Who Wants To Bet On Acceptances/Rejections?

[Porridge]

 If you notice, I was referring to beet-nik's choice of graduate institutions; I know nothing about where s/he did her undergraduate degree. When I say pedigree, I don't mean that when you apply to PhD programs, you'd better have an ivy league bachelors degree in your back pocket. Lord knows I sure don't. What I meant is that it's extremely important to have a PhD from a great program for a variety of reasons: Great schools will have better research opportunities and resources, better funding to allow you more time to do consistently superior work, better teaching opportunities (with significant exceptions at some high ranked schools) and faculty connections that could really help your word of mouth appeal on the job market. Basically, I'm not saying that the school itself will make you better, because great work can be found anywhere. However, it's undeniable that better schools will give you a better chance at a TT job. I tend not to put significant value on the Ivy's myself (crucify me if you must) so please don't think I'm hating on small school education; I think I've made it clear in other threads that that is my own pedigree.

Thank you for this response. You have made yourself very clear.

[dazedandbemused]

Well, that's a causal fallacy if ever I have seen one. "University X hires A. A comes from university B. Therefore University X will only hire from university B."

 

If you can provide me with some genuine evidence then, there might be something to your observation. But really, anything else feels like speculation. I really don't what such statement as "pedigree matters" serves other than to scare off potential candidates (competitors) to your own perceived benefit.

 

Ok, are you responding to me? Because I didn't say any of that and you are reading a whole lot of passive aggressiveness into a statement that I only made matter-of-factly. I don't think asleepawake is saying any of that either...

 

 

ETA: Didn't see your response. Glad to clear it up.

Edited January 8, 2013 by dazedandbemused

[Swagato]

I would like to know how you have drawn to the conclusion that "pedigree matters". Is this a legitimate statement, or something that you have observed, have an inkling of? Because I find such statements incredibly hard to believe at face value. Indeed, the idea that a well-respected graduate committee would even consider "pedigree" is rather insulting to their criticial expertise, scholarship, and reputation.

 

 

Jesus, put your hair back on. If you notice, I was referring to beet-nik's choice of graduate institutions; I know nothing about where s/he did her undergraduate degree. When I say pedigree, I don't mean that when you apply to PhD programs, you'd better have an ivy league bachelors degree in your back pocket. Lord knows I sure don't. What I meant is that it's extremely important to have a PhD from a great program for a variety of reasons: Great schools will have better research opportunities and resources, better funding to allow you more time to do consistently superior work, better teaching opportunities (with significant exceptions at some high ranked schools) and faculty connections that could really help your word of mouth appeal on the job market. Basically, I'm not saying that the school itself will make you better, because great work can be found anywhere. However, it's undeniable that better schools will give you a better chance at a TT job. I tend not to put significant value on the Ivy's myself (crucify me if you must) so please don't think I'm hating on small school education; I think I've made it clear in other threads that that is my own pedigree.

 

In addition to what dazedandbemused said, you need simply consider this.

 

1) Application stage: Roughly 300 applicants, out of which roughly a dozen will be offered admission. At the top departments, the admit numbers are in the single digits. If you really imagine that you're going to successfully compete against someone with 4 years (plus an MA, or maybe not) at a top-tier department, with letters from major names, and all the benefits that dazedandbemused described, I wish you the best. I really do.

 

2) On the job market: A tenure-track job in Butt-hole, Nowhere, will receive 500+ applications on average. And postdocs/TTs at major departments are practically closed before they're announced, in many instances. If you really imagine you're going to successfully compete against someone with a PhD from a top-tier department, with networking and clout from major names, with letters from major names, and all the benefits that research and networking at such departments offer, I wish you the best. I really do.

 

We're not saying a background at a top department is a magic gate-pass. But you're severely misguided if you think pedigree is not used as a cut-off in many, many senses. 

Edited January 8, 2013 by Swagato

[Porridge]

Ok, are you responding to me? Because I didn't say any of that and you are reading a whole lot of passive aggressiveness into a statement that I only made matter-of-factly. I don't think asleepawake is saying any of that either...

 

 

ETA: Didn't see your response. Glad to clear it up.

No sorry, I was responding to another  person and didn't hit the "quote button".

[asleepawake]

Well, that's a causal fallacy if ever I have seen one. "University X hires A. A comes from university B. Therefore University X will only hire from university B."

 

If you can provide me with some genuine evidence then, there might be something to your observation. But really, anything else feels like speculation. I really don't what such statement as "pedigree matters" serves other than to scare off potential candidates (competitors) to your own perceived benefit.

 

Yeah, I didn't say any of that. I said go look at some recent hires. That doesn't mean I said "Oh, look, they hired someone from Harvard. Therefore Harvard got them the job." You've applied some fundamental logic to a statement I didnt give.  Instead, you want to look for patterns. Don't just look at 1 hire, look at the whole lot for a bunch of research universities. Your pedigree doesn't determine what job you will get, but it does influence the institutions that you can expect to apply to with a reasonable chance of hire. You can also look at the recent graduate outcomes for some of your phd programs. I applied to a wide range of schools, and these lists look very different. Some schools sent a bunch of people to R1 schools and a few Ivies, others send people to mostly community colleges with a few liberal arts colleges thrown in. 

 

 

 

Edited January 8, 2013 by asleepawake

[rems]

I see what you're saying by disputing that "pedigree matters" and I think we could have a better word for it than "pedigree" which connotes a million different class biases, but, honestly, you're being dismissive to a major socioeconomic issue in our culture. A lot of us on here don't come from a "pedigree" and we are continuously reminded that it does, indeed, matter in the long run. And it's not just the name of the school that does it -- it's the entire culture and environment for fostering learning that differs. I totally dig that you're trying to be the opposite of people like don'thate by being optimistic and pc about the whole thing but, really, it does matter. The same way that coming from a family with money is better than being from a family with no money, that being a man is better than being a woman, being white is better than being black, being straight is better than being gay, etc. etc. etc. throughout all of history ever. It's getting better, definitely, but it's certainly not over. Walk into any top ranking law school in the country and see how many of those kids come from a background where their parents made less than AT LEAST (and I mean AT LEAST) 100 grand a year. There will be one or two who get in through hard work, affirmative action, and it makes the school look good to take one or two kids from "nowhere" but, mostly, it's kids from private, ivy or ivy-ish schools who came from prep schools who came from families that supported their educations, gave them the resources needed, they didn't need to work a side job, etc. etc. So it's not as simple to say that "ranking" matters (I changed to "ranking" because it's less offensive than pedigree) because the socioeconomic culture of our country isn't that simple. We like to think that those who work the hardest get what they deserve, but it doesn't exactly work that way -- Horatio Alger was wrong. So yes, ranking matters because ranking as ALWAYS mattered and will continue to matter. 

 

And on another note, there are various reasons why someone would pursue an MA in English that doesn't lead to a Ph.D. It's totally fine to ask what someone plans to do, but condensation is suggested when we ask, "Well what you expect to do with that degree?" Of course, we cannot read tone through the internet, and assuming intention doesn't get anyone anywhere, but it does connote condensation. I got my MA from a school that only offers MA's in English, and out of 20-something of my graduating class, only two of us applied for PhD's. The rest are secondary education, special education, technical writing, private school education, want to go into non-profits, blowing time before getting a real job, just wanted to read a little before they had to get a "real" job, etc. etc. Not everyone enters into higher ed with the end goal of a PhD and teaching -- some do it for varying reasons. I even went to school with one guy who wanted to go into environmental protection stuff, and said that getting ahead in those nonprofits depends on your level of degree and not what it's actually in so having an MA in English would get him a good job starting out in the field. 

[Two Espressos]

Ranking does matter.  For evidence, check both recent faculty hires at various institutions--as others have mentioned-- as well as the educational histories of the graduate cohorts at well-ranked schools.  The majority of grad students at top schools--let's say the top 30-40-- come from Ivy league schools, elite liberal arts colleges, and leading research universities.  Applicants from no-name institutions sometimes get lucky and are admitted to strong programs, but this is a rarity.  I come from a no-name institution, so I realize how poor my admissions chances are...

Edited January 8, 2013 by Two Espressos

[t1racyjacks]

come on guys, when this topic was started you knew it would eventually lead to this (that's why I didn't post initially). What happens happens. At this point many of us have already sent our applications in and 'betting' only makes people more critical of others -- without reason. Save the fight for a journal paper.

 

[if it matters I come from an Asian university. A top-ranked one, yes, but not anywhere near Ivy in reputation. I'm not even going to bother saying that I am 'no worse off' or even 'better off' than anyone here though. What's the point? So much of admissions is a toss-up. That said, class does tend to affect where one graduated from, and if that plays a part, it's a structural problem. So what can we do about it save protest on the streets? Or write more journal papers about it -- those who are more interested in 'culture' or 'politics' or the like. Even if I were really worse off (why wouldn't I be?) what does it matter right now? If we don't get it, we don't get it... http://samuel-beckett.net/Waiting_for_Godot_Part1.html'>Nothing to be done... the essential doesn't change.]

 

I think what you do in your program matters -- and also how your program ranks in your area. Some programs are particularly famous for 1 area of English as opposed to another. Probably better to get a theory-related PhD from CUNY for example, than Northwestern, even though both are excellent unis -- if you're merely talking about reputation for literary theory alone. That said, if the fit is really good, go for it. I think it's best to aim for the program you think you can do the best work in. Ultimately trying to be too 'streetwise' might end up exploding in one's face -- I don't think it's wise to aim for and get into Harvard and end up writing a mediocore thesis simply because the fit isn't good and POIs aren't ideal. If we were all so 'streetwise' anyway would any of us be applying for a Humanities PhD?

 

Remember that DH started this, probably in an 'ironic' mood to liven up things here. Fighting might beat waiting in agony (it would kill the time?) if so then fight on. But it actually doesn't matter much, I think

[practical cat]

What's the point? So much of admissions is a toss-up. That said, class does tend to affect where one graduated from, and if that plays a part, it's a structural problem. So what can we do about it save protest on the streets? Or write more journal papers about it -- those who are more interested in 'culture' or 'politics' or the like. Even if I were really worse off (why wouldn't I be?) what does it matter right now?

Many of us are ultimately going to be responsible for shaping discourse and the future of admissions. Talking about class whenever possible is incredibly urgent. This is probably not a place to change the world but it is a place to develop ideas. This dismissive attitude is way less productive than anything snide donthate has said about pedigree or wtfever. I've stayed away from what this thread has turned into because of Reasons but I respect a lot of what has been said.

[slvitale]

Rems, I think you hit the nail on the head with your comment about reading condescension in type-written commentary; the tone--which may or may not have been intended--seems to be the issue here, rather than the apparent consensus that ranking matters. People are arguing on two different platforms.

 

And this is why typography is desperately in need of "meaning" styles (e.g. something akin to italics, but indicative of sarcasm, condescension, ect...)

[rems]

Rems, I think you hit the nail on the head with your comment about reading condescension in type-written commentary; the tone--which may or may not have been intended--seems to be the issue here, rather than the apparent consensus that ranking matters. People are arguing on two different platforms.

 

And this is why typography is desperately in need of "meaning" styles (e.g. something akin to italics, but indicative of sarcasm, condescension, ect...)

 

That's a good idea! I think the main issue with "arguing" on forums comes from misinterpreting tone. Saying to someone, "You need to go to a high ranked school in order to get a job" is a very straight forward comment suggesting a fact more than an opinion. However, what we tend to hear is, "Hey idiot, what the hell do you think you're doing going to a school for stupid people? You didn't get into a good college because you're not as good as I am at everything. You suck." If only we could HEAR each other through this inter-net. 

 

Anyone watch Family Guy Sunday? Funny joke: 

 

Peter: Can we drop by the down syndrome camp on the way home? 

Lois: No, Peter, that was the University of Florida. 

[figsmcfigs]

It seems to me what we're all trying to do is gage other people's chances (versus our own obviously). I too am very interested in doing this, but wouldn't the best way to do it be by reading people's statements / writing samples? I'd like to give the admissions committees slightly more credit... In most cases they are basing their decision primarily on the quality of the substantial amount of written work they have in front of them.

 

If anybody wants to PM me their SOP I'd be very happy to read--and judge.

 

Also, strange that we don't identify our interests and "period" more prominently. That's really who we are competing against, right? They have a certain amount of early modern or Romantic slots? (I am applying for early modern lit)

[bfat]

 Applicants from no-name institutions sometimes get lucky and are admitted to strong programs, but this is a rarity.  I come from a no-name institution, so I realize how poor my admissions chances are...

 

 

This makes me sad. I'm in the "no-name school" boat too, but I think you might be a little hasty in assuming this is causative, rather than just correlative. More "prestigious" programs often just do a better job at preparing students for the application process and even for the idea of going to grad school. A "no name" school won't necessarily keep you out (except from some tippy-toppy-snooty programs, but would you want to go somewhere that's that classist and elitist anyway?), but it just might not prepare you quite as well for the admissions process.

 

BUT...

 

Many of us are ultimately going to be responsible for shaping discourse and the future of admissions. Talking about class whenever possible is incredibly urgent.

 

This too. Class issues are the #1 and only reason my degree is from a no-name school. My parents are working class and had 6 kids. I was accepted to a top 20 for undergrad but had to leave after my first semester because I simply couldn't afford even the loans, had I wanted to be that financially irresponsible and go there anyway.

[DontHate]

I was not referring to undergraduate pedigree (I'm sure that matters as well, but not as much, since there are many more undergraduate institutions than PhD programs) -- I'm talking about where you get your doctorate. This isn't something I have an "inkling" of, it's something that is documented with statistical evidence in every report on the tenure-track job market, and something my professors have reiterated when advising me. Talk to anybody in academia if you don't believe me. 

 

I'm sorry if my use of the word "pedigree" touched off a nerve. I'm not referring to your parentage, or whether or not your sire was a member of the AKC. I mean who you studied with, where you studied, who else was in the program with you, what kind of work was being done at your institution. That stuff. 

 

I don't think there's anything wrong with getting an MA or a PhD and not going on to become a tenure-track professor. I just assume, by default, that this is what people intend to do with their PhD's. I'm not trying to be snide, and I think the people who read snideness into my posts are the ones who are the most insecure about the topics being discussed. It's like if someone were to say "most professional ballet companies don't accept overweight dancers" (a fact that is perhaps unfair but nonetheless true) and readers interpreted that to mean "fat people shouldn't dance."

 

Ya dig?

Edited January 8, 2013 by DontHate

[t1racyjacks]

I don't think that talking about class vaguely, in general on a forum, would really get us anywhere. We need a sustained analysis with evidence and the like if we are to say anything remotely helpful or original instead of saying the obvious, which is what is happening ie people from lower classes tend to go to less prestigious unis, people are sensitive about the top-ranked programs, etc. I just don't feel that the discussion has been very helpful in terms of production of ideas with regard to the discourse about admissions and the like. Sure, many have made valid points, but these are generally not anything that people don't know and thus far I don't see any sustained interesting thinking on this point With respect to tone, I think that we have been, to an extent, spoiled by emoticons. If the best users of language can get across tone without them, we should aim to reach that standard as well.

[DontHate]

I don't think that talking about class vaguely, in general on a forum, would really get us anywhere. We need a sustained analysis with evidence and the like if we are to say anything remotely helpful or original instead of saying the obvious, which is what is happening ie people from lower classes tend to go to less prestigious unis, people are sensitive about the top-ranked programs, etc. I just don't feel that the discussion has been very helpful in terms of production of ideas with regard to the discourse about admissions and the like. Sure, many have made valid points, but these are generally not anything that people don't know and thus far I don't see any sustained interesting thinking on this point With respect to tone, I think that we have been, to an extent, spoiled by emoticons. If the best users of language can get across tone without them, we should aim to reach that standard as well.

 

If you don't think the discussion is going anywhere that you like, then don't participate in it. Simple as that.

[t1racyjacks]

If you don't think the discussion is going anywhere that you like, then don't participate in it. Simple as that.

of course. I was trying to get people to calm down, since it seemed that the arguments were getting heated. But apparently being angry produces endorphins so I shall leave people to their kicks.

[rems]

Ya dig?

 

I dig. 

[Two Espressos]

This makes me sad. I'm in the "no-name school" boat too, but I think you might be a little hasty in assuming this is causative, rather than just correlative. More "prestigious" programs often just do a better job at preparing students for the application process and even for the idea of going to grad school. A "no name" school won't necessarily keep you out (except from some tippy-toppy-snooty programs, but would you want to go somewhere that's that classist and elitist anyway?), but it just might not prepare you quite as well for the admissions process.

 

BUT...

 

This too. Class issues are the #1 and only reason my degree is from a no-name school. My parents are working class and had 6 kids. I was accepted to a top 20 for undergrad but had to leave after my first semester because I simply couldn't afford even the loans, had I wanted to be that financially irresponsible and go there anyway.

 

I come from a working class background as well, and that--alongside the fact that I was a pretty clueless college applicant my senior year of high school-- shaped where I currently study.

 

I didn't mean to imply that the relation between prestige and admissions chances is causative.  I agree that it's more correlative, largely a result of better preparation, more encouragement to pursue doctoral education, etc. at more prestigious colleges and universities.  Plus one needs to consider that schools with higher admissions standards tend to have a larger percentage of more intelligent students, which factors into why graduate program cohorts seem to be mostly composed of students from a small subset of elite schools.

 

It's a hard, bitter truth, but graduate program websites that list the educational histories of their students speak to the reality of these matters.  I'm pretty much fucked, but oh well.

[ProfLorax]

Heated discussions are not a bad thing. In fact, some of the greatest analysis comes from highly heated discussions. And, unlike most charged debates on the Internet, this did NOT spiral into a bunch of ad hominen attacks. So hurray! Ya'll defied the laws of the Internet! I have some scattered thoughts to throw out there, not really responding to anyone in particular. Here we go!

 

We have to talk about class. Oh, and gender, sexuality, race, etc. Because, despite what we want to believe, academia is not a utopian den where classism or any other -isms don't exist. Like bfat, my class upbringing shaped how I saw myself as a scholar at the age of 17, so I didn't apply to any out of state or private schools. It wasn't some painful decision my family and I made after looking at the budget. I just never saw myself at a "fancy" school. Never even considered it. I see this with my community college students all the time; they have internalized where "students like them" go for their undergraduate degree, and they very rarely apply to top schools for transfer. One of my favorite parts of my job is opening students' eyes to their potential and to the programs that support students from low-income and/or minority families. That works on an individual level, but if we want institutional change, we have to keep talking about class whenever the opportunity presents itself.

 

Ok, now onto "pedigree" and ranking. There seems to be two discussions: the ranking of the BA/MA program for PhD applicants and the ranking of the PhD program for job searchers. We are all agreed that it absolutely matters where we get our PhD's for the job search. However, I do firmly believe that the source of our BA/MA degree is not as important in PhD applications as what we do while we are enrolled in our BA and/or MA programs. Of course, I'm sure it helps if an applicant has a degree with a pretty name stamped on the top-- name recognition and prestigious connections are invaluable in academia. But while an Ivy league undergrad degree may get someone in, I don't know if a public, state school degree will keep a qualified student out. I went to a California State University for my MA, and a bunch of us worked our butts off to present at conferences, publish our own journal, volunteer with professional organizations, and the like. From my cohort, students went to Northwestern, University of Arizona, WUSTL, USC, UC Davis, University of Illinois--Urbana-Champaign, and UC Berkeley. No Ivies, but still top schools in their fields. So, I believe it is possible to come from a "no name" program and do well within the world of PhD applications. 

[slvitale]

At the risk of inciting another argument, I was wondering if anyone had any insights regarding my current concern:

 

Will a 162 V (158Q/5AW) keep me "out"? I have a BA from Rutgers with a 4.0 GPA.

 

Note, I had planned on retaking the GRE, but geographic conflict (they relocated my testing center two hours away) prevented that from happening.

 

Schools to which I applied: Duke, Chapel Hill, WUSTL, Columbia, Penn, Maryland, Brown.

[ProfLorax]

Will a 162 V (158Q/5AW) keep me "out"? 

I sure hope not, as I got a 161V! To read a good discussion about GRE scores, check out this thread: 

It's a six page long conversation about GRE scores in PhD applications. You'll find a bunch of different perspectives about the weight of GRE scores in this process. 

Edited January 8, 2013 by proflorax

[rems]

On 1/8/2013 at 11:34 AM, slvitale said:

At the risk of inciting another argument, I was wondering if anyone had any insights regarding my current concern:

 

Will a 162 V (158Q/5AW) keep me "out"? I have a BA from Rutgers with a 4.0 GPA.

 

Note, I had planned on retaking the GRE, but geographic conflict (they relocated my testing center two hours away) prevented that from happening.

 

Schools to which I applied: Duke, Chapel Hill, WUSTL, Columbia, Penn, Maryland, Brown.

 

No look pretty good from a numbers stand point. And your GRE AND GPA are better than mine and you come from Rutgers. All-in-all, you might have a shot. 

 

On 1/8/2013 at 10:57 AM, proflorax said:

Heated discussions are not a bad thing. In fact, some of the greatest analysis comes from highly heated discussions. And, unlike most charged debates on the Internet, this did NOT spiral into a bunch of ad hominen attacks. So hurray! Ya'll defied the laws of the Internet! I have some scattered thoughts to throw out there, not really responding to anyone in particular. Here we go!

 

We have to talk about class. Oh, and gender, sexuality, race, etc. Because, despite what we want to believe, academia is not a utopian den where classism or any other -isms don't exist. Like bfat, my class upbringing shaped how I saw myself as a scholar at the age of 17, so I didn't apply to any out of state or private schools. It wasn't some painful decision my family and I made after looking at the budget. I just never saw myself at a "fancy" school. Never even considered it. I see this with my community college students all the time; they have internalized where "students like them" go for their undergraduate degree, and they very rarely apply to top schools for transfer. One of my favorite parts of my job is opening students' eyes to their potential and to the programs that support students from low-income and/or minority families. That works on an individual level, but if we want institutional change, we have to keep talking about class whenever the opportunity presents itself.

 

Ok, now onto "pedigree" and ranking. There seems to be two discussions: the ranking of the BA/MA program for PhD applicants and the ranking of the PhD program for job searchers. We are all agreed that it absolutely matters where we get our PhD's for the job search. However, I do firmly believe that the source of our BA/MA degree is not as important in PhD applications as what we do while we are enrolled in our BA and/or MA programs. Of course, I'm sure it helps if an applicant has a degree with a pretty name stamped on the top-- name recognition and prestigious connections are invaluable in academia. But while an Ivy league undergrad degree may get someone in, I don't know if a public, state school degree will keep a qualified student out. I went to a California State University for my MA, and a bunch of us worked our butts off to present at conferences, publish our own journal, volunteer with professional organizations, and the like. From my cohort, students went to Northwestern, University of Arizona, WUSTL, USC, UC Davis, University of Illinois--Urbana-Champaign, and UC Berkeley. No Ivies, but still top schools in their fields. So, I believe it is possible to come from a "no name" program and do well within the world of PhD applications. 

 

Very well said! 

[lisajay]

 It's like if someone were to say "most professional ballet companies don't accept overweight dancers" (a fact that is perhaps unfair but nonetheless true) and readers interpreted that to mean "fat people shouldn't dance."

 

Ya dig?

 

great analogy.

[slvitale]

Thank proflorax--I'll check out that thread. You too, Rems--thanks for the encouragement!