Not being accepted into top-20 program

[lelick1234]

Hey Folks, 

I was just wondering the mindset of people who are currently doing graduate studies at a mid-level university.  What are your professional goals?  I have heard many people say to not even go to graduate school if you do not get into a university with prestige. 

 

--Leo

[TMP]

You'd be best off exploring the placements of mid-level programs.   From my own observations with peers, they tend to aim to work in the region, whether teaching, government jobs, historical societies... People in top-20 do have a strong research mentality.

 

In any event, students across rankings have one shared goal- to get the PhD and take their own journeys to get there.

[mvlchicago]

With the caveat that I'm not quite the person from who you asked for help, I would also suggest (in agreement with the exploration of placements where possible!) that you speak with students at Universities you are considering directly? Obviously have a little tact, but more often than not I've found graduate students at specific schools to be the best resource.

 

More generally, I would amend the advice you've received to reflect the following: do not bother going to a PhD program that does not fund you. This is because if you want to successfully complete a dissertation–which is, for all intents here, a book–and complete it to the best of your ability, you do not want to be TA-ing or working other sorts of jobs in addition to doing the research necessary to finish that book. It's incredibly challenging, stressful, and you'll probably burn out even if you finish.

I think most people are telling you to worry about prestige because they assume you want to work a Tenure Track job. If that's your intention I would tentatively agree, except to say that it's not impossible to get that sort of position from a non-top 20 school, just difficult politics and intellectual hustle required. But outside of Tenure Track, there are so many things one can do with a PhD that really the pedigree of the degree is irrelevant: writing your own popular books, offering advice to journalists, working in editing houses and firms, working in museums, finding research fellowships from year to year, teaching all sorts of high school levels. Ultimately, there are so few jobs from year-to-year that any student who is setting themselves to a one-minded "Tenure Track or Bust" sort of mentality will likely be disappointed regardless of where they are. 

[MastersHoping]

 Ultimately, there are so few jobs from year-to-year that any student who is setting themselves to a one-minded "Tenure Track or Bust" sort of mentality will likely be disappointed regardless of where they are. 

Bam. Powerful words right there!

I'm going to guess that there are people from non-top programs who end up with perfectly successful careers in high schools, community college, liberal arts colleges, gov't agencies, nonprofit, etc. In fact, I would imagine that many of these places couldn't care less where you got your Ph.D from, like a nonprofit organization for example. 

[dr. t]

Bam. Powerful words right there!

I'm going to guess that there are people from non-top programs who end up with perfectly successful careers in high schools, community college, liberal arts colleges, gov't agencies, nonprofit, etc. In fact, I would imagine that many of these places couldn't care less where you got your Ph.D from, like a nonprofit organization for example. 

 

This may or may not be true, but remember that if you are from a program ranked outside the top tier, you will be competing against top-tier PhD holders for these jobs. Plenty of the "TT or Bust" crowd are having to "settle" for HS, community colleges, SLCs, and jobs outside of academia. Leaving aside the fact that you don't need a PhD for most of those jobs, if you think institutional prestige won't matter for jobs outside the traditional TT route, you're fooling yourself.

[ashiepoo72]

Prestige matters, but so do placement records. Also, the programs with good placement aren't just relegated to the top 20. Telkanuru linked to something that showed the programs with the highest prestige factor on the job market, and some of those are outside the top 20.

Anyway, my program is ranked 27 by US News, but I know my adviser has placed all her recent grads in TT jobs and several Davis grads ended up working at my MA university--a generally well-regarded state school, although not one known for its history program despite having stellar scholars. Obviously if you wanna work at a top tier program you better not look outside of the top tier for grad school, but there ARE programs outside of the top 20 that have good reputations and placement records--OSU and UMinn for example, tied at 24 according to U.S. News.

[dr. t]

Prestige matters, but so do placement records. Also, the programs with good placement aren't just relegated to the top 20. Telkanuru linked to something that showed the programs with the highest prestige factor on the job market, and some of those are outside the top 20.

 

This is almost right. The study showed that approximately 20 programs dominated the job market to such a degree that the authors could not find a reasonable explanation for it beyond institutional prestige. This may or may not be right - I can think of one or two other explanations - but in practical effect it provides a valuable resource for us. Effectively, it tells us that rankings like USNews are nonsense. For example, UC Davis, Ashiepoo's school which was ranked 27(or 40th, according to NRC2010), is 17th in the study's ranking, and UMinn is 22.

 

In other words, it's not that non-prestigious programs have good placement rates, it's that the methodological approach taken by ranking sites is not very good.

 

You can read the study here: http://advances.sciencemag.org/content/1/1/e1400005

Edited June 21, 2015 by telkanuru

[TMP]

This is almost right. The study showed that approximately 20 programs dominated the job market to such a degree that the authors could not find a reasonable explanation for it beyond institutional prestige. This may or may not be right - I can think of one or two other explanations - but in practical effect it provides a valuable resource for us. Effectively, it tells us that rankings like USNews are nonsense. For example, UC Davis, Ashiepoo's school which was ranked 27(or 40th, according to NRC2010), is 17th in the study's ranking, and UMinn is 22.

 

In other words, it's not that non-prestigious programs have good placement rates, it's that the methodological approach taken by ranking sites is not very good.

 

You can read the study here: http://advances.sciencemag.org/content/1/1/e1400005

Thankfully this  post isn't for political science

[MastersHoping]

 Leaving aside the fact that you don't need a PhD for most of those jobs, if you think institutional prestige won't matter for jobs outside the traditional TT route, you're fooling yourself.

 

Not that they won't matter, but I would imagine that most organizations care less about institutional prestige than TT jobs.

[dr. t]

Not that they won't matter, but I would imagine that most organizations care less about institutional prestige than TT jobs.

 

Maybe? I don't know if you could quantify the difference. In either case, institutional prestige is the thing that gets you in the door when it otherwise would not, i.e. it gets them to read an application they would otherwise toss. This is certainly true for industry; I've seen it in action with undergraduates. And when it comes to hiring actual PhDs, I suspect institutional prestige plays an even greater role.

Edited June 24, 2015 by telkanuru

[rising_star]

Not that they won't matter, but I would imagine that most organizations care less about institutional prestige than TT jobs.

 

This long piece in The Atlantic suggests otherwise, MastersHoping. http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2015/05/recruitment-resumes-interviews-how-the-hiring-process-favors-elites/394166/

 

From the article: 

"What ends up happening is that firms create lists. So there's a school list, and on the list there are cores and there are targets. Cores are generally the most prestigious schools; targets are highly prestigious schools. Cores receive the most love. But basically if you're not from one of these cores or target schools it's extremely hard to get into one of these firms."

[TMP]

This is why networking is important if you're not in "top tier."  You have to be willing to network more because you can't depend on your institution's name.

[mvlchicago]

This long piece in The Atlantic suggests otherwise, MastersHoping. http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2015/05/recruitment-resumes-interviews-how-the-hiring-process-favors-elites/394166/

 

From the article: 

"What ends up happening is that firms create lists. So there's a school list, and on the list there are cores and there are targets. Cores are generally the most prestigious schools; targets are highly prestigious schools. Cores receive the most love. But basically if you're not from one of these cores or target schools it's extremely hard to get into one of these firms."

To be clear though, that article focused specifically on a certain set of jobs; namely those involved with I-Banking and consulting. If you're attempting to go from History PhD to consulting, I'd say you have a lot to do regardless of what school you're at.

That being said, I'm not trying to suggest it's not an uphill battle for any field. The fact is jobs are scant and there is almost always competition. My original point was just that institutional prestige matters less if you're going for a museum, or a media firm vs. Tenure Track. I'm of the mindset that people connections matter more for most of this anyway, and that institutions only help you build those connections. 

[GradSchoolTruther]

This may or may not be true, but remember that if you are from a program ranked outside the top tier, you will be competing against top-tier PhD holders for these jobs. Plenty of the "TT or Bust" crowd are having to "settle" for HS, community colleges, SLCs, and jobs outside of academia. Leaving aside the fact that you don't need a PhD for most of those jobs, if you think institutional prestige won't matter for jobs outside the traditional TT route, you're fooling yourself.

 

Many history departments are full of people who went to low-ranked programs. You can succeed, but you have to bust your tail while in grad school, as you can't coast on departmental prestige.

[dr. t]

Many history departments are full of people who went to low-ranked programs. You can succeed, but you have to bust your tail while in grad school, as you can't coast on departmental prestige.

 

This is what the numbers say: may history departments have people who went to low-ranked programs. Few of them are "full" of such PhDs. And you can bust your tail all you want, but it's still going to come down to a lot of luck to land a TT job from outside that top-20. If you're applying for a job against a PhD from a top-20 program, they'll tend to get it, because most of them aren't "coasting" on departmental prestige either. It's just another item on their CV.

 

Yes, if you go to a low-ranked program, you may get that TT job in the end. Odds are you won't.

Edited June 26, 2015 by telkanuru

[lelick1234]

My general gist of this conversation is that you should only enroll in graduate school if you are actually a star in your field, or--if you are not--that you want to write a book, learn some languages, and work some odd job in the future.  I will apply to the top-20 programs and see what happens. I am perfectly comfortable with my middling academic skills, even if I secretly hope that I am selling myself short.  

[Riotbeard]

As someone at a mid-ranked school, we place people, and you can kind of see early on who that will be. Our record is pretty good, if you finish actually, but it's such a small program. 

 

You do have to be comfortable doing a lot of networking.  A) You have to make a name for yourself.  In my experience, my school name has not hurt me, but people don't assume off the bat that I am smart or dumb.  My adviser and outside readers' names helps me a good bit though.  You have to apply for a ton of grants/fellowships.  I have gotten a large national/government grant and another person in my year got a fullbright, but we pound the pavement.  These big grants can help make up for school name and put you on an equal playing field or at least bridge the gap.  They also enable you to visit other schools and build your network.  You have to be a bit of a hustler (although this is more and more true of people at ivies as well as midtier schools).  C) Another disadvantage in terms of networking, is the revolving door of major academics that do workshops at Ivies that enable you to meet major people in your field.  I have been able to see this, because I ingratiated myself to the Penn History and Sociology of Science program while I was doing research in Philly, and went to their dept. seminars.  Every city I did research in for my dissertation, I went to public lectures, became buddies with archivists, and cold-called professors who do similar work.  This really helped me build a strong professional network.  Hint, it's also more fun than being alone in a new city!  I met those professors grad students, who have become close friends in the year(s) since. 

 

Primarily through networking, I have gotten a couple of invited lectures (even paid for one) and was asked to be an expert for a major media outlet.  I also have a good friend at a lower ranked school, who has written six articles and thus has had pretty good success on the market.  You can definitely do it from a mid-tier program, but all things considered, a name brand will definitely help.  Academia is not a pure meritocracy by any standard, but good work and personality can get you pretty far.

Edited July 8, 2015 by Riotbeard

[TMP]

As someone at a mid-ranked school, we place people, and you can kind of see early on who that will be. Our record is pretty good, if you finish actually, but it's such a small program. 

 

You do have to be comfortable doing a lot of networking.  A) You have to make a name for yourself.  In my experience, my school name has not hurt me, but people don't assume off the bat that I am smart or dumb.  My adviser and outside readers' names helps me a good bit though.  You have to apply for a ton of grants/fellowships.  I have gotten a large national/government grant and another person in my year got a fullbright, but we pound the pavement.  These big grants can help make up for school name and put you on an equal playing field or at least bridge the gap.  They also enable you to visit other schools and build your network.  You have to be a bit of a hustler (although this is more and more true of people at ivies as well as midtier schools).  C) Another disadvantage in terms of networking, is the revolving door of major academics that do workshops at Ivies that enable you to meet major people in your field.  I have been able to see this, because I ingratiated myself to the Penn History and Sociology of Science program while I was doing research in Philly, and went to their dept. seminars.  Every city I did research in for my dissertation, I went to public lectures, became buddies with archivists, and cold-called professors who do similar work.  This really helped me build a strong professional network.  Hint, it's also more fun than being alone in a new city!  I met those professors grad students, who have become close friends in the year(s) since. 

 

Primarily through networking, I have gotten a couple of invited lectures (even paid for one) and was asked to be an expert for a major media outlet.  I also have a good friend at a lower ranked school, who has written six articles and thus has had pretty good success on the market.  You can definitely do it from a mid-tier program, but all things considered, a name brand will definitely help.  Academia is not a pure meritocracy by any standard, but good work and personality can get you pretty far.

 

Riotbeard offers an excellent example of what I mean above about networking.  You have to be willing to put your foot out there.  Your adviser isn't always going to help you.  Mine never did-- I don't think she meant to do it on purpose.  She just knows I'm pretty good at reaching out and talking to people.

 

I also used outside letter-writers for fellowships in addition to my adviser's from top scholars in my field.  My adviser have acknowledged that it's a savvy move as opposed to asking a second faculty member in my program who wouldn't have the same kind of deep knowledge of my project's place in historiography as those outside letter-writers.  Those external people are also my mentors and they've done a wonderful job of professionalizing me as a scholar.

 

Long-term impact remains to be seen ....

[Riotbeard]

Riotbeard offers an excellent example of what I mean above about networking.  You have to be willing to put your foot out there.  Your adviser isn't always going to help you.  Mine never did-- I don't think she meant to do it on purpose.  She just knows I'm pretty good at reaching out and talking to people.

 

I also used outside letter-writers for fellowships in addition to my adviser's from top scholars in my field.  My adviser have acknowledged that it's a savvy move as opposed to asking a second faculty member in my program who wouldn't have the same kind of deep knowledge of my project's place in historiography as those outside letter-writers.  Those external people are also my mentors and they've done a wonderful job of professionalizing me as a scholar.

 

Long-term impact remains to be seen ....

 

This is very important.  I have a lot of mentors, and as far personal relationships, I am closer with professors at other schools than in my own department.  I have also gotten outsiders to write me letters.  Didn't really help this year, but I was not completing next Spring and most writing fellowships are completion fellowships, so it was uphill anyways.  Still funded though through the department.  This years applications will be dire though.

 

I also have another friend from a mid to even low-tier school who is starting a tenure track job, but he had a major outside fellowship, so that helps. 

[Derpus]

The impression that I've gotten is that, yes, there's no denying that someone from an Ivy League or a top 10 school is going to have a better chance than someone in the 20's or 30's ranking because of prestige.  However, many universities help place their graduates, and also networking on top of putting yourself out there will give you a better chance.  If you're applying to a program and you're from a mid-ranked school, but your CV is much bulkier than someone from a top 20 school, you may win out because you have already established yourself and shown that you'll be able to not only survive the program, but continue to produce work.