Putting Myself in Best Position for Ivy League Acceptance

[kdavid]

Like (mostly) everyone else, I want go to to an Ivy League school. My ultimate goal is to get into a PhD program in Modern Chinese History at a top-10 school.

My academic history:

28 years old

BA from University of Florida (2005); Major: English, Minor: History

Graduated Summa Cum Laude, overall GPA 3.64, major coursework 3.85

Honors thesis earned me Summa Cum Laude

Currently living in China (married with a 16-month old son)

Work experience:

I've been teaching English as a foreign language since 2005 (one year in Europe, in China since 2006)

I co-founded a TESOL training institute, which I'm currently running. We train about 100 teachers a year.

I'm proficient in Mandarin Chinese (reading, writing, speaking); HSK level 8--working on taking Advanced level this year, 2011

I'm learning Japanese and Russian

I have about a year of professional translation experience; translating articles focused on Chinese politics, culture, etc.

I've been writing for a Beijing-based magazine for six months

I haven't taken the GREs yet, but plan on prepping for those this year. I'll be entering an MA program (in modern Chinese history) at a Chinese university via a Chinese government scholarship this autumn. I'm looking to start applying for PhDs in 2 - 3 years.

Any help anyone could provide me with would be greatly appreciated. In short, where do I stand now in comparison with other PhD graduates? Would I stand a chance at getting into a top-10 program now? If not, what can I do to make myself more marketable for the future?

Thanks!

[breakfast]

Like a lot of other people here on the grad cafe, you seem to be too focused on rank and some presumed prestige. Why top-10? What faculty are at each of the universities that you want to work with?

You need to focus more on the name of your advisor rather than the name on your diploma. Ivy grads are not immune to problems in the history job market, and actually face their own unique difficulties in finding TT jobs. If there are actually relevant faculty at all of the top-10's, then go for it, but I'd be surprised if there actually were, especially in non-American fields.

[TMP]

You'll be surprised to learn that there are a good, good number of people who are applying for history here on Grad Cafe who have zero interest in the Ivy League. I certainly don't even though one of my schools is an Ivy League. Does it make a difference? No. I don't even pay much attention to the name, just what the program has to offer. I've heard more horrible stories from Columbia and more wonderful stories from Ohio State.

my advice, really, is just to keep up with your languages, have some kind of questions you'd like to explore, and just do your best. The admissions process is so subjective that no one can guess your chances. Read up your favorite historians and see where they are teaching and where they got their PhDs from.

[StrangeLight]

yeah, i'll echo the sentiment that most people applying for graduate school don't actually care if their program is ivy league or not. many on this site do care about rankings, but they shouldn't.

to prep yourself for grad school, figure out what you want to study a little more precisely. what era of chinese history? what type of history (social, cultural, economic, political)? who wrote your favourite books on chinese history? where do they teach, does that school have a graduate program, will those professors take on new students?

if you're really concerned with prestige, check out which schools have been designated national resource centers for (east) asian studies by the US department of education. that's a strong CURRENT indication of which programs are nationally recognized for their strength in your region of study. columbia, cornell, duke, georgetown, harvard, ohio state, stanford, UC berkeley, hawaii, illinois, indiana, kansas, michigan, oregon, university of southern california, UCLA, virginia, washington, wisconsin, yale, michigan state, colorado, utah, washu, and penn all have funding from the state department for east asian studies. notably, however, colorado doesn't have national resource center standing and yale doesn't have any FLASs (foreign language area studies fellowships), suggesting that both were on the cusp for funding and, unless they make significant new hires between now and 2013, they may lose the funding altogether (something that happened to my school when it lost title VI funding for western european studies).

depending on what era you study, you may need to know classical chinese. i don't know for sure if you will or not, but that's something to look into. in general, you want at least two foreign languages in addition to english, so if you're fluent in chinese and working on japanese and russian, that should be sufficient. just keep up with the languages. read books in your field and start thinking about the types of historical questions you want to answer. also, be prepared that the MA you're getting in china might not transfer to US institutions, and you might have to enter another MA program (i.e. you may be admitted to an MA/PhD combined program at the MA level rather than at the PhD level).

that's it, really. study for the GRE, figure out in a more precise way what you want to study, read and work on your writing sample and statement of purpose, and research programs. and try to detach yourself from the idea of going to an ivy league or "top 10" school. the graduate level rankings are really bullshit. many of the big name schools that get top 10 rankings don't even have programs in those particular subfields. they're meaningless. if you're worried about prestige, look for schools with national resource center designation.

[kdavid]

Thanks for your contributions thus far, and your suggestions.

In my head, I feel that if I could get into a top-10 then I would an appealing candidate for other programs as well. My current approach is make myself as marketable as possible so that when it comes time to accept an offer, I have a lot of good offers to choose from.

[shon]

HI

I AM NEW ONE HERE

THANKS

[BadgerHopeful]

I agree that it does not do you any good to be stuck on the mindset of "Top 10" or "Ivy League." It could very well be that the advisors who best suit your interests are not housed in a top 10 program. It is worth looking at a vast range of programs, and it's much more important to chose a program based on fit than on prestige.

[StrangeLight]

Thanks for your contributions thus far, and your suggestions.

In my head, I feel that if I could get into a top-10 then I would an appealing candidate for other programs as well. My current approach is make myself as marketable as possible so that when it comes time to accept an offer, I have a lot of good offers to choose from.

it doesn't really work like that. many people get into top 10 programs and rejected from smaller ones. you can't really leverage the acceptance of one school to get admissions to other schools. you might be able to squeeze them for a stronger funding package, but even then fellowships are usually determined long before you receive an offer of admission (some schools vary). schools will butter you up and court you if you're entertaining other offers, but that'll rarely result in increased financing. indiana doesn't care one little bit if you got into harvard or not.

and, frankly, the only way to get into these places is to tailor your SOP and your proposed thesis project to the strengths of each individual program. pick one potential advisor and make it clear that their interests and strengths align with your proposed work. pull in a handful of other professors from the department whose thematic or regional foci overlap with your proposed project. on paper, we all have 3.8 GPAs and 650-700 V GRE scores and one or two foreign languages under our belts. we look the same. what makes you stand out is that your interests are perfect for a given program. which means you 1) need to figure out what your interests are, and 2) need to find programs that are really strong matches for those interests.

[TMP]

Agreed with StrangeLight. Two of my waitlists last year were actually at much better USNWR ranked than the other programs that I was rejected from. Surprise, surprise. I was just so thrilled. Also it's true that a lot of places of pre-determined financial packages. Especially now when budgets are cut and schools may not be able to afford to increase their packages just to lure a student away from another program.

Remember, you've been living China for a long time now and you really *don't* know what's going on in this country. It's really, really bad right now with the economy. I'm just saying this from a perspective of two returning Peace Corps volunteers who returned this past summer after serving for 27 months. They knew that things in this country were bad but not as bad as when they actually came home.

Best you can do is just be the best you can be and hope for the best... I think I've said this already but just can't emphasize this enough.

[kdavid]

Thanks again for your responses.

Everything you've all said makes sense and is starting to sink in. I appreciate the time you've all taken to reply.

In light of what you've all said, I have another question:

Let's say I've graduated and now have a PhD. I'm entering the job market. Let's say I've become known (but not well-known) for my PhD dissertation/publications, and while I'm not "famous", my interests show potential for further publications, etc.

Will the merit of my dissertation and other related research alone be enough to land me a good job if my PhD isn't from a great university? What do schools hiring professors look at first: research/dissertation or the name printed on my degree?

While it makes sense that I should choose a school which offers the best package, and which "feels right", I feel that if I were hiring a professor for my department, and had a list of 50 fresh graduates to choose from to fill one position, I'd likely look at those who graduated from better schools first.

Of course, I know nothing about what goes into hiring university professors. It just seems logical that grads who graduated from a better school may be considered first, and in a tough job market, sometimes you need as much help as you can get.

Edited January 4, 2011 by kdavid

[breakfast]

Not at all. You touched upon the unique situation Ivy grads find themselves on the job market. Just because they went to a university with a more known name ("better", as you wrote, is the wrong word here) does not mean they will do better on the job market. From what I understand, the Ivy league does a good job preparing their graduate students for research careers (TT jobs at Research universities). The reality is that almost none of us will get a job at an R1, if we get TT jobs all.

When you apply for a job, the search committee is going to look at a few different things. Yes, they will look at the quality of your research, but teaching experience is also very very important, and you generally don't get the best training for a teaching career at an Ivy. At my public state university, I am getting a lot of direct teaching experience. My department allows advanced PhD students to design and teach their own courses over the summer, and even as an MA student I am given a lot of responsibility in the classroom. I've looked at Ivy funding packages, and they just don't have the support for teaching that a lot of other universities do.

Search committees at teaching colleges or less "prestigious" universities might also pass over an Ivy candidate because of the belief that the Ivy hire might jump ship to "move up" to a better department if given the opportunity.

You are approaching this from entirely the wrong direction. Before you even think about specific universities, you need to come up with a research interest. Once you have a research interest, you need to think about specific scholars whose research interests you and you would like to work with. You probably won't make it very far if you think you want or need to go to Harvard or Yale but don't have any reason to actually go there.

[StrangeLight]

yeah, not to pile on too much, but you're asking all the wrong questions.

first of all, no one will "know" your work when you're a newly minted PhD. no one. even if you've published two articles, a chapter in a volume, and presented at 5 or 6 conferences (and this is a pretty high output for most grad students). so you won't be known, never mind potentially famous. what will set you apart when you apply for a tenure-track job at the satellite campus of a public university in the center of the country six hours from a major city is your research and your letters of recommendation. those letters should hopefully come from well-known professors inside and outside your field. if your program has superstars, then their letters will carry weight regardless of what school you went to. if your letters are from unknown professors but you went to an ivy league school, that won't get you as far.

[TMP]

What we are trying to show you here is that this is all a very, very long process that can only be taken a few steps at a time rather than doing long-term planning and expect most of the steps to be completed successfully. This is why, on another thread, I'm basically focusing on the present, not worrying about admissions decisions and thinking about which one is my *top* choice. You will be more sane as you will have better control over what's going on RIGHT NOW. So, right now, I am thinking about what to do when I return to the States from abroad in April and for the summer and just keep it to that. Small steps will allow to take better control of your direction.

I agree about Ivy teaching. One of the worst teachers I've had was a recent Columbia graduate (I was a junior in college and he just received his PhD). He was clearly brilliant but he absolutely had no idea how to relate to students. He could talk but just not in the right language that students could understand. While I visited a different Ivy, two professors were very open to admit that they feel that they haven't done a great job of preparing their PhD students for teaching and they are working on that. You get better at teaching by learning and watching other professors and lecturers.

Search committees, especially at liberal arts colleges and teaching-focused schools, will put a lot of weight on your teaching experiences. You will be ask to do a demo, describe your teaching philosophy, and show some sample syllabi for survey and upper-level courses. So as you are thinking about the PhD, ask yourself if you are truly interested in teaching or not.

Ivy doesn't always guarantee jobs either. I have a contact at Miami University (in middle of nowhere Ohio) and she told me how excited the faculty was to get a PhD from Yale. This is a respectable LAC in its own region but not well-known nation-wide. Who knows how that Yale PhD felt about moving to rural, red Ohio? Another story- I currently have a friend who is in her final year at Harvard, in Classics (!), and is on the job market. She has to be open to all job listings and just apply to every single job, even though she would really prefer to have less complicated flight itinerary to Germany, where her family lives. If she ever gets a job in Wyoming or Manitoba, she'll have to make 2-3 connections at least. Fun times, after being able to take a direct flight out of Logan for 6 years.

So what I'd really like to say is that you are going to be in this for a very, very long time and you will need lots and lots of patience, as well as have the ability to say, "I am in this because I truly love what I am doing and I don't care what happens at the end." If nothing else, I tell people, it will be worthwhile to spend 6-8 years of my life getting "paid" to do what I love to do.

[my future is history]

About language:

With East Asian history, the language barrier is so high that I think having the language experience will help a lot. One of the students at Wisc that's doing pretty well spent four years in Japan teaching English, and this experience really put him at an advantage.

As far as language exams go, HSK doesn't have a level 8 anymore. Advanced starts at HSK-V now. How is your fantizi and classical? Even in modern history, most schools will want you to know some classical, and every school will expect familiarity with fantizi. If you do take and pass HSK-V or VI, I would definitely include that on your app. Depending on how serious about Japanese you are, fantizi overlaps with Japanese kyujitai, so you could study both at once.

You might want to look into taking a JLPT too. Stanford runs an advanced Japanese language school in Yokohama, and a ton of the students were Chinese hist or lit majors from Harvard -- I get the sense they really stress knowing Japanese. I also heard the best secondary scholarship on Chinese history is written in Japanese, and the flood of neologisms from the West via Japan 1870-1950 is hard to ignore.

About hiring:

During my first year, I was on the hiring committee for a new Chinese history prof here at Wisc. I have to remain vague because of confidentiality considerations, but in the end the person who got the job was from a flagship state school, and the person was chosen over a few Ivy Leaguers. I ended up TAing for said professor, really nice person, and I don't regret the hire.

Because of the stringent guidelines associated with equal opportunity employment, the selection committee ended up reading the potential hires' materials without a first or last name, much less a school name. I'm sure a brand name plays some part earlier in the process though.

Edited January 4, 2011 by east asian hist phd

[kdavid]

I'm very impressed and appreciative of everyone's responses so far.

I do tend to take it too far by thinking too many steps ahead. Thinking just one or two steps ahead seems to be the best plan for now.

As far as language exams go, HSK doesn't have a level 8 anymore. Advanced starts at HSK-V now.

I just took the "old" test November 28, 2010, and scored an "8" on the 初中 exam. The HSK website, when posting 2010's testing schedule, listed two exams, one for the "old" test, and another for the 进版. Is that the one you're referring to? By the way, the 进版 doesn't seem to be listed for 2011 dates, unless that's all they're offering now...?

How is your fantizi and classical?

I'm working on traditional characters and classical Chinese as well.

I've looked into taking the JLPT, and likely will once I get to that level.

@ east asian hist phd

What would you recommend for a third language? I've started learning Russian as I figure that could satisfy the European language requirement that many schools seem to have.

Also, is reading knowledge of these languages enough? I can progress much faster if I don't have to focus on also learning how to speak or write them. I know I'll need to be able to understand spoken Japanese for the JPLT, so I've been working on that.

Edited January 4, 2011 by kdavid

[Riotbeard]

I'm very impressed and appreciative of everyone's responses so far.

I do tend to take it too far by thinking too many steps ahead. Thinking just one or two steps ahead seems to be the best plan for now.

I just took the "old" test November 28, 2010, and scored an "8" on the 初中 exam. The HSK website, when posting 2010's testing schedule, listed two exams, one for the "old" test, and another for the 进版. Is that the one you're referring to? By the way, the 进版 doesn't seem to be listed for 2011 dates, unless that's all they're offering now...?

I'm working on traditional characters and classical Chinese as well.

I've looked into taking the JLPT, and likely will once I get to that level.

@ east asian hist phd

What would you recommend for a third language? I've started learning Russian as I figure that could satisfy the European language requirement that many schools seem to have.

Also, is reading knowledge of these languages enough? I can progress much faster if I don't have to focus on also learning how to speak or write them. I know I'll need to be able to understand spoken Japanese for the JPLT, so I've been working on that.

I mostly agree with what people are saying about ranking, etc. I didn't apply to any Ivy league schools although I did apply to some equivalent programs. I think the prestige of your advisers is more important than your school. That being said... Hiring committees are not usually made up of people in your field, and some people may not know your big wig adviser in your subfield, so name recognition of your school can only help you. Don't apply to schools with a big name if your academic fit is poor, but if you were to get into a highly recognizable program and your adviser is doing what you want to do, ranking is worth taking into account. The ranking system is more based on how good academic think programs are not "reality". While this is a stupid system, it reflects what other people think of programs. Programs in the top 20 have a strong reputation, and that reputation can only help you. People who say otherwise are just ignoring the truth. You have to think of this as a business as much as it sucks. If you think you can thrive at a specific program and get accepted, go there over a higher ranked school, but if it were a fifty-fifty split decision and the only thing better in your mind about one is there ranking, I would go to the higher ranked, because it does put an astrix on your job applications. Hundreds of people apply for academic jobs, and that name recognition may get you into the pile of applications they read. That being said, a good PhD student can put together a hireable application anywhere. Thats my 2 cents

[my future is history]

I'm very impressed and appreciative of everyone's responses so far.

I do tend to take it too far by thinking too many steps ahead. Thinking just one or two steps ahead seems to be the best plan for now.

I just took the "old" test November 28, 2010, and scored an "8" on the 初中 exam. The HSK website, when posting 2010's testing schedule, listed two exams, one for the "old" test, and another for the 进版. Is that the one you're referring to? By the way, the 进版 doesn't seem to be listed for 2011 dates, unless that's all they're offering now...?

I'm working on traditional characters and classical Chinese as well.

I've looked into taking the JLPT, and likely will once I get to that level.

@ east asian hist phd

What would you recommend for a third language? I've started learning Russian as I figure that could satisfy the European language requirement that many schools seem to have.

Also, is reading knowledge of these languages enough? I can progress much faster if I don't have to focus on also learning how to speak or write them. I know I'll need to be able to understand spoken Japanese for the JPLT, so I've been working on that.

Oh, weird, the web site says on 关于分数等级的说明 section, 中国汉语水平考试（HSK）的分数等级共分11级，3-5 级为初等水平； 6-8 级为中等水平； 9-11 级为高等水平。I heard otherwise but I guess I heard wrong...

For second or third research languages, the emphasis seems to be on reading over listening and speaking. I forgot that the JLPT had listening, you might not want to bother then <.< JLPT grammar books are pretty helpful for reading, but the listening on the JLPT is actually pretty tricky.

As for your main research language, you'll probably have to give presentations in the language at some point, so speaking and listening are obviously necessary. You will have chances to learn more once you're accepted though. I think the main thing is showing that you have a solid foundation. The more the better, esp. if you can pick up the little annoyances (classical/traditional/cursive/calligraphy etc).

As far as the European language goes, I wouldn't stress over it. Compared to the ridiculousness of trying to learn the CJK languages, any of the Romance series are so easy that most students pick it up in a summer. Carol Gluck (Columbia) noted that her students usually took a summer of French and that would be enough to use it as a research language. I'm not sure about Russian though.

[kotov]

Eh. Russian is harder. Lots of unfamiliar roots and the grammar is way more complex, as well as the alphabet difference. However, if you learn Russian, it's easy to pick up Ukrainian and Belarusian and be a polyglot. [i should note that I'm not being a smart-ass; I worked with Ukrainian (though I wouldn't claim to be even close to fluent) for my UG thesis. Sorry if that sounded douchy.]

And I'd contend, as a Romanian speaker, that Romanian is more difficult to learn than the other Romance languages because the grammar is more complex and there are more unfamiliar roots (to an English speaker).

Edited January 5, 2011 by kotov

[kdavid]

Oh, weird, the web site says on 关于分数等级的说明 section, 中国汉语水平考试（HSK）的分数等级共分11级，3-5 级为初等水平； 6-8 级为中等水平； 9-11 级为高等水平。I heard otherwise but I guess I heard wrong...

This website outlines the six levels (on the left-hand column) of the "New HSK", also referred to as the 进版. At the moment, both tests are being used, though I'm not sure what to think of only the old HSK being used in 2011. Perhaps they'll update the website later.

As for your main research language, you'll probably have to give presentations in the language at some point, so speaking and listening are obviously necessary. You will have chances to learn more once you're accepted though. I think the main thing is showing that you have a solid foundation. The more the better, esp. if you can pick up the little annoyances (classical/traditional/cursive/calligraphy etc).

My Mandarin level is near-native. At the moment I'm working specifically on being able to discuss more specialized topics, etc.

I'll work on Japanese as the primary third, and get a good foundation in Russian. There are tons of Russians here in Harbin, so it wouldn't be a problem to practice a bit as well.

[StrangeLight]

alright, seriously. who is telling you guys that hiring committees aren't made up of people within your subfield?

i go to a pretty small grad program (a massive school with a small-ish department and cohort). we're hiring 3 new faculty members. for the latin american search committee, we've got one heavyweight latin americanist, a latin americanist senior grad student, and two professors whose secondary fields are latin american (one does transnational US-caribbean-central america and the other does africa/african diaspora). two are well-versed in the field and two are largely up to date with the major works and trends of the field.

for our german/eastern european search, everyone on the committee is a central/eastern europeanist. for our east asia search, again, two primary east asianists and two others whose secondary fields demand a familiarity with east asian history.

they're gonna know your field. i promise. and even if the committees aren't stacked with specialists, they're going to consult the specialists they know to find out which programs and advisors are really the cream of the crop. from my (admittedly minimal) first-hand and second-hand experience, the only hirings where "ivy league" trumps all is at the community college level. and i imagine the OP isn't looking for a career at a community college.

[BadgerHopeful]

and i imagine the OP isn't looking for a career at a community college.

The OP - and you - will take whatever position he can get, community college or not.

[StrangeLight]

The OP - and you - will take whatever position he can get, community college or not.

hah! i know. i'll take any job i am lucky enough to be offered. my snark was for the OP. i guess i needed to add a smiley to convey that.

[Riotbeard]

alright, seriously. who is telling you guys that hiring committees aren't made up of people within your subfield?

i go to a pretty small grad program (a massive school with a small-ish department and cohort). we're hiring 3 new faculty members. for the latin american search committee, we've got one heavyweight latin americanist, a latin americanist senior grad student, and two professors whose secondary fields are latin american (one does transnational US-caribbean-central america and the other does africa/african diaspora). two are well-versed in the field and two are largely up to date with the major works and trends of the field.

for our german/eastern european search, everyone on the committee is a central/eastern europeanist. for our east asia search, again, two primary east asianists and two others whose secondary fields demand a familiarity with east asian history.

they're gonna know your field. i promise. and even if the committees aren't stacked with specialists, they're going to consult the specialists they know to find out which programs and advisors are really the cream of the crop. from my (admittedly minimal) first-hand and second-hand experience, the only hirings where "ivy league" trumps all is at the community college level. and i imagine the OP isn't looking for a career at a community college.

When you apply to Northeast South Dakota State University, they don't have a hiring committee with 3 people in your subfield, because they probably dont have a grad program, and unless your an americanist only one faculty member in your subfield. Any school that has more than a masters program probably will have a better stacked hiring committee, but most tiny schools ( like the ones we will all be applying to for our first tenured job) won't.

[gradstudenthistory]

I've been lurking on this board from time to time for a while (since I myself applied and got into grad school a few years ago -- every so often I pop in again to see who might be applying).

To the original poster: As a current graduate student at a Top-5 program, I can advise you that the best way to get into an Ivy League school is to focus on research skills and experience. The best way that you can prove to the admissions committee that you would be a good bet as a PhD student is if you can show that you've "done history" effectively before. I came straight from undergrad, but my sense is that the farther out you are, the more research experience they are going to expect of you. As for myself, I had done some archival research for my undergraduate thesis.

Less a "qualification" than a mere requirement is that you have all the languages you will need to pass the general exams and do the research for your dissertation. Some schools/professors will let you get away with still needing to work on one, but you should be very well-linguistically prepared. And my sense is that language skills can only hurt you, but that they're unlikely to help you very much. (I might be underselling the advantage of being multilingual just a little, I suppose.) But yes, good language training is a must.

They are likely to cut you some slack on the verbal section of the GRE since you are a non native speaker, though you're TOEFL scores will have to be adequate.

Writing sample, very important -- and should demonstrate that you have a solid training in historical research skills as well as analytical thinking. Choose wisely.

Finally, the other extremely important criteria for an Ivy is to get strong letters of recommendation from well-known faculty. As for my own: I had a history superstar of sorts; my main advisor, who was not a superstar but did know the faculty at all the schools I was applying quite well; and a third rec that I doubt helped me as much. So from my experience, having 3 strong recs, only 2 of whom likely had leverage worked. I do think that the second letter I mentioned -- from the non-superstar but nevertheless well connected advisor -- was probably the most helpful. It's an unfair fact of these admissions that knowing someone helps enormously. But it's important to be aware that it's true and do your best to help it work to your own advantage.

Also...

I see that there has been some debate here as to the relative merits of an Ivy education. Maybe I would be expected (given my own good luck) to say this, but it's nevertheless true: going to the best school you can get into is extremely important. It is not the only factor. I have colleagues here with bad advisors who aren't happy, and would likely have been happier elsewhere. It happens anywhere, and you need to do whatever you can to make sure it doesn't happen to you. (Note, faculty who are currently up for tenure but who have not yet been observed as advisors with tenure are unpredictable.) But having a PhD from a Top-10 school is huge on the job market. The appalling fact is that these job search committees get thousands of applications, and they have to weed some out somehow. You hear of lesser known universities getting weeded out completely.

Also, another anecdote: I went to a public school for undergrad. One of the top public schools, but nothing Ivy caliber. When I talked to one of my profs about grad school, he said to me, "We only hire professors from about seven different schools. Go to one of those seven if you want a chance." I suspect seven is a mild exaggeration, but it captures the picture right.

It's true that Ivy League students don't always get the best teaching experience. They always say that about Princeton students in particular. But Princeton students do extraordinarily well on the job market. I am not entirely sure about the relative success of Ivy candidates compared to others at liberal arts college jobs, but the conventional wisdom where I go is that you want to avoid teaching at an LAC if you can because you will get a 4-4 teaching load and never have time to do the research to move elsewhere. Admittedly, there's a research-university bias to the logic here, and some might be happy at an LAC (although 4-4 sounds terrible to me, personally). But the big point I would make is that having a PhD from an Ivy has really helped colleagues of mine to weather the economic downturn on the job market. It's tough everywhere, but candidates from my school have done extraordinarily well. (Wherever you do end up choosing from, you should inspect the placement records quite carefully before making your decision.)

It's not fair, but job prospects are undoubtedly better with an Ivy or similarly-prestigious PhD. It's important to be aware of these realities when applying to grad school and making selections. Don't go to a school where you would be miserable or with a terrible advisor, but go to the best-ranked school that is a good fit. Superstar faculty at lower-ranked schools can give you an edge, but there's a limit to how much of an edge. It might not be worth it if you have the chance to study with a rising star, or a solid department that covers your research interests, at a higher-ranked school.

Also: regarding the OP's point that being a good Top-10 contender would make him a good candidate anywhere, that's absolutely true. There are exceptions (particularly if the applicant has not chosen logical programs), but most of the students who get into Ivy League schools get into all or most of the other schools they applied to. Again, anecdotal evidence, but I also know a lot of grad students. The admissions process is exceptionally tough, but the candidates who have struck the "winning formula" have a tendency to be successful across the board.

Good luck!

[rmcclymo]

At the last two universities I have attended, almost every new hire has been from an ivy - thus, it seems if you want a job in academia after your phd, your chances are greatly increased if you went to an ivy. Don't get me wrong, I think this is messed up, but alas it is the reality (at least as I have experienced).