holy shit

[gilbertrollins]

Fabio Rojas's advice is extremely sound.  For the vast majority of people, the best graduate school advice is: don't go to graduate school.  The jokes about discontented graduate students are all a wonderful laugh until you actually are a person in their mid-twenties or early thirties borrowing money to finish a dissertation, having a first child while make 14k a year, unable to land on a dissertation and teaching intro courses at local community colleges, and so forth.

[breaks0]

Gilbert, thanks for the extensive, honest and balanced reply. What I take out of that ultimately then is what I started out with, get a phd (or even just a masters) in econ or don't go to another social science phd program  unless you get into a top 20 program w/5 years of full funding. If you want a job w/a modicum of security you can live on anyway, unless you wanna work in the private sector.

Edited April 27, 2014 by breaks0

[gilbertrollins]

Well like I said I think that's the plan unless you're ok with not being very engaged as a researcher.  I think if you can get an unfunded offer from a T20 and the department can also provide students for you to talk to who have made it work through RA/TA pay, that's a good bet too (lots of people have noisy signals, and you may be stronger than other candidates who got funding that year - things change a lot after year 1 and 2).  

 

And I want to stress that if you're interested in being mainly a teacher, then getting a Ph.D. and going onto the market for lower ranked programs is absolutely worth your while, because there are indeed jobs out there further down in the ranks, and there are a lot of kids out there lined up to pay you to teach them.  In a perfect world, people who want to research would bifurcate into different doctoral programs than people who want to teach, and researchers would have to fend for their own money (and not siphon off teaching revenues), leaving college teachers getting paid much more than they currently do.  I don't like the situation where teaching is low status, and think it's rather disastrous for kids who have to wade through bad teachers.  But it's the world as it is now.

[Roll Right]

To "TheTruth1234":

 

This post is the worst brand of claptrap one could come across. Not only does it stink of elitism and cybernetics, but it is also grounded in fear and irrational projections regarding the future of individuals one has never met.

 

Where to begin? Well, first of all, to reduce the landscape of sociology programs to a mere "top 20" is completely rediculous. There are many more graduate programs out there beyond the "top 20", certainly offering many different specializations which are absent or merely touched upon at "top 20" schools , and thus are not necessary comparable to the "top 20" in some kind of academic litmus test. In other words, the "top 20" are only worth attending if they offer what you're looking for in terms of a specialization. If they don't offer what you want to pursue, then why the hell would you apply? Apply to a non "top 20" school! And if your answer is "ooooowoowowowowwowow the prestige, such prestige!!", then its likely that you're merely interested in accumulating status, which you think will lead to an accumulation of wealth. If that is the case, stay out of graduate school so those who actually want to develop and disseminate knowledge and critical insight may have a better chance at being accepted.

 

Second, if you think that the PhD's from the top 20 graduate programs in sociology are getting all the "good jobs" while the remaining PhD's languish in the "ok jobs", then clearly your measure of a "good job" is one dimensional at best. The prestige of a degree from the "top 20" may yield a higher rate of pay, and that is certainly important for "happiness" at some level, but I would rather accept a moderate rate of remuneration and enjoy teaching students at the state university I received my BA from. Theres no glitz, glamour or wealth to be found there, but I would appreciate the opportunity to give back to a community that supported me early on. If you don't mind selling your soul for a few extra thousand annually, be my guest.

 

I could go on and on, but I'll leave it here. You're free to support the elitist machine of academia. Your uncritical post already suggests that your an unquestioning bourgeois cheerleader...but don't impress your twisted perspective on the fledgling students who rely on this board for insight from others. This is a supportive community, not a divisive community. Perhaps that why your initial post was deleted....

 

And for those who think a PhD from outside of the "top 20" is a degree for teaching: If you think all of the research in sociology is completed by "top 20" PhDs, you're sadly mistaken. There are many non "top 20" PhD's who regularly publish, regularly engage in academic debates, and regularly work with communities to deal with current social problems.

 

I'm a graduate student in an unranked, newly established PhD program, and I already have two articles under review at two high impact journals, one which has recevied extremely positive feedback for an R&R, and I anticipate very good feedback for the other. I haven't even taken comprehensive exams yet! Aside from that, my program reimburses me for conference expenses every year, allowing me to present my work at ASA or any of the regionals I am interested in. Furthermore, my fellow graduate students and I throw a national research conference every year for graduate students who want to share their work with others. We usually get 100+ participants, which isn't bad for a small unranked program. The point of this anecdote: there are plenty of opportunities for non "top 20" folks.

 

What is this crap about non "top 20" programs being the kiss of death? Is everyone drinking the kool-aid? Pure ideological garbage.

Edited April 29, 2014 by Roll Right

[Roll Right]

Also, I might ask this question: If most of you believe or suspect that the working conditions in academia are eroding (and they are, that is true), then why don't you organize against this erosion? My campus is in the fledgingly stages of organizing graduate and adjunct labor....several other universities have already done this...

 

Academia is not a "natural" system. Lets be critical of this state of affairs.

[Darth.Vegan]

Amen. 

[Maleficent999]

WORD!

[gilbertrollins]

And for those who think a PhD from outside of the "top 20" is a degree for teaching: If you think all of the research in sociology is completed by "top 20" PhDs, you're sadly mistaken. There are many non "top 20" PhD's who regularly publish, regularly engage in academic debates, and regularly work with communities to deal with current social problems.

 

This view is not supported by the literature on the distribution of academic citations.

[breaks0]

Roll, with all due respect, while much what you say is true, the job market is just horrible. And I'm sorry, but I don't think you can deny that all that money the big schools are sitting on doesn't have a dramatic impact on one's career prospects. I'm thinking of my own situation atm when I say this, about which I may reveal more later, including about what I'd like to study, which I haven't much to date on this board. But I think it can and to some level does apply to most people. It is NOT crap to be concerned about your career prospects and the doors top 20 programs open in many and maybe the most popular fields is undeniable. It isn't the kiss of death, you're right, and fine it depends on what you do w/the opportunities you get within or beyond your school. And I'm not knocking what you and your colleagues have accomplished, but part of the reason for the fear is to be blunt it's fucking scary out there job-wise! There are no two ways around it. At the very least it is that much harder if you go to one of the schools w/o the 2-40 billion dollar endowments that range between say an nyu/berkeley at the low end and harvard at the top. Library collection  size matters, location matters, prominence in the field matters of your committee members matters, your level of funding matters, etc. Maybe it doesnt to you, maybe you're also right that it's more on what/how you do than anything else, but (repeating myself again probably) it's ALOT harder and can worst case scenario ultimately be a career killer, which no one on this board wants. I don't wanna be rich, my fear is I don't go to berkeley (my dream school), this won't be a viable career no matter how good my work is. I may be paranoid, quite possibly, but you can't realistically dismiss such fears and concerns as crap if you want your argument to be taken seriously.

 

And re: organizing, fine, go for it. NYU students had the 1st and only grad student union in the country for many years till the administration decertified it. I know my data/info is dated, so I'm sure you or others can update me on that, perhaps someone who's at or has graduated from nyu. But remember this happened at what i've seen posters on threads past call the top marxist soc dept in the country, the best for professional training in the subfield anyway. I know the two facts may not be directly connected, but what does/could that tell you?

Edited April 30, 2014 by breaks0

[breaks0]

And btw, if this makes me appear elitist... I dunno what to say, my response would be simply, why don't we all deserve the same access to resources students at top 20 schools have? It isn't the reality, but it damn sure isn't fair, and I wouldn't wish that on your or other members of this board any more than I would myself, that isnt conducive to a top level education. Which we all deserve.

[Whatishistoryanyway]

This view is not supported by the literature on the distribution of academic citations.

I don't get what you're saying here. Roll said there are plenty of non top 20 folk publishing and participating in the discussion. Roll didn't say they were doing it at higher/better rates. Are you saying Roll's wrong? Because I think that would be a silly thing to say.

Edited April 30, 2014 by Whatishistoryanyway

[Maleficent999]

I don't necessarily agree with the sentiment, but I think Gilbertrollins was saying that the distribution of publications (aka citations) doesn't support it.

[Darth.Vegan]

What Gilbertrollins said is probably true if the only publications you care about are ASR, AJS and Social Forces. Then again my department is outside of the top 20 and publishing in those journals anyway. That said, even getting a pub in the top 3 is a matter of privilege, and it's well known that certain "in" subfields are valued over others. 

Edited April 30, 2014 by xdarthveganx

[Roll Right]

I am not suggesting that the job market is in bad shape, nor am I suggesting that a degree from a "top 20" program doesn't come with an advantage over those outside of the "top 20". But you must remember, I'm responding to the ridiculous notion that you shouldn't go to grad school if you don't get into a "top 20" program (and if you do, do it at your own risk!). That is just a silly thing to say, especially to a group of fledgling students who are pursuing their life passion (presumably). There are plenty of ways to become successful outside of the "top 20".

 

About the publishing: I'm sure that those in "top 20" programs have higher citations rates. Thats not the point. Yes, the professors at "top 20" programs have the option to pump out research articles and books while their TA lectures and grades for them, and this is not always the case in non "top 20" programs. But those in non "top 20" programs are still researching, and they are still publishing, and they are still enjoying it. The non "top 20" still has a research agenda.

[gilbertrollins]

Many status distinctions exist as a result of, not in spite of, the best efforts of well meaning and intelligent but constrained individuals to behave in an ethically sound manner and evaluate one another based on transparently proscribed criterion.  Many status distinctions exist because of arbitrary and harmful efforts of either ignorant or willfully malicious people to exploit others.  There is a profound difference between these mechanisms, and deciding which one is operating in any number of contexts will be one of your professional responsibilities as a social story teller.

 

On my estimation, graduate school admissions and the conduct of professional scholarship manifests the first sort of status distinctions.  Discontent with academic institutions is ripe among all disciplines because academics are a bunch of self referential whiners who have a lot of time on their hands and extremely high ideals.  So be it; I'm guilty.  But our hierarchies emerge because thinking, reading, and writing take an enormous amount of time and energy and people are only so smart and there is only so much time.  So people use status distinctions on the front end to decide whether or not an intellectual resource is worth investing further in.  In almost no other employment situation will people go to such great pains to evaluate the individual product of a worker beyond these group affiliations.  

 

This is the best we can do.  It works the same way in the street.  We have a division of labor in cultural and intellectual specialists who tell social stories because not everybody hast the time or desire to sit back and contemplate the world.  So some people dedicate their entire day to writing journal articles or reality TV scripts or campaign speeches.  

 

Accepting these kinds of realities and understanding their functional significance, while understanding that other hierarchies and specializations (say, military hierarchies specialized in murdering people with remote control airplanes) have different functions and arise for different reasons is how we become nuanced thinkers and make better science.

[gilbertrollins]

But those in non "top 20" programs are still researching, and they are still publishing, and they are still enjoying it. The non "top 20" still has a research agenda.

 

This is true, and the absolute minority of what jobs at lower ranked institutions entail.  There are also opportunities to influence for instance municipal policy with white papers and government consulting when working at small liberal arts colleges and so forth.  But the vast majority of what you will do is teach.  And the vast majority of people who end up with jobs outside the top 30 or 40 will not have a substantial impact on the scientific conversation.  Many (most?) people enter graduate school with precisely that goal in mind.  I am trying to convey when it is reasonable to have that expectation or not, not to tell everyone to give up on studying sociology altogether if they don't get into Harvard.

[Roll Right]

What do you mean by "substantial" impact? It sounds to me like you're defining the "scientific conversation"  as a conversation among elites. Of course the non "top 20" folks will have a negligible impact on the conversation of elites. Thats part of the problem. This "scientific conversation" is a mode of domination.

 

Why do you uncritically accept these "functional systems," this "division of labor?" Is the functionalist position really that bankrupt?

[gilbertrollins]

You get paid to read books, fly to San Francisco and get hammered this summer, and post and read articles on the internet.  After completing the requirements of your program and convincing your mentors and students that you're sufficiently amiable to be around, you will get a teaching position somewhere and get a captive audience to discuss things that you find satisfying on a personal, political, and intellectual level all day long.

 

In what sense are you being dominated currently?

[Roll Right]

If you think academia is without a system of domination, you're kidding yourself. A marginal level of remuneration in exchange for intellectual labor (particularly for graduate students who are often not paid a living wage), and a reimbursement for travel expenses, is hardly sufficient evidence for dismissing any notion of domination. 

 

Academics are becoming contingent laborers at an alarming rate while university administrations fill their coffers with surplus value. Graduate students are being exploited for their labor. We have adjunct professors living out of cars. These instances aren't pointing to the specific form of domination which I was referring to. They are much more important to point out, however.

 

My point was that the "scientific conversation" you highlighted is largely a sham--an elitist conversation that is designed to exclude the non "top 20" and their intellectual insights. This is hardly a "scientific conversation" in the typical sense of the notion. If anything, its a value laden conversation which functions to inflate the status positions of those who take part in it, while keeping those who are excluded from it on the margins. How is that not a form of domination?

[gilbertrollins]

If the elite conversation in sociology is a sham, I don't understand why you seem to have taken the majority of your position from it.  The positions you're espousing have been popular and in many facets central to the scientific conversation in elite sociology for decades.  I apologize for not engaging the particulars of what you said further.

 

For the kids at home: your taste or distaste for the social structure you face in the academy notwithstanding, it would be wise to take into account the situation as it is.  No matter what rank of graduate school you get in to, your ability to influence the academic job market and rate at which other people cite papers from which journals is about zero in the limit, so it would be wise to make your career choices based on how things are versus how you would like them to be.

[Whatishistoryanyway]

The trolls are still out feeding, huh?

I don't see why this thread is still alive. It started off as a rant that warned others of the eternal hell one would face if attending a school that isn't in the top 20. Many folks countered it saying it was ridiculous and that this isn't the community for that type of mess. Now the conversation has evolved into one that claims only the faculty at top 20 publish worthy research. This is also absurd. I just don't get it. What is there to be gained from these conversations? We know prestige exist, but you have to go deeper than that. It seems like gilbert, thetruth, and a few others are the only ones obsessing over it. Wait until you hit the job market and realize only a handful of schools in the top 50 are hiring. And then, because of the same prestige issues you are trying to parrot to us, you only get an interview or two at a lower ranked, nonranked or small liberal arts school. Walk in with your nose in the air pretending you're better than the established scholars interviewing you and are automatically qualified for the tenure track job at middle-of-nowhere state university just because you finished up at Prestigious University the month before. Before you know it, you'll be sitting at home (your mom or SO's house) wondering why you're unemployed.

 

A forum for prospective sociology grads is the last place I would have imagined having these types of threads every week. Take a look at the other forums and tell me if you see this. Everyday there are plenty of young sociologists on this forum trying to help others out. They're from all backgrounds--anywhere imaginable in the rankings. Yet everyday they have to sift through masked clowns claiming they're getting a worthless degree.

 

edit: upon further review (I hadn't read all the posts), I'd like to retract some of my statements. Although I disagree with some of the sentiments, Gilbert seems to understand that many are perfectly fine with the outcomes that are associated with receiving a PhD at lower ranked universities. I still have no idea why we are debating some of these issues though.

Edited May 1, 2014 by Whatishistoryanyway

[breaks0]

History, I find the debate educational, for me anyway, and therefore quite valuable. The debate is alive, for the moment anyway, b/c it isn't settled, we don't have a consensus on these issues and I don't think that's possible. Some of us at least are still figuring out where to go in terms of a wide variety of issues, including our career prospects when we come out of hopefully a phd. I like all it gives me to think about at least. I hope roll is right, but alot of what Gilbert points out, for example, is largely true. I'm not sure who you have in mind as a clown, I don't see any, maybe it's just me. That said, yes I'm grateful for the feedback of sociologists and if that makes this board special, I guess we're fortunate, but I would hope at least that debates like this wouldnt drive them away, it's at least useful to some of us still trying to get into programs anyway.

[Whatishistoryanyway]

Take a look at this thread:

 

These threads come up multiple times a month it seems. Sociology is no different than any other field in the humanities and social sciences when it comes to prestige, yet you don't see these popping up so much in the other sections of the message board. I'm not really sure what's being added to the discussion when it just seems like one side of the debate is convinced that noting much comes out of schools out  of the top 20. Although, after scrolling back, I realized that not all of the debate was that one-dimensional.

 

My edit in my last post was meant to tone down things a little bit. I didn't really mean to call anyone a clown, I just meant to say that some of the accusations could be offensive. Take a look at the OP in the link I just referenced for an example.

[Roll Right]

Yeah, I don't see a point to continuing this thread.