|
Post by veteran on Oct 28, 2011 11:38:27 GMT -5
Well that is not very comforting at all. But again I think we are right back where we started....with no real solid information on why those who do move up manage to do so. I'd hate to just chalk it up to individual qualities, unmeasurable factors, or randomness...but I guess that is why sociologists study general patterns rather than trying to explain outliers.
|
|
rrr
Full Member
Posts: 113
|
Post by rrr on Oct 28, 2011 12:13:18 GMT -5
That's not true - we got back to the situation of saying that initial endowments matter.
But if you do want to move up, then there have been pretty reasonable discussions on the chronicle about people who go for postdocs in higher schools, which give them an opportunity to add the higher ranked name to the CV, and also to publish. In other words, you add additional time to rise to the same place as someone that did a PhD in a top school.
|
|
|
Post by the bottom 99 on Oct 28, 2011 13:31:57 GMT -5
But how do you get the elite post docs in the first place if you're coming from a dept. without the prestige/networks? It works at the post-doc level as well as the TT job market.
|
|
|
Post by guest321 on Oct 28, 2011 14:19:04 GMT -5
Several decades ago, Kerckhoff gave us the explanation of sponsored mobility, and it is worth considering that this is precisely what we are experiencing. Attainment is not based on whether or not an individual is up to the task of meeting expectations, but rather whether evaluators believe this to be the case. Pedigree of one's institution and, of related importance, social sponsors within that institution are, therefore, of the utmost -- these are the well-regarded reputations that are offered as collateral for the risk that is taken on a candidate, since candidates are often unknown commodities themselves.
The way to counter the inherent advantage that comes from being in a top department (and, conversely, the disadvantage of not coming from one) is to gain access to the cultural capital that is part of the privilege of R1 eliteness. It isn't possible to just wish away the advantage of having better funding for travel to conferences, but it is possible to spend this money and then go to the section dinners that cost $50 rather than McDonald's at 1/10th of the price. It is possible to engage the panel at sessions, make presentations that get notice, schmooze with people in the hallways, and otherwise involve oneself in the informal networking that goes on at these events. The goal is to "borrow" prestige by way of building access to the important people whom others encounter just by going to the water fountain and creating name recognition that is often reserved for the students of superstar profs. To accurately reframe the common phrase, it isn't what you know, it is WHO knows YOU. Again, it isn't easy, but it can be done.
|
|
|
Post by aaaa on Oct 28, 2011 15:59:58 GMT -5
The thing is that this is a competitive market. So even I there was such an easy way to say "do X Y and Z and move up," there is nothing that prevents everyone else from then doing X Y and Z as well.
|
|
|
Post by guest321 on Oct 28, 2011 22:49:25 GMT -5
The thing is that this is a competitive market. So even I there was such an easy way to say "do X Y and Z and move up," there is nothing that prevents everyone else from then doing X Y and Z as well. You assume that there are commensurate rewards for doing X, Y and Z, and that these rewards are automatically enjoyed by those who stick to the script. The reality is that the payoff is not the same in most cases; someone who has a good record from an elite department is usually considered a stronger candidate from someone who has a good record from a school ranked in the 40s. I've applied this saying in other academic contexts, but I feel that it fits here, as well: Sometimes, you've gotta overcome odds just to get even.
|
|
|
Post by aaaa on Oct 29, 2011 0:49:32 GMT -5
You assume that there are commensurate rewards for doing X, Y and Z, and that these rewards are automatically enjoyed by those who stick to the script. The reality is that the payoff is not the same in most cases; someone who has a good record from an elite department is usually considered a stronger candidate from someone who has a good record from a school ranked in the 40s. I've applied this saying in other academic contexts, but I feel that it fits here, as well: Sometimes, you've gotta overcome odds just to get even. I don't assume anything. I was just addressing the dismay of the previous poster at the lack of a clear "recipe" for moving up the ladder. I was only pointing out that even if there was such a thing, nothing would prevent everyone from doing that, therefore getting back to the initial issue. Which is, as you pointed out, in part different payoffs for similar things.
|
|
anon
New Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by anon on Oct 29, 2011 7:23:06 GMT -5
Several decades ago, Kerckhoff gave us the explanation of sponsored mobility, and it is worth considering that this is precisely what we are experiencing. Attainment is not based on whether or not an individual is up to the task of meeting expectations, but rather whether evaluators believe this to be the case. Pedigree of one's institution and, of related importance, social sponsors within that institution are, therefore, of the utmost -- these are the well-regarded reputations that are offered as collateral for the risk that is taken on a candidate, since candidates are often unknown commodities themselves. The way to counter the inherent advantage that comes from being in a top department (and, conversely, the disadvantage of not coming from one) is to gain access to the cultural capital that is part of the privilege of R1 eliteness. It isn't possible to just wish away the advantage of having better funding for travel to conferences, but it is possible to spend this money and then go to the section dinners that cost $50 rather than McDonald's at 1/10th of the price. It is possible to engage the panel at sessions, make presentations that get notice, schmooze with people in the hallways, and otherwise involve oneself in the informal networking that goes on at these events. The goal is to "borrow" prestige by way of building access to the important people whom others encounter just by going to the water fountain and creating name recognition that is often reserved for the students of superstar profs. To accurately reframe the common phrase, it isn't what you know, it is WHO knows YOU. Again, it isn't easy, but it can be done. Okay, I don't want to be an a**hole about this, but...I'll just apologize ahead of time if it comes out that way-- 1) Sponsored mobility was introduced by Turner (1960), not Kerckhoff, and that was not the point at all. Sponsored and contest mobility are descriptions of "folk norms", and they shape the way educational systems operate (this is in the ideal form--there isn't a great deal of direct evidence to support this idea, although it is still a useful theory). According to Turner, the U.S. educational system reflects a contest system. This is *not* inconsistent with evidence of inequality, the Matthew effect, etc. The point is that the U.S. ideal is one of opportunity and mobility, and therefore the job market must appear open (we all get to apply for the same jobs, etc). The social network advantages are "hidden" in order to maintain this appearance. 2) You cited cultural capital and then described economic and social capital. I know these things are intertwined, but still. C'mon.
|
|
|
Post by guest321 on Oct 29, 2011 8:03:24 GMT -5
Several decades ago, Kerckhoff gave us the explanation of sponsored mobility, and it is worth considering that this is precisely what we are experiencing. Attainment is not based on whether or not an individual is up to the task of meeting expectations, but rather whether evaluators believe this to be the case. Pedigree of one's institution and, of related importance, social sponsors within that institution are, therefore, of the utmost -- these are the well-regarded reputations that are offered as collateral for the risk that is taken on a candidate, since candidates are often unknown commodities themselves. The way to counter the inherent advantage that comes from being in a top department (and, conversely, the disadvantage of not coming from one) is to gain access to the cultural capital that is part of the privilege of R1 eliteness. It isn't possible to just wish away the advantage of having better funding for travel to conferences, but it is possible to spend this money and then go to the section dinners that cost $50 rather than McDonald's at 1/10th of the price. It is possible to engage the panel at sessions, make presentations that get notice, schmooze with people in the hallways, and otherwise involve oneself in the informal networking that goes on at these events. The goal is to "borrow" prestige by way of building access to the important people whom others encounter just by going to the water fountain and creating name recognition that is often reserved for the students of superstar profs. To accurately reframe the common phrase, it isn't what you know, it is WHO knows YOU. Again, it isn't easy, but it can be done. Okay, I don't want to be an a**hole about this, but...I'll just apologize ahead of time if it comes out that way-- 1) Sponsored mobility was introduced by Turner (1960), not Kerckhoff, and that was not the point at all. Sponsored and contest mobility are descriptions of "folk norms", and they shape the way educational systems operate (this is in the ideal form--there isn't a great deal of direct evidence to support this idea, although it is still a useful theory). According to Turner, the U.S. educational system reflects a contest system. This is *not* inconsistent with evidence of inequality, the Matthew effect, etc. The point is that the U.S. ideal is one of opportunity and mobility, and therefore the job market must appear open (we all get to apply for the same jobs, etc). The social network advantages are "hidden" in order to maintain this appearance. 2) You cited cultural capital and then described economic and social capital. I know these things are intertwined, but still. C'mon. You are correct about Turner being the right citation. Sorry, I was going from the top of my head and pulled the wrong name. With regard to the transferability of argument about sponsored vs. contest mobility, I stand by it. The social network advantages in higher education are not hidden, or else we wouldn't be here discussing them so openly, people wouldn't choose to go to top departments that don't guarantee funding over lower-ranked departments that offer a full ride, etc. It isn't what we know that matters, but rather what others who are granting opportunities assume we know. The entire pool doesn't have the same shot at all positions; there is quite a difference between me applying for a position at Harvard and one of my friends from UChicago doing the same, even net of the progress we have made on our CVs, but I likewise have a better shot at other Top 20 departments than someone who is applying from a program in the 60s, and this surprises no one. In a true contest mobility system, everyone at least believes that he or she can hit the peak just by working hard, but we are all very aware of disparate payoffs at this level. On my point about cultural capital, I aimed to point out that these things are doable if people only know to do them, but I do see how this gets lost in some of the latter comments. What I wanted to get across is that the monetary advantages that are held by some departments over others aren't going away, but that the knowledge of how to advance through the system shouldn't be held only by those at the "better" places. The importance of networks is often not stressed enough in some departments, and it is the awareness of this importance, coupled with both understanding and willingness to take the extra steps to create such connections, that can guide some past being in lowly-ranked departments. Thanks for your comments, Reviewer #1! :-)
|
|
|
Post by reviewer1 on Oct 29, 2011 13:35:45 GMT -5
@guest321: Good points. I agree with you regarding the mechanisms that reinforce status hierarchies within academia. We'll just have to agree to disagree regarding the interpretation of sponsored mobility.
|
|
|
Post by sucker on Oct 29, 2011 20:54:22 GMT -5
I guess what is so frustrating to me about it all is that when I was a prospective student I was told by numerous sources that it's not necessarily the ranking of the department where you go, it's who you work with and the strength of that department in X subfield. So I chose a school based on intellectual "fit" rather than rank and now it's obvious that that was just not true.
I guess it's on me for being naive enough to follow this advice, but I would be surprised if prospective students these days aren't hearing the same thing.
|
|
|
Post by whatsources on Oct 29, 2011 22:06:29 GMT -5
I guess what is so frustrating to me about it all is that when I was a prospective student I was told by numerous sources that it's not necessarily the ranking of the department where you go, it's who you work with and the strength of that department in X subfield. So I chose a school based on intellectual "fit" rather than rank and now it's obvious that that was just not true. Just by chance, did any of these sources go to or work at a top-ranked school, or were they people who went to or worked in lower-ranked schools (in which case they were likely trying to make themselves feel better, or didn't really know the truth).
|
|
|
Post by aaaaa on Oct 29, 2011 23:24:41 GMT -5
Before we go psychoanalyzing what people said during recruitment visits and all of that, let me just make a few points:
- First, what would you expect someone to say in a recruitment visit? "Even though we are tops in our subfield you shouldn't come here?"
- Second, and before we assume that these things were said in an attempt to fool you or themselves: No one really expected the market to get this bad. There is a footnotes issue from about 10 years ago where the big "crisis" in the market that they were discussing was that fewer students were getting TT jobs in schools with graduate programs, and so that the discipline had to do a better job with the students for those jobs.
That is, the issue wasn't even whether people would get a job, but that the jobs were becoming more teaching focused. In fact, it is kind of shocking how fast the proportion of graduates getting TT jobs has declined. I come from an institution that is somewhat like the one described above, top 5 in a couple of specialties but not overall. Everyone that I know that graduated from 2000 to 2008 got a TT job (not counting those that wanted out of academia). Since then less than half have gotten one, but it was not unreasonable for them to expect that their students would be getting jobs.
- Finally, let's remember that candidates ourselves are also responsible for the reproduction of academic hierarchies, and are often as status conscious, if not more, than our advisors.
|
|
|
Post by out of sorts on Oct 30, 2011 14:58:28 GMT -5
Before we go psychoanalyzing what people said during recruitment visits and all of that, let me just make a few points: "Recruitment visits" - what's that? Some of us just asked our undergraduate adviser and faculty for advice. I was completely naive about the process and chose a 30s institution because of fit.
|
|
|
Post by you get a dddddd on Oct 30, 2011 15:17:11 GMT -5
Before we go psychoanalyzing what people said during recruitment visits and all of that, let me just make a few points: Yeah, I think you totally missed the point with 'recruitment visits'. I doubt these questions were really asked during recruitment visits (in which case the candidate shouldn't have expected the truth anyway), but rather BEFORE they were applying to a bunch of schools -- preferably while they were an undergrad (or MA student). If people applied to schools willy-nilly without any kind of prior research (like asking advisors/professors/friends WHERE they should be applying/looking, reading up on the field on CHE or other sites, etc.), and chose where to apply based on things like 'hot babes' or 'sunny weather', and only during recruitment visits started asking real questions, then they deserve to get their ass handed to them on the job market.
|
|