|
|
Post by netizen on Oct 17, 2011 8:26:58 GMT -5
The Chronicle ran an article today suggesting that a norm among search committees of valuing what has already been accomplished makes it necessary to stay longer in grad school and postdocs, creating a pressure cooker as doctoral programs press their students to finish quickly. The author is in English, but the discussion speaks to what graduate students in sociology worry about... chronicle.com/article/The-Time-to-Degree-Conundrum/129360/?sid=ja&utm_source=ja&utm_medium=en |
|
rrr
Full Member
Posts: 113
|
Post by rrr on Oct 17, 2011 8:37:59 GMT -5
Good article. Remember that some departments really prefer a shiny new person, while others prefer a more seasoned applicant that has done VAPs. Would be interesting to hear other opinions on this.
|
|
anon
New Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by anon on Oct 17, 2011 9:35:05 GMT -5
i agree that this is a major problem, but the solution isn't that easy. there are lots of 8-10 yrs (and beyond) in the queue who have been advised/forced to play this game.
|
|
|
|
Post by tfe on Oct 17, 2011 13:07:03 GMT -5
One big "accomplishment" problem is if you have something from "real life" happen in grad school. Say you get divorced, a parent dies, have a kid, etc.
Add to that the random picky reviewer here or there, and you can go from being the candidate on the market with the solo authored ASR piece to the candidate on the market with no publications, only a few R & Rs.
Sometimes you will have a big name to vouch for you that you do have potential (random person saying "this candidate will publish a lot on the top 3" is a lot less convincing than a superstar saying that).
With that said, I don't know if there is a solution for that. I don't know how making "potential" more important would be possible without resorting even more to things like school prestige and advisor renown, which would certainly make academia even more caste like.
|
|
