A light look at job placement from Leiter

[Establishment]

http://leiterreports.typepad.com/blog/2014/07/so-lets-take-another-look-at-job-placement.html

 

Thoughts? Those percentages actually seem decent all things considered, though I have some suspicions that Boston U places better than average for their PGR rank.

[MorganFreemanlives]

I agree, these were good placement records. schools that have impressed me with their placement record which are not top 30 are john jopkins, which has a high tenure track placement rate, and penn state which is lowly ranked only by analytic standards.  Stony Brooks also does pretty well and its not even ranked.

 

some schools however seem to have it rough even with high ranking though. Brown and CUNY graduate center have bad placement record for their ranking. U of miami which is a 20 minute from where i live unfortunately ,i have been told by reliable sources, is not good in placement because they are not supportive enough to their grad students in the job market ,which is rather unfortunate. its currently ranked in the high 30's but who knows how Mcginn's departure wil affect rankings.

 

canada seems to be having a glut of ph.ds and happen to  offer tenure track positions to american and uk graduates  since they have much appeal, often at the expense of canadian students. canadian universities pay their professors extremely well with many, earning  high 80-  slightly over 100k, regardless of the school unless you go to a total unknown. the one exception to this is U of toronto and maybe Mcgill which on ranking can hold their own to other american universities.

 

in the UK, placement record is a bit trickier. oxford for example sends their graduates EVERYWHERE, and often their positions are hard to compare to assistant professorship here in the U.S. they also seem to be a wild card. your initial placement can be a post-doc at some random place in Austria or a tenure track placement at NYU. then there is the fact that the UK works on a lectureship system, which has but is not identical to the protection of tenure. Cambridge's placement record is sadly not too impressive given the history such university has in philosophy. i havent looked deeply at the rest.

 

idk about the situational in Australia or continental europe.  Just wanted share my  small research project

[Guillaume]

I agree, these were good placement records. schools that have impressed me with their placement record which are not top 30 are john jopkins, which has a high tenure track placement rate, and penn state which is lowly ranked only by analytic standards.  Stony Brooks also does pretty well and its not even ranked.

 

some schools however seem to have it rough even with high ranking though. Brown and CUNY graduate center have bad placement record for their ranking. U of miami which is a 20 minute from where i live unfortunately ,i have been told by reliable sources, is not good in placement because they are not supportive enough to their grad students in the job market ,which is rather unfortunate. its currently ranked in the high 30's but who knows how Mcginn's departure wil affect rankings.

 

canada seems to be having a glut of ph.ds and happen to  offer tenure track positions to american and uk graduates  since they have much appeal, often at the expense of canadian students. canadian universities pay their professors extremely well with many, earning  high 80-  slightly over 100k, regardless of the school unless you go to a total unknown. the one exception to this is U of toronto and maybe Mcgill which on ranking can hold their own to other american universities.

 

in the UK, placement record is a bit trickier. oxford for example sends their graduates EVERYWHERE, and often their positions are hard to compare to assistant professorship here in the U.S. they also seem to be a wild card. your initial placement can be a post-doc at some random place in Austria or a tenure track placement at NYU. then there is the fact that the UK works on a lectureship system, which has but is not identical to the protection of tenure. Cambridge's placement record is sadly not too impressive given the history such university has in philosophy. i havent looked deeply at the rest.

 

idk about the situational in Australia or continental europe.  Just wanted share my  small research project

 

Interesting...I recently spoke with my dean from my undergraduate university (an Ivy) and she stated that quite a few departments within the university, particularly in the humanities and social sciences, have biases against UK (Oxford & Cambridge) PhD graduates because UK universities don't fund American PhD students but American colleges and universities fund UK students.

[bob311]

Interesting...I recently spoke with my dean from my undergraduate university (an Ivy) and she stated that quite a few departments within the university, particularly in the humanities and social sciences, have biases against UK (Oxford & Cambridge) PhD graduates because UK universities don't fund American PhD students but American colleges and universities fund UK students.

 

I have heard this before but can you please give more detail to the conversation? I am curious because one could come back to that argument your dean detailed and say well if someone has the money to pay for it, then why should it matter if it was fully funded, partially funded or not funded, as you receive the same degree at the end of the day?

 

The bias against people supporting themselves on this board has been noted again and again. Much of it good information, such as don't take out more loans just to increase debt in such an unstable job market. But if one has the means to, why should it matter how you received your degree financially, as long as you have a degree?

 

Also it is of note that many of the UK schools such as Oxbridge do not fund (or lightly fund) Master's students but will fund the phd candidates. It is a way to let people decide what is right for them after a year or two and see not just on an application, but through applied learning and interaction who has the best chance at PhD success and therefore deserves funding. (Different system, different views. Not asserting if one is better, just trying to better understand). 

 

 

*Disclaimer* I am an American student attending the University of St. Andrews/Stirling program in the fall, and I have had previous experience at Oxford. The above financial information does not correlate to my situation specifically, but it has bugged me in general. Also, if you just look at cost of attendance from an American school such as Tufts compared to Oxbridge/ St. Andrews, it is generally much cheaper tuition wise head to head towards the UK ( Obviously I am not taking into account funding), but the degrees have strong strength in the market. I know an Edinburgh grad and St. Andrews grad personally who both came back to the states, one went to Hopkins and the other Yale and have strong tenured jobs at top 10 Liberal Arts Colleges (by choice, not wanting to deal with grad students). 

 

The UK system also gives students an opportunity to discover in a shorter amount of time what they would like to pursue. Personally I have not yet decided if academic philosophy is what I would like to commit my life to or if I would like to practice law and go that route. Having a 1 year program gives some students like myself that chance to find out rather than commit 2 for an MA in the states or 6 for a PhD without being certain. 

 

Sorry for the rant but I think it is important to discuss and qualify all this information /misinformation out there, especially for the new applicant cycle coming up. 

Edited July 12, 2014 by bob311

[Guillaume]

I have heard this before but can you please give more detail to the conversation? I am curious because one could come back to that argument your dean detailed and say 1) well if someone has the money to pay for it, then why should it matter if it was fully funded, partially funded or not funded, as you receive the same degree at the end of the day?

 

2) The bias against people supporting themselves on this board has been noted again and again. Much of it good information, such as don't take out more loans just to increase debt in such an unstable job market. But if one has the means to, why should it matter how you received your degree financially, as long as you have a degree?

 

Also it is of note that many of the UK schools such as Oxbridge do not fund (or lightly fund) Master's students but will fund the phd candidates. It is a way to let people decide what is right for them after a year or two and see not just on an application, but through applied learning and interaction who has the best chance at PhD success and therefore deserves funding. (Different system, different views. Not asserting if one is better, just trying to better understand). 

 

 

*Disclaimer* I am an American student attending the University of St. Andrews/Stirling program in the fall, and I have had previous experience at Oxford. The above financial information does not correlate to my situation specifically, but it has bugged me in general. Also, if you just look at cost of attendance from an American school such as Tufts compared to Oxbridge/ St. Andrews, it is generally much cheaper tuition wise head to head towards the UK ( Obviously I am not taking into account funding), but the degrees have strong strength in the market. I know an Edinburgh grad and St. Andrews grad personally who both came back to the states, 3) one went to Hopkins and the other Yale and have strong tenured jobs at top 10 Liberal Arts Colleges (by choice, not wanting to deal with grad students). 

 

The UK system also gives students an opportunity to discover in a shorter amount of time what they would like to pursue. Personally I have not yet decided if academic philosophy is what I would like to commit my life to or if I would like to practice law and go that route. Having a 1 year program gives some students like myself that chance to find out rather than commit 2 for an MA in the states or 6 for a PhD without being certain. 

 

4) Sorry for the rant but I think it is important to discuss and qualify all this information /misinformation out there, especially for the new applicant cycle coming up. 

 

Her central point: Attend a PhD program in the country where you intend to work. If you intend to work in Europe then get your degree there, if you want to work in the U.S. then get your degree in the U.S.

 

She had a number of reasons for why she suggested this, none of them new or novel, and her comment about the biases towards Oxford and Cambridge graduates came after I questioned whether or not there were universities whose graduates are universally hire able. She restated her earlier point, "Get a PhD in the country..." and said that Oxford and Cambridge graduates face some discrimination in the hiring process. The punitive nature of  hiring department's action is not targeting the student but the other university. (NOTE: I fully understand the circular nature of the department's logic...but it's not my logic). Some, not all, American universities (apparently including some departments in my own Alma mater ) find it insulting for Oxford and Cambridge to admit some of their best students and then not fully fund them. Where a university's undergraduate students attend graduate school and the funding they are able to secure matters to these departments (they believe that the funding is available, that Oxford and Cambridge, have the resources, but that they are making a choice not to fully fund these American students). As does where a university's graduate students get hired and what kind of of position they are offered. Leaving aside the debate as to whether or not these graduates are better prepared than other candidates, the decision not to hire graduates from Cambridge or Oxford ultimately impacts those universities by signalling to U.S. undergraduates, who would pay them money (the students ability to do so comfortably or the need to take out loans isn't at issue), that those degrees are not as likely to secure you job placement in the U.S.

 

This is really the most detail I can offer, or care to offer/discuss, as I am obviously not the hiring department and neither is my dean.

 

In response to your points...

 

1) See my above comment. The punitive nature of their actions is directed at the other university not the student. For the hiring university, it's about  long term not immediate impact.

2) Yes, but this really isn't at issue here. Whether or not the student can afford to pay for their education isn't of importance. What the unversities cares about is another university's choice not to fund some of their best students. They find it insulting as they believe financial commitment to a students signals the university's (Cambridge or Oxford) confidence/commitment to the future success of those students. Not funding them suggest that they are not as committed to the future success of those students. This materially impacts the American universities if after graduating and attening graduate school, some of their best students are not employed or doing well because they did not complete their graduate degree or have adequate support from Oxford/Cambridge to find employment afterwards. (NOTE: Again, I understand the circular nature of this logic...again, it's not my logic.)

3) It isn't surprising that they were hired at an LAC. (NOTE: This conversation is not about whether or not students with foreign MAs can get into American PhD programs but the biases some American hiring committees (departments) have towards Oxford/Cambridge PhDs.) Your friends went to two very well respected programs and LACs like to hire PhDs from schools with good academic brands. That's what they sell their students.

4) This is all the information I have to offer about our conversation. I doubt she imagined it being discussed at such length. I don't really care to continue discussing it as I don't think this comment from by my dean about some departments can really offer anything substantive to be extracted, applied broadly, or become the basis upon which anyone other than me, for whom the advice was intended, to make decisions. (Note: That in my post this comment was not offered as evidence or reason by which someone should make a choice or decision but simply as a way of possibly explaining an event that had already  occurred.

Edited July 12, 2014 by Guillaume

[bob311]

Thank you very much with your explanation. It does make sense that some hiring departments would find that an issue and I appreciate your commentary.

What is still interesting in the broader context is the necessity for funding in order to be viewed "worthy". Another point to consider at least for arguments sake is how phd programs in general view just a masters degree from Oxbridge or St. Andrews (mphil, mlitt, msc at Edinburgh etc). These are rarely funded but do phd programs care about masters funding as long as the degree is from a highly regarded institution?

These are just other interesting points to consider broadly. Not suggesting you or your dean has any more insight specifically.