Dept Rankings, Speciality Area Rankings, and Presence of Senior Scholar

[phillipspaulding]

Though the job market is a crapshoot, individuals should based their choice on the following criteria:

1. Department ranking: They matter. Period.  Anything below the top 25, and at worse the top 50 is a waste of time and energy.
2. Specialty area ranking: This one is just as important as the department’s ranking.  Say you’re interested in studying aging, and have a choice between Northwestern and  Cornell.  If you base your choice on the department’s rankings, you’ll choose Northwestern.  However, Northwestern’s not known for scholars who do work on minority aging, and if you choose this school, you may wonder who will you work with.  In contrast, Cornell’s known for health.    
3. SENIOR scholar in your specialty area who does work related to your interests:  This is VERY important.  Though younger faculty members (Assistants and Associate’s) may do excellent work related to your area, letters from Senior Scholars are the one’s that COUNT on the job market. 

Rankings should be based off of the US News and World Report (http://grad-schools.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/best-graduate-schools/top-humanities-schools/sociology-rankings).  Basing rankings off of what someone "heard" is less reliable. I've heard pigs fly.  Do you believe me?

 

Some areas are always in demand (quant methods, health, race, and crime), while others are not (qual methods, social movements). 

 

Sincerely,

 

 

PostDoc

Edited April 3, 2014 by phillipspaulding

[turbodream]

Why do you assert that USN&WR is such an authority? What do you think about the NRC rankings? 

[phillipspaulding]

Great question.  The NRC rankings are terribly dated (data's from '05), and many department's have changed since then.  More importantly, they dont have a measure of a department's overall ranking (which matters).  In contrast, the USNWR's survey is based on data from the Chairs of each department.  Taken a different way, there results point to how Chair's view other departments in their discipline.

 

In the past, Chairs would say trust the NRC.  Today, most rely on USN&WR.

 

Cheers,

 

 

Postdoc

[turbodream]

Ya I had the same concern about NRC when I looked at them. It seems like USNWR is just a popularity contest though... which I guess is relevant since those who voted would likely be the ones I'll be sending my CV to in the future. But still, it seems like a very oversimplified metric. I wonder what kind of potential there is for new rankings to come out and be very disruptive.

[Whatishistoryanyway]

Is it just me or do these pointless threads come up every week? Rankings, by definition, point out 'superiority' in terms of program quality. We get that. But to say anything lower than the top 25 is pointless and a waste of energy, well that's just absurd. And the contradictions in your post are abundant: "Though the job market is a crapshoot", "base your choice on the following","Anything below the top 25, and at worse the top 50.", etc. So is it a crapshoot or can can this get-rich-formula lead you to success? So is it 25 or 50? That's a huge difference. And it pretty much defeats the point of your post. If you want to see a discussion on this, go look in the silly "holy shit" thread.

 

Take a look at programs around the country and see where their faculty comes from. Of course the top 25 dominate, but plenty of programs have tons of people who DIDN'T attend a top 25 school. To say that person A from Chicago is going to get a job over person B from Santa Cruz (or anywhere else) simply because of prestige is naive, especially if person A is busy doing a bunch of nothing while person B is producing high quality research. The sociologist I'm most interested in working with got his degree from New Mexico (#78 for the nuts who obsess with rankings). He's one of the premier minds in his field right now. Take that elitist mess somewhere else, yo. There are plenty of people using these message boards who don't attend top 25 universities just trying to lend a helping hand to future colleagues while being forced to read insulting posts such as these.

[Darth.Vegan]

I'm sooooooo tired of these threads.

 

Social movement scholars still get jobs, pretty sure my department is proof of that. Plenty of programs outside the top 25 and even some outside the top 50 are doing a relatively decent job finding tenure track positions for their students.

 

As I've said 10000000 times here before, if you're concerned about job placement, look at the placement record of the department you're considering, that's more important than ranking anyway. 

Edited April 3, 2014 by xdarthveganx

[Whatishistoryanyway]

I'm sooooooo tired of these threads.

 

Social movement scholars still get jobs, pretty sure my department is proof of that. Plenty of programs outside the top 25 and even some outside the top 50 are doing a relatively decent job finding tenure track positions for their students.

 

As I've said 10000000 times here before, if you're concerned about job placement, look at the placement record of the department you're considering, that's more important than ranking anyway. 

 

Shhhhh! It's only the beginning of April and I'm holding out hope for my Princeton application. Don't let them hear you say I could be happier at Santa Barbara!

[phillipspaulding]

Exceptions to every rule (Vinny Roscigno, a former editor of ASR, is a graduate of a program outside the top 50) doesn't suggest there’s no rule.  Rather, one should view exceptions to the rules as outliers.  Moreover, if you look at the current editors in the discipline, you’ll notice they tend to come from certain programs. 

 

I’d encourage individuals to look at the Sociological rumor mills and explore what scholars get the jobs.  Here’s the link: http://socjobs.proboards.com/thread/3686/name-names?page=7. 

Edited April 3, 2014 by phillipspaulding

[Whatishistoryanyway]

Exceptions to every rule (Vinny Roscigno, a former editor of ASR, is a graduate of a program outside the top 50) doesn't suggest there’s no rule.  Rather, one should view exceptions to the rules as outliers.  Moreover, if you look at the current editors in the discipline, you’ll notice they tend to come from certain programs. 

 

I’d encourage individuals to look at the Sociological rumor mills and explore what scholars get the jobs.  Here’s the link: http://socjobs.proboards.com/thread/3686/name-names?page=7. 

 

Thanks for acknowledging at least one thing said. We can continue to point out big name scholars from outside the top 25 (and 50) all night if you want. And the longer we do it, the further it proves the end result is about something more than the name on the degree. 

 

In addition to looking at the recent hires, browse around faculty lists at programs all over the country. Folks up and down the rankings land on their feet.

[faculty]

36 people - and not just department chairs or people at top universities - filled out the last USNWR survey and those responses were averaged with the previous respondents. 

 

It is a flawed measure of quality (and see ). A better measure of reputation, perhaps, and I realize that reputations are important, but still flawed. 

 

It is also important to realize that these things change. As xdarthveganx has noted time and again, Irvine is an example of movement up. Many of the schools at the top (most notably, perhaps, Princeton and NYU) have not always had the reputation they have now. And others (e.g., Washington, Arizona) have declined in the last few years. Ranking (along with reputation and quality) is not stagnant, in part because of the students schools are able - or unable - to attract to their programs.

[Sociolite]

I don't normally post on these threads because most of it is complete academic posturing. But the one thing seems to strike me as problematic to the people that value rankings is the perception that rankings are weighted mostly towards quality of student. While it is true that rankings may reflect the tendency of those programs to recruit top quality students out of a perception of departmental strength (i.e. the matthew effect), the real underlying nature of a programs strength in rankings relies on its general professionalism initiatives. There are a lot of high quality schools outside of the "top 20" that will produce quality sociologists but may not have the resources or professionalization initiatives (publication directives, conference funding, general funding at the state level) which will alter the "prestige" of the program. I think it is kind of bullheaded to bash programs and their students. This is a relatively small field, and bridges that catch fire are not easily repaired.

Edited April 3, 2014 by Sociolite

[hiking]

It's incredibly frustrating—and somewhat offensive—to keep hearing that sub-top 25 programs are a waste of time. The USNWR has over a hundred graduate sociology programs on their list. Are people really suggesting that 60-75% of all sociology PhD programs (and their students and faculty??) are a waste of time? Seriously?

 

We've all seen the research, top 20 PhDs dominate new hires at the top, prestige matters. Nobody is arguing this. But contrary to popular belief, there is a world outside the top, and plenty of us will be happy working there.

[moda]

Though the job market is a crapshoot, individuals should based their choice on the following criteria:

1. Department ranking: They matter. Period.  Anything below the top 25, and at worse the top 50 is a waste of time and energy.
2. Specialty area ranking: This one is just as important as the department’s ranking.  Say you’re interested in studying aging, and have a choice between Northwestern and  Cornell.  If you base your choice on the department’s rankings, you’ll choose Northwestern.  However, Northwestern’s not known for scholars who do work on minority aging, and if you choose this school, you may wonder who will you work with.  In contrast, Cornell’s known for health.    
3. SENIOR scholar in your specialty area who does work related to your interests:  This is VERY important.  Though younger faculty members (Assistants and Associate’s) may do excellent work related to your area, letters from Senior Scholars are the one’s that COUNT on the job market. 

Rankings should be based off of the US News and World Report (http://grad-schools.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/best-graduate-schools/top-humanities-schools/sociology-rankings).  Basing rankings off of what someone "heard" is less reliable. I've heard pigs fly.  Do you believe me?

 

Some areas are always in demand (quant methods, health, race, and crime), while others are not (qual methods, social movements). 

 

Sincerely,

 

 

PostDoc

 

Thank you for posting this. My undergrad sociology advisor told me this almost word for word last year.

 

How do you feel about speciality areas? I've been talking to a few China specialists who keep warning me about "pidgeon-holing" myself. Do you think that specializing in a specific geographic area helps or hurts you on the job market?

[Maleficent999]

Maybe its the conspiracy theorist in me, but does anyone else ever wonder who exactly these people are who keep posting that presitge is the only thing that matters and that the rest of us outside the top 20 (going to a school ranked 31, myself) are wasting our time? We can't verify these people's identities through GC. Part of me wonders if some of these posts come from people outside the top 20 who are trying to dissuade the rest of us and thin out the competition.

 

Yes, we know ranking matters but I don't think many of us are willing to throw our future career out the window because some unverifiable authority on the Internet tells us to.

[gingin6789]

I do understand that this poster (and the poster of the other thread) is trying to offer advice.  I always appreciate advice.  However, I'm thinking:

 

1. "Yes, I've heard this before. Rank matters, seniority of faculty matter, ranking in AOI matters."

2. "Why now, when applications have already been submitted and many folks have made their decisions?"  

 

Individuals' life situations must also be taken into account when choosing a program to attend.  How "cutthroat" the program is must be taken into account.  A lot more goes into a decision than rank, for me, at least.  I'm not a robot sociology undergraduate, meaning one cannot simply take my test scores, GPA, and AOI, and say "Here is where is best for you," because they're only taking a fraction of my being as a student and as a person into account.  

 

I do feel a bit defensive only because I chose the program that is the best fit for me in my life situation (academic and personal), and being told that it's a waste of time really does feel like a punch to the gut rather than constructive advice, especially since I've been told by multiple people in the field that it's a good program for me.  I do actually trust their word.  (If they told me pigs could fly, then no, I wouldn't believe them. I would tell them to go home and get some rest because they've been working too much and have had too much coffee to drink.)

 

My program is a terminal MA, and I'm going on for my PhD at another university that is a good fit.  If it's in the top 20 - 50, that's wonderful!  If not, I'm not going to say "no, thanks" to a program that is a perfect fit, but is #52 or something.

 

So, I guess what I'm trying to say is thank you for the advice, but a lot more than what you listed must be taken into account to ensure a brilliant student doesn't drop the program halfway through because it's not a good fit otherwise.  Also, calling other programs a "waste of time" reads as an insult, and once folks take in that insult, they're not going to absorb the advice properly.

Edited April 3, 2014 by gingin6789

[turbodream]

I'm sooooooo tired of these threads.

 

Social movement scholars still get jobs, pretty sure my department is proof of that. Plenty of programs outside the top 25 and even some outside the top 50 are doing a relatively decent job finding tenure track positions for their students.

 

As I've said 10000000 times here before, if you're concerned about job placement, look at the placement record of the department you're considering, that's more important than ranking anyway. 

 

i was thinking the same thing! but obviously this discussion hits on something that is extremely important and concerning for most of us so each time it comes up it gets people a little fired up. i'd like to see new NRC rankings. i think the methods of that one are useful but the data is just too old. especially for newer programs like Irvine.

[Chris Bosh the Dinosaurman]

Reputation is largely based off of historical record.  Not necessarily about quality at the moment.  For example, UNC has been known to have a top 10 sociology program for the last 50 years.  Duke might have faculty that are as good but the UNC has more name recognition and it has more graduates in elite schools (networking).  

 

Also, some programs are very specialized which keeps their rankings down.  Penn State has really good quantitative training and demographer faculty.  However, they have very little variety otherwise.  If you're applying for non-academic jobs or specifically demographer jobs... Penn State will probably look as good as UNC, UPenn, and Princeton.  However, if you're trying for an academic position, schools usually look at the overall rank/reputation because schools usually look for sociologists in general (not demographers or ethnographers or anything else specific).  

[pinwheelb00kshelf]

This has been my general attitude on the subject throughout this harrowing admissions season:

 

On one hand, the social capital transmitted by top 25 programs do not themselves guarantee a successful outcome. The way it seems to shake out is that highly ranked places churn out highly-accomplished graduates, 50% of which (roughly) land a nice tenure-track position or a really nice post-doc immediately, and the rest take a few years detour (not counting the students who have been weeded out before completion). Lower-ranked places will maybe have two or three place immediately, and a significant amount of students who are underemployed out the gate. This is to say: not everyone at top 25 programs gets a job. It's just that your chances are a bit better.

 

On the other hand, the rankings may be deeply flawed (and they are), but here we all are talking about them. I don't mean to go all Durkheim here, but the rankings have real effects regardless of their methodological rigor. Don't make the mistake of thinking that the elitist structure of higher education comes crumbling down just because everyone on gradcafe has realized that USNWR cares more about making money than about the integrity of academia.

 

For me, it comes down to this: don't choose a lower-ranked school to make a point, and don't choose a higher-ranked school to get a job. Do what you enjoy, and work your butt off.