Program Reputation/Rank vs. Advisor Fit: Is there a threshold?

[bedover]

are you guys talking about a general department ranking, or more of a ranking specific to interested field? What i meant is that, a program could be ranked as the best psych department, but perhaps 5th in the field of your interest VS. a program that has a 20 something department ranking but 1st or 2nd in the field. 

 

Is the field ranking you are talking about or the general overall ranking that concerns you?

[TheMercySeat]

Here's a question on ranking:

how should I interpret a R1 institution that perhaps ranks lower on NRC rankings than a non-R1 institution?

I didn't even consider distinction/ranking until now and I feel too far removed from academia (graduated in 2010) to have a thorough understanding of such implications.

[Chubberubber]

Assuming you're talking about the psych NRC rankings- go with that. The R1 thing is for the university as a whole. If you're going into psych it doesn't really matter that there's a ton of astrophysics research going on at the school.

[TheMercySeat]

Assuming you're talking about the psych NRC rankings- go with that. The R1 thing is for the university as a whole. If you're going into psych it doesn't really matter that there's a ton of astrophysics research going on at the school.

Thanks!!!

NRC is so foreign to me.

I'm shocked to see Bryn Mawr and Rutgers psych have such low rankings!

[VulpesZerda]

For social psych, is this the link people are using?

http://www.socialpsychology.org/gsocial.htm

[randoperson]

In applying to schools, I pretty much valued fit over all else, only applying to programs that very closely matched my interests and/or overarching approach. In retrospect, I wish I hadn't been so strict about fit because I ended up applying to a narrow range of programs as a result.

[salparadise]

How are the NRC rankings calculated?

[Chubberubber]

It's a combination of research activity (publications, citations, high impact factor etc.), student support & success ( stipend, where do graduates of the program end up, how lond does it take to graduate, how many publication/ presentation opportunity students get), how strong they are in elements scholars view as important, how diverse they are, and something called "R-Rank" (how similar they are to other good programs?). 

You can find it here: http://chronicle.com/article/NRC-Rankings-Overview-/124708/

 

In many ways it's better than US news because it's about more than popularity, however it's still skewed and also it takes years and years to compile so these rankings might not reflect the current situation (the last NRC rankings were released in 2010, and before that in 1995). 

[dbrainiak914]

Check out:

Stenstrom, D. M., Curtis, M., & Iyer, R. (2013). School Rankings, Department Rankings, and Individual Accomplishments What Factors Predict Obtaining Employment After the PhD? Perspectives on Psychological Science, 8(2), 208–217. doi:10.1177/1745691612474316

 

Abstract
The outcome of a graduate student’s hunt for employment is often attributed to the student’s own accomplishments,
the reputation of the department, and the reputation of the university. In 2007, a national survey of psychology graduate
students was conducted to assess accomplishments and experiences in graduate school, part of which was an assessment
of employment after completion of the doctorate (PhD). Five hundred and fifty-one respondents who had applied for
employment reported whether they had obtained employment and in what capacity. Survey results were then integrated
with the National Research Council’s most recent official ranking system of academic departments. The strongest predictor
of employment was department-level rankings even while controlling for individual accomplishments, such as publications,
posters, and teaching experience. Equally accomplished applicants for an employment position were not equal, apparently,
if they graduated from differently ranked departments. The results also show the degree to which school-level rankings,
department-level rankings, and individual accomplishments uniquely predict the various types of employment, including jobs
at PhD-granting institutions, master’s-granting institutions, liberal arts colleges, 2-year schools, outside academia, or no
employment at all.

[TXInstrument11]

Check out:

Stenstrom, D. M., Curtis, M., & Iyer, R. (2013). School Rankings, Department Rankings, and Individual Accomplishments What Factors Predict Obtaining Employment After the PhD? Perspectives on Psychological Science, 8(2), 208–217. doi:10.1177/1745691612474316

 

Abstract

The outcome of a graduate student’s hunt for employment is often attributed to the student’s own accomplishments,

the reputation of the department, and the reputation of the university. In 2007, a national survey of psychology graduate

students was conducted to assess accomplishments and experiences in graduate school, part of which was an assessment

of employment after completion of the doctorate (PhD). Five hundred and fifty-one respondents who had applied for

employment reported whether they had obtained employment and in what capacity. Survey results were then integrated

with the National Research Council’s most recent official ranking system of academic departments. The strongest predictor

of employment was department-level rankings even while controlling for individual accomplishments, such as publications,

posters, and teaching experience. Equally accomplished applicants for an employment position were not equal, apparently,

if they graduated from differently ranked departments. The results also show the degree to which school-level rankings,

department-level rankings, and individual accomplishments uniquely predict the various types of employment, including jobs

at PhD-granting institutions, master’s-granting institutions, liberal arts colleges, 2-year schools, outside academia, or no

employment at all.

Wow, that's great. Kudos to you for posting this! I'll have to read that more in-depth some time. Please take the implied upvote, as I've reached today's quota. 

[salparadise]

Can someone explain the "S-Rank High" vs. "S-Rank Low" for me? E.g., what does it mean when Harvard is ranked #1 as the former and #3 as the latter?

[TXInstrument11]

Can someone explain the "S-Rank High" vs. "S-Rank Low" for me? E.g., what does it mean when Harvard is ranked #1 as the former and #3 as the latter?

From what I read online from various sources, I think it refers to the school's ranking based on high importance criteria (e.g. funding, pub rate) vs low importance criteria. S rankings are drawn from survey responses in each field, so the relative weight of each criterion is different for each discipline. 

 

So, Harvard in this case would rank #1 on criteria considered important by faculty in your field and #3 on measures considered less important. 

[salparadise]

From what I read online from various sources, I think it refers to the school's ranking based on high importance criteria (e.g. funding, pub rate) vs low importance criteria. S rankings are drawn from survey responses in each field, so the relative weight of each criterion is different for each discipline. 

 

So, Harvard in this case would rank #1 on criteria considered important by faculty in your field and #3 on measures considered less important. 

 

Awesome, thanks for the input.

[TheMercySeat]

I'm personally taking into consideration how many pubs students have throughout the course of a PhD.

What numbers are you all hearing?

On department alleged 15, while another said 1-3. Not clear on what I should expect

[laminator]

Can someone explain the "S-Rank High" vs. "S-Rank Low" for me? E.g., what does it mean when Harvard is ranked #1 as the former and #3 as the latter?

 

From what I read online from various sources, I think it refers to the school's ranking based on high importance criteria (e.g. funding, pub rate) vs low importance criteria. S rankings are drawn from survey responses in each field, so the relative weight of each criterion is different for each discipline. 

 

So, Harvard in this case would rank #1 on criteria considered important by faculty in your field and #3 on measures considered less important. 

 

Actually I'm pretty sure they did the rankings in a random sampling way, where they took a bunch (hundreds) of subsets of responses and used those to rank, then compared them. The S-rank high would be based on the top rankings that school received using the S metric, and the S-rank low would be the lowest. (Or actually 95th and 5th percentiles it looks like.) Basically it gives you an idea of the range that school would be ranked in. See http://chronicle.com/article/New-Doctoral-Program/124634/for more info.

Edited February 10, 2015 by laminator

[TXInstrument11]

Actually I'm pretty sure they did the rankings in a random sampling way, where they took a bunch (hundreds) of subsets of responses and used those to rank, then compared them. The S-rank high would be based on the top rankings that school received using the S metric, and the S-rank low would be the lowest. (Or actually 95th and 5th percentiles it looks like.) Basically it gives you an idea of the range that school would be ranked in. See http://chronicle.com/article/New-Doctoral-Program/124634/for more info.

Ah, okay. That makes more sense.

 

Revised summary: Haters gonna hate, but not at Harvard. 

[jujubea]

Actually I'm pretty sure they did the rankings in a random sampling way, where they took a bunch (hundreds) of subsets of responses and used those to rank, then compared them. The S-rank high would be based on the top rankings that school received using the S metric, and the S-rank low would be the lowest. (Or actually 95th and 5th percentiles it looks like.) Basically it gives you an idea of the range that school would be ranked in. See http://chronicle.com/article/New-Doctoral-Program/124634/for more info.

 

This is also what I read when I pored through NRC's website about how they calculated things.

 

So what the heck do you do with a program who's low S is 78 and whose high S is 6?!! That's a huge range.

[citypsych]

One other thing to consider if your goal is an academic job is that faculty search committees are made up of faculty from different subfields, and even within your subfield there might be no one from your sub-specialty (which would be why they would want to hire someone who works on that sub-specialty).

 

This means that even if you earned your degree from the absolute best program/best mentor for your sub-specialty, the members of the hiring committee might not be aware of the strength of that program/mentor and will instead default to considering the overall reputation of the program, or worse, the overall reputation of the institution. Institutions also really like to be able to say that their faculty come from highly-ranked institutions (read nearly any departmental faculty page to see the list of institutions where the faculty earned their doctorates), and administrators definitely don't know the reputations of programs by subfield, so committees can be under pressure to hire candidates who come from highly ranked institutions.

 

Yes, it's ridiculous, but it's real, and something to think about in making decisions. Also, regarding publications, be mindful that quality trumps quantity almost every time.

 

All of this could be different in non-psych fields, of course.

[TXInstrument11]

This is also what I read when I pored through NRC's website about how they calculated things.

 

So what the heck do you do with a program who's low S is 78 and whose high S is 6?!! That's a huge range.

I would interpret that to mean that faculty there or the department as a whole is controversial. However, since I was already incorrect about NRC rankings once, that's just my best guess and should be taken with a grain of salt. I wonder if the NRC would be willing to give feedback on how such a situation would best be interpreted. 

[constant_wanderer]

Maybe because I'm not from the States, these rankings make no sense to me. How can Florida State rank higher than Notre Dame or Fordham in psychology?

[Chubberubber]

these rankings can be very skewed (like all rankings actually). FSU can be ranked higher if their faculty members publish more (which could be the result of more faculty mambers than the other universities you mentioned) or it could be more diverse, or it could be that they have more funding options for graduate students... It is also very possible that FSU has a very good psych department and/ or that the have faculty who's highly specialized in a very narrow field which is why they publish more and are able to secure more funding. I'm using all that just as examples for what would make one university rank higher than other when it doesn't "make sense". I have no actual knowledge of FSU's psychology department nor of Notre Dame or Fordham's...

[juilletmercredi]

Maybe because I'm not from the States, these rankings make no sense to me. How can Florida State rank higher than Notre Dame or Fordham in psychology?

 

Why wouldn't they?  Florida State ranks higher than those two programs on other rankings, too (like U.S. News).

 

 

these rankings can be very skewed (like all rankings actually). FSU can be ranked higher if their faculty members publish more (which could be the result of more faculty mambers than the other universities you mentioned) or it could be more diverse, or it could be that they have more funding options for graduate students... It is also very possible that FSU has a very good psych department and/ or that the have faculty who's highly specialized in a very narrow field which is why they publish more and are able to secure more funding. I'm using all that just as examples for what would make one university rank higher than other when it doesn't "make sense". I have no actual knowledge of FSU's psychology department nor of Notre Dame or Fordham's...

 

That's not skew; that's simply that the rankings are based on a specific methodology that might be different from other methodologies, and that one ranking might be more relevant to certain students than others. The faculty productivity numbers cannot be driven upwards by the number of faculty, because that weight is created by taking the average number of publications and citations per allocated faculty member. They also do percentage of faculty having grants and awards, not absolute numbers.  The rankings are also unlikely to be driven by any one factor, since there are so many factors.  It's more likely that FSU is just ranked highly on the components that the NRC considers important in program quality, which means it's probably a good quality program.

Edited February 16, 2015 by juilletmercredi

[Chubberubber]

I stand corrected!