Reputation Real Talk

[hypervodka]

Announcing your privilege just before you write a post that in itself exposes your privilege (like for example, making a comment that dismisses the work of an entrenched, sub-poverty-level workforce that regularly and insecurely gets paid below a living wage as a "great problem to have") is just unnecessary. It's redundant.

Edited February 26, 2015 by hypervodka

[Appppplication]

whoa whoa whoa, I NEVER have and never will dismiss adjunct labor by somehow thinking it sufficient for the PhD workforce. If anything adjunct labor is unjust. Especially considering I too have PhD offers and will be (already am) facing the consequences of the adjunct predicament for PhD holders. 

Edited February 26, 2015 by Appppplication

[hypervodka]

I'm not saying that you said adjuncting was "sufficient" or "just." I'm not accusing you of anything more or less than what you actually said, my only point being that the intersections of your various privileges were obvious without annunciation, just as mine are, as are anyone's, when I say pretty much anything.

[kurayamino]

This is an interesting idea. You can change the different settings to see what the rankings are and what the mixes between those things produce is sometimes telling: http://chronicle.com/article/Make-Your-Own-College-Rankings/151473/?cid=at&utm_source=at&utm_medium=en

[allplaideverything]

What color is that dress though?

[Dr. Old Bill]

What color is that dress though?

 

Good lord. I've been around since the dawn of the Internet, and never have I seen a meme go crazy like that one has.

 

I'm going to start taking a zen approach to it.

 

There is no dress.

[Appppplication]

That dress has so much white (and gold) privilege.

[kurayamino]

The PhD TT crisis is not just in the humanities: http://www.npr.org/blogs/ed/2015/02/27/388443923/a-glut-of-ph-d-s-means-long-odds-of-getting-jobs

[kurayamino]

I hate to post twice in a row, but the Slate article has been really though provoking for me and my advisers. This is what one of my advisers had to say:

 

 

• National statistics are not predictive of a students success in getting into doctoral programs, nor of their success in building academic careers.
• Students who pursue doctoral studies who are minorities, first generation college students, and others with unusual perspectives and backgrounds, they will do better than national norms.
• Although going to a more prestigious doctoral program is obviously preferable when this is a choice, students who have attended less prestigious programs have often been satisfied and successful, and are pursuing meaningful work and fulfilling careers, sometimes at community colleges where their skills are desperately needed and their presence can be of incalculable value.
•  Many students are resourceful and can surely figure out how to make good use of at PhD outside of academia if they find academia closed to them or if the academic options look unattractive.
• For those students who are children of parents who do not make $30,000 a year a $30,000 doctoral stipend with health insurance and many other attractive benefits can look pretty good to them.
• En route to the PhD, doctoral students will get a free MA, and even if they do not continue to finish the PhD, getting paid to complete a MA is a great deal.

[1Q84]

I hate to post twice in a row, but the Slate article has been really though provoking for me and my advisers. This is what one of my advisers had to say:

 

I'll say this much: this one is definitely true for me! 

 

 

 

• For those students who are children of parents who do not make $30,000 a year a $30,000 doctoral stipend with health insurance and many other attractive benefits can look pretty good to them.

 

Haven't ever really heard that notion articulated before so thank you to your advisor for that. (Not that I'd even have that much as a stipend, but a yearly salary approaching that would make me happy.)

[MonicaBang]

Chiming in to add food for thought to kurayamino's post ^^ and to respond to something MollifiedMolly said a few pages ago:

 

If you go to Yale to study ComeBackZinc's field of Posthuman Cyborg Novels of the Long 17th Century (please exist, please exist, please exist), and they only have one person doing that while that field happens to be dominated by Florida State, GWU, OSU, Brandeis, and UC Santa Cruz (completely random examples) -- if there are jobs in that field, maybe you'd be better off going to one of those (comparatively) "lesser ranked" schools.  So yeah, like fancypants said -- it ain't some monolith or "all or nothing" kind of deal.  

 

This is pretty much my experience. Maybe this is bizarre, but I didn't look at rank at all when I first started selecting the schools I would apply to. I picked my schools based on the expertise available in the very specific area I wanted to study. The only upper-tier school I applied to was UNC Chapel Hill (implied rejection), and only because I have family in NC. So I want to emphasize fit. I didn't apply to any top tens, because my work didn't "fit" there. Maybe I should have approached my process a bit differently, but all along I had two particular schools in mind, neither of which is ranked even in the top 40, but both of which have strong programs in my specialization. I'll admit that all this talk about rankings does make me feel a little uneasy, but I'm also certain that I'm going to study with the best community of scholars for what I want to do. I also know many people in my field with TT jobs who went to the schools I've been looking at, so precedent tells me that job prospects (dismal as they may be) might be a little brighter depending on the specialization.

[Gustav]

So on point, thank you for your comments! One thing that gets ignored in these discussions about "oh lord, if I don't go to an Ivy I'm screwed" (mostly based on articles in the Chronicle and oftentimes, Slate, the latter of which tends to be particularly melodramatic) -- you can go to a top-10 (or whatever) school and still have as difficult time getting a job as anyone else if that school's emphases make it perceived as "weak" for whatever field you're trying to specialize in. If you go to Yale to study ComeBackZinc's field of Posthuman Cyborg Novels of the Long 17th Century (please exist, please exist, please exist), and they only have one person doing that while that field happens to be dominated by Florida State, GWU, OSU, Brandeis, and UC Santa Cruz (completely random examples) -- if there are jobs in that field, maybe you'd be better off going to one of those (comparatively) "lesser ranked" schools. So yeah, like fancypants said -- it ain't some monolith or "all or nothing" kind of deal. We're talking about statistics, which are easily skewed and never individualized for special circumstances (and specializations and uber niche fields are a huge part of academia).

But yes, do let's actually talk about things (besides teaching) one can do with a lit Ph.D.! I'm currently a teacher, but before this gig I did a bunch of library work (everything from Reference and research assistance to uber-dry library science and cataloging projects). One of the things I'm looking into is being able to find work during my program getting summer work/internships at research libraries as well as finding lectureship/adjunct gigs too -- one of the reasons why I want to study in a big city is the increased opportunities for such work. One thing I'm looking forward to being able to do in a funded Ph.D. program is to actually be able to take potentially unpaid internships that interest me -- I was never able to do that in undergrad because I was always working and couldn't afford to do internships or take summer classes and things like that. My program will give me that opportunity.

Just a personal example of my current thought process -- I'd be very much interested in hearing what other people are thinking too!

ETA: I'm sorry -- I don't mean to make assumptions about where people have gotten in and what kind of opportunities people will have. My case will be different -- I happen to have gotten at least one funding offer that will allow me to do what I said and I don't want to make it look like I assume everyone has that same situation. I'm very fortunate. But I do think it would be productive for us to brainstorm what sorts of opportunities for work besides teaching university that can be presented in a Ph.D. program, realizing that each situation will have different variables.

I really have to disagree with the first point The dilemma between speciality and prestige only exits when it is among schools of comparable calibre. Take the so-called posthumanism for example (which is definitely not a field, as 17th British novel is), it only makes sense when you are comparing Santa Cruz and a slightly better known, but less specialized program like, say, Penn State, or Duke and Columbia. But when it is between Stanta Cruz and Columbia, there is no doubt about which one should go with. Check the placement records of these programs you will see. A person specializing in digital humanities from a Top 5 program where not a single faculty works on this area can still land a tenure track job in Top 10 U. It is because time and other resources and opportunities are often much more important, not to mentions things like connections. After all you learn most of the things from the books not from your advisor.

[unræd]

Oh God, I thought it was dead.

[kurayamino]

Oh God, I thought it was dead.

 

My fault.. I resurrected it, but I felt that certain aspects weren't being fairly represented.

[echo449]

Eh, I half agree, but I think in nascent fields or specialized like digital humanities, it is equally the case that a person coming from a top 20 who specialized in DH research with a famous DH person will have just as good a shot at the spot as yr hypothetical top 5er. In my view, if you are in at a top 10 or top 5, fit matters less in terms of the later job market because of the prestige of the department. However, you can still (please note that I'm not attributing necessity to this; i don't want to be caught up in whatever the hell the privilege conversation is) have an exceptionally (perhaps even top 20 tenure) career if you go to a top 20 or 30 school, but that school has to be one of THE places for your area. And, unfortunately, coming from one of THE places in your area just means you are now on a more even playing field with the Harvard candidate. 

[__________________________]

Oh God, I thought it was dead.

[Gustav]

Eh, I half agree, but I think in nascent fields or specialized like digital humanities, it is equally the case that a person coming from a top 20 who specialized in DH research with a famous DH person will have just as good a shot at the spot as yr hypothetical top 5er. In my view, if you are in at a top 10 or top 5, fit matters less in terms of the later job market because of the prestige of the department. However, you can still (please note that I'm not attributing necessity to this; i don't want to be caught up in whatever the hell the privilege conversation is) have an exceptionally (perhaps even top 20 tenure) career if you go to a top 20 or 30 school, but that school has to be one of THE places for your area. And, unfortunately, coming from one of THE places in your area just means you are now on a more even playing field with the Harvard candidate.

If we are talking about overall ranking, no one will dispute that top 30 with good fit can compete with top 5 on job market. I was just saying that in saying the same thing about top 10 and top 40-80 we overemphasized the importance of "fit".

[1Q84]

I'm not seeing the big fuss about talking about reputation on the board... it's obviously something that concerns a lot of applicants. We shouldn't just pretend like it doesn't exist or shut it off in the realm of taboo. Not to mention, for the most part, the conversation has been rather civil.

 

Anyway, I think Gustav is on the money here. The importance of a university being "The Place" for your sub-area of focus cannot be overstated, with the UCSC/posthumanism example being a good one. Seems like a good reminder to avoid the single-mindedness, undifferentiated madness of only "making it in the top 10."

[unræd]

I have no problem talking about reputation, and I certainly don't think we should pretend it doesn't exist; I think it should concern a lot more people here on the board than it does, frankly. My wish for this thread to die quick, painless death has less to do with its incivility--although there was a bit of that--than with the extent it just got weird, especially since every moment we're posting here is another moment we aren't caring about trans* violence.

 

In re the question of schools that fight above their weight in some subspecialties, though, wasn't Gustav's point that the importance of fit-vs.-rep can in fact be overstated?

 

I really have to disagree with the first point. The dilemma between speciality and prestige only exits when it is among schools of comparable calibre. Take the so-called posthumanism for example (which is definitely not a field, as 17th British novel is), it only makes sense when you are comparing Santa Cruz and a slightly better known, but less specialized program like, say, Penn State, or Duke and Columbia. But when it is between Stanta Cruz and Columbia, there is no doubt about which one should go with. Check the placement records of these programs you will see. A person specializing in digital humanities from a Top 5 program where not a single faculty works on this area can still land a tenure track job in Top 10 U. 

 

One of my profs talks about it as hoping your diploma will "glow in the dark," i.e. that everyone will know that your school, while not at the top of the heap generally, is actually super good for what you do. But the problem is that the people who know that are the other people in your subspecialty, who aren't really the ones whom you need to know that--that's the hiring committee, which might not have anyone on it who has any idea what's going on in your field.

Edited March 1, 2015 by unræd

[1Q84]

than with the extent it just got weird, especially since every moment we're posting here is another moment we aren't caring about trans* violence.

 

Oh yes, by all means, let's get back to that then... :/

 

As for Gustav's point, what I took from it is, yes, of course the reputation of the super heavyweights (top 5 or 10) obviously outweigh pretty much anything when it comes to decisions between two acceptances but I think it was more illuminating, especially because of Appplication's rant about the phantom posters who apparently were "Top 10 or Bust," in pointing out "lower-ranked" schools that have strong faculty in up and coming areas of study. That information would have been extremely helpful to me as an applicant... I wasn't really in-the-know enough to know, for example, that UCSC was strong in posthumanism and information like that could've certainly shaped my application decisions a little more thoughtfully. (Of course, if I'm misinterpreting your point, Gustav, please feel free to say so.)

 

No doubt a bout of name recognition between, say, Yale vs. "Very Good Posthumanist School" is a no-contest, but I think sliding the emphasis back in the direction of advisor reputation (in terms of their "pedigree" but also their subfield rock star status) can be informative as well.

[Appppplication]

Im so popular on this Thread! it feels good to finally be acknowledged for my contributions to the gc forum.

I want to thank my agent, my partner for all the support, and all the anon lurkers for keeping it real.

*takes a bow*

[unræd]

Oh yes, by all means, let's get back to that then... :/

 

I thought we all agreed it was an utterly specious, almost incomprehensible rhetorical move when Appppplication made it, so much so that it would be patently clear I was being very, very ironic. Apparently not--I'm sorry; I should have been clearer.

Edited March 1, 2015 by unræd

[echo449]

If we are talking about overall ranking, no one will dispute that top 30 with good fit can compete with top 5 on job market. I was just saying that in saying the same thing about top 10 and top 40-80 we overemphasized the importance of "fit".

Okay, within the context of this convo, then, we are def on the same page. (It would be interesting if grad cafe attracted more alt ac types--I wonder what their experiences are across the spectrum)

[greenmt]

Earlier, on this forum, I posted something about projections by the Bureau of Labor Statistics that showed increased - better than average - growth in the profession of postsecondary teaching, English Lit, between 2012-2022.  My contention was that those projections must be based on the need to replace aging / due to retire (or otherwise, ahem, exit the workforce) tenured professors.  It didn't really seem to get traction, which surprised me because if nothing else it looked to me like a glimmer of light in the (overhyped, imho) gloomy prospecting I've seen elsewhere.  I've been doing some research, partly to pass the time while I wait to find out whether I'm going to grad school in the fall. I'm thinking about pulling it together into a short article or blog post.  Would others be interested in knowing more?  

[1Q84]

I thought we all agreed it was an utterly specious, almost incomprehensible rhetorical move when Appppplication made it, so much so that it would be patently clear I was being very, very ironic. Apparently not--I'm sorry; I should have been clearer.

 

Oh, of course I knew you weren't serious. My reply to you was completely facetious. I guess I could've been clearer too!

 

Earlier, on this forum, I posted something about projections by the Bureau of Labor Statistics that showed increased - better than average - growth in the profession of postsecondary teaching, English Lit, between 2012-2022.  My contention was that those projections must be based on the need to replace aging / due to retire (or otherwise, ahem, exit the workforce) tenured professors.  It didn't really seem to get traction, which surprised me because if nothing else it looked to me like a glimmer of light in the (overhyped, imho) gloomy prospecting I've seen elsewhere.  I've been doing some research, partly to pass the time while I wait to find out whether I'm going to grad school in the fall. I'm thinking about pulling it together into a short article or blog post.  Would others be interested in knowing more?

I'm definitely interested in this and any info you can dig up on it. I've been somewhat skeptical, however, because I've heard a lot of this same rhetoric ("Y'know, when the baby boomer's retire, employers will just be roping in strangers off the street") used to justify a lot of poor industry practice-I'm thinking specifically about training way more secondary teachers than is required, something that really bit me in the ass in my mid 20s. I'd love it if your contention eventually came true, though. As for now, the only real impact I've seen has been an overburdened health care system.