Advice from an actual PhD (redux)

[repatriate]

Yes, they had 600 apps last year. And 525 this year.

I thought you were applying to English programs (or another humanities department). Is that the case? That might explain the confusion.

Edited February 8, 2010 by repatriate

[yellowshoes]

Can I ask a question? Why do you, and several others who have commented here, not want to teach at Yale? Is it the environment (or what you might perceive as the environment)? Is it the location? Is it the students (about whom you really shouldn't generalize)?

I'm honestly curious as to why you--and others--seem to be discounting a whole slew of universities that could provide excellent support for your research and an excellent benefits package.

For me personally it is the research/teach load. I would much rather work at an institution where I teach a few courses and research as I can, rather than at a place where I am expected to pump out papers and only get to teach one course a semester.

Also, I am sorry if I have generalized too much. For me, I really love where I go to undergrad and want to teach at a place just like it. I think we all sort of set ourselves standards by where we went. I, quite honestly, think I would feel inadequate at a place like Yale, where the students who approached me might in all due respect, be a lot smarter than me. That being said, I also sort of cringe at the idea of teaching at a community college, even though I personally know several very smart people who got their starts at one, and who are going to make a lot more money than me in 10 years.

I think there are certainly nice individuals who came from the big 10. During my application process I spoke with a prof at one of my target schools who earned their PhD from the best in the nation. They were incredibly friendly and helpful before they knew anything about my ability besides my interests. (And by helpful, I mean really helpful. much more so than any of the others profs I spoke to who came from much lower ranked programs.) They remained equally so (no more, no less) after they knew some of my stats.

Again, though, I think people sort of generally favor those at their level or higher... even people who are already close to the bottom like myself.

Edited February 8, 2010 by yellowshoes

[ipsqq]

I am a graduate student at a top 10 program, and I agree with 95% of Realist's comments. Listen carefully. I am surprised by the comments about the rude attitudes of people in such programs. I don't want to give too much away, but my colleagues are fantastic, friendly, supportive people. I hope no one assumes that all top programs are populated by jerks.

I disagree on the political science PhD not being applicable in the real world, although most people in academia seem to believe it. Political science trains you to be a political scientist, but it doesn't mean one cannot use those skills in many ways. They are really not as special or unique as people in this field seem to believe, although they do require a lot of hard work to obtain.

Also, Yale not a meritocracy? Who is surprised by this? Academia is not a meritocracy, the real world is not a meritocracy. The sooner you figure this out, the easier life will be.

[HarrisonWinslow]

First, I would like to thank The Realist for sharing these thoughts on the process. ... So, go to your top tens, and go to your lower ranks. They all have their rewards and shortcomings. Just know that in the end, there is more to it than that.

I think we can all agree that Austin and Athens are better than Ann Arbor.

Just an observation. It seems as if you are equating a top program PhD in the throes of TT application pools to GRE scores in PhD application pools: you will definitely get your application looked at, but that's about it--you have to have something else, too. Is this a fair summation?

[liszt85]

But our university system in the United States takes advantage of PhD students who have very little chance of getting an academic job in order to use them as cheap labor.

So true! I'm a first year grad, TA. Just had to grade 300 exams in two days in addition to submitting a conference paper. So I just didn't sleep and one professor seemed mad at me because I didn't return his exams the day after the exams (there are 120 students in the class) and I'm assisting 4 courses. They divide up my 20 hours into 4 different courses..the division is entirely arbitrary.

Fortunately for me though, my adviser is great. Gives me enough time, helps me out with research.. and I think our research is going to produce some great results. I'm not worried about getting job now.. at this point, there is nothing else I would do than this. I'm poor and have non-working (visa restrictions) wife to support but this is fully worth it, at least so far.

That said, I'm sure many students will find your post absolutely useful and informative.

[NEPA]

I'm honestly curious as to why you--and others--seem to be discounting a whole slew of universities that could provide excellent support for your research and an excellent benefits package.

I'm not sure if the others you mention include me, cpaige, but as for me, my comment meant no disrespect to the Ivies, et al. I've met some fantastic people (including yourself and others on this forum) from the best schools in the country. It's not a matter of thinking the people there are snobs - it's just a different atmosphere and learning/working environment than I'd most likely be comfortable with. (Kind of like I'd also prefer not to live in Japan. Great place, just not my thing.) I love being at a medium-sized school with mostly undergrads, and that's where I'd like to teach and research. Also, this can be a sensitive subject since I think many of us outside the big name schools find that our backgrounds sometimes get looked down upon by some in academia (not anyone here, just in general) and rightly feel slighted, since we love where we are as much as anyone else.

But hey, if someday Yale offers me a job, who could say no to that?

Edited February 8, 2010 by rwfan88

[Bobb Cobb]

Just an observation. It seems as if you are equating a top program PhD in the throes of TT application pools to GRE scores in PhD application pools: you will definitely get your application looked at, but that's about it--you have to have something else, too. Is this a fair summation?

I said nothing about GRE scores, but I guess you could equate those entirely different situations. I am simply saying that going to a top ten is not the only option available. I know many successful political scientists who went to schools that are lower ranked. I only wanted to share my personal experiences with the process. I also wanted to explain that (as someone else noted above) sometimes a higher ranked degree can have a stigma attached to it. I am in no way saying that this applies to all graduates of top tens, and it is certainly mitigated by a good record and a grounded attitude. To answer your question, having a pedigree will get you looked at. However, in many cases it takes more than that to land the job. Part of what I was trying to do is point out that there are a fair number of top ten graduates who end up worse off than some others. This is a double-edged sword as often times they refuse to apply to lower ranked places, and when they do they are often beat out by folks with better records. Many people do great from, and indeed many of the best academics almost always come from the top tens. I am not discouraging attending these places, but I just want to caution people that getting into grad school is only the beginning.

CPaige, I am not trying to generalize or attach something negative to all top ten programs/students. I can only speak for my own experiences. I have met many great people who attended top tens, including the advisor I mentioned above. I have also met many condescending people from these places, especially graduate students. If you think Yale is right for you, then go for it. I probably would have gone had they accepted me last year. I did not then, and still do not want to work there or any other Ivys for that matter. This is a personal choice and preference based on many things. I certainly am not indicating that they would be bad places to work, or that there is something wrong with the students.

I simply take issue with people trying to discourage others from getting a better education than they already have. Life is not all about jobs and money. My goal is to remain in an intellectually stimulating environment as long as I can. This can still happen without attending Harvard and teaching at Stanford. I appreciate the idea of making sure that people know what they are getting into, but frankly I find it insulting to assume that we all do not. I also find it troubling that some seem to suggest that somehow those who attend lower ranked programs and teach at direction schools are somehow inferior people. In the end, they did the best they could with the options they had available. Maybe I have been reading Pol Sci Job Rumors for too long...

Edited February 8, 2010 by Bobb-Cobb

[yellowshoes]

I'm not sure if the others you mention include me, cpaige, but as for me, my comment meant no disrespect to the Ivies, et al. I've met some fantastic people (including yourself and others on this forum) from the best schools in the country. It's not a matter of thinking the people there are snobs - it's just a different atmosphere and learning/working environment than I'd most likely be comfortable with. (Kind of like I'd also prefer not to live in Japan. Great place, just not my thing.) I love being at a medium-sized school with mostly undergrads, and that's where I'd like to teach and research. Also, this can be a sensitive subject since I think many of us outside the big name schools find that our backgrounds sometimes get looked down upon by some in academia (not anyone here, just in general) and rightly feel slighted, since we love where we are as much as anyone else.

But hey, if someday Yale offers me a job, who could say no to that?

Precisely what I was getting at. Seems to be a common idea.

[HarrisonWinslow]

I said nothing about GRE scores, but I guess you could equate those entirely different situations. I am simply saying that going to a top ten is not the only option available. I know many successful political scientists who went to schools that are lower ranked. I only wanted to share my personal experiences with the process. I also wanted to explain that (as someone else noted above) sometimes a higher ranked degree can have a stigma attached to it. I am in no way saying that this applies to all graduates of top tens, and it is certainly mitigated by a good record and a grounded attitude. To answer your question, having a pedigree will get you looked at. However, in many cases it takes more than that to land the job. Part of what I was trying to do is point out that there are a fair number of top ten graduates who end up worse off than some others. This is a double-edged sword as often times they refuse to apply to lower ranked places, and when they do they are often beat out by folks with better records. Many people do great from, and indeed many of the best academics almost always come from the top tens. I am not discouraging attending these places, but I just want to caution people that getting into grad school is only the beginning.

CPaige, I am not trying to generalize or attach something negative to all top ten programs/students. I can only speak for my own experiences. I have met many great people who attended top tens, including the advisor I mentioned above. I have also met many condescending people from these places, especially graduate students. If you think Yale is right for you, then go for it. I probably would have gone had they accepted me last year. I did not then, and still do not want to work there or any other Ivys for that matter. This is a personal choice and preference based on many things. I certainly am not indicating that they would be bad places to work, or that there is something wrong with the students.

I simply take issue with people trying to discourage others from getting a better education than they already have. Life is not all about jobs and money. My goal is to remain in an intellectually stimulating environment as long as I can. This can still happen without attending Harvard and teaching at Stanford. I appreciate the idea of making sure that people know what they are getting into, but frankly I find it insulting to assume that we all do not. I also find it troubling that some seem to suggest that somehow those who attend lower ranked programs and teach at direction schools are somehow inferior people. In the end, they did the best they could with the options they had available. Maybe I have been reading Pol Sci Job Rumors for too long...

I completely agree with you. And, as for my equating the two, I did it as a clarification measure (which logic you repeat). As someone who applied to only one reach in/near the USN&WR overall top 10--and the rest in the top 15-39--I am someone who had just started to become aware of the tensions and questions you raise. So, thank you very much.

[The Realist]

I simply take issue with people trying to discourage others from getting a better education than they already have. Life is not all about jobs and money. My goal is to remain in an intellectually stimulating environment as long as I can. This can still happen without attending Harvard and teaching at Stanford. I appreciate the idea of making sure that people know what they are getting into, but frankly I find it insulting to assume that we all do not. I also find it troubling that some seem to suggest that somehow those who attend lower ranked programs and teach at direction schools are somehow inferior people. In the end, they did the best they could with the options they had available. Maybe I have been reading Pol Sci Job Rumors for too long...

Unfortunately, for most people, money and a job really do matter.

I have a family to support, and we don't have any other source of income aside from my job and my wife's job. Our ability to live comfortably depends on me having a job. I suspect that many PhD applicants are like me, or at least will become like me (i.e. will have a spouse and children) by the time they are out of graduate school. These people need an honest appraisal of their likelihood of being able to support their family after getting a PhD. I don't think that you can possibly argue that this is a bad thing.

[hamster]

This question might be moot because it may be field specific and I am not sure if the OP is still around.

But are you guys specifically looking at US News and World Report for program ranking? Or is it more subjective than that?

I know the OP said if you have to ask, it is not in the top 25... but if you are coming from outside the field this distinction is harder to discern.

Also, I have heard many in my field be very dismissive of the US News and World Report rankings and pointing out its flaws. They seem to put more stock

in productivity of faculty, quantity and quality of pubs, grants awarded, funding, etc...

[The Realist]

I think it's a question of motivation. Are you truly trying to "help" people by discouraging them? Seems contradictory. Do you wish you made different choices? Did no one take you aside and give you this talk?

To answer your questions:

Yes, I am trying to help people. I don't want people to be discouraged, but the reality in this business is that sometimes reality is discouraging.

No, I don't regret any of my choices career-wise, but I know plenty of people who do. I have been profoundly fortunate in my career.

No, no one took me aside to give me this talk. In fact, I got the exact opposite feedback when I told my undergraduate adviser that I was going to get a PhD. "Oh, you're going to get a PhD at XXX? That's a great department, you should have no trouble getting a job." No one should enter this process with misinformation like that. I also see what happens in my very own department as some of my colleagues promise the moon and the stars to prospective PhD students. I don't do this myself, but I'm in the minority here.

I feel that I owe it to you prospective students to give you an honest picture of how things work in our profession.

[Bobb Cobb]

Unfortunately, for most people, money and a job really do matter.

I have a family to support, and we don't have any other source of income aside from my job and my wife's job. Our ability to live comfortably depends on me having a job. I suspect that many PhD applicants are like me, or at least will become like me (i.e. will have a spouse and children) by the time they are out of graduate school. These people need an honest appraisal of their likelihood of being able to support their family after getting a PhD. I don't think that you can possibly argue that this is a bad thing.

Of course this is not a bad thing. I am simply saying that there are many people outside the top ten or 25 who lead successful, meaningful lives. I realize that money matters, and that a good job is paramount to a quality family life and personal existence. I said that life is not all about money and jobs. For instance, one could end up teaching at a direction school and their starting salary may be $50,000 with a chance of that improving considerably over time. They may also have more freedom to teach their interests, and less people in their immediate vicinity competing for resources and attention. They may also really enjoy teaching first generation students or less-preivelaged students from poor educational backgrounds. They can still publish some good pieces (maybe not all in the top 3), and they could participate in other things to supplement income if they must like AP Grading, consulting, language facilitators abroad, etc. Is their life really worse off than the person who is at a top ten making $80-90, 000 or even less with much more pressure and a cut-throat system of promotion? I cannot make that call for sure, but I suspect that the former can live a happy life, and still raise a quality family if they are interested in such an endeavor. What is more is that their job may actually be more secure on the long term as they will have a much easier time getting tenure and becoming the bigger frog in the pond.

Edited February 8, 2010 by Bobb-Cobb

[Bobb Cobb]

To answer your questions:

Yes, I am trying to help people. I don't want people to be discouraged, but the reality in this business is that sometimes reality is discouraging.

No, I don't regret any of my choices career-wise, but I know plenty of people who do. I have been profoundly fortunate in my career.

No, no one took me aside to give me this talk. In fact, I got the exact opposite feedback when I told my undergraduate adviser that I was going to get a PhD. "Oh, you're going to get a PhD at XXX? That's a great department, you should have no trouble getting a job." No one should enter this process with misinformation like that. I also see what happens in my very own department as some of my colleagues promise the moon and the stars to prospective PhD students. I don't do this myself, but I'm in the minority here.

I feel that I owe it to you prospective students to give you an honest picture of how things work in our profession.

I definitely appreciate the advice, and I am not at all trying to diminish your genuine concern. I just want to make sure that those who want to get the PhD and teach and do some research without being the best ever are still motivated to follow their dreams in spite of the possible negative aspects of the career. By the way, all careers have negatives. My last job was in retail, and I made a comparable salary to someone in my first category above. I had much rather teach and research things that interest me while also getting the chance to possibly open student's eyes to a world far beyond their dreams than listen to some corporate jerk bitch about the last quarter in how I had not been using the POS system properly. Even if it means going to school for 5-7 years and not teaching at a top ten, I would rather do it. I think many people underestimate the rewarding power of taking a first generation, inner city student on a study abroad trip, or helping them understand numbers in way that they enjoy it. I'll take this feeling over a few thousand dollars any day.

[CrimsonBlue]

To answer your questions:

Yes, I am trying to help people. I don't want people to be discouraged, but the reality in this business is that sometimes reality is discouraging.

No, I don't regret any of my choices career-wise, but I know plenty of people who do. I have been profoundly fortunate in my career.

No, no one took me aside to give me this talk. In fact, I got the exact opposite feedback when I told my undergraduate adviser that I was going to get a PhD. "Oh, you're going to get a PhD at XXX? That's a great department, you should have no trouble getting a job." No one should enter this process with misinformation like that. I also see what happens in my very own department as some of my colleagues promise the moon and the stars to prospective PhD students. I don't do this myself, but I'm in the minority here.

I feel that I owe it to you prospective students to give you an honest picture of how things work in our profession.

I completely sympathize with you. Fortunately, my professors have been telling me the exact same points about getting a Ph.D. and becoming a professor. I resisted their advice first by applying to top 16 in my subfields, while they were telling me to apply to the very very top ones only (say top 5). They were very realistic. Now I have an offer from a top 5 institution, they are happy for me, but still emphasize that there is a lot of work to be done before becoming a tenure-track professor, of course. Also, getting a Ph.D. should not be the end of your goal, but rather a means to further research. That's why getting a job at a top research institution with abundant funding is crucial.

We all have different goals, but getting a Ph.D. for some other goals "may" not be an optimal decision given the opportunity costs of money and time. And, YES. The Realist is trying to help all of us by discouraging us. Some people just don't get what a Ph.D. really is. It may not be their comparative advantage. It may sound crucial, but they might be better off, doing something else.

Folks, listen carefully what The Realist says. This is invaluable information. I am going to share this thread with any prospective students who want to pursue a Ph.D. in political science. You will get what he is saying, once you are on the job market. I have been exposed to the rough picture of this issue by talking to poli sci Ph.D.'s on the job market.

Sometimes, your passion for research alone cannot make things happen. SAD but TRUE...

[PsychPoet]

I have to say, that as a person currently in grad school, and who comes from a long line of academics I find this to be one of the most inaccurate articulations of academic training and post-doc career potentials that I have ever heard. Based on my own experience, this post extremely unidimensional in it's thought and is potentially pernicious - almost the the point of absurdity.

I can't help but feel there is some sort of agenda at work here.

Don't take my word for it though, the research here is easy to do. Simply research the individuals who currently hold the posts you'd like to eventually hold and look at their background. I can't speak for all disciplines and field, but I can tell you that, in general, there are number of within-individual factors that trump the school where you did your grad work. Essentially, the quality, usefulness, and originality of one's research are the best predictor of career trajectory.

There ARE efficacious mentors outside of top 25 programs. That's just a fact. There are people who hold important chairs at top 25 universities who did their own grad work outside of that structure - for a plethora of reasons.

Fit is more important than school rank. School rank is important as a factor and variable - but it's not the prima facie factor as this "reaistic" (read: cynic) suggests.

Good luck. Take a breath. Be yourself.

[ipsqq]

I am simply saying that there are many people outside the top ten or 25 who lead successful, meaningful lives. I realize that money matters, and that a good job is paramount to a quality family life and personal existence. I said that life is not all about money and jobs. For instance, one could end up teaching at a direction school and their starting salary may be $50,000 with a chance of that improving considerably over time. They may also have more freedom to teach their interests, and less people in their immediate vicinity competing for resources and attention.

This is all well and good, but the way the job market is going, you are likely to be competing with scores if not hundreds of people for that directional job. And some of them likely will have come from better schools, with better records in both teaching and research. Many of them may even be happy with and seeking that job. (There is a particular directional I would go to in a heartbeat for family reasons.)

Maybe it is because I don't come from a long line of academics that I am cynical - I don't have the connections, name and inside information on how academia works that is no doubt useful. I also suspect that the job market for counseling psychology is probably very different from political science. I don't pretend to assume I know anything about other fields, and, with all due respect, it is likely that Realist knows more about political science than you.

*edit* by "you" I was referring to PsychPoet, sorry for the confusion. To be fair, Realist definitely knows more about political science than me.

Edited February 8, 2010 by ipsqq

[curufinwe]

The problem with the optimistic school of thought here (lol) is that they only see the success stories. "There are people who did not come from one of the top 25 schools but achieved good things" is the example of one professor who did it. Yes, it shows that it is possible. But what is the probability? How many of those below-top-25 graduates can do it? One should admit that it is a low enough number to make one worried.

I had a computer geek friend who would be inspired by success stories. "Did you know that people who found Google started out in their garage???" My answer was usually "Did you know that thousands of people in the US are right now in their garages, have been there programming and writing softwares for years and are still poor with really really low chances of being 'Google'?"

[Bobb Cobb]

This is all well and good, but the way the job market is going, you are likely to be competing with scores if not hundreds of people for that directional job. And some of them likely will have come from better schools, with better records in both teaching and research. Many of them may even be happy with and seeking that job. (There is a particular directional I would go to in a heartbeat for family reasons.)

Maybe it is because I don't come from a long line of academics that I am cynical - I don't have the connections, name and inside information on how academia works that is no doubt useful. I also suspect that the job market for counseling psychology is probably very different from political science. I don't pretend to assume I know anything about other fields, and, with all due respect, it is likely that Realist knows more about political science than you.

*edit* by "you" I was referring to PsychPoet, sorry for the confusion. To be fair, Realist definitely knows more about political science than me.

While you may not have been referring to me, I am the first to admit that Realist likely knows more about political science than me. Having said that, I simply offered some real experiences of how this process plays out. The job market is in a real slump, and with that I do not think anyone can argue. However, it may be dramatically improved in several years. If not, I think most of us (no matter the school) will be at least in a position of doing something besides that for which we were prepared. While some top graduates may be happy seeking directional jobs, most are not. Many also come out of school with no teaching experience. If there was one thing that the committees I worked for could agree upon, it was that they wanted the candidates to have teaching experience. So keep on discouraging, and I will keep on learning.

In the end, I may end right back up selling radios, but I will have the satisfaction of knowing that I tried and went with my aspirations rather than some internet warnings. By saying that I am not discounting these warnings as rubbish, and I am not making light of the situations where mentors have been cautious. I am merely saying that I would like to think that I am old enough to make my own decisions, accept the consequences, and either prosper or learn from them. Looking back I will say that I fought the fight, besides what else would I have done? Go to law school, have you considered their job market lately? What about becoming a manager at McDonalds? Amongst all these warnings of "do not do what I did with my life, or what you want to do with yours" I have yet to hear any alternative career suggestions.

[bsquar]

The problem with the optimistic school of thought here (lol) is that they only see the success stories. "There are people who did not come from one of the top 25 schools but achieved good things" is the example of one professor who did it. Yes, it shows that it is possible. But what is the probability? How many of those below-top-25 graduates can do it? One should admit that it is a low enough number to make one worried.

I had a computer geek friend who would be inspired by success stories. "Did you know that people who found Google started out in their garage???" My answer was usually "Did you know that thousands of people in the US are right now in their garages, have been there programming and writing softwares for years and are still poor with really really low chances of being 'Google'?"

AND, the people who founded Google started out as graduate students in the computer science department at Stanford...

[leftover salmon]

To answer your questions:

Yes, I am trying to help people. I don't want people to be discouraged, but the reality in this business is that sometimes reality is discouraging.

No, I don't regret any of my choices career-wise, but I know plenty of people who do. I have been profoundly fortunate in my career.

No, no one took me aside to give me this talk. In fact, I got the exact opposite feedback when I told my undergraduate adviser that I was going to get a PhD. "Oh, you're going to get a PhD at XXX? That's a great department, you should have no trouble getting a job." No one should enter this process with misinformation like that. I also see what happens in my very own department as some of my colleagues promise the moon and the stars to prospective PhD students. I don't do this myself, but I'm in the minority here.

I feel that I owe it to you prospective students to give you an honest picture of how things work in our profession.

The Realist/Decaf is giving you all the GOD'S HONEST TRUTH. I am recently graduated from a top-10 program. EVERYTHING he is telling you is right on the money, and the only thing I can add is that with the economy, it's actually worse out there now and I think will continue to be for a while.

We have brilliant top candidates who four years ago would have gotten a job somewhere after one or two years on the market. That is just not the case anymore. And it's not "thousands of candidates chasing hundreds of jobs," it's more like "thousands of candidates chasing TENS of jobs."

There's always something to be said for following your dream. What you need to ask yourself is this: is that dream worth chasing knowing that, even if you go to a "top" school, chances are better than 50% that you will not land ANY kind of academic job at the end? Not "a job at a good school" or "a job where I'd like to live," but ANY JOB?

Again, we are telling this to you so that if you go, you go with a clear understanding of the very substantial risk that you are taking.

[Bobb Cobb]

The Realist/Decaf is giving you all the GOD'S HONEST TRUTH. I am recently graduated from a top-10 program. EVERYTHING he is telling you is right on the money, and the only thing I can add is that with the economy, it's actually worse out there now and I think will continue to be for a while.

We have brilliant top candidates who four years ago would have gotten a job somewhere after one or two years on the market. That is just not the case anymore. And it's not "thousands of candidates chasing hundreds of jobs," it's more like "thousands of candidates chasing TENS of jobs."

There's always something to be said for following your dream. What you need to ask yourself is this: is that dream worth chasing knowing that, even if you go to a "top" school, chances are better than 50% that you will not land ANY kind of academic job at the end? Not "a job at a good school" or "a job where I'd like to live," but ANY JOB?

Again, we are telling this to you so that if you go, you go with a clear understanding of the very substantial risk that you are taking.

I like the way you worded the last part, and I think that is a fair thing to tell folks here are considering starting down the path to the PhD. My only issue is that I want people to follow their dreams and make the most of things, and at least then they will have tried. If we do not try, then we can never do. The Realist, you, and others are all giving good advice and warnings. I appreciate the warnings as I am sure most others do, I just prefer the courtesy of assuming that most of us have considered the situation and choose to press on anyway.

[liszt85]

I just prefer the courtesy of assuming that most of us have considered the situation and choose to press on anyway.

couldn't have worded it better myself!

[Bobb Cobb]

I agree and I'm sure that the Realist and others who have warned us of the job prospects in this field are right. However, I'd like to get an idea of the situation for myself, so I'm currently going through the faculty lists at top institutions (top 25) as well as the top 25 liberal arts colleges and taking note of where professors earned their PhDs. I will let you all know when I'm done (it could take a while) and invite anyone who's interested in the results to PM me with his/her email address. I'd rather not post it here, as it's going to be a long list.

That is a worthwhile project. I would like to do a project that considers all institutions at all levels. Of course that would take forever, but the results would be interesting. I think some would be surprised by how may top 25ers are now working in the bottommost tier, and how many 26-50s are working in that same range with some ending up slightly above or below. The job prospects are currently dismal, especially in the top 25. I still plan to remain optimistic about the situation 4-5 years from now.

[The Realist]

Compiling the list you've described is a good idea and it will teach you a lot. Two things to keep in mind:

1. Your conclusions will suffer from selection bias because you won't be taking into consideration the people who are not there. Everyone knows that there are examples of people who have succeeded from lower ranked departments. But you want to know what your chances are of being one of those people, and knowing that these people exist doesn't tell you that. Departmental placement histories do, which is why up-and-coming departments worth their salt will tell you what happened to everyone who advanced to candidacy in the past decade.

2. Shanto Iyengar and David Brady have PhDs from the early 1970s. Iowa was a top-10 department then, and this is no longer the case. You can't go to Iowa in 1965, you have to go today. What you want to know is where did junior faculty hired in the last, say, ten years get their PhDs. If a school like Iowa tries to tell you that it has a good placement record because two graduate students with PhDs from 40 years ago are today at Stanford, you should be afraid.