The recursive nature of prestige functionality

[Darth.Vegan]

@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.

Well I didn't post the first wiki link, Epicure did. I posted more links for him in response to his post. None of it is really all that controversial though. I have at least a couple anthro textbooks that can corroborate the information. However this is not a journal article or research paper I didn't feel like typing long quotes from textbooks our journal articles, you understand I'm sure. While I spend more time then I should here, I have real work to attend to!

[sleepycat]

Okay just as a long time observer and poster of forums, I am so amused right now on how one person will say something controversial and somewhat unrelated to the initial intent and then the whole thread just unravels.

Okay, I think there is some truth to the best students going to the high ranked schools, and therefore it reproduces the rankings.

Education does (re)produce different strata based on levels of prestige and you will get different levels of education at different schools. This is not to say it was always this way with the concept of education in the past or in all cultures. I think this debate is not answerable in just sociology, but rather anthropology and to pretend that sociology has all the answers to this question falls into the trap of narrow, definable disciplines, which we are all guilty of (re)producing. And honestly this is why I feel awkward in Sociology and at top 20 schools because of all this border patrol on what is Sociology and what it is not just feeds into a paradigm of black and white thinking, when the world is a big grey blob, full of things that blend together. (Sorry, just unraveled the thread again )

[DustSNK]

I'll just put my thoughts about this in here. I've talked to several professors, in America and Canada, and I'm under the impression that being in a top 20 and so on is semi-arbitrary. Now why semi? Well all the people I talked to said your mentor is actually THE most important factor in you getting a job. Example: You could go to Harvard, specialize in Social inequality, and work under prof Y. Another person goes to a 50-100 school, works under prof X. If prof X is more known and respected in the field of social inequality than prof Y, a student with equal qualifications will most likely get the job over the Harvard graduate. At a school I went to, one of my professors was excited about a new department hire because they worked under a famous guy in the field of family and the life course. As has been said before, there are LOTS and LOTS of very talented amazing academics who work all over the place, lots of them in 50-100 schools. Finding a very good person to work under in my opinion, is better than going to a top 10 and not getting someone who fits you well. Now that being said, there are things obviously at top 10 schools that make them a top 10. Name does have an impact, especially outside of academia. I have a friend that just landed a 60k+$ high school teaching job in a VERY VERY flooded NY market. The person who hired him said they got him specifically because he went to Columbia. I recall seeing what he had to do for his degree, albeit it was an MA in education, and it was a complete joke. His senior thesis was 4 pages, got an A. Alternatively, I have another mutual friend who is getting the SAME degree as the Columbia graduate, at a 200-300 lv school (it's in Staten Island) and the amount of work he has to do for the same degree is impressive. I would have to say 800% more work than the Columbia degree. I digress from the point, but just trying to find a personal, but vivid, example where just a name will get you a job despite what you have actually done at the school. Now back to Sociology lol. I bet the ability to network at a top 10 school helps also. But to summarize myself, not being in a top 10,20,30 school from what I have heard from people is not too much to worry about. Finding a person known in your specialization is.

Edited February 23, 2012 by DustSNK

[maximus82]

I'll just put my thoughts about this in here. I've talked to several professors, in America and Canada, and I'm under the impression that being in a top 20 and so on is semi-arbitrary. Now why semi? Well all the people I talked to said your mentor is actually THE most important factor in you getting a job. Example: You could go to Harvard, specialize in Social inequality, and work under prof Y. Another person goes to a 50-100 school, works under prof X. If prof X is more known and respected in the field of social inequality than prof Y, a student with equal qualifications will most likely get the job over the Harvard graduate. At a school I went to, one of my professors was excited about a new department hire because they worked under a famous guy in the field of family and the life course. As has been said before, there are LOTS and LOTS of very talented amazing academics who work all over the place, lots of them in 50-100 schools. Finding a very good person to work under in my opinion, is better than going to a top 10 and not getting someone who fits you well. Now that being said, there are things obviously at top 10 schools that make them a top 10. Name does have an impact, especially outside of academia. I have a friend that just landed a 60k+$ high school teaching job in a VERY VERY flooded NY market. The person who hired him said they got him specifically because he went to Columbia. I recall seeing what he had to do for his degree, albeit it was an MA in education, and it was a complete joke. His senior thesis was 4 pages, got an A. Alternatively, I have another mutual friend who is getting the SAME degree as the Columbia graduate, at a 200-300 lv school (it's in Staten Island) and the amount of work he has to do for the same degree is impressive. I would have to say 800% more work than the Columbia degree. I digress from the point, but just trying to find a personal, but vivid, example where just a name will get you a job despite what you have actually done at the school. Now back to Sociology lol. I bet the ability to network at a top 10 school helps also. But to summarize myself, not being in a top 10,20,30 school from what I have heard from people is not too much to worry about. Finding a person known in your specialization is.

2 things.

1. Canada is in America. If we are so concerned about systems of inequality, we should think about our use of language and take back the word America for what it is... a continent, not a country.

2. everyone I've spoken to, every conference I've ever been to, and every book I've read about sociology says the same thing: publications are the #1 factor determining job placement. We could just say "well, everyone should just try to publish and then the system would be fair". the problem is, people at top 20 schools usually have more resources which means more time, less taing, etc etc, which results in less complications when it comes to publsihing. Who your mentor is is also important for this, because good mentors are usually very generous in terms of co-authoring and sharing data, etc. At the same time, school prestige is also important. So people do look at where you get your degree, although not as much as they look at your publications and your letters of recommendation.

The problem with this entire discussion is that academia is a system that is supposed to be stratified, because it is based on skill, motivation, and talent, and we can't expect everyone to have the same level of these things. Otherwise everyone would be able to get a PhD and it would be completely pointless.

Now, regarding the argument that people were having earlier about nonstratified societies and whether or not education should be egalitarian is not the point. tegalitarian societies don't have university systems that promote research, and what we do is not education... at least not in the k-12 or even undergraduate kind of way. We can argue whether or not k-12 and college should be completely egalitarian (and I'll probably agree with that so people have equal access to the job market etc)... but this is academia, this is like playing a professional sport vs. being in the little league in your neighborhood.

[MakeSetBsy]

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

Ha, thanks! I'm afraid I don't really have the background to respond intelligently to the specific points you raised. I think like DustSNK though my understanding had been, at least with the hiring side of things, that the reputation and network of your specific advisor, rather than the Ph.D. program in general, was the key factor in getting hired. Since within any particular area of focus the faculty with the strongest networks could be anywhere maybe the influence of the most prestigious programs isn't quite so monolithic?

[sleepycat]

2 things.

1. Canada is in America. If we are so concerned about systems of inequality, we should think about our use of language and take back the word America for what it is... a continent, not a country.

2. everyone I've spoken to, every conference I've ever been to, and every book I've read about sociology says the same thing: publications are the #1 factor determining job placement. We could just say "well, everyone should just try to publish and then the system would be fair". the problem is, people at top 20 schools usually have more resources which means more time, less taing, etc etc, which results in less complications when it comes to publsihing. Who your mentor is is also important for this, because good mentors are usually very generous in terms of co-authoring and sharing data, etc. At the same time, school prestige is also important. So people do look at where you get your degree, although not as much as they look at your publications and your letters of recommendation.

The problem with this entire discussion is that academia is a system that is supposed to be stratified, because it is based on skill, motivation, and talent, and we can't expect everyone to have the same level of these things. Otherwise everyone would be able to get a PhD and it would be completely pointless.

Now, regarding the argument that people were having earlier about nonstratified societies and whether or not education should be egalitarian is not the point. tegalitarian societies don't have university systems that promote research, and what we do is not education... at least not in the k-12 or even undergraduate kind of way. We can argue whether or not k-12 and college should be completely egalitarian (and I'll probably agree with that so people have equal access to the job market etc)... but this is academia, this is like playing a professional sport vs. being in the little league in your neighborhood.

2 things

1. If you want to be inclusive then you must include South America, after all they are part of America too.

2. I take it you don't see yourself as an educator and won't like to teach all the cool things you have learned to other people. Where is the fun in just learning it and writing it up to put in books that only a few will read? Even the process of research is a form of education, although a form of self-directed one, but still. Frankly, it sounds like you want to use your knowledge to be better then others and that is not what the ph.d is for.

[DustSNK]

2 things.

1. Canada is in America. If we are so concerned about systems of inequality, we should think about our use of language and take back the word America for what it is... a continent, not a country.

2. everyone I've spoken to, every conference I've ever been to, and every book I've read about sociology says the same thing: publications are the #1 factor determining job placement. We could just say "well, everyone should just try to publish and then the system would be fair". the problem is, people at top 20 schools usually have more resources which means more time, less taing, etc etc, which results in less complications when it comes to publsihing. Who your mentor is is also important for this, because good mentors are usually very generous in terms of co-authoring and sharing data, etc. At the same time, school prestige is also important. So people do look at where you get your degree, although not as much as they look at your publications and your letters of recommendation.

The problem with this entire discussion is that academia is a system that is supposed to be stratified, because it is based on skill, motivation, and talent, and we can't expect everyone to have the same level of these things. Otherwise everyone would be able to get a PhD and it would be completely pointless.

Now, regarding the argument that people were having earlier about nonstratified societies and whether or not education should be egalitarian is not the point. tegalitarian societies don't have university systems that promote research, and what we do is not education... at least not in the k-12 or even undergraduate kind of way. We can argue whether or not k-12 and college should be completely egalitarian (and I'll probably agree with that so people have equal access to the job market etc)... but this is academia, this is like playing a professional sport vs. being in the little league in your neighborhood.

Lol. Uhg I don't want to get into a trolling match, but I have a pet peeve about people who have language pet peeves. When you want to refer to the continent, you say North America, Central, South, or the Americas. Saying America, referring to the USA, has entered our lexicon for idk how long. Do you fight with people who say pop when they are referring to a soda? I think controlling peoples language is a dangerous thing to do, esp if there is no intrinsic motivation for "goodness". If you kept calling a Korean person Chinese, sure that is a thing you should fix quickly because you limit someones ability to express their own identity. Getting into semantics over this example I personally don't think represents any upholding of "goodness" and anyone who evokes your stance on the argument is essentially using it as an outlet for control and "intellectual" assertion, which I find a dangerous way to use and understand culture/language. Personally I have lived and traveled in about 11 countries, where English is not the first language 98% of the time, and in EVERY ONE, USA and America is used interchangeably. Especially in the USA (hope you liked that) and Canada. I think that language is culture, as most do, and seeing how the use of America to refer to the USA is globally a relevant term to use, it is keeping in line with a progressive attitude towards global language use. Now you have to ask, which stance is more in line with the spirit of knowledge and inclusiveness? Sorry I have to get in attack mode, but I think anytime anyone writes your first response (as I'm sure you can guess it is something I've encountered before) you were asking for me to say something back. If the collective had this attitude towards language, we all would be saying other antiquated words in the language from Shakespeare times.

[maximus82]

2 things

1. If you want to be inclusive then you must include South America, after all they are part of America too.

2. I take it you don't see yourself as an educator and won't like to teach all the cool things you have learned to other people. Where is the fun in just learning it and writing it up to put in books that only a few will read? Even the process of research is a form of education, although a form of self-directed one, but still. Frankly, it sounds like you want to use your knowledge to be better then others and that is not what the ph.d is for.

Sleepycat, I didn't exclude south america. I am south american and that's where part of my frustration with this issue comes from. And I didn't mean it as a personal thing, it's just something that I like to point out so people stop using the term. But you are very right. America means South, Central, and North America. The funny thing is that in some parts of the world they teach you that those are subcontinents and that the continent is the whole thing.

Regarding education, I don't see myself as an educator yet. One day i hope to be more than just a researcher and hopefully teach. and when I do, I will try my best to fight inequalities based on race, income, etc. And in a way the research I do also fights those sources of inequality.

Regarding research as a form of education... of course. Im not saying it isn't. But don't you want the best teachers teaching? I'm not saying there aren't inequalities in the system, and I'll be the first one to admit them (try getting into a top 10 program when you've been to a community college for example, it's almost impossible)... this isn't a perfect system and we should do our best to improve it... but the "perfect system" is still a stratified one.

And I'm not trying to get a PhD to be better THAN others... I'm doing it because It's what i want to do it, but i also recognize that doing it puts me in a position of privilege.

and DustSNK, i don't argue with people who say pop instead of soda, but I do tell people to say human rather than man, or chairperson rather than chairman, etc... there's a power dynamic going on here, and while I understand that a lot of pet peeves can be pointless, I don't think this on is. (sorry for the bold typeface, I have no idea what happened).

[DustSNK]

Sleepycat, I didn't exclude south america. I am south american and that's where part of my frustration with this issue comes from. And I didn't mean it as a personal thing, it's just something that I like to point out so people stop using the term. But you are very right. America means South, Central, and North America. The funny thing is that in some parts of the world they teach you that those are subcontinents and that the continent is the whole thing.

Regarding education, I don't see myself as an educator yet. One day i hope to be more than just a researcher and hopefully teach. and when I do, I will try my best to fight inequalities based on race, income, etc. And in a way the research I do also fights those sources of inequality.

Regarding research as a form of education... of course. Im not saying it isn't. But don't you want the best teachers teaching? I'm not saying there aren't inequalities in the system, and I'll be the first one to admit them (try getting into a top 10 program when you've been to a community college for example, it's almost impossible)... this isn't a perfect system and we should do our best to improve it... but the "perfect system" is still a stratified one.

And I'm not trying to get a PhD to be better THAN others... I'm doing it because It's what i want to do it, but i also recognize that doing it puts me in a position of privilege.

and DustSNK, i don't argue with people who say pop instead of soda, but I do tell people to say human rather than man, or chairperson rather than chairman, etc... there's a power dynamic going on here, and while I understand that a lot of pet peeves can be pointless, I don't think this on is. (sorry for the bold typeface, I have no idea what happened).

Ok ok you added some context into your response. I can see being from south America, why you have your stance. Honestly, I have never encountered anyone who says America to refer to all parts of the continent. I don't even think it is correct to do so. People say "The Americas", it is plural and refers to North,South,Central. And I agree there is very subtle power dynamics that go into language, and it is your duty as an academic (esp a sociologist) to correct them. I've never encountered anywhere the situation you are referring to about people who use America to refer to everything, I've always seen is plural when used in that way. Not saying it hasn't/doesn't happen, I just haven't been exposed to that situation. So really we don't disagree about anything. Lets be friends now

Edited February 23, 2012 by DustSNK

[maximus82]

Ok ok you added some context into your response. I can see being from south America, why you have your stance. Honestly, I have never encountered anyone who says America to refer to all parts of the continent. I don't even think it is correct to do so. People say "The Americas", it is plural and refers to North,South,Central. And I agree there is very subtle power dynamics that go into language, and it is your duty as an academic (esp a sociologist) to correct them. I've never encountered anywhere the situation you are referring to about people who use America to refer to everything, I've always seen is plural when used in that way. Not saying it hasn't/doesn't happen, I just haven't been exposed to that situation. So really we don't disagree about anything. Lets be friends now

Not to be too sociological about it, but continents (especially the divisions between the Americas) are social constructions... there isn't anything separating north from central from south. Just like there isn't anything separating Europe form Asia. But the point is, how would the rest of Europeans feel if France one day decided that they are Europeans and everyone else has to add a prefix to their europeaness? Ruben Blades, an singer, lawyer, and activist from Panana has talked about this... maybe you need to travel south of the border.

[DustSNK]

Not to be too sociological about it, but continents (especially the divisions between the Americas) are social constructions... there isn't anything separating north from central from south. Just like there isn't anything separating Europe form Asia. But the point is, how would the rest of Europeans feel if France one day decided that they are Europeans and everyone else has to add a prefix to their europeaness? Ruben Blades, an singer, lawyer, and activist from Panana has talked about this... maybe you need to travel south of the border.

Oh I have. Also my mentor was from Argentina, I'm aware of this situation ( not this term dispute but of identity and so on). I like how you add the division is a social construction, cause it is. But I have to say if you are educated in North America, or most parts of the world from the people I have talked to, you understand the distinctiveness in geography and cultural spectrum between North,Central, and South. Maybe there are areas in certain South American countries where there is a confusion amongst the general public on identity in connection with the term. But I would say most North Americans,Europeans, and Asians who are educated don't have this issue and understand what is what, and when they want to refer to All parts they say the Americas, plural. I wish I could get into it more but I have never seen your example before. This is an Academic forum 99% based on North American institutions. I appreciate you bringing a South American issue into this context of language use, but I don't think it has any place here for this situation. I bet it sux if there is a term confusion in a community else where, but most of the people who post here are European,Asian,North American and I would say it is safe to assume when you say America, they know it is the USA and are not thinking of South America.

PS: Ok forgot to add. If you are talking about subtle power dynamics in the language, which I'm guessing you're trying to say, in using America I get ya, but I don't think it is a good argument. Most people understand and say North, Central, or South. Now is there some power dynamic in the use of America to refer to the USA? Sure there damn well is, I get ya. But we both have no control over that, at all. I really don't know so I'm going on a limb here, but if you look at the USA's history, it became famous for the perception immigrants at home and abroad had of the country and its ability to provide a "better life". Haha I am NOT getting into a USA USA is the best match, no way. Personally I'm happy to be moving abroad again for good, and America has been in a shit slump lately But the fact remains, the USA was seen historically as a place of prosperity and hope. I would imagine that this is the reason why the USA started to just be called AMERICA around the world. It has nothing to do with a power dynamic between America and its control over the Latin cultures (we can talk about the USA's take over of Ecuador currency for that). The term America, just became synonymous with the USA around the world at some point. Great discussion, but I guess we can go on for days about the epistemological of language.

Edited February 23, 2012 by DustSNK

[maximus82]

Oh I have. Also my mentor was from Argentina, I'm aware of this situation ( not this term dispute but of identity and so on). I like how you add the division is a social construction, cause it is. But I have to say if you are educated in North America, or most parts of the world from the people I have talked to, you understand the distinctiveness in geography and cultural spectrum between North,Central, and South. Maybe there are areas in certain South American countries where there is a confusion amongst the general public on identity in connection with the term. But I would say most North Americans,Europeans, and Asians who are educated don't have this issue and understand what is what, and when they want to refer to All parts they say the Americas, plural. I wish I could get into it more but I have never seen your example before. This is an Academic forum 99% based on North American institutions. I appreciate you bringing a South American issue into this context of language use, but I don't think it has any place here for this situation. I bet it sux if there is a term confusion in a community else where, but most of the people who post here are European,Asian,North American and I would say it is safe to assume when you say America, they know it is the USA and are not thinking of South America.

I'm really surprised by your willingness to accept things as they are. I'm South American, but I did my udnergrad in the US and I'm currently getting my PhD in the US. So I'm aware of what you're saying... when people say America, 99% of the time they are speaking about the United States. That doesn't mean it isn't exclusionary. America is not a country. Passports don't say "Citizen of America". And there is a history to this appropriation of the term, it didn't just happen. Just like there is a history of the United States expanding and taking territory away from other countries. I don't have anything against the people who use this word, I just think it is one of those things that need to be challenged.

Just out of curiosity, are you trying to get into Sociology departments?

[DustSNK]

I'm really surprised by your willingness to accept things as they are. I'm South American, but I did my udnergrad in the US and I'm currently getting my PhD in the US. So I'm aware of what you're saying... when people say America, 99% of the time they are speaking about the United States. That doesn't mean it isn't exclusionary. America is not a country. Passports don't say "Citizen of America". And there is a history to this appropriation of the term, it didn't just happen. Just like there is a history of the United States expanding and taking territory away from other countries. I don't have anything against the people who use this word, I just think it is one of those things that need to be challenged.

Just out of curiosity, are you trying to get into Sociology departments?

No no I would assume that if you are on this forum you came from South America but have been totally educated in the USA. read my edited post I added a PS in there. Yeaa I'm applying to MA programs in Canada. How do ya like Chicago? Do you happen to know Bruce Cummings? His worsk in both the History and Soc departments.

[felicidad]

I am also a bit disturbed that any sociologist would take for granted the cultural appropriation of the term "America." I'm certainly guilty of using it out of habit to refer to myself as someone from the United States, and i was (duly) admonished for it in Argentina. But that doesn't mean the usage isn't worth reflecting upon.

[DustSNK]

I'm really surprised by your willingness to accept things as they are. I'm South American, but I did my udnergrad in the US and I'm currently getting my PhD in the US. So I'm aware of what you're saying... when people say America, 99% of the time they are speaking about the United States. That doesn't mean it isn't exclusionary. America is not a country. Passports don't say "Citizen of America". And there is a history to this appropriation of the term, it didn't just happen. Just like there is a history of the United States expanding and taking territory away from other countries. I don't have anything against the people who use this word, I just think it is one of those things that need to be challenged.

Just out of curiosity, are you trying to get into Sociology departments?

I really didn't address what you said, sorry. No I of course agree with you 1000%. The USA has that history of colony and take over. Also, yes technically there is no country "America" of course! But it has entered the lexicon in a global way, and I disagree with you that the term sprang up from less than good reasons like the USA's history of being imperial. I think it did spring up from honest reasons and it has nothing to do with power, at all. But I have to bow out because in the end we both are not even arguing about the same thing. My argument is contingent upon you saying it is wrong because of semantics, you are coming at it from another angle (a good one that I would get into on many other situations).

[maximus82]

No no I would assume that if you are on this forum you came from South America but have been totally educated in the USA. read my edited post I added a PS in there. Yeaa I'm applying to MA programs in Canada. How do ya like Chicago? Do you happen to know Bruce Cummings? His worsk in both the History and Soc departments.

I'm in Chicago but not at the University of Chicago... I'm at Northwestern. And no, I don't know Bruce Cunnings, I'll have to check him out.

and nice chat.. we could go on forever, but now I have to go do work now! but just so you know, semantics and power are connected!

[DustSNK]

I am also a bit disturbed that any sociologist would take for granted the cultural appropriation of the term "America." I'm certainly guilty of using it out of habit to refer to myself as someone from the United States, and i was (duly) admonished for it in Argentina. But that doesn't mean the usage isn't worth reflecting upon.

I hear ya and I'm all about understanding the cultural appropriation of anything. I can't say too much, I would really bet on the term coming into form BY immigrants abroad moving to the USA. When most of the world uses the term, you gotta ask why? I get that, but I really doubt there is a power dynamic going on in this example. It is easy to say there is an intrinsic power dynamic in anything connected to the USA, I get ya and could talk about colony and imperialism of culture for hours (because the USA has done so much of it :/ ), but I gotta go with my gut and say this certain example probably has nothing to do with that. But who knows, unless there is a researcher that has traveled the world and has done an historical analysis on the coining of the term, I think all we can go by is the modern usage. And while I respect people in Argentina for this example who don't like its use, I would have to go with the majority who don't use it in any way connected to power, just out of sheer practicality until a study has been done.

Edited February 23, 2012 by DustSNK

[DustSNK]

I'm in Chicago but not at the University of Chicago... I'm at Northwestern. And no, I don't know Bruce Cunnings, I'll have to check him out.

and nice chat.. we could go on forever, but now I have to go do work now! but just so you know, semantics and power are connected!

haha of course I agree with you they are connected, that is why we BOTH have entered a debate about it Yea good chat man, it is fun to have an academic convo that is not connected to the stress of apps >_< Check Bruce out, he does a lot of work on South Korea which is personally my focus. The Uni lets him (and most of their academics) do some interesting interdisciplinary work. I'll check out that activist you mentioned.

Edited February 23, 2012 by DustSNK