Big Name Schools vs. Lesser Known Schools/Terminal MA Programs

[lovenhaight]

I've had several people PM me asking advice regarding admissions based on their credentials, so I thought that I'd just start a thread in case others want to jump in on this as well. This may be unsolicited advice for some, but I wanted to put it out there as food for thought.

Many people seem to be very concerned with applying to the "big name" schools but have entirely discounted the smaller programs, and also seem to be somewhat insulted at the suggestion that they should include lesser known terminal MA programs in their search. In my opinion, it all boils down to one simple question.

Are you seeking admission to a graduate program because you want a degree with a certain name, or because you genuinely want to pursue graduate studies in Sociology?

If the answer is that you want the name, that's fine. I wish you all the best in the application process.

If the answer is that you just want to pursue graduate studies, I encourage you to at least add the smaller schools and the terminal MA programs to your list.

Here's another way to look at it:

How will you feel if all of your responses come back with a rejection? Would you regret not having applied to smaller programs that could give you the experience you need to apply successfully next time?

Some of the best advice that I was given by a faculty member was this: If you're applying to PhD programs to satisfy your ego or to prove to someone else that you're better than they are, it would be a better use of your time and money to seek some therapy.

[JohnBom]

Your advice is sound for people who "just want to pursue graduate studies." For those who are interested in getting a job in academia and pursuing sociology professionally after graduation, please think twice about terminal degrees and non-ranked schools.

[kbhaven]

Are you seeking admission to a graduate program because you want a degree with a certain name, or because you genuinely want to pursue graduate studies in Sociology?

I don't think this question is based on an appropriate dichotomy. Basically I want both.

[lovenhaight]

Your advice is sound for people who "just want to pursue graduate studies." For those who are interested in getting a job in academia and pursuing sociology professionally after graduation, please think twice about terminal degrees and non-ranked schools.

A terminal MA or MS can be a good stepping stone for admissions to the big name schools, as it allows time to hone in on research interests, put out some publications, and take part in professional socialization.

My intention isn't to suggest stopping at the terminal MA/MS, as those who wish to go on to a PhD program should select one with a thesis option, only to say not to discount the terminal MA/MS. For those who feel that a big name PhD program is the only ticket out of their current situation yet find themselves in the rejection pile their first time out, it is an absolutely viable option.

Edited February 13, 2012 by lovenhaight

[lovenhaight]

I don't think this question is based on an appropriate dichotomy. Basically I want both.

To want both is an absolutely acceptable answer to the question. If you know what you want, go for it full steam ahead.

I simply put this suggestion forth for those who feel that the Big Name programs are the only path to a graduate education but have doubts in terms of being competitive during this application cycle. For those who aren't as sure as you are, I think that it is an important question to ask...and it may be particularly pertinent to those who have had some time away from academia.

Edited February 13, 2012 by lovenhaight

[Darth.Vegan]

Well. I want both as well, but I am more than willing to go the terminal MA route. Next cycle I am applying to 10 PhD programs (most in the top 30, but one or two in the 50's), and 5 MA programs. I am applying to 5 MA programs because I am hoping to get into a competitive program like Columbia or MAPPS, or get into a lower ranked program with at least some funding. I have been told that I would be competitive at top 10 programs, but I am also very realistic about how competitive those programs really are. I see no shame in getting a terminal MA and applying to top 25 programs again in a couple years. I also have no real need for prestige, but I do care about job placement. That is finding a tenure track job at all, regardless of the school.

Edited February 13, 2012 by xdarthveganx

[abc123xtc]

I would love to go to a big-name school, but they also tend to be expensive. I can't go to one without funding. It's also about fit, and there are smaller universities that I would fit very well into and I don't think there's any shame in that.

[kbirch]

One caution on this: I applied to a lot of smaller schools, thinking I'd fit better there and had a better shot at getting in... They accept such small cohorts that I don't know if they'll even be easier to get into. I mean, obviously easier than the top 10 schools, but I think percentage-wise, they're still really tough.

Here's hoping, though!

[sociolog86]

I reject the notion that some silly organization's ranking of programs is what determines anyone's success in a career academia. Maybe some search committees are initially enamored by a fancy sounding institution as an applicant's grad school, but I see jobs as much more about sociality, the kind of work you're doing, who you've worked with (SPOILER ALERT: there are some high esteemed scholars at "unranked" programs just as there are some 'no-name' scholars at "highly ranked" programs), and research productivity. In short, the job market is nuanced.

Some of the comments I have seen on this site over the years do seem to point, however, that professional socialization at "top" programs might include stressing an idea that their students are categorically better than others. This kind of hierarchy in unnerving to me--it led to slavery, fascism, and genocide in several nation states throughout history.

Elitism in education is exactly the kind of social phenomenon sociologists should be working to end. Or, at the very least, well informed of its inaccuracies.

[The_Epicure]

@Sociolog86

I'm sure there are exceptions, but sociologists themselves find the prestige of a school matters a whole lot when being hired. All three of my letter of recommendation professors told me, with no uncertainty, that unless I could get into a Top 10 program with funding, they could not in good conscious recommend going to graduate school in sociology in the state it is in now. Thankfully, it worked out for me.

I want to have absolute freedom to do my research, write books, and publish articles, and for me, that means going to a top tier grad school, and being adequately prepared for the even tougher crapshoot that is the hiring process after graduate school. Idealism aside, I fully intend to make a career out of sociology, and I plan on doing everything I can to make that happen, within reason. Doing an unfunded masters at any level, and then doing an unfunded Phd is, to me, ludicrous. I love the research I do, but I would never go into crippling debt for it. As I have been told, if you can not get somebody to pay you to do something, then that is a clue it should remain a hobby.

I realize people have different aspirations, and every case is different, but I think many, many applicants need a healthy dose of realism when approaching the application process for graduate school in sociology. I am very glad I had professors who, early in my undergraduate career, told me what I needed to do to get into a top graduate school and explained what I should expect when approaching sociology as a profession

Edited February 14, 2012 by The_Epicure

[sociolog86]

@ epicure

If you're looking for absolute academic freedom, you certainly won't find it at "top tier" graduate school where you're often RA on someone else's project you could potentially care less about. I do, however, have friends who were perfectly pleased with their RA assignments during grad school and felt they opened doors. You definitely won't find absolute academic freedom on the tenure track. Collaboration and interdisciplinary work, to provide immediate examples, are rarely given due credit in tenure decisions.

I never mentioned doing unfunded graduate degrees. I agree that's probably ludicrous (although I can think of a few isolated situations where it might be appealing). I have a conference buddy who received over $55,000 in funding for her MA program. That level of funding, although I admit must be rare, isn't outside the range of possibilities, but you "top tier" students probably wouldn't know about that. Elitism can breed ignorance I think, although I certainly applaud your admission into the program you wanted to attend. I don't mean to say that "top programs" are in and of themselves bad. I mean to say that academic elitism reinforces a system of oppression that should have no place in a discipline so often leading the way on social justice.

My critique of academic elitism still stands. Thank you for providing further evidence to support it.

PS- Do you think the author's discussion of an "academic caste system" is a positive thing?

[dizzid]

The_epicure, for those of us who don't get into Top 10 programs with funding, do you suggest we work at McDonald's?

Also, for those undergraduates who don't go to Top 10 schools where would you suggest they be introduced to good Sociology? I'm not a math whiz so maybe I'm not calculating correctly but it seems to me that if the world has to rely on ten programs for producing quality sociologists we're going to be quite short in the very near future...

Furthermore, it has been argued quite sucessfully that education systems perpetuate class stratification. Perhaps in this case, those of you who go to Top 10 programs will remain secluded in the world of "Top 10-ers" and the rest of us who go to State schools will interact with society on a more fundamental level.

I personally cannot wait to start doing research and delving into a discipline that gave me a reason to aspire to more than being a receptionist. Maybe focusing on those who are in similarily disadvantaged positions is elementary but it's also what makes sense to me...

By the way, would your reccommenders recommend that I tell my reccommenders that I will not be accepting my fully funded offer because it wasn't to a Top 10?

[felicidad]

The_epicure, for those of us who don't get into Top 10 programs with funding, do you suggest we work at McDonald's?

Also, for those undergraduates who don't go to Top 10 schools where would you suggest they be introduced to good Sociology? I'm not a math whiz so maybe I'm not calculating correctly but it seems to me that if the world has to rely on ten programs for producing quality sociologists we're going to be quite short in the very near future...

Furthermore, it has been argued quite sucessfully that education systems perpetuate class stratification. Perhaps in this case, those of you who go to Top 10 programs will remain secluded in the world of "Top 10-ers" and the rest of us who go to State schools will interact with society on a more fundamental level.

I personally cannot wait to start doing research and delving into a discipline that gave me a reason to aspire to more than being a receptionist. Maybe focusing on those who are in similarily disadvantaged positions is elementary but it's also what makes sense to me...

By the way, would your reccommenders recommend that I tell my reccommenders that I will not be accepting my fully funded offer because it wasn't to a Top 10?

I'd be careful about taking offense to ivy tower elitism while in the same breath insinuating that certain professions are below the one you aspire to.

Especially if you actually intend to "interact with society on a more fundamental level," don't be surprised if your pity is unappreciated.

[lovenhaight]

I think that dizzidawn is saying that she used to work as a receptionist and that taking Sociology coursework made her want more for herself. I don't think that someone pointing out or insinuating that some jobs are paid less or are less prestigious is falling prey to ivy tower elitism. I think that it shows some common sense.

[sleepycat]

Epic, I think you offended practically everyone that could not get into or did not go to a Top 10. Sure you get a lot of freedom where you can teach, and prestige is everything, but not everyone can get into Top 10 nor aspires to be there. This is obviously a problem in academia and frankly, the elite ivory tower needs to be taken down a notch and realize sometimes it is not just where you went for grad school, but the quality of your publications and ideas. The ivory tower will protect its own, but that is only a group of only a small group of scholars.

[felicidad]

I think that dizzidawn is saying that she used to work as a receptionist and that taking Sociology coursework made her want more for herself. I don't think that someone pointing out or insinuating that some jobs are paid less or are less prestigious is falling prey to ivy tower elitism. I think that it shows some common sense.

Quite frankly, it seemed more like s/he was implying that certain jobs are less intellectually challenging. Maybe not with the receptionist comment, but definitely the McDonald's one. I get so sick of people denigrating fast food workers. Especially sociologists, who I like to think as more enlightened than that.

[Darth.Vegan]

Quite frankly, it seemed more like s/he was implying that certain jobs are less intellectually challenging. Maybe not with the receptionist comment, but definitely the McDonald's one. I get so sick of people denigrating fast food workers. Especially sociologists, who I like to think as more enlightened than that.

I get your point, but I think it also fair for someone (if possible) to attempt to put themselves in a labor/capital relationship that is less exploitative than the fast food industry. I think a lot of us in sociology would hope to see those relationships change to more equitable forms, but until then, it's not wrong to want better for ourselves. Frankly if it wasn't for nature of capital exploitation I don't think fast food (as it is known today) would even exist.

[dizzid]

Since clarification is needed: I responded to the tone and content of Epic's post.

As far as fast food jobs or administrative positions go, both can be done with a small amount of intellect and a large amount of labor or vice versa.

Epicure made the statement that by not getting into a Top 10 school with funding, you should not bother to complete a PhD program. My counter was to inquire about which jobs one who doesn't get into a Top 10 program should apply for. I chose the stereotypical fast food worker but I guess I could have gone with migrant worker, social worker or firefighter. After all those are also professions which don't require a Top 10 degree....

Loven hit it on the head, I was content being a receptionist (in DC where it's easy to make $50k a year as an admin) until I took a Sociology course. Going from receptionist to being accepted into PhD programs in four years is something I'm extremely proud of and can speak on personally. My former coworkers and bosses are exceedingly proud of me for settin goals and being intellectually CAPABLE of completing them.

My very first post on this board was to point out that a great many of you have the perfect trajectory into prestiguous programs and I do not. I have no desire to go to a Top 10 school, I guarantee I would burn the place down moments before being asked to leave.This does not mean that I don't want the most of my education, it means a Top 10 isn't a good fit for me. From the tones of this board, I can also guarantee that many of you will not find that comment amusing.

To bring this thread back to topic, before I was accepted into a program, my Plan B was to go into a terminal Master's program. If you have the passion and drive and will to succeed, apply to a lesser known school.

[Darth.Vegan]

I also think this whole thing about the top 10 is exaggerated. While it is true that outside of the top 25-30 landing a tenure track job right out of a PhD program is more difficult it is not impossible. To suggest however that finding a tenure track job would be near impossible if you went to say Cornell or University of Washington is just ludicrous. The same is true for SUNY-Albany, UCI etc. Outside of top 30 things get a bit more difficult, but there are plenty of of even top 75 programs that would allow you to eventually secure a tenure track position, albeit with more difficulty and patience. Getting a PhD from unknown or unranked school may cause more problems and people in that situation may find themselves forced to take visiting positions or the dreaded adjunct position, but again even from those programs it is not impossible to find a tenure track position with the right connections. Prestige does matter in the job market, no doubt about it. Maybe it shouldn't, but it does. That said, this thread has been exaggerated beyond epic proportions. Lets also keep in mind rankings change and 5-8 years is a long time.

[felicidad]

Since clarification is needed: I responded to the tone and content of Epic's post.

Fair enough. I did not detect the sarcasm. My bad!

[sleepycat]

My very first post on this board was to point out that a great many of you have the perfect trajectory into prestiguous programs and I do not. I have no desire to go to a Top 10 school, I guarantee I would burn the place down moments before being asked to leave.This does not mean that I don't want the most of my education, it means a Top 10 isn't a good fit for me. From the tones of this board, I can also guarantee that many of you will not find that comment amusing.

I totally agree with the sediment about wanting to burn down the place at a top 10 because I challenge things like crazy. I do get there is very traditional scholars on the forums and that is good in its own right and that may get you into Princeton, but I seek to challenge and move the discipline forward and at Princeton, it is more about reporting data then challenging norms. I might get challenged at NYU if I get in, although I made it very clear about my intentions in my ps and I will assume they agree with my projects if they let me in.

[msafiri]

All three of my letter of recommendation professors told me, with no uncertainty, that unless I could get into a Top 10 program with funding, they could not in good conscious recommend going to graduate school in sociology in the state it is in now. Thankfully, it worked out for me.

I have to say that that's an extreme perspective, particularly given that many of those attending Top 10 programs with funding have little desire to teach outside the top 25 or at the SLACs, HBCUs and other MSIs, and community colleges that are vital to ensuring that sociology remains a vibrant academic discipline. Given that many schools often have trouble attracting interested candidates because they are "small" or "no name" and thus scorned by top candidates reproduces inequalities in the discipline.

I want to have absolute freedom to do my research, write books, and publish articles, and for me, that means going to a top tier grad school, and being adequately prepared for the even tougher crapshoot that is the hiring process after graduate school.

I am sincerely curious to know where you're going to school where you can do this. Everyone, as far as I know, has constraints on their research, often imposed by their knowledge, funding agencies, their committee, and the amount of time available.

I also think this whole thing about the top 10 is exaggerated. While it is true that outside of the top 25-30 landing a tenure track job right out of a PhD program is more difficult it is not impossible.

...

Lets also keep in mind rankings change and 5-8 years is a long time.

Agreed on both counts. It is vital to think about where your POIs were working (if they even were!) 5-8 years ago, and then think about how this landscape might change in the upcoming 5-8 years. Until the "new" NRC rankings finally came out, my current department was very lowly ranked. But, in the years between the NRC surveys, they did a bunch of hiring at the assistant and full professor levels, bringing in new faculty and beefing up two specific areas within the department. As a result, when the "new" rankings came out, we found ourselves in the top 15. Now, those rankings came out *after* I'd already been here for a couple of years. If I had decided not to go to my current university because of its low ranking at the time, I could be in the position of having to smack myself in the face now because of its much higher ranking. Just some food for thought.

Epic, I think you offended practically everyone that could not get into or did not go to a Top 10. Sure you get a lot of freedom where you can teach, and prestige is everything, but not everyone can get into Top 10 nor aspires to be there.

Freedom can be a double-edged sword. It can mean that you get scorned for picking quality of life over prestige because you graduated from a Top 10 school and they don't want to be embarrassed when having to list where you now work on their website. (Or, they'll just not list it.) It can mean getting no support if you decide to pursue a nonacademic career, which, actually if your goals are like The_Epicure's and don't include teaching, can be an excellent choice. If you work at a research institute, you can pursue sociological research with funding and a handy team of interns and RAs, write books, and publish, without having the distractions that accompany academic life at a Reseach Intensive university.

Anyway, sorry for the long comment. Just wanted to share another perspective on the comments in this thread. It's been an interesting conversation thus far.

[The_Epicure]

Hey everybody,

I appreciate the feedback, and I have some responses/ additions, although I stand by most of what I said.

With regards to my "freedom to do research quote" I agree that I over generalized. There are always a million limiting factors that play into the research you are able to do. I was speaking more in terms of the long run. If I am able to get tenure somewhere someday, it will allow me a great deal more academic freedom.

With regards to the hubbub on elitism, I am speaking from a purely pragmatic standpoint. I want to get a tenure track job after getting my PhD, and that is incredibly hard to do right now. Going to a top ranked institution (and working as hard as I can while there) increases the odds of that happening. Also, my interests are broad enough right now that I felt comfortable applying to a few different top ranked programs. If you want to specialize in something specific, then that is certainly a reason to shoot for a specific program, but I am not willing to pigeonhole myself into a topic this early in my career. The "Historical Comparative Economic sociology" definition is about as specific as I want to get.

I'm sorry if I offended anybody, but I stand by what I said. It is an incredibly competitive market out there. I would say the the top 30 sociology programs graduate 300-350 PhDs every year, and there are simply not 300-350 tenure track openings in sociology departments every year. I don't have any stats to back that up, but I would be surprised if I am wrong. If your goal is to land a tenure track job, you need to go to as prestigious of a school as possible, work as hard as you can, and get lucky.

Edit: Also, the comment from my professors about "top ten schools" came when they asked me what I wanted to do with a PhD, and I said get tenure at a school, so I do have a specific process in mind that somewhat qualifies that statement.

Edited February 16, 2012 by The_Epicure

[Darth.Vegan]

Well then, I think you forget that specialization matters. My main focus is environmental sociology. It could be argued that the top programs for Enviro Soc are Madison, Cornell (Dev. Soc), Brown, Irvine among others...

Point being, only 1 of the schools listed is in the top 10.

[sleepycat]

Hey everybody,

I appreciate the feedback, and I have some responses/ additions, although I stand by most of what I said.

With regards to my "freedom to do research quote" I agree that I over generalized. There are always a million limiting factors that play into the research you are able to do. I was speaking more in terms of the long run. If I am able to get tenure somewhere someday, it will allow me a great deal more academic freedom.

With regards to the hubbub on elitism, I am speaking from a purely pragmatic standpoint. I want to get a tenure track job after getting my PhD, and that is incredibly hard to do right now. Going to a top ranked institution (and working as hard as I can while there) increases the odds of that happening. Also, my interests are broad enough right now that I felt comfortable applying to a few different top ranked programs. If you want to specialize in something specific, then that is certainly a reason to shoot for a specific program, but I am not willing to pigeonhole myself into a topic this early in my career. The "Historical Comparative Economic sociology" definition is about as specific as I want to get.

I'm sorry if I offended anybody, but I stand by what I said. It is an incredibly competitive market out there. I would say the the top 30 sociology programs graduate 300-350 PhDs every year, and there are simply not 300-350 tenure track openings in sociology departments every year. I don't have any stats to back that up, but I would be surprised if I am wrong. If your goal is to land a tenure track job, you need to go to as prestigious of a school as possible, work as hard as you can, and get lucky.

Edit: Also, the comment from my professors about "top ten schools" came when they asked me what I wanted to do with a PhD, and I said get tenure at a school, so I do have a specific process in mind that somewhat qualifies that statement.

This of course relies on if tenure actually exists for junior faculty by the time we enter the job market.