C&EN article on PhD schools of tenured faculty?

[BlackAlbino]

Chemical & Engineering News published an article a while back with data on where tenured faculty (in chemistry) received their PhDs.

 

It basically showed that a large percentage of all faculty members got their PhDs at the top 10 chemistry schools.

 

Does anyone remember what the article was called, or better yet, have a link to it?

 

I have tried all manner of searches looking for this article on google, but have had absolutely no luck.

[Faraday]

I think this is what you are looking for:

http://pubs.acs.org/cen/education/8139/8139education1.html

[BlackAlbino]

This is it!

Thanks a lot.

[iowaguy]

So, takeaway from that article is that the program (university) matters a lot more than your particular POI, if you plan to go into academia???  Some people suggest that your choice of POI is more important than which university you choose, but this article would suggest otherwise if you're planning for a career as a professor...  Your thoughts?

[BlackAlbino]

I think the takeaway message is that "prestige" is an issue that plays a bigger role than most people are willing to admit.

[iowaguy]

Precisely, so why all the focus on making sure you choose the right POI?  Seems like much better strategy is to make sure you get accepted to a top-10 university so you have adequate "prestige" factor working for you in your academic career...  As long as you think you can complete the program, it seems like you should suck it up and work with a less-than-ideal POI at a top-10 program, even if your dream POI is at the #30 ranked program...

[DropTheBase]

Precisely, so why all the focus on making sure you choose the right POI?  Seems like much better strategy is to make sure you get accepted to a top-10 university so you have adequate "prestige" factor working for you in your academic career...  As long as you think you can complete the program, it seems like you should suck it up and work with a less-than-ideal POI at a top-10 program, even if your dream POI is at the #30 ranked program...

 

 

I've been told that it's dangerous to choose a school based on hopes of working with ONE particular POI. That POI might not be able to take on new students, lose funding, die, leave the university...etc. I think it's fair to say that the higher ranked schools have departments filled with PI's doing incredible research, even if it isn't our exact cup of tea. It seems best to be open-minded about the work we do, and I think it's easier to be open-minded in a "better" chemistry department (more/better options).

 

Maybe it's smarter to find a way to convince ourselves that the "less-than-ideal" POI at a top-10 program is actually the ideal POI?

 

By the way, is there a similar article for industry jobs instead of academia?

[Faraday]

Are you reading the same article I am?

They point out that yes, a majority of professors at top institutions earned their PhD degrees from similarly prestigious universities. They also point out that there is a bigger picture here. First and foremost there seems to be a general theme that a PhD from say, Berkeley, is not just going to land you a job teaching at Stanford. So do the institutions themselves make better students (more teaching at top universities), or do the better students tend to go to the top institutions in the first place in a sort of self-fulfilling prophecy? I imagine it is more of the latter, and hence the degree itself become less meaningful.

 

The important factor is the research you do during your PhD and the training you get that develops you into a scientist. Are you doing "cutting-edge research"? Do you have, "opportunities to teach, give research talks, contribute to grant writing, join a journal club, and attend conferences"? These skills make a scientist. Furthermore, a better indicator of your potential future in academia can be reflected in a potential PI's track record with placing students in academia in the first place.

Further down in the article they talk about something you guys don't seem to be mentioning.

"In addition, many of the admissions directors whom C&EN contacted suggested that, for those who hope to get a top academic position, where one goes to grad school isn't as important as where--and with whom--one does postdoctoral research."

So in general, they say your post-doc is more important than where you get your PhD. Lastly, they also point out that while your prestigious Berkeley degree might get someone's attention on a selection committee, once you get to the interview stage your degree is pointless and it is all on you to show them why you deserve the job. They are interested in evaluating your potential as a scientist, including the aforementioned qualities. So the real focus for anyone with lofty goals in academia should be to "aim as high as possible, work as hard as you can, and network like mad". The moral of the story is whether or not you have a prestigious degree you need to be working your butt off the entire time to get to the top of academia, and the degree itself is not a recipie for success or failure.

Edited January 20, 2013 by Faraday

[BlackAlbino]

Everything Faraday says is reasonable.

 

The fact remains, however, that the qualities Faraday mentions as being intrinsic to success as an academic seem to be demonstrated more frequently by graduates of a small number of schools.

 

The reasons for that aren't necessarily clear, but there must be significant reasons that 4% of Caltech PhDs, for example, go into the upper echelons of academia.

[Faraday]

Everything Faraday says is reasonable.

 

The fact remains, however, that the qualities Faraday mentions as being intrinsic to success as an academic seem to be demonstrated more frequently by graduates of a small number of schools.

 

The reasons for that aren't necessarily clear, but there must be significant reasons that 4% of Caltech PhDs, for example, go into the upper echelons of academia.

 

Yes, I just edited to add in something to this effect. Do the institutions make the better graduate students? Possibly to some degree, but more likely is that the better students go to those institutions in the first place, and the circle completes itself...

[UBackwardsChemistry]

Precisely, so why all the focus on making sure you choose the right POI?  Seems like much better strategy is to make sure you get accepted to a top-10 university so you have adequate "prestige" factor working for you in your academic career...  As long as you think you can complete the program, it seems like you should suck it up and work with a less-than-ideal POI at a top-10 program, even if your dream POI is at the #30 ranked program...

 

One of the worst decisions you can make: work for a less-that-ideal PI. In case you didn't follow the Chemjobber–Not the Lab back and forth last week about the mental toll of gradschool I have provided a link to the first post:

http://chemjobber.blogspot.ca/2013/01/is-graduate-school-in-chemistry-bad-for.html

Gradschool is definitely not a time that you want to give someone that you are not 100% committed to working for that much power over your life and future.

[iowaguy]

"In addition, many of the admissions directors whom C&EN contacted suggested that, for those who hope to get a top academic position, where one goes to grad school isn't as important as where--and with whom--one does postdoctoral research."

So in general, they say your post-doc is more important than where you get your PhD.

 

So, how much of a factor does prestige (where you got your PhD) have when appling for post-doc positions?  My hunch is that the top-10 programs churn out a lot more candidates of the top post-doc positions.  Possibly for the reason that you mentioned, that the top students tend to choose the top schools...

[iowaguy]

One of the worst decisions you can make: work for a less-that-ideal PI.  

 

OK, let's go with your logic here...  Which provides the best chance for landing a good post-doc and eventually a successful career in academia:

 

#1:  work with less-than-ideal PI at top-10 program

 

#2:  work with ideal PI at program ranked #30 in the U.S.

[Quantum Buckyball]

OK, let's go with your logic here...  Which provides the best chance for landing a good post-doc and eventually a successful career in academia:

 

#1:  work with less-than-ideal PI at top-10 program

 

#2:  work with ideal PI at program ranked #30 in the U.S.

Definitely #2. I think it's very naive to assume that you would have a better chance for landing a good post-doc position because you graduate from a top-10 program.

Also, it's very naive to assume that you would "definitely" graduate from a top-ranked school because you got accepted there.

gurl puhleaze.

[Eigen]

#2. 

 

Landing a good post-doc is more about your PIs connections than where you did your PhD. 

 

Ideally, by the time you're applying for a post-doc, and then for faculty positions, your name itself will be recognizable to people in your field- they've seen you talk at conferences, they've read interesting papers you've published, and you've met and talked to them at conferences/invited lectures. 

 

The last person on a search committee I talked to said that the stuff on your CV matters to get you an interview, but at the interview it's all about how you come across- can you convince them you're a smart, talented scientist with ideas and the background to carry them through, or not?

 

Networking is really important. Where you got your PhD may help with that, but it's not the most important factor. Schools that have a lot of PhDs placed in academia tend to perpetuate that, since new graduates from those schools (should) already have a network built of past graduates that are now on search committees at those schools. 

 

Another factor that wasn't mentioned is advisor's recommendations. At the big programs, good PIs will have multiple students graduating and applying for jobs each cycle. While they might give good recommendations to all of them, they will only really be able to give their "top" recommendation to one of them. If you're in for the competition, then you might (or might not) be that person. 

 

Whoever gets the "top" recommendation will have a good shot at getting interviews, most likely. The others probably won't. 

 

My PI, and most of the faculty in my department, did PhDs/Post-docs at top 5 schools. I've asked them if they would repeat it, and most of them have said they wouldn't. That they thought things would have been smoother and better going to a lower-ranked school with a PI that they really fit with for the PhD, and then going to a top-5 school for a post-doc, based on the work and recommendations from grad school. 

 

I'm at a school ranked under 100. But my PI, and other mentors, have good connections to PIs at top 5 schools, and I've gotten to consistently meet with them and talk with them. Coming from here, I think I have a very good shot at a "top" post-doc, and that's what matters more. Most of our previous grads have gone on to top post-docs for what they want to do- either at a top school, or with the top researchers in their field. 

[Quantum Buckyball]

#2. 

 

Landing a good post-doc is more about your PIs connections than where you did your PhD. 

 

Ideally, by the time you're applying for a post-doc, and then for faculty positions, your name itself will be recognizable to people in your field- they've seen you talk at conferences, they've read interesting papers you've published, and you've met and talked to them at conferences/invited lectures. 

 

The last person on a search committee I talked to said that the stuff on your CV matters to get you an interview, but at the interview it's all about how you come across- can you convince them you're a smart, talented scientist with ideas and the background to carry them through, or not?

 

Networking is really important. Where you got your PhD may help with that, but it's not the most important factor. Schools that have a lot of PhDs placed in academia tend to perpetuate that, since new graduates from those schools (should) already have a network built of past graduates that are now on search committees at those schools. 

 

Another factor that wasn't mentioned is advisor's recommendations. At the big programs, good PIs will have multiple students graduating and applying for jobs each cycle. While they might give good recommendations to all of them, they will only really be able to give their "top" recommendation to one of them. If you're in for the competition, then you might (or might not) be that person. 

 

Whoever gets the "top" recommendation will have a good shot at getting interviews, most likely. The others probably won't. 

 

My PI, and most of the faculty in my department, did PhDs/Post-docs at top 5 schools. I've asked them if they would repeat it, and most of them have said they wouldn't. That they thought things would have been smoother and better going to a lower-ranked school with a PI that they really fit with for the PhD, and then going to a top-5 school for a post-doc, based on the work and recommendations from grad school. 

 

I'm at a school ranked under 100. But my PI, and other mentors, have good connections to PIs at top 5 schools, and I've gotten to consistently meet with them and talk with them. Coming from here, I think I have a very good shot at a "top" post-doc, and that's what matters more. Most of our previous grads have gone on to top post-docs for what they want to do- either at a top school, or with the top researchers in their field. 

triple like

[DropTheBase]

What if you don't intend to get a postdoc (continue the academic route)?

[Eigen]

Then your connections with Industry during your PhD will be far, far more important than the "rank" of your school. 

 

That said, this thread is directly concerning the schools of tenured faculty, so it might be better to start a parallel discussion on the effect of school rank on your chance in industry. 

[DropTheBase]

What are we defining as a "less-than-ideal" PI?

 

The decision seems clear if a "less-than-ideal" PI is someone who mistreats his/her students. But what about in the context of research fit?

[UBackwardsChemistry]

What are we defining as a "less-than-ideal" PI?

 

The decision seems clear if a "less-than-ideal" PI is someone who mistreats his/her students. But what about in the context of research fit?

 

I think that mistreatment is definitely a no-brainer for this classification. However, on the research end consider that most projects will require 50+ hours a week for years to advance and, more importantly, you are expected to advance them significantly during your stay. If you aren't inspired to do your research it will probably be a lot harder to put your nose to the grindstone and end up with a good thesis/publication record/LOR IMO. Sure, you'll have the name brand of prof Hardass Slavedriver at BSDU, but you could well end up with bupkis due to the above factors.

[Faraday]

Sure, you'll have the name brand of prof Hardass Slavedriver at BSDU, but you could well end up with bupkis due to the above factors.

 

I see what you did there.

 

I think the tie-in to the initial article I posted is that while you might have the prestige of your PI, you may not necessarily have the other qualities that you should be developing that will make you a scientist and in the end allow you to pass the interview stage for professorship with flying colors.

Edited January 21, 2013 by Faraday

[prolixity]

What if you don't intend to get a postdoc (continue the academic route)?

The majority of industry consultants cluster together at the best universities as well.

[UBackwardsChemistry]

look familiar?

http://chemjobber.blogspot.ca/2013/03/reddit-chemistry-jobs-faq-part-4-does.html