Reputation VS Ranking

[TheLuckyOne]

Hi guys! I have been talking to my professors about the different options I have now, and one of my professor kept talking about historical reputation of each program. For example, he said UT-Austin is always respected as a traditionally strong program that should have landed in the top 10. And on the other hand, Princeton hasn't received that much prestige and attention until recent years. It seems that in the world of sociologists, reputation matters more than the actual ranking. I guess what I'm trying to ask here is 1) how to find out the reputation of each program? and 2) how to balance ranking with reputation?

[MaxWeberHasAPosse]

Have you looked at the Gourmen report rankings? My professors at CU have told me it is the only ranking that anybody really listens to. From the Gourmen report, it looks like UT Austin is ranked higher than Princeton. http://www.socialpsychology.org/gsociol.htm(note that this website is for social psychologists but the ranking is for Sociology PhD programs).

 

I don't know what your subfield is, but from what I am learning, you wouldn't want to go to say, Wisconsin to do comparative-historical work, even though they are a top 5 program. 

 

These kind of things are all a bit klunky and subjective... The pedigree of Princeton can go a long way, but I'd go to the program that is the best fit!

[MaxWeberHasAPosse]

It's interesting to see how those compare to the US News and World Report Rankings. One glaring inconsistency is the ranking of UC Berkeley. The Gourman has it at #23, and US News has it at #1. I'd be interested to see the methodology for creating these rankings.

Yeah, it's interesting, Berkeley and NYU are toward the bottom. From what I understand these rankings are based on faculty opinion (I think).

[faculty]

This edition of the Gourman Report was published in 1997 (it's the most recent). 

 

Although the U.S News rankings come from faculty opinion (and a very small number of them), I don't think anyone knows what system the Gourman Report uses.

[heyitsthatguy]

My opinion is that these sorts of rankings should rank relatively low on your list of why you want to attend a program. It is only part of a very complex picture, and there is a lot of debate over which ranking system is most reliable.

 

What are your interests? Are there professors in the program who publish widely/are cited widely in that area? Will you have opportunities to actually work with them? Do they have ongoing funded research projects?

 

At the end of the day, you could attend a low-ranking program with all-star faculty in your sub area and do well, or you could attend a highly ranked uni with not as good of a fit and less available profs and do not so well.

 

TL;DR: Fit > Ranking

[brokenwindow]

The USNWR rankings incorporate reputation, but imperfectly since the sample is small and skewed. But it does provide some rough info.

 

As far as ranking in general, the hoary chestnut is that the vast majority of grads who get TT jobs land in programs one tier below their PhD program. If your goal is to teach in an R1, many probably wouldn't pick a third-tier school over a first-tier school, even if the fit at the third-tier school were somewhat better.

 

But yes, if you're choosing between #5 and #13, and you'd thrive at #13 as the disciple of a professor who's a star in a sub-field, but you'd feel aimless and unsupported at #5, with no clear advisor, many would sensibly choose #13. A star advisor could trump a slightly lower overall rank.

 

Having said that, I think most people would choose Princeton or Berkeley over UT. But that doesn't mean that's the right decision for you, after weighing the complex factors that are important to you personally.

 

Basically, I don't think there's a formula or easy answer.

Edited February 17, 2015 by brokenwindow

[TheLuckyOne]

The USNWR rankings incorporate reputation, but imperfectly since the sample is small and skewed. But it does provide some rough info.

 

As far as ranking in general, the hoary chestnut is that the vast majority of grads who get TT jobs land in programs one tier below their PhD program. If your goal is to teach in an R1, many probably wouldn't pick a third-tier school over a first-tier school, even if the fit at the third-tier school were somewhat better.

 

But yes, if you're choosing between #5 and #13, and you'd thrive at #13 as the disciple of a professor who's a star in a sub-field, but you'd feel aimless and unsupported at #5, with no clear advisor, many would sensibly choose #13. A star advisor could trump a slightly lower overall rank.

 

Having said that, I think most people would choose Princeton or Berkeley over UT. But that doesn't mean that's the right decision for you, after weighing the complex factors that are important to you personally.

 

Basically, I don't think there's a formula or easy answer.

 

When you talked about first-tier schools, does that mean top 10, 20 or 30 programs according to USNWR ranking?

Edited February 17, 2015 by TheLuckyOne

[brokenwindow]

I *think* in sociology the top 20 or so are considered the first tier, but others who have more experience in the field should please correct me.

[uselesstheory]

From what I know, top tier is either T5 or T20, depending on the person to whom you are speaking. That in itself speaks to the ambiguity surrounding ranking departments and institutions. For example, US News ranks Indiana-Bloomington #2 for social psych, though the ranking system posted above lists it at 11. There is definitely a lot of ambiguity when it comes to the top 20; different systems of ranking programs seem to shuffle T20 programs around depending on strange variables. However, outside the top schools, I get the sense that rankings stabilize and are more predictable. Correct me if I am wrong or making vast generalizations (I know in some rankings, Oregon has a pretty decent standing, whereas in others, it is completely ignored...).

 

My main sense is that rankings can give us vague ideas of the prestige and strength of programs, but are largely subjective and lack any "scientific" validity regarding specific distinctions between, say, 10 and 12 and 15.

[hgp]

I really wish this thread was more popular! I'd love to hear more opinions on the topic. 

[seekingsun]

I *think* in sociology the top 20 or so are considered the first tier, but others who have more experience in the field should please correct me.

Top tier is usually considered (alphabetically) Berkeley, Chicago, Harvard, Michigan, Wisconsin.  There is a gap between that crowd and the next 10-15 or so (e.g. alpha) Duke, Indiana, UCLA, U-North Carolina, Princeton, Stanford, Yale.  That then a pretty big gap to the next set of schools.  On the margins there is plenty to argue about (i.e. should Stanford be considered in the top tier?  Does Texas fit in the next round, or the level below?)  Of course, then within specialties everything gets mixed up again.  The top 5 generally have strengths across the board, the next group will be pretty well rounted but may be more quant vs qual focused, etc.  All of the schools I listed train their students well and place them in good jobs.

 

At that point you'll want to be thinking about what faculty and students you click with.  Does this school seem to have a collaborative culture, or a competitive one?  Is there more than one mentor that you can envision working with?  You want to avoid going to a place where there is just one faculty member in the area - what if you decide they are a jerk?  or over committed?  or if they leave to go to another school.  What if you decide that you don't want an academic job - is this a program that will be accepting of such a decision and help you think through the possibilities?  Some places those conversations are very welcome and encouraged, others if you aren't interested in an R1 job then you are on your own. 

 

I've never heard of the Gourman rankings, but they appear to be extremely out of date and just plain weird...

Edited March 4, 2015 by seekingsun

[uselesstheory]

Top tier is usually considered (alphabetically) Berkeley, Chicago, Harvard, Michigan, Wisconsin.  There is a gap between that crowd and the next 10-15 or so (e.g. alpha) Duke, Indiana, UCLA, U-North Carolina, Princeton, Stanford, Yale.  That then a pretty big gap to the next set of schools.  On the margins there is plenty to argue about (i.e. should Stanford be considered in the top tier?  Does Texas fit in the next round, or the level below?)  Of course, then within specialties everything gets mixed up again.  The top 5 generally have strengths across the board, the next group will be pretty well rounted but may be more quant vs qual focused, etc.  All of the schools I listed train their students well and place them in good jobs.

 

At that point you'll want to be thinking about what faculty and students you click with.  Does this school seem to have a collaborative culture, or a competitive one?  Is there more than one mentor that you can envision working with?  You want to avoid going to a place where there is just one faculty member in the area - what if you decide they are a jerk?  or over committed?  or if they leave to go to another school.  What if you decide that you don't want an academic job - is this a program that will be accepting of such a decision and help you think through the possibilities?  Some places those conversations are very welcome and encouraged, others if you aren't interested in an R1 job then you are on your own. 

 

I've never heard of the Gourman rankings, but they appear to be extremely out of date and just plain weird...

 

Someone downvoted you, but I don't know why, since this is very good imo, and very realistic.