The sad truth

[truckbasket]

I kind of feel like those who get into Top 25 programs, though, are going to be a little less-willing to take a job at a lesser known, non-prestigious, small state school is BFE America. Idk. That's just how it seems to me.

You'd be surprised. When you look at the specific placement from some of the Ivies, they're placing some of their graduates in rinky-dink no-name locations. A surprising amount of their grads are ending up in community colleges / state schools where 4/5 and 5/5 loads are the norm -- meaning no research / writing. This is primarily due to the super-saturation of the profession and its specific fields (some of which are far more saturated than others i.e. 20th C. American is by far the most overpopulated, whereas job prospects for medieval / rhet / comp aren't nearly as bad). And if you glance through the listings of a few top 50 small LACs, you'll find that nearly all of the faculty are from top 15 PhDs with the odd wild card thrown in of someone who graduated from Chicken Leg Community College, AL but had some crazy success in other areas. The smaller, private LACs operate like businesses, and what better way to sell your $200k program to some prospective kid's parents than to fill your ranks with top-tier PhDs. It's sad, but it's just how it is.

If the top 15 are out then the trick, it seems, is to become the wild card -- which I think would be more fun anyway.

[ZeeMore21]

On 8/10/2011 at 3:08 PM, ahembree said:

I wouldn't be surprised if WUSTL made a little jump in the next 5-6 years. They seem to be getting a good rep as a smaller, "up-and-coming" program. Maybe I'm biased as a prospective applicant...

No, you are not just being biased. WUSTL and Vanderbilt are definitely making its way up the list, and rightfully so.

[ZeeMore21]

Where things get interesting, IMHO, is the question of "top-ranked program with well-known advisor" versus "lower (say, 25-50esque, and understand that I'm not referring to any set of rankings but just general impressions of what's successful versus not) ranked program with ZOMGSUPERSTAR advisor."

Very interesting question indeed. I am in latter group...going to a school that is ranked #30 but has a couple stars in my field....Vandy's program actually splurged a couple years ago to bring a handful of established, reputable African American lit professors. I 'm eager to know if anyone has any experience being in a situation like this.

Edited August 10, 2011 by ZeeMore21

[truckbasket]

On 8/10/2011 at 4:34 PM, ZeeMore21 said:

 

No, you are not just being biased. WUSTL and Vanderbilt are definitely making its way up the list, and rightfully so.

I remember seeing an unofficial list of "new-Ivies" and WUSTL was on it, as was Vanderbilt. WUSTL has a fantastic placement program, too.

[Two Espressos]

A couple additional things to consider:

1. Rankings are somewhat slippery in that a program’s prestige can sometimes shift within a relatively small period of time (five years or so). If a program catches your eye that’s not in the top 15, but is pioneering some relevant advances within the field, it might still be worth pursuing further. It’s a bit more of a crapshoot than sticking with the safety of the Ivies, but there may be some advantages to jumping in with a more progressive, forward-thinking program if that lends itself to the kind of work you’re interested in. (Digital Humanities, Rhet/Comp spring to mind).

2. The humanities have trends that come and go, and those trends can be very effective when on the market. Hiring institutions will often align their needs to what’s hot in the field, in addition to looking for scholars who show transdisciplinary research. The ability to keep your thumb on the pulse of professional trends and marketing yourself as a scholar who owns several academic hats will also increase your chances of catching a committee's attention. (Of course this can be tricky as what’s fashionable now might not be so in six years, but at least being mindful to the direction of the field is important.)

3. Ivies have problems that are unique to them regarding the job market. Greg Semenza makes some good points about the state of the Ivies in the current market: “Many Ivy League Ph.D.s find themselves being systematically excluded from certain kinds of job searches [. . .] because of unfair assumptions regarding their willingness to profess in nonelite colleges and university settings. In fact, job placement has become an extremely difficult matter for faculty and administrators at many prestigious universities, where placement rates have in many cases sunk below those reported by institutions usually ranked lower.” While it’s still true that the Ivory tower is still the best guarantee of a TT position, they face their own set of obstacles that lower-ranked programs don’t have to deal with.

4. It’s been mentioned, but if the work you’re doing is innovative and relevant, and you’re in a situation where you have good support to actively do the work and build your name as a new scholar, this can serve to somewhat level the playing field against better-ranked programs. On one of my visits to a medium-ranked program, I met with a student who is essentially being courted by several institutions based on his unique dissertation that was already picked up to become a published monograph. I also know several academics who landed their TT positions, not solely through their scholarly writing, but through side work writing articles / texts that are less erudite and have a more accessible role in the world. In a prickly political climate in which the humanities constantly has to justify their existence, finding meaningful ways to bridge scholarly erudition and throw a rope down from the Ivory tower is becoming increasingly important.

5. Lastly, teaching experience is vital. In the hilariously dated, yet still useful, “Getting What You Came For,” Robert Peters says “The amount of teaching-free financial aid you are offered by different schools should be a major factor in deciding which school to attend – the less teaching, the better” (54). Although dangerously misleading on a nuclear scale, this demonstrates just how rapidly the nature of the field has shifted (the revised text came out 1997). And this is one of the problems that the Ivies (or very well-funded programs with fewer teaching requirements) can be faced with. In his book, Semenza mentions a well-respected institution that won’t even consider a potential applicant who has fewer than ten classes taught under her belt. So having the ability to fine tune your teaching chops while completing your Ph.D. is hugely important, and having a spectrum of courses on your C.V. will only work in your favor. Although not greatly ranked, one of the programs I was looking at offered a fantastic stipend (almost 30k) and was quite boastful of the fact that very little teaching would be required (only two classes taught during the five year duration). I ended up going with a program that offered me half the money, and a butt load of teaching experience. Although it’ll be challenging, I’ll come out of that program having taught a variety of courses in a variety of styles, which, I think, will help in the long run.

Of course, attending an Ivy is going to provide you with a degree of insulation on the job market that simply can’t be matched. However, to reiterate Semenza’s main point: there are ways in which the playing field can still be leveled. If you’re able to do work that is meaningful, pertinent, and fresh while receiving the support you need to do so – and gaining that all important teacher training – the market should (hopefully) be somewhat responsive to that (I know that it is from firsthand experience on committees). So much of this process is serendipitous, but I’ll speak for myself by saying that I busted my ass to get to this point, and I’m more than willing to keep on busting it to do some cool work. And as long as I do that, I’m sure things will fall into place however they’re supposed to.

This is a fantastic post. My personal favorite so far.

I'm just an undergrad, so I don't know much about prestige/placement. Another poster said something about PhDs getting jobs in schools slightly less prestigious than the one they attended. I had noticed something of the sort before, but I thought it was just me. I don't have solid evidence, but this phenomena seems to be occurring.

As many of you may know, I have interests all over the place. I'm parsing them out, figuring out which ones I'm professionally interested in and which ones I'm merely interested in on a personal level. I'm really attracted to composition/rhetoric right now, and I think it might be the best fit.

I brought that up because composition/rhetoric is really unique compared to literary studies. The job market for rhet/comp isn't exactly good, but students from top comp/rhet programs (Penn State, etc) boast tenure-track placement rates of 95% or so. That's fantastic, especially with the way the market is now. So they perhaps do not face the same challenges that Ivy-league PhDs in literature do. Prestige is a different animal in rhet/comp (and I like how it is so).

Overall, this has been a very interesting discussion!

Edited August 10, 2011 by Two Espressos

[truckbasket]

Another poster said something about PhDs getting jobs in schools slightly less prestigious than the one they attended. I had noticed something of the sort before, but I thought it was just me. I don't have solid evidence, but this phenomena seems to be occurring.

It's commonly acknowledged that that's how the hierarchy works; virtually everyone I've conferred with in academia has told me the same thing, and I believe it to be true. But it's also important to remember that the humanities as we know them are in flux. Our mentor's experiences in grad school and within the profession are quite different to ours. Even younger professors who finished their PhDs five years ago were playing a very different hand to what we're now working with. While it has become considerably more difficult to get into programs and to find work, one thing we know for sure is that the changes will continue to roll in -- both good and bad. Staying afloat and learning how to navigate these changes will be our key.

Bypass the hierarchy and be the wildcard; do something that sets you apart from the rest.

[qbtacoma]

One last thing to chew on that plays a big role in the process is just how much energy does the program invest in placement. What training, specific to the profession and the job market, do they offer?

A friend’s husband is a prof at a NY institution ranked somewhere in the 70s. He recently took on the role of Director of Placement and Professional Development, and in just one year, their placement rate went from less than 15% to 100% (no exaggeration). Obviously the program didn’t change in this time, nor did its reputation. But the relentless effort that this guy put into getting these students placed made all the difference. So that’s a key factor as well.

I'm not quite done reading the thread yet, but I really have to jump in and say YES. The much less sexy bureaucratic support from and institution is nonetheless extremely important. My undergrad institution, though well-known in its region and well-regarded by adcomms in many fields, is not well-known generally. My opinion of the student body is that it is...not mediocre, exactly, but there are lots of kids who are going to college because that's what you do. A few stars, but overall not that special. Yet every year several students get Watsons, Fullbrights, Rhodes, Peace Corps, or other high-profile accolades. This is all because of one staff member whose job it is to help students craft their applications to these programs. She makes a HUGE difference.

[bdon19]

WOW, I'm really enjoying everyone's take on this! It really is a hot topic, and something, alas, that all of us here have to consider.

I wanted to throw in my $0.02 on a couple of points.

I wholeheartedly agree that, in the case of certain subfields, finding a program that is strong in that particular concentration is of the utmost importance and that the importance of the program's "rank" may in such cases be a lot less important in comparison to the overall strength of the faculty in that field.

However, I also agree with the poster who makes the claim that "you will likely land a job at an institution/department of slightly less prestige than your degree granting one." Even if we make room for the occasional "wild cards," the fact still remains that, generally speaking, your "lesser" institutions (and I include my much-beloved, higher- but not super highly-ranked LAC in that category) are saturated with degrees from highly-ranked programs. I'd love to find a program that would let me thrive to the extent that I could be that one "wild card," but I don't think that's necessarily something you'll know until you're nearly ready to go out on the job market. I think a lower-ranked program has the potential to allow certain students to excel in a way that a higher-ranked one wouldn't necessarily, but, at least in my field, I still haven't found anything below the top-25 or so that even sticks out to me.

There are so many factors that go into this process, and, unfortunately, most of us only gotten a taste of what it's like at this point. I think at this point all I can do, at least, is find the program that will have the best possible combination of fit, prestige, job placement, and faculty for me. I think that at least puts me a step or two above some of the applicants floundering around out there. *shrugs*

[Timshel]

I think a lower-ranked program has the potential to allow certain students to excel in a way that a higher-ranked one wouldn't necessarily, but, at least in my field, I still haven't found anything below the top-25 or so that even sticks out to me.

See, I'm having the exact opposite problem. Most of the top 25 schools are very traditional, and what I do is not. My interests are psychoanalysis, specifically trauma studies, and ethnic lit, specifically latino/a. It's hard to find ANY schools that have professors that do trauma studies, let alone alone in the top 25. So far, my short list only has 2 in the top 25, but most are at least around top 50.

[ZeeMore21]

See, I'm having the exact opposite problem. Most of the top 25 schools are very traditional, and what I do is not. My interests are psychoanalysis, specifically trauma studies, and ethnic lit, specifically latino/a. It's hard to find ANY schools that have professors that do trauma studies, let alone alone in the top 25. So far, my short list only has 2 in the top 25, but most are at least around top 50.

Have your tried researching who is in your field as far as trauma studies? You could apply to schools these scholars teach at as well as schools they attended for their PhD.

[Timshel]

Have your tried researching who is in your field as far as trauma studies? You could apply to schools these scholars teach at as well as schools they attended for their PhD.

Yeah. They are at Cornell and Emory, which are the two schools I said were top 25, or overseas, for the most part. So I am definitely applying to Cornell and Emory, but those are both REALLY hard to get into.

[ZeeMore21]

Yeah. They are at Cornell and Emory, which are the two schools I said were top 25, or overseas, for the most part. So I am definitely applying to Cornell and Emory, but those are both REALLY hard to get into.

I see. I went online out of curiosity and saw that NYU also has a Trauma Studies program...I am thinking that you would be able to pursue a doctorate degree in English and work towards a Trauma Studies certificate here.

[hashslinger]

The job market works both ways.

My alma mater, a PhD-granting institution (R1) ranked in the 70s, doesn't have many faculty members from the upper tiers. In fact, only two faculty have PhDs from top-ten schools. A few years ago, they rejected a well-published Yale applicant for someone with a much less prestigious degree for reasons of "fit."

I don't think this kind of story is at all anecdotal, either. If it were--if going a school outside of the top 25 spelled doom--then programs like Minnesota, USC, Penn State, WUSTL, SUNY Buffalo, and Washington would be considered completely worthless. And yet, in the last few years, I've encountered recent up-and-coming scholars from all of these programs who managed to land fantastic jobs.

Oh yeah, that Semenza guy that everyone keeps quoting? Got his PhD at "low-ranked" Penn State.

[bdon19]

See, I know I referred to the "top 25" in my original post, but obviously there's a little deviation in that. When I and many of the faculty members I know talk about the "rankings not mattering," we're typically referring to the rankings within certain brackets on the list. Penn State, WUSTL and Vanderbilt may not be top 25, but they're within that small number JUST below the 25-mark, and they're also both up-and-coming programs. The US News rankings aren't set in stone, but still, as numerous others have discussed, an Ivy or top-25 PhD will have better job prospects across the board. Yes there are exceptions, there are lots of exceptions, but we can't ignore cold hard evidence.

I looked at a number of schools outside the top 25, trying to find that elusive "fit" factor. In my field, that didn't work out so well. But for others, like ZeeMore21, "lower-ranked" programs like Vandy, which I wouldn't call lower-ranked at all, ended up being better fits than the top schools. I had Penn State on my radar for a while, but realized ultimately that it would not be a good fit for me, so I crossed it off my list. This is a sticky question, and we've had a great discussion about it. We're never going to get clear-cut answers, and the answer that works for one may not necessarily work for another. Thanks for all your answers, everyone!

[ZeeMore21]

Great last line.I think Semenza is absolutely great, and he serves as an excellent example.

Thanks for starting this thread bdon19! This is definitely a complex question, but also a very important one. I have enjoyed reading everyone's comments. I do hope that you are able to find middle-ground in your school search- it would be nice to go to a top-25 school that is also a good fit for your when it comes to your research interests.

[ThePoorHangedFool]

First and foremost I apologize for perhaps repeating a past question that this thread has already answered; my Internet and/or computer is being obstinate and I currently can only view the first and third pages of posts. Thus, someone may very well have already addressed this on page 2, unbeknownst indefinitely to me, and therefore in light of this I feel this disclaimer is warranted. : )

Now then: I have a question to those with experience in this department of the application process. This is a purely hypothetical situation I'm proposing at the moment, but there are likely chances, I believe, for it to take place at some point in the next few months for any number of us.

As one does research on the faculty members at the various schools to which one plans on applying--these being, specifically, programs that range from among the "top tier," so to speak, down to schools ranked closer to the bottom of a top-50 list--one is bound to find a handful, at least, of faculty that appear to be the perfect match in terms of one's intended future research and concentration(s). If a faculty member from one of the lesser-ranked programs either becomes *the* perfect match somehow (via direct communication, the applicant's thorough reading of his or her past work, etc.), would it be more worth it to attend that lower-ranked program IN the event that the applicant in question were to get into a school ranked much, much higher?

That could possibly be confusing, I know, so I can rephrase if needed, but input and opinions on this would be much appreciated. I've been concentrating pretty intently on finding the faculty at the different programs in which I'm currently interested whose interests seem to fit my own the best, and am just curious about this potential situation.

Not that I personally plan on receiving a spot at one of the top-ranked programs, for a variety of reasons, but that's no real matter yet, I suppose.

Edited August 13, 2011 by ThePoorHangedFool

[Two Espressos]

First and foremost I apologize for perhaps repeating a past question that this thread has already answered; my Internet and/or computer is being obstinate and I currently can only view the first and third pages of posts. Thus, someone may very well have already addressed this on page 2, unbeknownst indefinitely to me, and therefore in light of this I feel this disclaimer is warranted. : )

Now then: I have a question to those with experience in this department of the application process. This is a purely hypothetical situation I'm proposing at the moment, but there are likely chances, I believe, for it to take place at some point in the next few months for any number of us.

As one does research on the faculty members at the various schools to which one plans on applying--these being, specifically, programs that range from among the "top tier," so to speak, down to schools ranked closer to the bottom of a top-50 list--one is bound to find a handful, at least, of faculty that appear to be the perfect match in terms of one's intended future research and concentration(s). If a faculty member from one of the lesser-ranked programs either becomes *the* perfect match somehow (via direct communication, the applicant's thorough reading of his or her past work, etc.), would it be more worth it to attend that lower-ranked program IN the event that the applicant in question were to get into a school ranked much, much higher?

That could possibly be confusing, I know, so I can rephrase if needed, but input and opinions on this would be much appreciated. I've been concentrating pretty intently on finding the faculty at the different programs in which I'm currently interested whose interests seem to fit my own the best, and am just curious about this potential situation.

Not that I personally plan on receiving a spot at one of the top-ranked programs, for a variety of reasons, but that's no real matter yet, I suppose.

In this hypothetical situation, I would go with the higher ranked program. Since the applicant got into the higher program, that program must feel that the applicant fits well with their program's strengths/goals.

Unfortunately, there is a pecking order, and this pecking order does matter.

[diehtc0ke]

First and foremost I apologize for perhaps repeating a past question that this thread has already answered; my Internet and/or computer is being obstinate and I currently can only view the first and third pages of posts. Thus, someone may very well have already addressed this on page 2, unbeknownst indefinitely to me, and therefore in light of this I feel this disclaimer is warranted. : )

Now then: I have a question to those with experience in this department of the application process. This is a purely hypothetical situation I'm proposing at the moment, but there are likely chances, I believe, for it to take place at some point in the next few months for any number of us.

As one does research on the faculty members at the various schools to which one plans on applying--these being, specifically, programs that range from among the "top tier," so to speak, down to schools ranked closer to the bottom of a top-50 list--one is bound to find a handful, at least, of faculty that appear to be the perfect match in terms of one's intended future research and concentration(s). If a faculty member from one of the lesser-ranked programs either becomes *the* perfect match somehow (via direct communication, the applicant's thorough reading of his or her past work, etc.), would it be more worth it to attend that lower-ranked program IN the event that the applicant in question were to get into a school ranked much, much higher?

That could possibly be confusing, I know, so I can rephrase if needed, but input and opinions on this would be much appreciated. I've been concentrating pretty intently on finding the faculty at the different programs in which I'm currently interested whose interests seem to fit my own the best, and am just curious about this potential situation.

Not that I personally plan on receiving a spot at one of the top-ranked programs, for a variety of reasons, but that's no real matter yet, I suppose.

As someone who went through a situation like this one, I would choose the top-ranked program. In my case, it was between a lesser ranked school with an advisor who was perfect for me and a top 10 program with a few people that I was excited to work with but weren't as close of a fit. I chose the top 10 program in the end because I ultimately didn't want to bank my graduate career on one person. I mean, who knows what will happen in the next five to seven years? I figured I would feel much more secure in the hands of 5 or 6 people who may not directly work on what I work on but could all lend their expertise to my work in different and fascinating ways.

Even if it weren't for the fact that the program I'm in now had multiple people to work with, I probably still would have chosen it for many of the reasons that have been detailed in these posts. This becomes more and more true as the gap between reputations becomes larger. Editing yet again to add that there would also be nothing stopping you from keeping in contact with that perfect advisor if you turn his or her school down.

Edited August 14, 2011 by diehtc0ke

[ZeeMore21]

First and foremost I apologize for perhaps repeating a past question that this thread has already answered; my Internet and/or computer is being obstinate and I currently can only view the first and third pages of posts. Thus, someone may very well have already addressed this on page 2, unbeknownst indefinitely to me, and therefore in light of this I feel this disclaimer is warranted. : )

Now then: I have a question to those with experience in this department of the application process. This is a purely hypothetical situation I'm proposing at the moment, but there are likely chances, I believe, for it to take place at some point in the next few months for any number of us.

As one does research on the faculty members at the various schools to which one plans on applying--these being, specifically, programs that range from among the "top tier," so to speak, down to schools ranked closer to the bottom of a top-50 list--one is bound to find a handful, at least, of faculty that appear to be the perfect match in terms of one's intended future research and concentration(s). If a faculty member from one of the lesser-ranked programs either becomes *the* perfect match somehow (via direct communication, the applicant's thorough reading of his or her past work, etc.), would it be more worth it to attend that lower-ranked program IN the event that the applicant in question were to get into a school ranked much, much higher?

That could possibly be confusing, I know, so I can rephrase if needed, but input and opinions on this would be much appreciated. I've been concentrating pretty intently on finding the faculty at the different programs in which I'm currently interested whose interests seem to fit my own the best, and am just curious about this potential situation.

Not that I personally plan on receiving a spot at one of the top-ranked programs, for a variety of reasons, but that's no real matter yet, I suppose.

Very interesting question! I would only attend the lower-tiered institution if there were a handful of professors that seemed like a good fit...I don't think I would attend an institution because of one professor. Going to a program for one professor could be risky...you may attend the program and find out that you and the professor don't get along personality wise, or that the professor isn't really reliable (i.e travels frequently, isn't consistent when it comes to communication). It may even be a possibility that the professor of interest is set to retire soon after you arrive or is on the way to another institution. There are so many factors that makes attending an institution for the sake of working with one professor a very huge risk. Given this risk, I would probably go with the higher-ranked institution...there might not be a professor who does exactly what you do, but you will find a professor who is still well qualified to provide you with basic advice on how to go about your research.

[bdon19]

Thanks for starting this thread bdon19! This is definitely a complex question, but also a very important one. I have enjoyed reading everyone's comments. I do hope that you are able to find middle-ground in your school search- it would be nice to go to a top-25 school that is also a good fit for your when it comes to your research interests.

I've enjoyed reading all the comments, too! It's interesting getting the perspective of those of us currently in the process of applying or who just went through it a year or two ago, rather than getting it from, say, the people on the Chronicle boards. I think we could easily get skewed perceptions there, as we have no idea what kind of jaded people are on that. Yes, we may be among them someday, but at this point we're still the hopeful ones.

ZeeMore21, I do hope I can find some more middle-ground schools that fit me well. Of course, I would love to attend a top 25 program if possible, and I think there's a chance that it might be, but who knows? I think I'm sticking with the advice of a trusted professor, who has basically said something along the lines of: "The top schools are the best in everything. If you aren't one hundred percent sure what you want to study, don't try to narrow yourself to lower programs that seem to fit you well. There's a good chance you'll change your mind." I got similar advice from a current grad student. While we obviously need to be focused to SOME extent in our SoP, they're not holding us to those interests and, besides the whole job market question, the top 25 schools really are going to have the better faculty across the board. This won't, of course, hold true universally, but it's a good point to mull over.

*Sigh.* Can't it just be December already? I just want to rip this Band-Aid off right now!