How to evaluate placement records?

[Infinite Zest]

Well... How do you do it? More specifically, how does one "objectively" evaluate a placement record?

[isostheneia]

I think it depends partially on what you're looking for - so, what percentage of people who go on the market get jobs, how good those jobs are, any jobs vs TT jobs, etc.

 

I think the most reliable method is to check the ProQuest dissertation database (and narrow by school and department) to find the amount of people who successfully defended their dissertations, and then manually search for each to see whether they now have a job. This will inevitably include some people who decided not to go on the market, and some people who went on the market but took a job after not finding a job, and some people who left the profession after a few years doing adjunct work. The extent of each of these factors just mentioned, it should be noted, would likely vary a bit based on program rank (people from NYU are much less likely to have to take adjunct work than people from a much lower-ranked program, for instance), but 1) it should be fairly reliable among departments of similar professional standing, and 2) it seems much more reliable than simply going based on individual departments' websites, since they vary widely in their reporting practices.

[Establishment]

Here are two rough ranking attempts (you'll want to pay attention however to their methods, as they may or may not reflect your own priorities):

https://phiplaces.wordpress.com/placements-2007-2014/

http://www.newappsblog.com/2014/07/job-placement-2011-2014-comparing-placement-rank-to-pgr-rank.html

 

You'll probably have to balance the various possibilities. The ideal department is one that places graduates directly into tenure track top-tier universities (research, liberal arts, etc.). After that you'll have to balance between schools which have a tendency to directly place students TT into lower ranked universities and schools which tend instead to send students to post-docs first before finding TT at higher ranked universities than the aforementioned departments.

 

Perhaps the most relevant data set however is the placement record of those professors you intend to work under/advise your dissertation.

 

Maybe you'll also want to ask students in the department/recently graduated from the department on what their experiences were like. What was the support like? Was there a lot of success to go around? Is the department's website accurate? Maybe a poor record can be explained by less than motivated students. Etc.

Edited February 12, 2015 by Establishment

[ianfaircloud]

Well... How do you do it? More specifically, how does one "objectively" evaluate a placement record?

 

Assuming that your goal is to be a professional, academic philosopher:

 

For PhD programs, see above. Emphasis on "what percentage of people who go on the market get jobs." (Isostheneia's comment, above)

 

For MA programs, consider the number of people who leave philosophy, the number admitted somewhere in philosophy, the number admitted somewhere particularly good in philosophy, and -- crucially -- the number who actually applied.

• Percent who place at a good PhD program. If 20 people apply and six are admitted to good PhD programs, that's a fine record. But if only seven apply and six of those seven are admitted to good PhD programs, that's much, much better.
• Percent who stay in philosophy. Again, say ten of 20 people stay in philosophy. That's a nice stat. But if eight of 10 stay in philosophy, that's pretty great. You're throwing yourself into an environment, and you want the environment to be serious about philosophy.

I'm not sure how many MA programs to which you applied, but there are a few programs that (in my experience on this site and in conversations with others) have established strong reputations. Faculty reputation is extremely important, probably at least as important as placement, because if you get to work with someone who is a real name in the field, that person's letter of recommendation could make a real difference. One reason that some MA programs do well, in terms of placement, is that those programs have pretty strong faculty who are well-connected. Tufts, Brandeis, UW Milwaukee, and Georgia State have the best placement records, from what I've seen. Tufts for years has held the best placement record, with the exception of last year's season, when I think (if I remember correctly) Tufts's record was relatively weak. Brandeis had placements at Michigan, UNC, WUSTL, Cornell, and Riverside, which is pretty solid; only two other students applied, one of which ended up at UCLA's politics program. Last year, UW Milwaukee exploded in terms of placement: UNC, Brown, Pitt, etc. UW Milwaukee's program is underrated. Milwaukee is underrated, for that matter.

 

Georgia State placed people at Stanford, Columbia, and Indiana, among other places. In my opinion, Georgia State's record (now and in recent years) is not as strong as those of Tufts, Brandeis, and UW Milwaukee. But it's still a very good place to be, particularly depending on what one wants to do in philosophy. For instance, Georgia State sends people to WUSTL almost every year, because WUSTL (and WUSTL Medicine) is known for its strength in cognitive science. Also, of course, Georgia State's funding is very good. The reason I say that Georgia State's placement record is not as strong is that Georgia State has a cohort size of 20. To place three of your 20 at top schools is awesome, but it's not as great as placing three of your 10. (I'm setting aside the question of how many people bothered applying. But the bottom line is that a greater share of students enrolling at a Tufts or UW Milwuakee, where the cohorts have been roughly 10 in recent years, will end up in top programs.)

 

As time goes by, I forget the details. But I think UW Milwaukee's cohort size is 10. I think UW Milwaukee offers pretty generous financial aid/tuition remission/TA positions. Its placement record is strong (some good years, some bad years, but strong overall), though not as strong (over the years) as those of Tufts and Brandeis. But all things considered, and based on what I know about the programs, and based on how I weight the factors, I think UW Milwaukee is a very solid choice today and arguably tied for second-best place to get the MA.

[philstudent1991]

I know this thread is about placement. I don't mean to derail that valuable discussion; I just want to push back a little bit on Ian's overall very insightful comment. If you aren't interested in this topic, MA placement and pedigree, please ignore the following.

 

 

Georgia State placed people at Stanford, Columbia, and Indiana, among other places. In my opinion, Georgia State's record (now and in recent years) is not as strong as those of Tufts, Brandeis, and UW Milwaukee. But it's still a very good place to be, particularly depending on what one wants to do in philosophy. For instance, Georgia State sends people to WUSTL almost every year, because WUSTL (and WUSTL Medicine) is known for its strength in cognitive science. Also, of course, Georgia State's funding is very good. The reason I say that Georgia State's placement record is not as strong is that Georgia State has a cohort size of 20. To place three of your 20 at top schools is awesome, but it's not as great as placing three of your 10. (I'm setting aside the question of how many people bothered applying. But the bottom line is that a greater share of students enrolling at a Tufts or UW Milwuakee, where the cohorts have been roughly 10 in recent years, will end up in top programs.)

 

As time goes by, I forget the details. But I think UW Milwaukee's cohort size is 10. I think UW Milwaukee offers pretty generous financial aid/tuition remission/TA positions. Its placement record is strong (some good years, some bad years, but strong overall), though not as strong (over the years) as those of Tufts and Brandeis. But all things considered, and based on what I know about the programs, and based on how I weight the factors, I think UW Milwaukee is a very solid choice today and arguably tied for second-best place to get the MA.

 

I'm not sure your analysis of GSU's placement is fair, so here's a quick supplement. I didn't see you didn't mention GSU's placements at Pitt, Cornell or Berkeley, for instance. You also have to keep in mind fit. The placement at Pitt for example, a top 10, is a crowning achievement for a program strong in cognitive science and philosophy. Also, there are a lot of people there doing Nietzsche, Heidegger, German Idealism type stuff and their placement can't really be measured in terms of the PGR. You also didn't mention the most obvious trend, that GSU sends at least one and sometimes more people to UCSD every year for the last few years. Not an elite school; just a fun fact if you look at their placement record.

 

I ultimately agree that in terms of placement, with respect to the PGR, GSU checks in slightly lower than Tufts, Brandeis and UWM. But I just wanted to make sure GSU got a fair shake since you omitted some top placements. And like you said, while they do have bigger cohorts, some don't come in with the intention of going on to a PhD so that also distorts placement. Moreover, as is well known, Tufts and Brandeis aren't funded, so for most students they aren't really legitimate options. Finally, I don't buy the common view that Tufts is unquestionably the best program, which stems from one sentence that Leiter wrote many years ago, and the fact that Dennett is there. I think that Tufts, Brandeis, GSU, UWM and probably also NIU (Northern Illinois) are practically in a five way tie, with the best choice depending on your interests, geography, family wealth and whether you want teaching experience or not. There are other excellent MAs like Houston, UMSTL, Virginia Tech, etc. 

[maxhgns]

As far as job placement goes, nowadays every full-time job is a good job. And it's become the norm to spend a few years in the wilderness before landing a full-time job (if one ever does). So don't worry if the 2013-15 graduates don't have TT jobs yet. Do start to worry if you don't see many TT jobs among 2010, 2011, and 2012 grads.

 

But honestly, forget about the PGR rank of the hiring institutions. That kind of concern is a luxury that's going extinct. If it isn't gone already, it will be by the time you graduate. 

[flybottle]

As far as job placement goes, nowadays every full-time job is a good job. And it's become the norm to spend a few years in the wilderness before landing a full-time job (if one ever does). So don't worry if the 2013-15 graduates don't have TT jobs yet. Do start to worry if you don't see many TT jobs among 2010, 2011, and 2012 grads.

 

But honestly, forget about the PGR rank of the hiring institutions. That kind of concern is a luxury that's going extinct. If it isn't gone already, it will be by the time you graduate. 

 

On the flip side, this implies, I take it, that a school with many TT placements for 2013-15 is a very good sign.

[ianfaircloud]

I'm not sure your analysis of GSU's placement is fair, so here's a quick supplement. I didn't see you didn't mention GSU's placements at Pitt, Cornell or Berkeley, for instance.

 

I ultimately agree that in terms of placement, with respect to the PGR, GSU checks in slightly lower than Tufts, Brandeis and UWM. But I just wanted to make sure GSU got a fair shake since you omitted some top placements. 

 

Well, the placements I cited above are (unless stated otherwise) only from last year. So the Brandeis and UW Milwaukee placements that I mentioned are from last year *only*. That's crucial, because I could have mentioned quite a few more amazing placements for Brandeis and UWM.  E.g. UWM has had several Harvard placements, if I'm not mistaken.  So the reason I left out those GSU placements is that, if I'm not mistaken, they're taken from past records. As you point out, when one considers all of the placement records for the history of each of these programs, GSU does check in lower than Tufts, Brandeis, and UWM.

 

I do think you have called attention to something important. One element of the analysis is whether a program has ever, in its history, sent someone to a Pitt or a Rutgers. GSU, like these other schools, has done that -- and in its recent history.

 

If we're talking about placement only, then GSU is #4. But only by a small margin. I think a strong showing this year, e.g., would change everything, in my view. These things *do* change from year to year, because faculty changes from year to year (and because programs change from year to year).

 

As I've said elsewhere, placement is only one of several factors to be considered. You mention financial resources. On that measure, Brandeis and Tufts do not fare as well. (Though I have pointed out that each of these programs involves sacrifice of financial resources, in the sense that one could make more money doing something else for those two years.  It's better to think of "amount invested" than "amount sacrificed."  I *invested* a lot in my particular MA program.  But investments are not evaluated in terms of how much is invested.  They are evaluated in terms of how much reward is received for the investment.)

 

I just want to say, because text doesn't always communicate feelings very clearly, that I'm pretty generally in agreement with Philstudent1991 on this issue. And he's right to direct our attention to GSU's impressive accomplishments and the fact that, for many people, GSU is the best MA program, all things considered. I, myself, almost went to GSU. It was a coin-flip in favor of another program.

[Infinite Zest]

As far as PhD placement goes, how might one weigh a school's TT placement ratio to the "quality" of each TT job?

 

For instance, Pitt seems to have a higher ratio of TT jobs to overall graduates than Berkeley does. On the other hand, out of those who landed a TT job, Berkeley seems to send graduates to more highly ranked institutions.

[flybottle]

As far as PhD placement goes, how might one weigh a school's TT placement ratio to the "quality" of each TT job?

 

For instance, Pitt seems to have a higher ratio of TT jobs to overall graduates than Berkeley does. On the other hand, out of those who landed a TT job, Berkeley seems to send graduates to more highly ranked institutions.

 

Having spent an inappropriate amount of time looking at the philosophy job market blogs, I can say that there isn't a straightforward answer here, because there isn't a straightforward rating. Some folks are gunning for research positions; some folks want to teach at a small liberal arts college (=SALC, hopefully to save someone a little confusion in the future); for some folks location is a priority; for some folks prestige. 

 

But what's true for all of us is (and surely will be) that the job market is rough, and that a school that places only a small portion of their students, but into really good schools, is probably something to see as a red flag (this isn't quite Berkeley's situation, I think). So, personally, I'd lean towards prioritizing overall placement in TT positions to the 'quality' of the placement, and then use quality as a comparison for similarly situated placement records. 

 

Another thought: 5 years-- and let's be real, 6-8 years, if not more-- down the road, we will probably be saddled with a lot of personal commitments that don't have right now: partners, kids, elderly family members, debt, disease, whatever. That dream job at NYU might not, in fact, be our future-selves' (pace Parfit) best option. If that's the type of job you're gunning for, it's definitely worth taking placement 'quality' into account. But just getting a damn job that is congruent with the other commitments in our lives is a huge task in itself. 

[Nastasya_Filippovna]

basically, we need to make shirts that say "I actually have a PhD" and wear them while we work at Burger King

[flybottle]

basically, we need to make shirts that say "I actually have a PhD" and wear them while we work at Burger King

 

Given the adjucting situation, I'd take $15/hour. Go go Living Wage Movement. 

[Infinite Zest]

Having spent an inappropriate amount of time looking at the philosophy job market blogs, I can say that there isn't a straightforward answer here, because there isn't a straightforward rating. Some folks are gunning for research positions; some folks want to teach at a small liberal arts college (=SALC, hopefully to save someone a little confusion in the future); for some folks location is a priority; for some folks prestige. 

 

But what's true for all of us is (and surely will be) that the job market is rough, and that a school that places only a small portion of their students, but into really good schools, is probably something to see as a red flag (this isn't quite Berkeley's situation, I think). So, personally, I'd lean towards prioritizing overall placement in TT positions to the 'quality' of the placement, and then use quality as a comparison for similarly situated placement records. 

 

Another thought: 5 years-- and let's be real, 6-8 years, if not more-- down the road, we will probably be saddled with a lot of personal commitments that don't have right now: partners, kids, elderly family members, debt, disease, whatever. That dream job at NYU might not, in fact, be our future-selves' (pace Parfit) best option. If that's the type of job you're gunning for, it's definitely worth taking placement 'quality' into account. But just getting a damn job that is congruent with the other commitments in our lives is a huge task in itself. 

 

Very good and insightful answer.

[alethicethic]

I know this thread is about placement. I don't mean to derail that valuable discussion; I just want to push back a little bit on Ian's overall very insightful comment. If you aren't interested in this topic, MA placement and pedigree, please ignore the following.

 

I'm not sure your analysis of GSU's placement is fair, so here's a quick supplement. I didn't see you didn't mention GSU's placements at Pitt, Cornell or Berkeley, for instance. You also have to keep in mind fit. The placement at Pitt for example, a top 10, is a crowning achievement for a program strong in cognitive science and philosophy. Also, there are a lot of people there doing Nietzsche, Heidegger, German Idealism type stuff and their placement can't really be measured in terms of the PGR. You also didn't mention the most obvious trend, that GSU sends at least one and sometimes more people to UCSD every year for the last few years. Not an elite school; just a fun fact if you look at their placement record.

 

I ultimately agree that in terms of placement, with respect to the PGR, GSU checks in slightly lower than Tufts, Brandeis and UWM. But I just wanted to make sure GSU got a fair shake since you omitted some top placements. And like you said, while they do have bigger cohorts, some don't come in with the intention of going on to a PhD so that also distorts placement. Moreover, as is well known, Tufts and Brandeis aren't funded, so for most students they aren't really legitimate options. Finally, I don't buy the common view that Tufts is unquestionably the best program, which stems from one sentence that Leiter wrote many years ago, and the fact that Dennett is there. I think that Tufts, Brandeis, GSU, UWM and probably also NIU (Northern Illinois) are practically in a five way tie, with the best choice depending on your interests, geography, family wealth and whether you want teaching experience or not. There are other excellent MAs like Houston, UMSTL, Virginia Tech, etc. 

 

This.

 

Let's stop arbitrarily numbering the MA programs. I know it's irresistible, but this all stems from parsing Brian Leiter's offhand remarks--it's not even based on a survey. I find the numbering ridiculous, not least because Leiter himself doesn't even rank them.

 

For those considering MAs: the PGR lists some solid programs. Use that as a jumping-off point to look at individual programs: the faculty, the suitability for your interests, the funding, the placement, etc. These are all good programs, and it's not helpful to assign specific numbers to say that Tufts is better than Georgia State or that Brandeis is better than Milwaukee.

 

It's better to go where you think you can do your best work--it's a match between where you are now with your interests, and how you want to develop over the next few years. The usefulness of the PGR is that it is a survey of a large range of programs--it reflects the opinions of a group of faculty in their own areas of expertise, and it is limited to one factor, research quality. Controversies with the PGR aside, this is not even the case with the MA programs.

 

Tufts and Brandeis, clocking in at $33k and $45k per year in tuition alone (not to mention the cost of living in Boston), are simply not "investments" that most of us can afford. It's off-putting and elitist for students from these programs to make up rankings with themselves at the top. 

[Establishment]

This.

 

Let's stop arbitrarily numbering the MA programs. I know it's irresistible, but this all stems from parsing Brian Leiter's offhand remarks--it's not even based on a survey. I find the numbering ridiculous, not least because Leiter himself doesn't even rank them.

 

For those considering MAs: the PGR lists some solid programs. Use that as a jumping-off point to look at individual programs: the faculty, the suitability for your interests, the funding, the placement, etc. These are all good programs, and it's not helpful to assign specific numbers to say that Tufts is better than Georgia State or that Brandeis is better than Milwaukee.

 

It's better to go where you think you can do your best work--it's a match between where you are now with your interests, and how you want to develop over the next few years. The usefulness of the PGR is that it is a survey of a large range of programs--it reflects the opinions of a group of faculty in their own areas of expertise, and it is limited to one factor, research quality. Controversies with the PGR aside, this is not even the case with the MA programs.

 

Tufts and Brandeis, clocking in at $33k and $45k per year in tuition alone (not to mention the cost of living in Boston), are simply not "investments" that most of us can afford. It's off-putting and elitist for students from these programs to make up rankings with themselves at the top.

 

This isn't being particularly fair to Ian.

 

First of all, he says placement is only one factor to consider when deciding between MA programs. Second of all, he's responding to a question on how to evaluate placements. Ian isn't arbitrarily saying Program A is better than Program B. He's saying that when one compares placement records at Program A, B, C, and so on, some programs under a certain criteria (i.e., per-capita placement to PGR top-20 programs) have higher averages than others. There's nothing arbitrary or made up about this.

 

If you think he has his facts wrong, that's one thing. Otherwise, I don't think there's a lot of room for argument. If UWM has a PGR-placement-average of a 44.4 and GSU a PGR-placement-average of 44.1, then UWM is technically #3 in placement, but no stronger claim is being made than just this. It's obvious that any given year one or the other program might switch between #3 and #4. And it's clear that there are other considerations such as financial resources and fit. But again, the OP is asking how to evaluate placement records, and Ian was providing an answer.

[Chai tea]

But weren't you arguing against your point below very recently? Even for the inclusion of certain schools that were left out when ranking and placement were topics of discussion? 

This.

 

Let's stop arbitrarily numbering the MA programs. I know it's irresistible, but this all stems from parsing Brian Leiter's offhand remarks--it's not even based on a survey. I find the numbering ridiculous, not least because Leiter himself doesn't even rank them.

 

For those considering MAs: the PGR lists some solid programs. Use that as a jumping-off point to look at individual programs: the faculty, the suitability for your interests, the funding, the placement, etc. These are all good programs, and it's not helpful to assign specific numbers to say that Tufts is better than Georgia State or that Brandeis is better than Milwaukee.

 

It's better to go where you think you can do your best work--it's a match between where you are now with your interests, and how you want to develop over the next few years. The usefulness of the PGR is that it is a survey of a large range of programs--it reflects the opinions of a group of faculty in their own areas of expertise, and it is limited to one factor, research quality. Controversies with the PGR aside, this is not even the case with the MA programs.

 

Tufts and Brandeis, clocking in at $33k and $45k per year in tuition alone (not to mention the cost of living in Boston), are simply not "investments" that most of us can afford. It's off-putting and elitist for students from these programs to make up rankings with themselves at the top. 

 

 

Updated MA program placement records. Each placement indicates one student. So, e.g., "Yale, Northwestern, Duke Law, shut-out" would indicate four students' placements.

 

Brandeis's final confirmed placement record: Michigan, UNC, Cornell, WUSTL, Riverside, UCLA Politics, and an Ivy League law school.  43% success among applicants to T20 programs!

 

Tufts's placement record last I heard: Duke, Duke, Brown, UT Austin, Indiana Bloomington, Johns Hopkins, Western Ontario.

 

Georgia State's record not final:  Indiana University, UC Irvine, University of Pennsylvania, Boston University, Florida State University, University of Missouri, and Western Ontario.

 

UW Milwaukee's last I heard: Pitt HPS, Wisconsin, T20 w/ wait-list at T10, Northwestern, UC Riverside, Notre Dame w/ wait-list at USC, Florida State w/ wait-list at UC Riverside, UNC, T21-30 w/ similar wait-lists, Northwestern w/ T10 waitlist, and several shut-outs.

 

Depending on what happened with UW Milwaukee, I think Brandeis will have the top placement record this year. Three of seven were admitted to T20s. Placement records shouldn't be evaluated strictly by how many were admitted to top programs; they should be evaluated by the share of applicants who were admitted to top programs. To have nearly half admitted to T20s is excellent, on par with Tufts's records in recent years. Tufts, on the other hand, will have the third-best record, behind UW Milwaukee and Brandeis.

 

What does this mean? I think Brandeis and UW Milwaukee have become solid top-three schools. Neither can share the status of Tufts quite yet. And probably Brandeis is solidly better than UW Milwaukee, only because Brandeis's record has been better for several years in a row.

 

Georgia State's placement record isn't as strong as those of these top three MA programs. Having said that, I'm convinced that Georgia State is the right choice for a lot of people pursing the MA. 

 

What I'd like to do next is to break down the placement records according to areas of interest. E.g Brandeis's record is consistently better for those in metaphysics and epistemology than it is for those in, e.g., ethics or political philosophy. Who knows what to make of that!

You're excluding the CSUs. SFSU in particular has had very strong placement in the last few years that compares quite favorably with the programs you're discussing. 

 

 

[ianfaircloud]

Tufts and Brandeis, clocking in at $33k and $45k per year in tuition alone (not to mention the cost of living in Boston), are simply not "investments" that most of us can afford. It's off-putting and elitist for students from these programs to make up rankings with themselves at the top. 

 

Well, when I say "investment," I don't mean "up-front investment." I mean that I couldn't afford any of my education and had to rely on federal loans to pay tuition and the costs of living. The debt I incurred and the two years of lost professional salary were the financial investment. But those are investments that many of us can make, thanks to the availability of federal loans.

 

I have to say, when I read your comment, I wondered how familiar you are with the federal educational loan regime. Because my family income is very low, I was able to take loans from the government to pay for my schooling. So I'm not among the elite. In fact, it's my non-elite status that enabled me to access those loans! Have you heard of "expected family income (EFC)"? I mean that with all sincerity. Maybe you have never filled out federal loan paperwork and just don't know how this works.

 

Your comment suggests that MA students who don't get generous funding must be among the elite. Actually, that sentiment is exactly the one that so many people decried in the Leiter post. I don't think *you* could have meant that, because I've read many intelligent posts by you on this forum. You probably meant something else by your comment, but maybe you can explain it to us.

 

In any case, I took a great risk. Now I'm stuck with more debt. That was a calculation that anyone can make, though certainly some of us will be more burdened by a bad outcome. Now I'm going to law school, and I hope my income will help me to pay this debt. I hear that I'm among the bottom 10% (in terms of wealth) in American law schools. No joke! So you can see why I would want to correct any notion that I'm among the elite.

 

Edit: In the spirit of comments I've laid elsewhere, I'll bring back the point of this topic. As I have said almost every time that I've mentioned placement records, I think placement is one of many factors in the decision to attend a program. Everyone weights the factors differently, because there is no one right way to weight the factors.

Edited February 16, 2015 by ianfaircloud

[alethicethic]

 

But weren't you arguing against your point below very recently? Even for the inclusion of certain schools that were left out when ranking and placement were topics of discussion? 

 

 

Updated MA program placement records. Each placement indicates one student. So, e.g., "Yale, Northwestern, Duke Law, shut-out" would indicate four students' placements.

 

Brandeis's final confirmed placement record: Michigan, UNC, Cornell, WUSTL, Riverside, UCLA Politics, and an Ivy League law school.  43% success among applicants to T20 programs!

 

Tufts's placement record last I heard: Duke, Duke, Brown, UT Austin, Indiana Bloomington, Johns Hopkins, Western Ontario.

 

Georgia State's record not final:  Indiana University, UC Irvine, University of Pennsylvania, Boston University, Florida State University, University of Missouri, and Western Ontario.

 

UW Milwaukee's last I heard: Pitt HPS, Wisconsin, T20 w/ wait-list at T10, Northwestern, UC Riverside, Notre Dame w/ wait-list at USC, Florida State w/ wait-list at UC Riverside, UNC, T21-30 w/ similar wait-lists, Northwestern w/ T10 waitlist, and several shut-outs.

 

Depending on what happened with UW Milwaukee, I think Brandeis will have the top placement record this year. Three of seven were admitted to T20s. Placement records shouldn't be evaluated strictly by how many were admitted to top programs; they should be evaluated by the share of applicants who were admitted to top programs. To have nearly half admitted to T20s is excellent, on par with Tufts's records in recent years. Tufts, on the other hand, will have the third-best record, behind UW Milwaukee and Brandeis.

 

What does this mean? I think Brandeis and UW Milwaukee have become solid top-three schools. Neither can share the status of Tufts quite yet. And probably Brandeis is solidly better than UW Milwaukee, only because Brandeis's record has been better for several years in a row.

 

Georgia State's placement record isn't as strong as those of these top three MA programs. Having said that, I'm convinced that Georgia State is the right choice for a lot of people pursing the MA. 

 

What I'd like to do next is to break down the placement records according to areas of interest. E.g Brandeis's record is consistently better for those in metaphysics and epistemology than it is for those in, e.g., ethics or political philosophy. Who knows what to make of that!

 

 

No. My point there was that Ian had ranked programs in terms of placement without including all of the data--for example, in the case you quoted, the placement data of the CSUs. I was not endorsing the rankings. In the thread above, he again ranked schools by placement. On his blog and in this forum, he has also ranked schools based on Leiter's opinion, which is explicitly in terms of faculty quality, not placement. I support Ian's effort to collect and publish information--but it's incomplete, and I think we should be more cautious about the claims that we make from it.

 

I think that it can be misleading to say things like, "x number of students got into T20 programs!" and have that be the standard by which MA programs are ranked, even just in terms of placement. That's great if those students are interested in T20 programs, but I can think of certain subfields for which mid-ranked overall schools (Duke, WUSTL, Riverside, Irvine, Ohio State) are the best choice. It's not that such data isn't useful--it's good to see which programs tend to send students off to which schools--but I am skeptical of reducing it down to a numerical ranking. This can be done objectively, as the OP requested, without being quite so reductive.

[alethicethic]

Well, when I say "investment," I don't mean "up-front investment." I mean that I couldn't afford any of my education and had to rely on federal loans to pay tuition and the costs of living. The debt I incurred and the two years of lost professional salary were the financial investment. But those are investments that many of us can make, thanks to the availability of federal loans.

 

I have to say, when I read your comment, I wondered how familiar you are with the federal educational loan regime. Because my family income is very low, I was able to take loans from the government to pay for my schooling. So I'm not among the elite. In fact, it's my non-elite status that enabled me to access those loans! Have you heard of "expected family income (EFC)"? I mean that with all sincerity. Maybe you have never filled out federal loan paperwork and just don't know how this works.

 

Your comment suggests that MA students who don't get generous funding must be among the elite. Actually, that sentiment is exactly the one that so many people decried in the Leiter post. I don't think *you* could have meant that, because I've read many intelligent posts by you on this forum. You probably meant something else by your comment, but maybe you can explain it to us.

 

In any case, I took a great risk. Now I'm stuck with more debt. That was a calculation that anyone can make, though certainly some of us will be more burdened by a bad outcome. Now I'm going to law school, and I hope my income will help me to pay this debt. I hear that I'm among the bottom 10% (in terms of wealth) in American law schools. No joke! So you can see why I would want to correct any notion that I'm among the elite.

 

Edit: In the spirit of comments I've laid elsewhere, I'll bring back the point of this topic. As I have said almost every time that I've mentioned placement records, I think placement is one of many factors in the decision to attend a program. Everyone weights the factors differently, because there is no one right way to weight the factors.

 

Ad hominem. Your comments about my own background are completely uncalled for and inappropriate.

 

COL in Boston has to be at least $15k a year, right, and is probably quite a bit more? Most students are extremely unwilling to take out $120k+ in loans. Maybe for medical school, or a BA degree, but definitely not for an MA in philosophy. Since the BCA of 2011, federal aid to graduate and professional students may only take the form of *unsubsidized* loans at an interest rate of 6.8%. Since you also probably needed to take out PLUS loans to cover the cost of living, those are even worse, at 7.9%. Since these are all unsubsidized, you will continue to accrue interest payments to the tune of about $8k a year. You can defer payment while you are in school, but the interest will capitalize once you graduate--therefore, assuming that someone goes on to a doctoral program, that adds about $50k to the total, bringing you up to about $170k. The monthly loan payment on a 30-year loan of that size is in excess of $1100. You would need to have a salary of at least $130k a year in order to reasonably afford that--and that exceeds what most tenured full professors make, on average. Moreover, you can forget about ever buying a house or sending your own kids to college. You'll have to live further away from desirable centers of economic activity. This will put you at a disadvantage to most of your peers as you spend more time commuting and less time either working or spending time with your family or on hobbies, making you less likely to advance in your career and leaving you more exhausted and less fulfilled. In effect, it entrenches household inequality and reduces intergenerational income mobility. I know what you're thinking--if you enter public service, you can get income-based partial loan reduction through the federal government. However--most adjuncts don't qualify, because they are not considered regular full-time employees of the university. Given that most PhDs will become adjuncts, and most adjuncts cannot afford to survive at all, much less pay back loans, taking on this kind of burden is irresponsible and imprudent.

 

The bottom 10% of students in terms of wealth at law schools come from the middle income quintile and below, right?

 

You must realize that you are an exception, and absolutely should not encourage low-SES individuals to take out those kinds of loans. Many low-SES students also have familial obligations--they simply cannot saddle themselves with this level of debt. $120k+ for a philosophy MA is not an investment. It is lifelong debt servitude.

 

The discussion on Leiter was about the SES of students at all MA programs, not just the private schools. Students who go to Tufts and Brandeis are either able to pay for school (through money or scholarships) or have the ability (perhaps they don't have familial obligations) and the willingness to shoulder six figures worth of debt. I stand by what I said: that rules out most of us. Those programs are not are not a realistic option for most on SES grounds. The state schools provide excellent MA programs, and students don't have to mortgage their future to attend.

 

I am very glad, for your sake, that you went to law school. At least you'll have a hope of paying back your loans.

[Chai tea]

No. My point there was that Ian had ranked programs in terms of placement without including all of the data--for example, in the case you quoted, the placement data of the CSUs. I was not endorsing the rankings. In the thread above, he again ranked schools by placement. On his blog and in this forum, he has also ranked schools based on Leiter's opinion, which is explicitly in terms of faculty quality, not placement. I support Ian's effort to collect and publish information--but it's incomplete, and I think we should be more cautious about the claims that we make from it.

I think that it can be misleading to say things like, "x number of students got into T20 programs!" and have that be the standard by which MA programs are ranked, even just in terms of placement. That's great if those students are interested in T20 programs, but I can think of certain subfields for which mid-ranked overall schools (Duke, WUSTL, Riverside, Irvine, Ohio State) are the best choice. It's not that such data isn't useful--it's good to see which programs tend to send students off to which schools--but I am skeptical of reducing it down to a numerical ranking. This can be done objectively, as the OP requested, without being quite so reductive.

Okay, granted, it's incomplete, but I don't think you're accurately capturing what Ian was trying to convey. Forgive me if I misread your original post, but this problem with incompleteness didn't seem to be your concern when you asked to have the CSU's included in the discussion on placement and ranking. If your argument has always been that we ought to "stop arbitrarily numbering the MA programs" why would you be concerned with making sure the placement of the CSU's were also represented in this discussion? Especially a discussion you seem so strongly against now. Why not say then that we ought to stop arbitrarily ranking programs rather than lobbying for a particular program's placement record to be included in such a discussion? Edited February 17, 2015 by Chai tea

[Chai tea]

Ad hominem. Your comments about my own background are completely uncalled for and inappropriate.

 

COL in Boston has to be at least $15k a year, right, and is probably quite a bit more? Most students are extremely unwilling to take out $120k+ in loans. Maybe for medical school, or a BA degree, but definitely not for an MA in philosophy. Since the BCA of 2011, federal aid to graduate and professional students may only take the form of *unsubsidized* loans at an interest rate of 6.8%. Since you also probably needed to take out PLUS loans to cover the cost of living, those are even worse, at 7.9%. Since these are all unsubsidized, you will continue to accrue interest payments to the tune of about $8k a year. You can defer payment while you are in school, but the interest will capitalize once you graduate--therefore, assuming that someone goes on to a doctoral program, that adds about $50k to the total, bringing you up to about $170k. The monthly loan payment on a 30-year loan of that size is in excess of $1100. You would need to have a salary of at least $130k a year in order to reasonably afford that--and that exceeds what most tenured full professors make, on average. Moreover, you can forget about ever buying a house or sending your own kids to college. You'll have to live further away from desirable centers of economic activity. This will put you at a disadvantage to most of your peers as you spend more time commuting and less time either working or spending time with your family or on hobbies, making you less likely to advance in your career and leaving you more exhausted and less fulfilled. In effect, it entrenches household inequality and reduces intergenerational income mobility. I know what you're thinking--if you enter public service, you can get income-based partial loan reduction through the federal government. However--most adjuncts don't qualify, because they are not considered regular full-time employees of the university. Given that most PhDs will become adjuncts, and most adjuncts cannot afford to survive at all, much less pay back loans, taking on this kind of burden is irresponsible and imprudent.

 

The bottom 10% of students in terms of wealth at law schools come from the middle income quintile and below, right?

 

You must realize that you are an exception, and absolutely should not encourage low-SES individuals to take out those kinds of loans. Many low-SES students also have familial obligations--they simply cannot saddle themselves with this level of debt. $120k+ for a philosophy MA is not an investment. It is lifelong debt servitude.

 

The discussion on Leiter was about the SES of students at all MA programs, not just the private schools. Students who go to Tufts and Brandeis are either able to pay for school (through money or scholarships) or have the ability (perhaps they don't have familial obligations) and the willingness to shoulder six figures worth of debt. I stand by what I said: that rules out most of us. Those programs are not are not a realistic option for most on SES grounds. The state schools provide excellent MA programs, and students don't have to mortgage their future to attend.

 

I am very glad, for your sake, that you went to law school. At least you'll have a hope of paying back your loans.

 

Most of what you say above is incorrect; here is some information that might be helpful. New legislation from the Obama Administration on student loan debt has been widely reported in the news in the last few years.

 

https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2014/06/10/obama-expands-income-based-repayment-older-borrowers-pushes-democrats’-student-loan

[alethicethic]

Okay, granted, it's incomplete, but I don't think you're accurately capturing what Ian was trying to convey. Forgive me if I misread your original post, but this problem with incompleteness didn't seem to be your concern when you asked to have the CSU's included in the discussion on placement and ranking. If your argument has always been that we ought to "stop arbitrarily numbering the MA programs" why would you be concerned with making sure the placement of the CSU's were also represented in this discussion? Especially a discussion you seem so strongly against now. Why not say then that we ought to stop arbitrarily ranking programs rather than lobbying for a particular program's placement record to be included in such a discussion?

 

I'm not against discussion of programs in general, program placement or program choice. I'm not against sharing information. Sharing is caring.

 

You have singled out a single post of mine from last season and taken it out of its context, in order to tell me that I should have said something else in order to support my position today? I said what I meant to say then, as regards that particular thread, and I'm saying what I mean to say now. My position is not inconsistent, although I do find it a bit weird that you're combing through my back posts.

 

Ian and I have been arguing about his methodology for awhile, both on and off this forum, so I may understand his position better than you think. This doesn't mean I'm not supportive of Ian's project in general, even if we disagree on some of the particulars.

 

That said, you want to dance, so let's dance.

 

The context of the former post was: hey, you're talking about programs with great placement, but you're missing this relevant data, so you might want to look to that. As far as I know, that didn't happen. I happened to know SFSU's placement because I went there. 2014 is publicly available on the APA guide and is something like: UCLA, Yale, Riverside, Irvine, Washington, Purdue, and Albany. So picture having that information, plus reading that thread--it just seemed obvious that there was something missing. The CSUs (which, FYI, are a state system, not a single program and also include SJSU and CSULA) seemed an obvious oversight to me, since I had firsthand knowledge of students from those schools placing into PGR T10 doctoral programs--no doubt there are other gaps as well.

 

This is entirely compatible with my objections to ranking MA programs.

 

The context of this discussion is: ordinal rankings are not a meaningful way to objectively evaluate placement. Not everyone is as careful as Establishment in reading what the rankings represent. In this case, all the work is being done by information that's not a ranking: that we are talking about some subset of the PGR-listed MA programs and evaluating them by a single criteria, namely the ratio of applicants to placements at PGR T20 PhD programs. It also assumes that the applicants were all aiming for T20 programs, or that they would have chosen a T20 over a mid-ranked program, which may well be false given specialization and program fit. I know of at least two cases where an applicant declined a T20 to go to a midranked program, at least one applicant who declined a T10 to go to a T20, and several applicants who declined a T5 to go to a T10. I even know one who declined a T5 to attend a T20. So maybe what people are after is highest-PGR-ranked acceptance for each applicant? But even if one decides to go forward with this kind of a ranking, representing it as a ratio might also be somewhat misleading, for two reasons. First, the number of applicants is so low overall that a ratio is not the best way to represent information: the difference made by a single applicant is huge (71% acceptance instead of 52%!) Second, a ratio privileges smaller cohorts, even if a larger overall number go on to doctoral programs from the larger cohort.

 

tl;dr Ordinal rankings are unhelpful and easily misused, so let's talk specifics instead.

 

I just realized that we have completely derailed the thread. Reading through, the OP was asking about PhD program placement into TT jobs.

[philstudent1991]

 But even if one decides to go forward with this kind of a ranking, representing it as a ratio might also be somewhat misleading, for two reasons. First, the number of applicants is so low overall that a ratio is not the best way to represent information: the difference made by a single applicant is huge (71% acceptance instead of 52%!) Second, a ratio privileges smaller cohorts, even if a larger overall number go on to doctoral programs from the larger cohort.

 

 

I agree, and I also wonder if it favors private, unfunded programs. I didn't go to one, so only someone that did could really evaluate this claim, but my guess is that if I had just spent 50,000, or whatever, pursuing an MA in philosophy, I might feel more obligated to continue down that path than if I hadn't invested so much in that career. Again, just armchair psychology. Perhaps I'm wrong. 

[alethicethic]

Most of what you say above is incorrect; here is some information that might be helpful. New legislation from the Obama Administration on student loan debt has been widely reported in the news in the last few years.

 

https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2014/06/10/obama-expands-income-based-repayment-older-borrowers-pushes-democrats’-student-loan

 

Actually, most of what I said is indeed correct. Please correct the specifics rather than a generalized attack--that will be more productive. You're missing the place in the dialectic: Ian said Brandeis isn't elitist, because lower-SES students can just borrow heavily to go there. I'm saying that most lower-SES students (rightly) would avoid taking out $120k+ in loans and I provided some considerations in favor of that view. Even if a few of the details were incorrect, the general point stands. 

 

You linked to an article about the temporary extension of Pay as You Earn, which I referenced in my post. That 10-year forgiveness program is only for FTE public employees, which excludes many adjuncts. No doubt, your sweeping claim that everything I said was incorrect was targeted at the fact that I left out that there's also the 25 year plan (25 for students who borrow in the $50k+ range, 20 below), which caps it at 10% of discretionary income for those with demonstrated financial hardship. Median salary for an assistant professor is $55k nationally. That's a $319 a month payment under PAYE, as long as you qualify for the program. Yes, that is a lot less than a 30-year fixed repayment at $1100 a month, or a 10-year at $2k a month, but if you get married, your partner's income will also count against you. It's still debt servitude. The points about inequality and intergenerational income mobility stand.

 

Even if you don't intend to pay back the entirety of your student loans, and are only mortgaging your family's future income at 10% for the next 25 years, I still think it's irresponsible and imprudent to take out $120k in loans for a philosophy MA and I am personally unwilling to do so. I imagine that many students feel similarly--hence my point that Tufts and Brandeis are beyond the financial reach of most.

[Jumbo Juice]

Tufts student here.  Placement data cited earlier inaccurate on several counts; most importantly, missing shut-outs and one student enrolled at Arizona.  Tuition estimates insane, not even in ballpark.  Tuition is $44,000 for entire program (not annually), with standard tuition waver and TAships that comes down to around $5,000-$10,000.  Cost of living in Somerville indeed high, $30,000 for two years not unreasonable, although could be done for less.  Total price tag <$40,000.  Still a lot, nowhere near quoted figure.  Suspect Brandeis costs comparable, no firsthand knowledge.  Tufts student, away.