|
|
Post by anny on Sept 14, 2011 12:59:33 GMT -5
I'm not going to name names and nobody else should either.
|
|
|
|
Post by anny on Sept 14, 2011 13:01:33 GMT -5
Also, the idea than one could get "useful" information from this thread is laughable. This is just collective catharsis...
|
|
|
|
Post by yes and no on Sept 14, 2011 14:50:17 GMT -5
Well, believe what you want. It's true for this dept. Is it true for others? No idea. I was really surprised how many applications we had that had one or more solo authored ASR/AJS/SF. I really had no idea there were so many. It is worth noting that a lot were from early assistants as well, not just grad students.
Really though, the point was that here anyway, publications matter the most. Institution is secondary.
|
|
|
|
Post by yes and no on Sept 14, 2011 15:06:27 GMT -5
Well, believe what you want. It's true for this dept. Is it true for others? No idea. I was really surprised how many applications we had that had one or more solo authored ASR/AJS/SF. I really had no idea there were so many. It is worth noting that a lot were from early assistants as well, not just grad students.
Really though, the point was that here anyway, publications matter the most. Institution is secondary.
|
|
Networksarenotprestige
Guest
|
Post by Networksarenotprestige on Sept 14, 2011 16:27:56 GMT -5
A few thoughts for those obsessed with the alleged prestige effect.
1) of course networks matter, I doubt anyone would say otherwise. However that has nothing specifically to do with the effect of departmental prestige. That has to do with some individuals working with highly respected mentors who are well connected to other top departments and who also write very strong letters for them. It's not a shock that great people at top departments know other people at top departments. For example the past few years Rob Mare students have done very well on the market. However, that is not a UCLA prestige effect. Its a function of Mare being an amazing scholar with ties everywhere, he thus attracts very talented students, mentors the heck out of them, provides them with rich opportunities to develop their skills, and then writes amazingly supportive letters for them. (No I'm neither a Mare student or UCLA grad).
2) I graduated from a top-5 department. Yes a fair number of my classmates got jobs at top 25 departments. However, for everyone that got a top job I know 10 who got jobs outside of the top-25.
This is all to say that if you want a job at a top 10 department then coming from a top 10 program is a necessary but not sufficient condition. Graduating from Berkley, wisconsin, chicago or harvard will not get you any job. Being a grad from those programs with a great record may.
However, why obsess about the top-10? 95%of sociologists don't work at top-10 departments. Outside of those place the department you graduated from comes way down on the list of criteria used to hire candidates.
|
|
|
|
Post by how naive on Sept 14, 2011 17:28:55 GMT -5
@anny When I suggested examples were important to a useful discussion on this prestige discussion I did not mean the usual nitpicking of hired candidates that goes on in this forum. Rather I wanted general mentions of top departments with a tradition of hiring candidates with no "big three" publications. The little snarky response to my comment regarding usefulness being something nice to have on a website used as a great source of professional advice, is rather silly on your part.
|
|
|
|
Post by sure on Sept 14, 2011 19:33:33 GMT -5
Examples... Stanford. Also Cornell and even Chicago. When you're at the top of the ladder you can choose potential over proven record... emphasizing record over potential is a status climbing maneuver.
|
|
|
|
Post by also on Sept 14, 2011 19:53:22 GMT -5
Also Columbia, NYU, and Wisconsin within the last three years. Harvard too, but person hired had book published.
|
|
|
|
Post by also on Sept 14, 2011 19:56:23 GMT -5
UNC-Chapel Hill is another one.
|
|
|
|
Post by another on Sept 14, 2011 20:10:18 GMT -5
UCLA too.
|
|
|
|
Post by Thanks on Sept 15, 2011 2:31:29 GMT -5
Great examples. I was feeling a little worried about my chances in the market, but just knowing that some people make it without the usual publishing credentials gives me some much needed hope (even if it's false hope).
|
|
|
|
Post by hahvad on Sept 18, 2011 8:05:07 GMT -5
I think the top is actually less myopic in terms of requiring a solo AJS/ASR than departments wanting to be at the top. Just look at Harvard, Cornell, and Stanford in the past 5 years and how many of the hires had any solo pubs when they were hired? Yes, some of them had book(s) but if you look at people who gave talks at these places some of them had NO publications at all. Nada.
|
|
|
|
Post by applicant on Sept 18, 2011 10:09:55 GMT -5
Yes, some of them had book(s) but if you look at people who gave talks at these places some of them had NO publications at all. Nada. How do people know who gave talks at all of these schools? Do you have friends passing junior candidate lists? Serious question, I'm fresh meat. |
|
|
|
Post by inside scoop on Sept 18, 2011 17:10:36 GMT -5
The final candidates are announced at R1s. The list isn't posted on their website but job talks are announced and sometimes posted on campus. If you know people on different campuses (even if they are not on the search committee), it's pretty easy to find out who the finalists are. Plus...I'm pretty sure people talk.
|
|
yep
Junior Member
Posts: 64
|
Post by yep on Sept 19, 2011 10:40:05 GMT -5
Yes, check the talk schedules, and look for students/junior people from different schools. You should figure out how to do because at some point you will end up getting a fly out and will likely want to see who your competition will be. (On the other hand, it's not always good to know the competition - it might make things weird.) Also, don't assume that all outside speakers are potential candidates.
|
|
