Ranking and placement data

[Darkmatters]

Everyone should read these charts and the story below.

 

http://www.jgoodwin.net/jobs/

http://www.jgoodwin.net/jobs/chord.html

 

http://www.slate.com/articles/life/education/2015/02/university_hiring_if_you_didn_t_get_your_ph_d_at_an_elite_university_good.html

[CarolineNC]

Man, these are making me feel awful, and I thought I'd done kinda well.

[echo449]

You have done well. Austin has good placement; as does UNC. Yes, the ivies and a few other schools are clearly better, but you arn't doomed by any measure with your options.

[SilasWegg]

I'm super confused by the USN graph. Is that the number of professors who have TT jobs just in top 30 programs? If so, so what?

[Dr. Old Bill]

...is this news?

 

 

I don't mean to sound snarky, but there's really nothing about these charts that hasn't been stated (seemingly ad nauseum) elsewhere here in recent weeks. And I think that's the third time I've seen that Slate article as well.

 

I just don't understand why this needs yet another thread.

Edited March 6, 2015 by Wyatt's Torch

[bgt28]

I don't mean to sound like an ass, but I think the tempo needs to be kicked down a notch. We JUST got into grad schools. JUST now. 

[Dr. Old Bill]

I don't mean to sound like an ass, but I think the tempo needs to be kicked down a notch. We JUST got into grad schools. JUST now. 

 

[kurayamino]

talk about beating a dead horse.

[allplaideverything]

I'm having a lot of trouble figuring out that first chart.

[1Q84]

I think the only point of interest for me was the inclusion of Toronto and Oxford in the results, since they often are not.

Otherwise, yes: crop, meet dead horse.

Edit: crap, I really didn't mean to down vote you Appplication!! Fat fingers on mobile. Sorry

Edited March 7, 2015 by 1Q84

[Appppplication]

Im more interested in the placement records of the other 7000 universities that were left out of this study. 

[janaca]

I'd be interested to see studies that focus specifically on recent PhD graduates, since just looking at where current professors studied tells a lot about placement trends when they were hired--which was often decades ago--but doesn't reveal much valuable information for new grad students entering an economy where institutional hiring practices are changing very quickly.

[empress-marmot]

I'd be interested to see studies that focus specifically on recent PhD graduates, since just looking at where current professors studied tells a lot about placement trends when they were hired--which was often decades ago--but doesn't reveal much valuable information for new grad students entering an economy where institutional hiring practices are changing very quickly.

 

Yes! A week or so ago, I ranked programs (in my field) by how many of their PhDs they placed in other PhD programs in my field. But that's not enough: I should have noted how many recent graduates (say, from 2010 onward) are at other PhD programs. 

 

Otherwise, yes: crop, meet dead horse.

 

Yup. I know the risks. No use thinking toxic thoughts. 

[MonicaBang]

Does that first chart actually say "Where tenure line faculty earned their terminal degrees at"? Come on, chart makers. Delete the unnecessary preposition.

[joncgoodwin]

Some responses to the questions raised here, in reverse chronological order:

 

1) There's a line break in this http://jgoodwin.net/jobs/ graph. The complete sentence is "Where faculty earned their terminal degrees at U. S. News Top 30 programs."

 

2) I will eventually enter the data from the approximately 120 other PhD programs. I'm using the U. S. News order because it's there, not because I think it's valid.

 

3) This graph: http://jgoodwin.net/jobs/group.html has a breakdown by rank. Assistant professor appointments show a notably different pattern than full.

 

4) The chord diagram (http://jgoodwin.net/jobs/chord.html) shows faculty interchange between programs in the U. S. News Top 30 that had at least five exchanges of faculty in one direction or another (hiring or placement). The mouseovers will show you labels when they are omitted.

 

5) I don't know what's been stated here in recent weeks. The article that Slate references did not, as far as I know, collect data on sub-fields in English. I am. I will eventually have charts showing where rhetoric/composition, creative writing, and linguistics faculty who teach in English departments earned their degrees. These sub-fields affect the prestige hierarchy in English departments, and the Pedagogy article did not address this, which is one reason why I'm collecting this data.

Edited March 7, 2015 by joncgoodwin

[echo449]

I appreciate that you've taken the time to break this down, but I think the problem with your graphs (as they stand), is that (1) they are based off of sort of old rankings (how long has it been since Buffalo was in the top 30?), (2) the lack of anything beyond the top 30 gives a SUPER misleading portrait of the market, never mind that you don't include liberal arts colleges, (3) it depends upon an analysis of the market which gives heavy weight to the market as it used to be. Yale produced so many top scholars in large part because (a) Yale, and ( Yale set the terms of what was cutting-edge in literary studies at about the time that many people who are now full professors would have earned their degrees.

 

This information is interesting, but I don't think this was the right place to post it. I don't think this tells us much about the market today (where no one from Berkeley or Duke expects a top 30 placement anymore), and does cause undue stress around a forum dedicated to people trying to get into a program in the first place. I applaud yr efforts, but it's worth pointing out that this doesn't help anyone who might find it here.  

 

Edited March 7, 2015 by echo449

[joncgoodwin]

The schools you see on the x-axis of these graphs are not based on rankings. They are programs that have placed the most people in the U. S. News Top 30 English graduate programs (as of their last published rankings and current faculty pages).

 

I'm doing PhD programs only for now to study interchange. I am curious to compare regional state universities and liberal arts colleges with PhD-granting programs, but the data-gathering for this cannot be easily automated and is quite laborious. (Imagine a faculty page of someone named "Jane Smith" that does not list where she received her PhD. The dissertation database could list hundreds of people with the same name, with perhaps a handful in English literature. If you have an area to go by, that might narrow it down, but always. Someone with an uncommon name completed a PhD in the same area as someone with the exact same name in the same year. Sometimes catalogues will list where faculty were educated, but not always.)

 

I did not create these graphs for this forum, nor did I post them here. I saw the thread in my referrers and thought I would clear up some of the misperceptions.

[echo449]

Fair enough! 

[>>>]

it's worth noting that the first bar-graph (in particular) is raw #, not scaled for program size, which obviously varies between the listed programmes and departments; and that these show standing faculty, not new hires; hence the chart broken down into rank may be more useful: the visiting and associate professor categories would (i imagine) give a better sense of the recent placement rates of different programmes.

 

for these reasons (among others) these stats are perhaps interesting less as a projective or predictive assessment and more as a demographic study of current departments -- which seems to be how they were intended, and thanks to jon for that.

[heja0805]

Thanks for posting this, joncgoodwin! I look forward to seeing your charts on sub-fields within English departments, too.

 

If you do that --and as I'm certain you're already aware-- just keep in mind that writing departments are an emerging trend and exclusively hire het/comp scholars. As an added factor, these writing departments offer, to many, some of the most desirable working contexts for job seekers in rhet comp. Your data might not represent the rhet/comp community as a whole if you don't take writing departments into account, but then again, that might merit a study on its own.

 

Likewise, there are of course departments dedicated solely to linguistics, applied linguistics, and second language studies. I don't know as much about these areas, but I'm willing to bet that top scholars want to be part of these departments, too. 

 

ANYWAY, this is interesting and important, and thank you for posting it here. 

Edited March 12, 2015 by heja0805

[heja0805]

 

 

Yes! A week or so ago, I ranked programs (in my field) by how many of their PhDs they placed in other PhD programs in my field. But that's not enough: I should have noted how many recent graduates (say, from 2010 onward) are at other PhD programs. 

 

 

Yup. I know the risks. No use thinking toxic thoughts. 

 

 

Would you be interested in sharing your rankings on GC? If not, I'd love to see them via a PM. 

 

I think it's very important and useful information!

 

One thing though--is there a reason you chose 2010 as a factor in your rankings? Very few...I mean very few new PhDs in rhet comp get jobs as graduate faculty in PhD-granting departments the first time they're on the job market. Many take jobs at teaching-focused institutions before going on the market again (usually prior to tenure) and making the jump to an R1--and this can take a few years. There are great candidates with recent PhDs that get jobs at R1s off the bat, too...it's just uncommon. 

 

Also, remember that teaching at an R1 isn't always the optimal situation for everyone. Working in that kind of setting requires a certain kind of lifestyle that I'm not sure if I'd want to be part of for my entire career, but for some it's a great situation. 

Edited March 12, 2015 by heja0805