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

[Darth.Vegan]

Just to let you know, from the new ASA jobs report "In 2010 there were a total of 638 new PhD's granted." Which means the number of PhD's granted from the top 30 programs was nowhere near 300-350. Lastly in 2011 there were 890 faculty positions open, 41% of which were assistant professor positions.

Edited February 16, 2012 by xdarthveganx

[lovenhaight]

Just to let you know, from the new ASA jobs report "In 2010 there were a total of 638 new PhD's granted." Which means the number of PhD's granted from the top 30 programs was nowhere near 300-350. Lastly in 2011 there were 1,212 faculty positions open, 56% of which were assistant professor positions.

Way to research that statistic, Darth! This is a big part of why I wanted to start this thread. There seems to be so much mis- or dis-information out there, and a lot of it is in favor of continuing this elitism among the larger schools.

On another note...

Perhaps this is blasphemy, but I'm a bit disillusioned with the ASA of late. I think that it began when they were so hyped up about how academic sociologists aren't good at reaching out to public sociologists...and yet, there have been no real substantive motions made to create a more inclusive discipline. It seems that perhaps ASA is just another group reinforcing elitism in Sociology, at least on this topic.

[lovenhaight]

Just to add some more perspective to the issue of rankings, here's a link to the methodology used by US News and World Report: http://www.usnews.com/education/best-graduate-schools/articles/2011/03/14/social-sciences-and-humanities-rankings-methodology-2012

As social scientists, I would think that it should be fairly easy to see that rankings are inherently biased. Add to that the fact that 114 Sociology programs were surveyed with a 43% response rate (really, sociologists?!), and you may begin to realize that we have a "ignore the man behind the curtain" situation in regards to the great and powerful programs.

[Darth.Vegan]

[Darth.Vegan]

Again rankings also change. I doubt Berkeley will still be #1 in a few years with the budget crisis in the UC system.

[The_Epicure]

The ASA also has a bias to try and paint as rosy of a picture of the sociology job market as possible. Those statistics are vastly different from what I have heard from people in the field.

Trying to pretend like the job market is good is not going to help you upon graduation.

[Darth.Vegan]

You're right, actual cited statistics are no where near as reliable as your assumptions based on hearsay "from people in the field." You're going to produce some great research with that approach.

Lastly, I don't think the job market is "good." I would never consider roughly 350-400 tenure track jobs for roughly 650 new PhD's to be "good." We are simply suggesting that top 1X isn't the only path to tenure. I would also doubt there is much difference between 1X,2X and 3X. Outside of that things do get more complicated, but not nearly as bad as you have suggested. Don't mistake "not that bad" to mean "good."

Edited February 16, 2012 by xdarthveganx

[jenjenjen]

Just to let you know, from the new ASA jobs report "In 2010 there were a total of 638 new PhD's granted." Which means the number of PhD's granted from the top 30 programs was nowhere near 300-350. Lastly in 2011 there were 890 faculty positions open, 41% of which were assistant professor positions.

Could someone quickly explain to me the difference between 'academic jobs' and professor positions? I read that article you posted as saying there were 534 open faculty positions in comparison to the 638 phds granted (still not that bad of odds, but not fabulous). I was also under the impression that there were far more job seekers for positions in academia than job openings, but only from anecdotal reports.

[lovenhaight]

The ASA also has a bias to try and paint as rosy of a picture of the sociology job market as possible. Those statistics are vastly different from what I have heard from people in the field.

Trying to pretend like the job market is good is not going to help you upon graduation.

Do you ever actually read any of the job market publications from the ASA? They tend not to paint rosy pictures.

The comments that you have made regarding your perception versus what the research actually says makes me question your background as a social researcher. This is fairly elementary stuff here, and you can't seem to grasp it.

[The_Epicure]

You're right, actual cited statistics are no where near as reliable as your assumptions based on hearsay "from people in the field." You're going to produce some great research with that approach.

If those statistics are correct, fantastic, we'll all get tenure track jobs. You can quote the ASA all day, but I'll remain skeptical.

[sleepycat]

All of this assumes that everyone on the job market are just grad students. We also have to worry about professors wanting to move, or those who hadn't found job after they graduated a few years back when the market was worse. We should also look at projections for around 2018 given the fact we aren't going to be on the market until then. Based on the general trends of academia according to the chronicle of higher ed, adjunct hiring is growing and tenure is starting to fade, so these are what we have to look forward too.

Top 10 might get you a tenure job, but it is no way as secure as Epic makes it sound.

[The_Epicure]

Top 10 might get you a tenure job, but it is no way as secure as Epic makes it sound.

Yea, my point was that a top school might get you a tenure track job. I'm hugely pessimistic. I didn't mean to make it sound secure.

Edit: Sorry if you were talking about this: "If those statistics are correct, fantastic, we'll all get tenure track jobs." I was more being facetious, which doesn't always come through online.

Edited February 17, 2012 by The_Epicure

[Darth.Vegan]

I do, like many of you think tenure is on the way out. However, without tenure there may actually be chance that there are LESS adjunct positions and more full time non-tenure or contract positions. I am sure most of us do not like contract positions (myself included), but they sure as hell beat adjunct.

[sleepycat]

I do, like many of you think tenure is on the way out. However, without tenure there may actually be chance that there are LESS adjunct positions and more full time non-tenure or contract positions. I am sure most of us do not like contract positions (myself included), but they sure as hell beat adjunct.

That is a good point.

[ohhello]

Does anyone else on this board not even really care about professorships-- or "professional development"? I think I should, but I can't bring myself to care that much about the specifics.

[Darth.Vegan]

Does anyone else on this board not even really care about professorships-- or "professional development"? I think I should, but I can't bring myself to care that much about the specifics.

I care about not having to drive around to 3 different community colleges and making only $28,000/ year when I have $100,000 in student loan debt. Adjunct sucks.

[sciencegirl]

This thread has been so fascinating and has provoked so many thoughts for me over the last few days! I wanted to bring up the idea - while maybe unpopular here in this thread - that while there is some bias in hiring from top programs, there could be some logic to the idea that given the way graduate admissions is set up, that the top schools get a larger number of students who are more inclined to succeed in academia than programs that aren't in the top 30. Of course, I am not saying an all or nothing case, but there seems to be this thinking that the students who go and got into top programs got there because of some fluke, or they were legacy, or they knew someone at the school... more than likely these students when judged by the standards of what it takes to be a professor (ability to write, critically analyze reading, converse about ideas with faculty, work under pressure) showed promise to adcoms in the admissions process.

Of course there are people such as @dizzidawn who have had greater challenges to overcome (and I'm so happy you got into a program!), but for many applicants who were fortunate enough to not encounter big roadblocks, I would venture to say that it isn't like we didn't work hard. (I've always worked while in school, and yes in service jobs where people treat you like poop, working two jobs while applying to schools and studying for the GREs not from some $1k class I couldn't afford but from 2-3 used GRE books I bought for a total of $40) - and yes, I feel lucky that I always focused on school since I was a teenager. I just want to emphasize that everyone applying and going to phD programs from all tiers have worked very hard to get where they have gotten, and we shouldn't play a game of looking down on people in any "tier" and unfairly judging them.

We also think that when the job market comes around, all they look at is the phD program we went to... reality is they look at A LOT of things, such as your research that you are doing for your dissertation, your publication record, your talk, your building reputation as a scholar, the connections you make at conferences. Plenty of phDs from top 10 crash and burn at this level, and there are instances where people rock up "the ladder" based on their work... in fact, I've heard of this trap where students arrive in a top program and stop working hard thinking that their school's reputation will get them a job, only to slack off and get burned in the job market... apparently, this happens a lot.

[lovenhaight]

This thread has been so fascinating and has provoked so many thoughts for me over the last few days! I wanted to bring up the idea - while maybe unpopular here in this thread - that while there is some bias in hiring from top programs, there could be some logic to the idea that given the way graduate admissions is set up, that the top schools get a larger number of students who are more inclined to succeed in academia than programs that aren't in the top 30. Of course, I am not saying an all or nothing case, but there seems to be this thinking that the students who go and got into top programs got there because of some fluke, or they were legacy, or they knew someone at the school... more than likely these students when judged by the standards of what it takes to be a professor (ability to write, critically analyze reading, converse about ideas with faculty, work under pressure) showed promise to adcoms in the admissions process.

Of course there are people such as @dizzidawn who have had greater challenges to overcome (and I'm so happy you got into a program!), but for many applicants who were fortunate enough to not encounter big roadblocks, I would venture to say that it isn't like we didn't work hard. (I've always worked while in school, and yes in service jobs where people treat you like poop, working two jobs while applying to schools and studying for the GREs not from some $1k class I couldn't afford but from 2-3 used GRE books I bought for a total of $40) - and yes, I feel lucky that I always focused on school since I was a teenager. I just want to emphasize that everyone applying and going to phD programs from all tiers have worked very hard to get where they have gotten, and we shouldn't play a game of looking down on people in any "tier" and unfairly judging them.

We also think that when the job market comes around, all they look at is the phD program we went to... reality is they look at A LOT of things, such as your research that you are doing for your dissertation, your publication record, your talk, your building reputation as a scholar, the connections you make at conferences. Plenty of phDs from top 10 crash and burn at this level, and there are instances where people rock up "the ladder" based on their work... in fact, I've heard of this trap where students arrive in a top program and stop working hard thinking that their school's reputation will get them a job, only to slack off and get burned in the job market... apparently, this happens a lot.

I agree with most of what you're saying. I would just add that I doubt that there is a largely significant correlation between top programs and potential for success in academia. So many of the indicators used to measure academic success have been shown to make little to no impact on achievement, and there's also the whole personal preference issue mixed in. In my situation, I have a very high GPA, a very high GRE score, great LORs, publications (in progress), teaching experience, etc.; however, I've chosen to apply to only two schools with only one of those being in the top 10. I know that I'm not the only one in this situation, and I'm not attempting to toot my own horn by saying this, but there are plenty of well-qualified, ambitious, and intelligent people in lower-ranked programs.

I'm also coming at this as a 29 year old who has spent a lot of time working in academia on the administrative side at a prestigious public university, a smaller unranked regional state school, and a state flagship university with PhD programs that fall anywhere from the very top of the rankings scale to the mid-range (but still damn good). The R1 designation link that someone posted for clarification was from 1994...I'm assuming that things have probably changed since then. I also know that one of the factors in rankings is the amount of money that the university's foundation has. We'll begin to see more evidence of this when the state schools start dropping in rankings and the private schools move towards domination of the lists.

I do think that the top 30 schools have the luxury of being the biggest fish in the pond when it comes to selecting their cohorts, but I would guess that if we commissioned a study of academic aptitude and predictors of success among students/graduates of Sociology PhD programs, we'd see a fairly even distribution of talent.

And you're absolutely right, this has been an active and interesting conversation, and one that I think a lot of us feel is an important conversation to have if we hope to get away from this ivory tower elitist perspective that seems to pervade our discipline. Without being too Sisterhood of the Traveling Pants on this, perhaps those of us who are tired of the elitism in the discipline could or should pledge that wherever we end up, we do what we can to minimize the biases in regards to opinions of programs.

Edited February 17, 2012 by lovenhaight

[sciencegirl]

@lovenhaight.. I do think there is too much focus from us on GPA numbers, but not on what a GPA usually represents, but 4 years of academic coursework. And then coupled with 3 letters from former professors. And then add to it that about half of us spent more time in schools in masters programs. The GPA hence means a lot more than just a number... and I think we are trying too hard to compare a number that isn't comparable among us. For instance, a 3.9 at a place like Swarthmore (notoriously known for giving low grades) means a lot more than a 3.9 from other places.

If there is anything I learned from this process, is to not sell yourself short in the application process. I applied to 7 of the top 10 programs, and the results have been really really fascinating. So far, I've gotten into 2 of them, but they were not the top 2 I would have applied to if I were to limit myself to only 2 applications to the top 10. That if I were to drop that number down to only 2-3 applications instead of 7, I would probably have seen only rejections.

I also did not apply to the programs for prestige reasons, but more for faculty fit, program strengths, my academic interests, and location.

[msafiri]

Could someone quickly explain to me the difference between 'academic jobs' and professor positions?

Sure, "academic jobs" include positions as Research Associates that go to postdocs and can be multi-year positions. That said, professor positions can be teaching only, research only, or a blend of both (this is what most tenure-track jobs are).

[dsmiles]

Talking about prestige or ranking can be an uncomfortable and heated discussion. Unfortunately, I do think going to a school that is ranked highly not only in their specific department/program but the university in general will be very helpful during the job search (Ivy League for example). Like someone else said, a former professor of mine who also wrote me a letter of recommendation specifically stated that prestige/name of a university is very important during the job hunt. I don't necessarily agree and DONT think going to a lower ranked school means that you will never get a job, buti think academia is largely about prestige.