How important is school prestige in psychology?

[gradconfused]

Is graduating from a school that is highly-ranked (i.e., top 20) more important than actual research? Or would somebody from a lower-ranked school who had a lot of publications be more competitive than an average person from a highly-ranked school?

What are people's views in the field of psychology? It seems to me that only Ivy League and top-ranked schools really care about school rank. So if you want a job at a top university you should have probably gone to a top university?

What does everyone think?

[svh]

I think what matters is the quality and quantity of publications over all else.

[Behavioral]

This is a paper on the marketing job market (my field), but I think it still pertains to any field:

http://dl.dropbox.com/u/27203666/Marketing%20Job%20Market%20Paper.pdf

Furthermore, there are plenty of discussions on the CHE boards that are frequented by professors about this issue. Given that time and energy are limited resources in the job offer decision, recruiting committees do use some heuristics in determining how to gauge someone's likelihood of being a good researcher/faculty in the future, so pedigree does creep into the picture as a signal for value (whether or not the correlation between the two is necessarily high):

http://chronicle.com/forums/index.php/topic,69173.0.html

[Behavioral]

Modeling and CB candidates appear to have an advantage over strategy candidates in landing a position at a top ranked department (“field effect”). In general, candidates with publications in top marketing journals enjoy an advantage over others in obtaining a position in top departments (“publication effect”). Interestingly, when analyzing (1) the interaction of candidates’ field and ranking status (Model 2) and (2) the interaction of candidates’ publications and ranking status (Model 3), we find

28

that both the field effect and the publication effect are more substantial for candidates who graduate from top departments, although the main effect of ranking status is already controlled for. Therefore, academic stratification not only influences matching directly, but also interacts with other factors (such as field of research or publications) in shaping the outcomes of the job market.

So those empirical findings suggest that even controlling for a fixed-effect of rank/prestige, if two candidates (one from an elite school, and the other from a non-elite school) both publish a paper in, say, JPSP, the 'elite' candidate gets a differential boost in likelihood of landing a job at a similarly 'elite' school. This process is no different than individual and everyday judgments and decision making: you confirm things that you expect (confirmation bias) and you tend to be reluctant about things you don't expect (anti-confirmation bias).

The model also suggests that, given how they operationalized what a "top" school was (Top 30 in rankings), a graduate from a top school with 0 pubs is comparable with someone from a non-top school with somewhere between 1-2 pubs, as characterized by this quote from the paper:

All models confirm that academic stratification exists in the job market for assistant professors in marketing. Therefore, candidates who did not graduate from top departments suffer a handicap when applying for a position at a top ranked department. The base model shows that on average the extent of this disadvantage is considerable, as even a top marketing publication may not fully offset the impact.

[Scalia]

I think that it might be important to define what is a "top school" for the sake of this conversation?

Top 30 psych. department?

Top 10?

[Behavioral]

I think that it might be important to define what is a "top school" for the sake of this conversation?

Top 30 psych. department?

Top 10?

The academic job market is a lot less tight in marketing/consumer behavior as it is in, say, Social Psych, so I'd probably venture a guess somewhere in that Top 10 range or so. How you rank departments is another story/issue, but there are definitely some schools that are considered Top 10 by anyone's criteria (Stanford, Mich, etc.)

[crazygirl2012]

I'm going into social, and what I've been told is that you get a job based on how many publications you have, not which school you went to. But prestige can really help you along the way, as far as resources and grants go. I tried not to take rankings into account during the application process, but now I'm finding that I do consider them.

[watson]

Definitely based on publication record over all else for the job market. Average # pubs to get a first job is now 6-7.

If you're asking about getting into graduate school, then it really is the CV/app over the name of the school. I went to a small liberal arts college, barely had a psych program, and I got into 5/8 programs I applied to (including OSU and Northwestern for social psych so my choices weren't too shabby lol).

[svh]

Definitely based on publication record over all else for the job market. Average # pubs to get a first job is now 6-7.

If you're asking about getting into graduate school, then it really is the CV/app over the name of the school. I went to a small liberal arts college, barely had a psych program, and I got into 5/8 programs I applied to (including OSU and Northwestern for social psych so my choices weren't too shabby lol).

Yeah, I feel like publications is the most important thing for getting a job. Also, I come from a cheap state school (about $6000 a year for tuition=no debt!), and I've ran into some ivy leaguers (we were interviewing for the same spot at top schools). So yeah, I'm going to say school prestige probably doesn't help THAT much when applying for grad school, too...

[MakeYourself]

This thread really speaks to me... I'm about to turn down a top 10 school for a top 100 school. I really had my sights set on the prestigious school but after meeting with the POI I applied to work with, I realized 2 things: (1) He's an extreme control freak and extremely pretentious, I just cannot stand his personality, and (2) He has some theoretical ideas that I COMPLETELY disagree with, I think he's really misinformed.

So although the school itself is great, I just don't think I can handle 5+ years working with this man. (He's already driving me crazy, he's been emailing me constantly since I visited and has sent me 10 articles to read within a week).

I am actually really excited about going to the lower ranked school - I really like the POI there and they have a great faculty and the research topics REALLY interest me. BUT, if anyone can somehow cheer me up about having to turn down this highly ranked school please do

[svh]

This thread really speaks to me... I'm about to turn down a top 10 school for a top 100 school. I really had my sights set on the prestigious school but after meeting with the POI I applied to work with, I realized 2 things: (1) He's an extreme control freak and extremely pretentious, I just cannot stand his personality, and (2) He has some theoretical ideas that I COMPLETELY disagree with, I think he's really misinformed.

So although the school itself is great, I just don't think I can handle 5+ years working with this man. (He's already driving me crazy, he's been emailing me constantly since I visited and has sent me 10 articles to read within a week).

I am actually really excited about going to the lower ranked school - I really like the POI there and they have a great faculty and the research topics REALLY interest me. BUT, if anyone can somehow cheer me up about having to turn down this highly ranked school please do

You'll come out with the same job opportunities, AND you'll have a much happier time!

[Scalia]

Take a look at the USNEWS top 25 in psychology.

So if you had a choice between a top (e.g. Minnesota) 10 school and a top 25 school (E.g. University of Virginia) the rank wouldn't matter at all?

I think that rank matters because often schools with a higher rank have better university wide and departmental opportunities. Furthermore, I am a believer that if you surround yourself with successful people you're more likely to learn how to do good work and be successful yourself.

Just thought I would offer an opposing viewpoint to what has already been said in this thread.

[watson]

Take a look at the USNEWS top 25 in psychology.

So if you had a choice between a top (e.g. Minnesota) 10 school and a top 25 school (E.g. University of Virginia) the rank wouldn't matter at all?

I think that rank matters because often schools with a higher rank have better university wide and departmental opportunities. Furthermore, I am a believer that if you surround yourself with successful people you're more likely to learn how to do good work and be successful yourself.

Just thought I would offer an opposing viewpoint to what has already been said in this thread.

In all honesty the rankings are kind of messed up. They don't rank by POI by specific sub-field. For example, University of Kansas....not necessarily high up there like some other places, but hey if you're interested in things like collective guilt and shame then you really want to work with Nyla Branscombe because she is the best for that research. Everyone in social psych knows this, and when you go on the job market it will look really amazing and better than if you picked another place.

The rankings are good for starting to sort through some aspects of grad school, but much like your GREs aren't the biggest deciding factor in applications, the rankings should not be (anywhere near) the biggest deciding factor in choosing a grad school. And as said above, if you're thinking you can handle 5-7 years of living in a city you hate, with a POI you can't get along with, just because it is OSU/Michigan/Stanford then I really wish you good luck because you'll need it! You need to find the best fit taking all those extra things (like quality of life) into account.

[Behavioral]

The only other thing I have to add is you can't place all your eggs in one basket and expect to work with 1 POI your entire graduate career.

The academic field is volatile--people move around, fail to make tenure, become difficult to work with, etc., so don't go to a school (if you can avoid it) who only has 1 person you'd want to work with.

All the most successful people I know getting close to the job market do have a main advisor with whom they work closely with, but they all also collaborate with other faculty members that have similar interests as well. I came to my school eager to work with any one of three professors and my interests have changed after taking some courses, and now I'm working with 3 professors all of whom weren't in my original consideration set. If I went to a school with no breadth of research topics and my interests changed, I'd have been miserable.

Something else to consider is really look at the CVs of students coming out and see where their research is at. If they're coming out with a lot of co-authored papers with faculty, then it's a good sign that professors openly collaborate with their students at that program. If you see something like a lot of single-authored papers out for review, then it may be a signal that the program is a sink-or-swim environment.

You can't learn everything from retrospective information and numbers, but you can definitely have a more informed attitude towards programs based on these signals.

[Scalia]

I'll at an additional question to this thread:

Program reputation or subfield reputation: Which is more important?

I would note that not everyone one a hiring committee works in the same subfield.

[Behavioral]

Subfield.

[psychedout11]

It depends on what you want to do. Assuming you want a career in research at a top school, then what matters is top notch research skills, grant writing potential, and several (if not more) publications in top tier journals. To my way of thinking this depends much more on how much your advisor is willing to invest in you and your training than it does program prestige. There are excellent mentors at not so highly ranked schools or small programs who produce excellent students - just as there are mentors at excellent programs who have a ton of students and it's a fight to be the top dog student and shine.

If rankings are important to you, you might want to check out the National Research Council rankings of psychology programs http://chronicle.com/article/NRC-Rankings-Overview-/124708/

[Scalia]

It depends on what you want to do. Assuming you want a career in research at a top school, then what matters is top notch research skills, grant writing potential, and several (if not more) publications in top tier journals. To my way of thinking this depends much more on how much your advisor is willing to invest in you and your training than it does program prestige. There are excellent mentors at not so highly ranked schools or small programs who produce excellent students - just as there are mentors at excellent programs who have a ton of students and it's a fight to be the top dog student and shine.

If rankings are important to you, you might want to check out the National Research Council rankings of psychology programs http://chronicle.com...erview-/124708/

Some of these rankings are quite a bit different than some of the U.S. News rankings.

Thanks for the link

[psychedout11]

You're welcome. The NRCs just came out and they factor in graduate student training and success - as polled by the actual graduate students themselves.

[watson]

I'll at an additional question to this thread:

Program reputation or subfield reputation: Which is more important?

I would note that not everyone one a hiring committee works in the same subfield.

Since I was on the phone with my advisor I asked this very question. The answer "no doubt, subfield." Things get really specific the further you go down this road, but in all honesty, #/quality of pubs, ability to get grants, and fit are definitely more important than the 'ranking' of your school. Does a high ranking school frequently have students that match these qualities and the faculty who prep them that way? YES. But that is obvious. But I'd still say it's an error to put school ranking (as determined by anything other than your specific needs--research, POI, funding, equipment, quality of life) as anything near the top of your list in picking a program.

[svh]

Take a look at the USNEWS top 25 in psychology.

So if you had a choice between a top (e.g. Minnesota) 10 school and a top 25 school (E.g. University of Virginia) the rank wouldn't matter at all?

I think that rank matters because often schools with a higher rank have better university wide and departmental opportunities. Furthermore, I am a believer that if you surround yourself with successful people you're more likely to learn how to do good work and be successful yourself.

Just thought I would offer an opposing viewpoint to what has already been said in this thread.

So this is just a general psych ranking, right? UVa is ranked number 10 in social psych and Minnesota isn't even listed for social psych. I feel like if you're even going to look at rankings, you should look for your subfield. And yeah, you do want to surround yourself with hardworking people. I visited UVa, and everyone there is a very hard worker. They love what they do, and they're successful. UVa has a good reputation for placing grad students in good jobs. And yes, UVa is ranked lower in the general psych rankings, but I don't really think that matters.

[lewin]

It is hard to answer the pub/prestige question because those two factors are highly correlated. Schools are often prestigious for a reason, and by going you'll surround yourself with bright, productive colleagues and great resources. It's easier to get those pubs at a prestigious university.

Of course, you could define "prestige" in terms of your subfield. Ohio State, for example, is not generally as prestigious as, say, Harvard, but it has traditionally been one of the best social psychology programs. Anybody on a hiring committee will know that.

[crazygirl2012]

Because I ended up not having a decision to make at all, I need to stop allowing the rankings to influence how I view myself as a person and, more importantly, how I view my new program. I keep having a pity party about my friend getting into a program ranked slightly higher than mine, even though I always believed she would "win" anyway. I also came very close to a top 30 program and was ultimately not accepted, so that is screwing with me. Stupid rankings. Stupid ego. Stupid me. Okay, I'll stop now.

[Behavioral]

Because I ended up not having a decision to make at all, I need to stop allowing the rankings to influence how I view myself as a person and, more importantly, how I view my new program. I keep having a pity party about my friend getting into a program ranked slightly higher than mine, even though I always believed she would "win" anyway. I also came very close to a top 30 program and was ultimately not accepted, so that is screwing with me. Stupid rankings. Stupid ego. Stupid me. Okay, I'll stop now.

Yup. If it's out of your control, then there's no point in getting worked up about it. Just push on and keep focus on factors that you can still influence and make the most of that.

[see_bella]

It is hard to answer the pub/prestige question because those two factors are highly correlated. Schools are often prestigious for a reason, and by going you'll surround yourself with bright, productive colleagues and great resources. It's easier to get those pubs at a prestigious university.

Of course, you could define "prestige" in terms of your subfield. Ohio State, for example, is not generally as prestigious as, say, Harvard, but it has traditionally been one of the best social psychology programs. Anybody on a hiring committee will know that.

I have to disagree about the correlation. Not highly correlated. Harvard and the like did not become prestigious out of number of publications. There are many non-prestigious schools with awesome faculty members who are top notch researchers in their respective fields and produce successful students. Prestige does not necessarily mean bright and productive. A lot of prestigious folks bs-ed their way to the top. You definitely have to look at the skeleton of the program and subfield at any one school. Look at their graduate placements, their current and past research, cross collaborations, number of grants received (NIH, NSF, NASA, Internationally-renowned?), support for their graduate students (you may want to ask current students about their experience), publications and where they are being published. You may want to go to the APA's website or the specific division website as well. I am not saying having Harvard or Princeton on your CV is not worth it but at the end of the day, hiring committees will want to see what you have done to bring to the table.