|
Post by fml on Oct 27, 2011 21:55:27 GMT -5
Is anyone (read, any R1s) hiring us lowly pedigreed sociologists? Are we destined for community colleges and R2s? Any success stories out there? Kinda feeling discouraged here.
|
|
|
Post by no on Oct 27, 2011 22:05:40 GMT -5
*crickets* for me, too
|
|
|
Post by lmafo on Oct 27, 2011 22:11:55 GMT -5
I don't know why, but you peeps are cracking me up tonight! I love us sociologists. Such a dramatic and unintentionally hilarious bunch.
|
|
right there with you
Guest
|
Post by right there with you on Oct 27, 2011 23:11:33 GMT -5
I graduated from a top five and am at a veritable community college with a 4-4 load. Not all of us end up with rosy gigs.
|
|
|
Post by guest321 on Oct 28, 2011 8:53:45 GMT -5
Higher education is definitely inclined toward status reproduction (Candidate X went to School Y and therefore must be of a caliber worthy of Department Z), but it is possible to work one's way up. What makes this especially difficult are two things: a) the fact that constraints at one's current post may make it difficult to produce the type of research that gets one noticed by an R1; and b) a person may need to make several incremental upward moves before he or she is visible enough for it to matter greatly. What emerges from all of this is the typical case of social mobility in the United States; it is possible, but improbable due to circumstances that the privileged rarely have to consider in the first place.
It occurred to me recently, as I was explaining to a colleague why reaching the likes of UChicago or Harvard from our Top 20 department is so incredibly difficult, that it is, indeed, a privileged position to be able to lament not being likely to land at such a place out of grad school. Indeed, this signals that we take our candidacy for other schools in the top 50 for granted, whereas students at lower-ranked programs don't get to wonder whether their 3 co-pubs with a big-name professor are enough to get them past a Top 5 department's initial evaluation. The system is definitely not overly meritocratic, but it is interesting how our disadvantages are often more salient to us than are our advantages.
|
|
|
Post by aaaa on Oct 28, 2011 9:44:57 GMT -5
The main thing is that advantages and disadvantages are cumulative. They don't stop at the moment you get your first job.
It is hard to get your research and application noticed as a graduate student from a less prestigious department. But after the degree you have to not only deal with that, but also deal with quite probably a job that doesn't offer as many resources and demands more in terms of work.
So the probabilities of working their way up decrease over time.
|
|
|
Post by veteran on Oct 28, 2011 9:54:02 GMT -5
hey guest321 and aaaa,
I would appreciate it if you could post some evidence about social mobility in academia, but I am not referring to some anecdotal evidence. I assume your posts come from your knowledge of research on the topic. Could you post some links?
Furthermore, how do you know that points a & b are true? Could you provide a citation for these claims? I'd love to read this research!
I really hope you are referring to real research, because if you are not, if you indeed have no concrete sources, then you are no better than my undergraduates who claim to know things about the world based on their "common sense" or "preconceived" understandings of it. Worse yet, if your post is based on the career path of yourself or a few people you know that is even worse since it speaks to the individual exceptionalist thinking that sociology fights against every day.
We are supposed to be scientists...so bring the data!
|
|
|
Post by you asked for it on Oct 28, 2011 10:00:37 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Data on Oct 28, 2011 10:30:50 GMT -5
Or, alternatively, you can do hardcore statistics: open your web browser go to the top 20 departments and COUNT how many people do NOT come from top 20 departments. (pay special attention to their assistant hires)
C'amon, we all know the game.
|
|
|
Post by guest321 on Oct 28, 2011 10:48:28 GMT -5
hey guest321 and aaaa, I would appreciate it if you could post some evidence about social mobility in academia, but I am not referring to some anecdotal evidence. I assume your posts come from your knowledge of research on the topic. Could you post some links? Furthermore, how do you know that points a & b are true? Could you provide a citation for these claims? I'd love to read this research! I really hope you are referring to real research, because if you are not, if you indeed have no concrete sources, then you are no better than my undergraduates who claim to know things about the world based on their "common sense" or "preconceived" understandings of it. Worse yet, if your post is based on the career path of yourself or a few people you know that is even worse since it speaks to the individual exceptionalist thinking that sociology fights against every day. We are supposed to be scientists...so bring the data! Surely, if you are a veteran, you don't need any new information to teach you about the advantage of networks in academia. This is nothing new under the sun.
|
|
|
Post by aaaaa on Oct 28, 2011 10:48:38 GMT -5
I am sure it would take your students no time at all to find these things, but since you haven't, here it goes:
There is the above cited Val Burris article, in terms of prestige.
There is also: Finnegan, D.E. 1993. “Segmentation in the academic labor market: Hiring cohorts in comprehensive universities.” Journal of Higher Education 621–656.
Fogarty, Timothy J., and Donald V. Saftner. 1993. “Academic department prestige: A new measure based on the doctoral student labor market.” Research in Higher Education 34:427-449.
McGinnis, R., and Long, J. S. (1988). Entry into academia: Effects of stratification, geography and ecology. In: Youn, T. I., and Breneman, D. W. (eds.), Academic Labor Markets and Careers, Falmer Press, Philadelphia, pp. 28–51.
Bedeian, A.G., D.E. Cavazos, J.G. Hunt, and L.R. Jauch. 2010. “Doctoral degree prestige and the academic marketplace: a study of career mobility within the management discipline.” The Academy of Management Learning and Education (AMLE) 9(1):11–25.
In terms of it becoming harder over time, I am sure an undergraduate student of yours is also familiar with Merton's cumulative advantages models, which he used specifically to address scientific careers. If not, here's the citation, plus a few more thrown in for good measure
Merton, R.K. 1988. “The Matthew effect in science, II: cumulative advantage and the symbolism of intellectual property.” Isis 79(4):606–623.
Allison, P.D., J.S. Long, and T.K. Krauze. 1982. “Cumulative advantage and inequality in science.” American Sociological Review 615–625.
I. Williamson and D. Cable, "Predicting early career research productivity: The case of management faculty," Journal of Organizational Behavior, vol. 24, pp. 25-44, 2003.
Smith, C.B., and V.S. Hixson. 1987. “The work of university professor: Evidence of segmented labor markets inside the academy.” Current research on occupations and professions 4:159–180.
Ault, David E, Gilbert L Rutman, and Thomas Stevenson. 1982. “Some Factors Affecting Mobility in the Labor Market for Academic Economists.” Economic Inquiry 20(1):104-132.
Youn, T.I.K., and D. Zelterman. 1988. “Institutional career mobility in academia.” Academic labor markets and careers 52–73.
Hargens, Lowell L., and Warren O. Hagstrom. 1967. “Sponsored and Contest Mobility of American Academic Scientists.” Sociology of Education 40(1):24-38.
Youn, T.I.K. 2005. “The academic job market is bad for all of us.” Academe 91(6):27–30.
Ps: security check: upper crust
|
|
rrr
Full Member
Posts: 113
|
Post by rrr on Oct 28, 2011 10:50:59 GMT -5
^ Slam dunk!
|
|
|
Post by veteran on Oct 28, 2011 11:13:05 GMT -5
I am sure it would take your students no time at all to find these things, but since you haven't, here it goes: There is the above cited Val Burris article, in terms of prestige. There is also: Finnegan, D.E. 1993. “Segmentation in the academic labor market: Hiring cohorts in comprehensive universities.” Journal of Higher Education 621–656. Fogarty, Timothy J., and Donald V. Saftner. 1993. “Academic department prestige: A new measure based on the doctoral student labor market.” Research in Higher Education 34:427-449. McGinnis, R., and Long, J. S. (1988). Entry into academia: Effects of stratification, geography and ecology. In: Youn, T. I., and Breneman, D. W. (eds.), Academic Labor Markets and Careers, Falmer Press, Philadelphia, pp. 28–51. Bedeian, A.G., D.E. Cavazos, J.G. Hunt, and L.R. Jauch. 2010. “Doctoral degree prestige and the academic marketplace: a study of career mobility within the management discipline.” The Academy of Management Learning and Education (AMLE) 9(1):11–25. In terms of it becoming harder over time, I am sure an undergraduate student of yours is also familiar with Merton's cumulative advantages models, which he used specifically to address scientific careers. If not, here's the citation, plus a few more thrown in for good measure Merton, R.K. 1988. “The Matthew effect in science, II: cumulative advantage and the symbolism of intellectual property.” Isis 79(4):606–623. Allison, P.D., J.S. Long, and T.K. Krauze. 1982. “Cumulative advantage and inequality in science.” American Sociological Review 615–625. I. Williamson and D. Cable, "Predicting early career research productivity: The case of management faculty," Journal of Organizational Behavior, vol. 24, pp. 25-44, 2003. Smith, C.B., and V.S. Hixson. 1987. “The work of university professor: Evidence of segmented labor markets inside the academy.” Current research on occupations and professions 4:159–180. Ault, David E, Gilbert L Rutman, and Thomas Stevenson. 1982. “Some Factors Affecting Mobility in the Labor Market for Academic Economists.” Economic Inquiry 20(1):104-132. Youn, T.I.K., and D. Zelterman. 1988. “Institutional career mobility in academia.” Academic labor markets and careers 52–73. Hargens, Lowell L., and Warren O. Hagstrom. 1967. “Sponsored and Contest Mobility of American Academic Scientists.” Sociology of Education 40(1):24-38. Youn, T.I.K. 2005. “The academic job market is bad for all of us.” Academe 91(6):27–30. Ps: security check: upper crust Thanks ;D ...you sure called me out! You win! Now, given that you are clearly an expert on these things (not being snarky here, but just directly honest)....would you say that if one were to somehow manage to reduce their teaching and service load in a less prestigious department and use that time to conduct more research (in effect counteracting these cumulative disadvantages) that that would help them move up?
|
|
|
Post by aaaaa on Oct 28, 2011 11:21:23 GMT -5
Since most of this research is probabilistic and not deterministic, it is probably quite like guest321 mentioned in that post:
"What emerges from all of this is the typical case of social mobility in the United States; it is possible, but improbable due to circumstances that the privileged rarely have to consider in the first place."
Of course, it may be that when you think of less prestigious places you are so socialized into an advantaged way of thinking about the world that "less prestigious" means top 50 r1, instead of, say, regional masters tier 2 university.
|
|
|
Post by aaaaa on Oct 28, 2011 11:35:57 GMT -5
Thanks ;D ...you sure called me out! You win! Now, given that you are clearly an expert on these things (not being snarky here, but just directly honest)....would you say that if one were to somehow manage to reduce their teaching and service load in a less prestigious department and use that time to conduct more research (in effect counteracting these cumulative disadvantages) that that would help them move up? Also, I think the point of the cumulative advantages model is that being able to reduce teaching and service loads is not an independent variable, if you will. It will be shaped by the same type of stuff that shaped getting the job in the first place. And then there is the fact that it is all not just about having the time to do research. People willing to collaborate with you, to share their data with you, to read your articles and provide feedback are all also driven by networks and prestige.
|
|