very strong school with a very strong placement record. You'll get a great, marketable, and cost-free education from there. For me, that's an impossible deal to turn down. You should avoid paying for graduate school at all costs if you can. Again, if you are incredibly wealthy then maybe the decision changes, but I can't speak to that!

[realist]

I think I can agree with all the main tenets of Realist's posts, but the real question regarding his views is:

why the arbitrary/or real cut-off at the top 25 which he makes? Why not the top 20, 15, or 10. S/He

says you should not pay to go to a below top 25 school, but what if the choice is between paying to go

to a top ten school and not paying to go to a top 25? What are the standards and critera for making a

decision then? I am asking this because I hope that he, or others at this cafe can be of help regarding

a real-life dilemma that I face: Non-funded graduate studies or UCLA or fully supported studies at

Northwestern. I believe you can easilty substitute other schools into that sentence, but the question

will remain. Mr/Ms Realist, can you be of some help? Any others want to try?

In case this helps, I am an internationa student(Asia), and my sub-field is IR(dual interests in

security studies with and political/IR theory). The regional focus would be Northeast Asia.

I won't lie to you, UCLA is considered a very hot school these days. But Northwestern has placed quite well lately, and you will get a good education there. Neither school is known for combining Asia and IR with theory--UCLA products are all rat choice and heavy stats people, whereas Northwestern's problem is that the methodological battles are still being fought there. Northwestern does have some fantastic IR theorists, though.

I say, for your interests, Northwestern is a better fit. Plus, I can't imagine how expensive it would be to live in LA while paying for grad school.

[eve2008]

On UCLA, you say you don't have funding, but do you have a tuition waiver? How many students receive funding after their arrival?

This conversation may be useful to you:

http://chronicle.com/forums/index.php/t ... 998.0.html

[detroitfan]

[rtrm]

I've been reading this thread for a while and decided to jump in with a different perspective on the Realist's post:

SCENARIO 1

I get into a top 25 program (the ones that according to the Realist offer the better possibility of landing a good job) and of course I'm thrilled. I decide to attend the program knowing that once I graduate it is very likely that I will get a good job just because of the prestige my new univiersity carries. During my time at the program I apporach my classes and assignments with great effort, following the rules, and succeed in my comps, dissertation overview, and defense. Now I am certain that I will land a good tenure track position and approach job interviews with the credentials of having graduated from a top 25 university.

SCENARIO 2

I get into a poli sci program ranked 26-50 (the ones that according to the Realist offer a slim possibility of landing a good job) and I am excited but concerned about how good they will prepare me. I decide to take their offer knowing that, in order to get a good job after I graduate, I will have to excel, be innovative, creative, and be outstanding among several other intelligent and motivated students. During my time at the program I approach my classes and assignements with great effort but with the intention of being noted as exceptional, thinking outside the box, making an extra effort to be identified as the brightest and most creative among my class. I succeed in my comps, overview, and defense and I graduate as the top student of my program. Since the prestige my university carries is not as great as others, I approach job interviewes with the credentials of having value for myslef, my scholarly achievements, publications, and distinctions rather than just for being a gradute of a top 25 university.

What scenario would you like to be in?

[MissingVandyCandy]

God I hope nobody reading got into the program that is ranked 25.5 - that would present quite the predicament, no?

[kokubanut]

Actually i think i did...tied for 25 could be considered 25.5 right? im not worried i have experience as a pool man and a greens keeper. since i have already missed my window on the NBA, wonder which option is the best statistical bet.

A. find a tt job from the 25.5 ranked program

B. try to transfer up to 24.5 ranked program after my masters

C. marry an attractive wealthy woman without a prenump

[lenin333]

I got into Georgetown... its got some good ratings. But is an exception? I don't know. But what if I want to teach at a place like my undergraduate institution? Maybe.

[polisciphd]

Thank god that I slid in under the top 25 barrier, only three spots higher and I would be screwed (not counting the fact that UIUC is only in the top 25 on one of the major surveys USNWR, so I am choosing to ignore the other ones).

[JordanJames]

Thank god that I slid in under the top 25 barrier, only three spots higher and I would be screwed (not counting the fact that UIUC is only in the top 25 on one of the major surveys USNWR, so I am choosing to ignore the other ones).

lol, well actually, according to the Realist there are only 18 top 25 schools, and UIUC isn't on the list. To be a top 25 school your school must be in the top 25 of all rankings. I'm going to FSU and they were ranked 22 on Chingos placement rankings, but they also fail to make the list. Thus, we are both screwed and it doesn't matter whether we go to Illinois or Phoenix Online, none of us will get a tenure track job anywhere. Don't pay attention to the placement records which show Illinois placing students at Brown, Tennessee, Texas, Washington & Lee and Georgia among others in recent years. THERE IS NO WAY YOU WILL FIND WORK ANYWHERE.

Is there truth in what the OP said? Yes. But are some of the generalizations he has made and his list of top schools infallible? No.

[polisciphd]

Yeah, never could figure out that 18 top 25 schools thing, must not do quantitative stuff at realist's school. And how did he/she ever get the requisite 750 q GRE score required to get in to the top 20 schools?

[JordanJames]

Actually i think i did...tied for 25 could be considered 25.5 right? im not worried i have experience as a pool man and a greens keeper. since i have already missed my window on the NBA, wonder which option is the best statistical bet.

A. find a tt job from the 25.5 ranked program

B. try to transfer up to 24.5 ranked program after my masters

C. marry an attractive wealthy woman without a prenump

C seems to be the best bet. I'm going to transition away from the GradCafe to Eharmony soon to find my sugar mama.

Unlike you though, I haven't given up on professional sports. I'm hoping Bobby Bowden spots my skills on the flag football field, offers me a scholarship, turns me into an All American Safety and I get drafted in the Second Round (I'm trying to be realistic) by the Bears.

If I don't find my sugar mama and Bobby Bowden doesn't have the recruiting acumen to recognize my talent, I'm going to become a professional poker and backgammon player while entering hot dog, egg and wing eating competitions on the side.

[rtrm]

One more thing to consider for those feeling insecure by the Realists ridiculous post:

Onec I graduate from the PhD program i plan on attending, I expect to be very confident about being considered for job openings at ANY school whether it is a top10, top 50, top 100, or a liberal arts college.

If this guy's argument is that hiring committees at top universities don't even bother looking at files from aplicants not coming from the same top 25 programs then I personally don't even want to work with that kind of people or in that kind of environment. In fact I would find it disgusting. I rather work in a university or college where they appraciate my training and skill regardless of where I acquired them.

[ampersand]

Wow, realist is really getting dumped on here. Let me try an analogy out on you guys. When people vote, they use political parties as a shortcut to cue them into what a candidate's positions are. If a voter is Republican and they have a choice between a Republican, Democratic, Libertarian, and Green candidate, they will most likely vote for the Republican because the party label signals to them that they have similar beliefs. It's an easy way of finding out what the candidates believe without having to research every single one of them. It's similar to what hiring committees do. They may get hundreds of applications for a single position, and each file will get probably 30 seconds of review during the first round. When these committees see an applicant with a degree from a #5 ranked school, it signals to them that the applicant has had better training than the applicant from the #70 school, and the former applicant is most likely to get closer review. Your school's ranking is a quick shortcut to figuring out the quality of your education. As one of my mentors put it to me, a degree from a top school won't automatically get you a job, but your file is more likely to be looked at closely.

[MissingVandyCandy]

I think that is generally true ampersand, however, I think your good analogy might not be generous enough in accounting for the topological knowledge of the faculty members that comprise these committees. Say, for instance, that Williams College is looking to hire a tenure track Political Science professor with teaching responsibilities in Public Law, American Constitutional Development and Legal Theory. I am hard pressed to believe that the faculty at Williams (experts themselves in Political Science who attend conferences, workshops and keep abreast of the latest in the subfields) who would be responsible for hiring lack the knowledge when picking up a dossier from a candidate coming from UPenn, Boston College or USC to make the connection that the candidate likely studied and learned the Law and Courts literature under Rogers Smith, Shep Melnick and Howard Gillman respectively. Though they might pull a Harvard candidate's file or internally know that UC-Berkeley is a "higher ranked" institution, if they are good Political Scientists who know the topography of the subfield and position they are hiring for (e.g. public law) they will not pass over the BC, Upenn, or USC candidate for Berkeley where even mildly informed members on this board know rat choice is the prevailing theme.

**And this is the last time I'll say this: realist's main point is largely true, it just doesn't necessitate 10 posts to make the overriding observation that academy isn't an easy career path and that if you want to improve your chances for an easy transition into a TT job you do your best to go to a top 10 school. well, duh.

[JordanJames]

Let me try an analogy out on you guys.

Me sorry, no understand wordz. Please picture draw for me.

[rebelrita]

Ahem. :wink: Mmmmmm