The recursive nature of prestige functionality

[sociology27]

That title is meant to be a parody but there is a point I have recently thought about. For all of our talk about how much we hate the function of prestige, rankings, and program status when it comes to hiring time; almost all of us are recursively reinforcing the status structures of the academy and the emphasis on prestige. Let me explain:

1) The most qualified applicants, in general, apply to the highest ranked schools. No, this does not mean that ranking is the only criteria on which we base our decisions; but it is certainly A criteria for most of us. After fit, it is probably the most important criteria for choosing what schools to apply to. (For those of you who had no thought of that in your head, or did not let professors press you into that kind of thinking, I tip my hat and say that this critique is not for you. Admittedly, I am not one of you).

2) After receiving decisions, ceteris paribus, we make our decisions with prestige in mind. For instance if I get into 5 schools, ranked 5, 15, 25, 35, and 45, I will likely choose 5 over 15, and almost certainly 5 over 45.

These are my assumptions on which I am going to argue, briefly, that rankings assume a signification BECAUSE of OUR decisions.

We say, 'of course, I would like the academies to not be so status oriented, but I have to play into the system and think about my future job prospects.' This is certainly valid, but it is also MAKING the rankings significant in a non-superficial way, and reinforcing the structure you vehemently disagree with in principle.

If we can agree that applicants are not homogeneously qualified and that their potential for being a great sociologist is not equal across the board (which I think we can, even if we disagree with the indicators), then we must admit that because of the aforementioned assumptions regarding OUR preferences, the highest qualified students with the greatest potential will apply and choose to go to higher ranked schools. Our practical concerns about the job market are driving this behavior; but this behavior is then driving the practical job market. When schools look to hire down the line, they understand what I have just stated; that applicants take the rankings seriously and place themselves, for the most part, in higher ranked departments when given a choice. This creates an actual, not theoretical, stratification of "talent" or whatever else you want to call "the systematic opinion of a community of scholars regarding the likelihood of success of a given student." So, when looking at a list of applicants for a job, of course prestige is going to be taken into account. In a very real way, you (collective) created the structure which logically reinforces stratification and status signification.

Wow, I cannot believe I just took the time to write that. The only point I am trying to make, and is something I'm struggling with right now, is that if you really want to change the status orientation of applying and hiring (the recursive circle I just outlined), disregard status in your decisions. Be the person who gets placed well at a lower school. Don't avoid the stigma, confront it and challenge it at an individual level. This is the only way the stigma will eventually signify nothing. Because as it stands, in general, it makes sense.

[socieconomist]

no matter what, academia would find a way to stratify. it's cultural truth: all cultures stratify...including academic culture. just pick the best program! whatever that means to you - lol

[socieconomist]

ps - i also can't believe i actually took the time to read all that...

Edited February 22, 2012 by socieconomist

[Darth.Vegan]

no matter what, academia would find a way to stratify. it's cultural truth: all cultures stratify...including academic culture. just pick the best program! whatever that means to you - lol

I really don't agree with this blanket statement. While most if not all modern cultures stratify, not all cultures throughout history have.

[The_Epicure]

I really don't agree with this blanket statement. While most if not all modern cultures stratify, not all cultures throughout history have.

Your comment made me look into this and I learned something new.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acephalous_Society

[Darth.Vegan]

Your comment made me look into this and I learned something new.

http://en.wikipedia....phalous_Society

yup. A lot of hunter-gatherer societies were quite egalitarian. Certainly not all, but it is very much possible for humans to exist without hierarchy.

Never mind numerous anarchist communities that have existed throughout time. One could also argue that non-hierarchical hunter-gatherer societies were the earliest anarchist communities.

[socieconomist]

that's fine... all academic cultures do. is that less blanketed?? (since that was the main point anyway - so try not to digress too much) I mean seriously? it think it's a bit pretentious to apply to the top schools in the country - or any school since a phd from anywhere will put you in the top 1-2% most formally educated class and then go... "hm... i may be reproducing various forms of stratification. how do I not reify the structures in question?" if you're that worried about it, pick the worst school you get into - or better yet - don't go to any school - of course... well... that won't really do anything to the structure at all... it'll just leave you w/o a phd and the system will continue quite well w/o you. haven't you read 'learning to labor'... edu is one of the 6 agents of socialization in our society... it's set up w/an expressed intent to stratify. by applying to schools you're saying you want to be one of the best and brightest, and I'm not really sure why that's a problem.

[Darth.Vegan]

Education does not have to recreate stratification either. Case in point: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_School_(United_States)

[socieconomist]

from the link you just posted: "In July 1914, radical anarchists who frequented the Ferrer Center, and loosely associated with its adult education program, plotted to bomb the mansion of tycoon industrialist John D. Rockefeller. On failing to enter the Rockefeller estate, they took the bomb back to the Lexington Avenue apartment of Louise Berger (a school habitué and an editor of the Mother Earth Bulletin), where it exploded, killing four people, including three of the bombers, and wounding many others, and brought political notoriety upon the Ferrer Center.^[3]"

*ahem... wow... i can't tell you how impressive this example is... the school is most famous for their attempt to blow up a fat cat... at least they didn't attempt to stick their bomb in their underwear - or maybe they did and that's how they ended up blowing themselves up instead of the fat cat - lol

also, apparently the longevity of these schools was about 5 years or so except for one that appears to have operated for about 25 years...

and again I didn't say academic culture has to be anything. I simply said it is stratifying, and you buy into it. again...not sure why that's such a problem.

oh... and i don't really buy that they were non-hirearchical just b/c wikipedia says so... get me an ethnographer in one of these joints and show me some data! (i guess suggesting scholarly data is "better" than wikipedia, though, would be reproducing stratification... oops.)

Edited February 22, 2012 by socieconomist

[socieconomist]

also see: http://www.mesacc.edu/dept/d10/asb/origins/dewaal/human_egal.html

2nd paragraph.

[Darth.Vegan]

from the link you just posted: "In July 1914, radical anarchists who frequented the Ferrer Center, and loosely associated with its adult education program, plotted to bomb the mansion of tycoon industrialist John D. Rockefeller. On failing to enter the Rockefeller estate, they took the bomb back to the Lexington Avenue apartment of Louise Berger (a school habitué and an editor of the Mother Earth Bulletin), where it exploded, killing four people, including three of the bombers, and wounding many others, and brought political notoriety upon the Ferrer Center.^[3]"

*ahem... wow... i can't tell you how impressive this example is... the school is most famous for their attempt to blow up a fat cat... at least they didn't attempt to stick their bomb in their underwear - or maybe they did and that's how they ended up blowing themselves up instead of the fat cat - lol

also, apparently the longevity of these schools was about 5 years or so except for one that appears to have operated for about 25 years...

and again I didn't say academic culture has to be anything. I simply said it is stratifying, and you buy into it. again...not sure why that's such a problem.

oh... and i don't really buy that they were non-hirearchical just b/c wikipedia says so... get me an ethnographer in one of these joints and show me some data! (i guess suggesting scholarly data is "better" than wikipedia, though, would be reproducing stratification... oops.)

Don't be so critical of something you don't really understand and/or hadn't even heard of until yesterday. Yes so they were political radicals and participated in some action that may be considered a bit extreme. Lets also remember that this was a volatile time of worker strikes and radical uprisings.

Not to mention I find people who criticize such things tend to be supportive of the revolutions in Egypt or the riots in Greece. Don't fall into the Chris Hedges trap.

It is also worth mentioning that The Modern School Movement was the main influence for what is now the Montessori School Model.

As far as anthropological data goes, you expect ethnography's of cultures that no longer exist? It's not possible. What I can tell you is that anthropology is settled on the fact that these cultures did exist and were considerably more egalitarian than west ever has been, that's for sure. The idea of "egalitarian dominance" is ludicrous on it's face frankly. That link you provided adds nothing to do this discussion and is frankly kind of embarrassing.

[dizzid]

Personally, I feel like this topic has spiraled into...

Education is a key component in stratification. A few exceptions doesn't break the rule. Especially when those exceptions happen to be extreme.

Sociology27, pending some absolute deal breakers on my visits, I will be attending the highest ranked program.

My intentions are to complete that program and return back to the 2nd/3rd tier world from whence I came and hopefully influence some other students to look beyond their own horizons. I'm okay with this plan. And if by chance this means I'm only paid $80k instead of $120k, I will endeavor to get by.

[sociology27]

It's nice to see how everybody can completely miss the point of what I said. Oy vey...

[socieconomist]

@ dizzidawn: YES!

@sociology27: I'm really not trying to be offensive... but you posted wiki links as evidence, and you're criticizing me as embarrasing? (ironic) Beyond that... we're missing the point b/c there's no point. You've pontificated w/o substance. You illustrate "egalitarian" examples by showing us incompitent terrorists? (I'm sorry, but that's what is illustrated). You sideline the whole "terrorism" bit by waxing euphemistically that they "may be considered a bit extrem" (a bit? they had a bomb...it blew up... people died). You (thankfully) make the point that we can't study their dynamics b/c they don't exist, but then that leaves us with accepting a few poorly written wiki paragraphs as sufficient evidence of who knows what. The only comment (not point) I see you making is: the system is hirearchized, we're all reifying it, and you have a (somewhat odd & mostly inarticulate) moral dilemma about it.

*shrugging shoulders...so what?

anyway... this is a silly conversation.

I do truly wish you the best outcome on your own terms, and that you are able to resolve in any way the contradictions of concern.

[RefurbedScientist]

Returning to the OP's very well-stated original point:

Yup. I agree. We make the proverbially bed, and now we gotta lay in it.

Since we're talking reproduction, let's talk Foucault. Any discourse which occurs within a system of social control will reproduce that system, even as it challenges it. Discursive challenges to a system bounded by the logic of that system only rationalize it. In academia, for example, if we try to disassemble the strict stratification through a more meritocratic hiring system, we will reward according to merit defined by the logic of the current academic field, which has an observable Matthew effect.

If we say, "I need to go to a top tier school so that I'm in a powerful position to end this hierarchy," then we are likewise reproducing the hierarchy by concentrating power in ourselves as elite.

The solution may be a greater diversity of academic counter-public spheres, whereby a degree from a top tier program may count for a lot in the conventional sphere, but not mean a whole lot in an alternate sphere. If you think this is impossible, look at the current state of journalism. Earning journalistic credentials means very little in the age of citizen journalists, smart phones, and twitter. You can argue (as professional journalists do) about credibility issues, but those issues are epistemologically bound to the logic of the current system. By subscribing to and enforcing the epistemic value of credibility, you reproduce the very same hierarchy. As an illustration, look at how quick we are to use Wikipedia. I bet the publishers of Encyclopedia Britannica might object, but we've determined that the collective intelligence of a bunch of anonymous wikipedia contributors is more useful to us than the credibility of a conventional encyclopedia publisher.

I think socieconomist may have hit the nail on the head: for academics to stop being so obsessed with hierarchy, they need to abstain from participating in the hierarchy altogether. I would argue that this is not, in the long run, a bad thing. It's a deficit of imagination that leads us to believe that knowledge can only be produced by a strictly hierarchical academic system.

[MakeSetBsy]

In all seriousness, can someone explain to me what is wrong with hierarchy? Is the argument that the imporance of perceived prestige in hiring and graduate program selection somehow inhibits the quality of the collective knowledge produced by the academy?

[chibuku]

In all seriousness, can someone explain to me what is wrong with hierarchy? Is the argument that the imporance of perceived prestige in hiring and graduate program selection somehow inhibits the quality of the collective knowledge produced by the academy?

well, it probably inhibits the breadth of knowledge at the very least.

[Darth.Vegan]

In all seriousness, can someone explain to me what is wrong with hierarchy? Is the argument that the imporance of perceived prestige in hiring and graduate program selection somehow inhibits the quality of the collective knowledge produced by the academy?

Really? How about the statement "what is wrong with class divisions?" is that fine as well?

[MakeSetBsy]

Really? How about the statement "what is wrong with class divisions?" is that fine as well?

Not sure that is a useful comparison. We're talking about a particular profession that people choose to go into, not all of society.

[RefurbedScientist]

In all seriousness, can someone explain to me what is wrong with hierarchy? Is the argument that the imporance of perceived prestige in hiring and graduate program selection somehow inhibits the quality of the collective knowledge produced by the academy?

I think this question is valid, and the various possible responses are perhaps beyond the scope of this thread (yeah, I've been on the conference circuit ).

The short answer is this: I speculate that the same issues with broader social stratification are present too in academia. So if we were to adopt a conflict theory paradigm, for starters, then it follows that the inherent contradictions of the stratified system lead to conflict that in turn leads to breakdown. I think we see this starting to happen with the over-valuation of higher education in general, whereby the presumed return to investment in higher education (cultural capital) is not really that liquid with other forms of capital (financial capital). If we didn't have a highly stratified society, then it may be more reasonable for people to pursue jobs that did not require higher education (if we assume that these jobs pay better in a less stratified society, or if income is moot). But people do pursue higher ed. because it promises a return; the return is increasingly only guaranteed at higher levels of academic stratification; more people clamor to be in the upper tiers; upward pressure is unsustainable; the market can't bear the oversupply of highly educated labor; so on and so forth. So that's one problem

Other problems include the Foucauldian critique I intimated at before. That is, discourse rationalizes the system of control. So we end up doing bad science because what we think/find/argue is colored by the rationale/epistemic values particular to our system, which likewise rationalizes and reproduces the system, moving us farther away from anything resembling truth (think of the role of many professional economists pre-financial crisis as a simplified illustration).

We can also take a management perspective that lack of diversity in collective work stifles innovation. So any field where people have an incentive to be more alike than different (which is conducive to moving up the academic hierarchy, because you need to play ball with big names and there are only a handful of conversation-setting departments), you will have a lack of innovation and a reproduction of old ideas. (For literature on this, check out a recent orgtheory post on group projects and innovation.)

The list could go on and on. Note that I haven't made a normative argument yet that "stratification is just plain bad." I think it's easy to find evidence and theory arguing that stratification in any field has deleterious effects on the field and negative externalities elsewhere (e.g. academic stratification reinforces status quo at subordinate levels, such as college and high school, which are likewise affected by social stratification at large, especially race, class and gender. So if we believe that race, class, and gender inequality are normatively bad, then it follows that academic stratification is pragmatically bad at resolving those social problems.)

[RefurbedScientist]

Yes, that was my attempt at "the short answer."

[Darth.Vegan]

Yes, that was my attempt at "the short answer."

Well it was indeed a good answer. Thank you.

[sociology27]

@socioeconomist... you're confusing two posters. I didn't post anything from wiki. Learn how to read.

Other than that, I have nothing to say to your response.

[sociology27]

@socialgroovements.... really great answers. I would only add that foucault's analysis might fall a little short because what we have are overlapping discourses that exist within the academic "field." The epistemic one, which does rationalize the existence of the discipline, and the prestige one, which simply rationalizes the stratification. These can be considered separately and one can withdraw from the second one without completely removing oneself from the discipline.

maybe?

[socieconomist]

@sociology27 - thank you for catching that - I apologize - the wiki thing was xdartveganx i think...? ill werk on my litracy - lol

all - this thread really makes me appreciate the policy world.