|
Post by unclekarl on Oct 30, 2011 15:23:02 GMT -5
I'm from a top 10, and have experienced someone I know from a middle-tier place being hired over me at a decent gig post-2008. That person had better qualifications than I did. I also know another middle-tier person getting interviews at *major* R1s because of their research. In both cases, they also have an advisor who is well-known in soc and going to bat for them. Well-regarded advisors, good pubs, and patience seem to be what wins out.
I would say its not an easy row to hoe [though its not easy for almost anyone these days], but there's at least enough mobility to eventually wind up at an institution of similar or better rank to the school an individual graduates from. R1s want people who get grants, publish in good journals, and make headlines. The 'which school did you go to' game, especially a few years out of the market, takes a backseat to what a program can get from someone [literally, with grants, where universities get a substantial percentage of a grant and a candidate can literally pay]. That's my read, at least, on mobility in the academic caste system.
|
|
|
Post by really on Oct 30, 2011 16:40:45 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. And here I thought blaming the victim for its victimization was easy enough to avoid for most sociologists. You clearly missed the point entirely. Arguing that students should buy into the academic caste system or else not get a PhD anywhere below top 20 is the kind of elitist mentality that got us in this unjust mess in the first place.
|
|
|
Post by reallyreally on Oct 30, 2011 18:01:48 GMT -5
[quote author=really board=misc thread=631 post=3583 time=1320010845 And here I thought blaming the victim for its victimization was easy enough to avoid for most sociologists. You clearly missed the point entirely. Arguing that students should buy into the academic caste system or else not get a PhD anywhere below top 20 is the kind of elitist mentality that got us in this unjust mess in the first place. [/quote]
I don't remember saying to buy into the academic caste system, or even advocating going to a top-20 program.
I do, however, seem to recall in my earlier comment promoting the idea that people doing a little research BEFORE they are going on recruitment visits.
If you're stupid enough to think that not researching the job market, not asking questions about specific programs, and not taking accountability for your own education until you're going on campus visits makes someone a 'victim', then you need to see a good psychiatrist to bring your world view into the realm of reality.
I'm guessing you also see yourself as one of these 'victims' of the academic caste system, no?
|
|
|
Post by wow on Oct 30, 2011 18:17:27 GMT -5
[quote author=really board=misc thread=631 post=3583 time=1320010845 And here I thought blaming the victim for its victimization was easy enough to avoid for most sociologists. You clearly missed the point entirely. Arguing that students should buy into the academic caste system or else not get a PhD anywhere below top 20 is the kind of elitist mentality that got us in this unjust mess in the first place. I don't remember saying to buy into the academic caste system, or even advocating going to a top-20 program. I do, however, seem to recall in my earlier comment promoting the idea that people doing a little research BEFORE they are going on recruitment visits. If you're stupid enough to think that not researching the job market, not asking questions about specific programs, and not taking accountability for your own education until you're going on campus visits makes someone a 'victim', then you need to see a good psychiatrist to bring your world view into the realm of reality. I'm guessing you also see yourself as one of these 'victims' of the academic caste system, no?[/quote] I'm fortunate enough to be one of those lucky students who went to the school with the best fit for me that also happened to be ranked pretty highly. The problem here is the elitist system that denies access to many great scholars simply on the basis of some outdated notions of elitism and pedigree. In that sense, those students who apply to programs that are their best fit for their research development and pursuits are the victims of an unjust system that will deny them access to highly ranked departments if they happen to have gotten their training in lower ranked departments. What part of the term "academic caste system" do you not understand? Or better yet, as a sociologist, how do you find the logic to support this practice? Do you just blame the students because they "didn't" do their research (i.e., go to those departments US News ranks highly) and call it a day? School me in your psychologically well-adjusted logic. I'm all ears.
|
|
|
Post by reallyreally on Oct 30, 2011 21:26:36 GMT -5
Fine, sit your ass down and have a lesson:
If you wanted to become a graphic designer, how would you do that?
Let's take two examples: "Bob" finds the closest program to him at School A (or the one with the sunny beaches, or the one near his girlfriend, whatever) and applies. Then on a campus visit Bob asks them what they thought of the program. "Oh it's great, our grads are highly trained and sought after the world over!" Bob is overjoyed, and signed up immediately because he feels the program is a great fit for him, though he didn't really look into the actual placement statistics, the reputation of the school, or anything else that someone planning their ENTIRE FUCKING FUTURE should do.
Now there's "John". John has the sense to look up what the job market looks like for graphic designers, then he looks up what the "good" programs are for graphic design, based on however the 'graphic designer caste system' is set up at the time. John was originally considering Schools A, B, and C, but realizes that A's grads don't land great jobs, and is not well respected. He finds that school B has a highly ranked graphics design program,, has a lot of alumni, and places a lot of graduates in well paying jobs... he knows this because he used his brain to find out this stuff in advance. John applies to and is accepted at B and C (which he discovered was a good but not top program), but ultimately chooses school B because it has the outcomes he's interested in (i.e., a job). Sure, he asked about placement of grads, training, and other things during his campus visits, but he takes the answers with a grain of salt knowing the faculty are trying to sell a product to him.
Fast forward N years, and Bob and John are both new grads on the market.
Bob liked School A, but the training wasn't all that great, and Bob specialized in drawing anime, which is apparently a dying market. Bob is shocked that School A isn't considered a good program to the hiring managers at graphic design firms, and his specialty isn't in demand. Bob applies and applies, but has to take an less-than-ideal job at a crappy location because he simply doesn't have the credentials, skills, networks, etc, etc, etc, to land the sweet jobs. He gnashes his teeth and curses his program for misleading him.
John, however, went to a top ranked program, networked with alumni at conferences, learned a lot of in-demand skills, and has a degree that is respected in the field. He lands a good-paying job in a great place.
So, what did we learn today folks? Well, don't be a Bob and do your fucking research on what the realities are in the market before jumping feet first into a future career.
It would be great if this was Lake Wobegone and every School was above average, but it's not. The world isn't fair, and rankings aren't even for a reason. Top schools hire top schools' grads. Is it right? I dunno, but if you want to change that, then get a degree from a top program, get hired at a top program, and then hire non-top program grads. Period. Anything else is either A) naive, b) stupid, or c) A and B.
The end.
|
|
really reallyreally
Guest
|
Post by really reallyreally on Oct 30, 2011 22:09:01 GMT -5
this is a great example of why i can hate the academy at times. so much logic. so little style. an interesting (and surprisingly deterministic) world you live in, reallyreally.
|
|
|
Post by dont be a bob on Oct 30, 2011 22:13:11 GMT -5
Are some people really assuming there are no quality differences in training? Just as some faculty members clearly suck at giving advice (oh sure, rankings mean nothing, go to a top 125 because it is a better fit for you than a top 5 program) there are true quality differences between graduate programs and departments in general.
|
|
|
Post by quality matters on Oct 30, 2011 23:11:45 GMT -5
I've been on multiple search committees, and I have to say that graduates from my program had stellar applications compared to other applicants. At first I thought it was my own personal bias but then others (other colleagues, search committee members that interviewed me, friends, etc.) started to comment about the same patterns I was seeing. I also noticed that I was helping to "train" other newer faculty, which I believe shows that some programs aren't the greatest. Based on placement, I believe the department I graduated from is one of the most underrated programs (related to another thread ;D). To echoe what others have said, quality matters.
|
|
|
Post by aaaaaa on Oct 30, 2011 23:13:35 GMT -5
Fine, sit your ass down and have a lesson: If you wanted to become a graphic designer, how would you do that? Let's take two examples: "Bob" finds the closest program to him at School A (or the one with the sunny beaches, or the one near his girlfriend, whatever) and applies. Then on a campus visit Bob asks them what they thought of the program. "Oh it's great, our grads are highly trained and sought after the world over!" Bob is overjoyed, and signed up immediately because he feels the program is a great fit for him, though he didn't really look into the actual placement statistics, the reputation of the school, or anything else that someone planning their ENTIRE FUCKING FUTURE should do. Now there's "John". John has the sense to look up what the job market looks like for graphic designers, then he looks up what the "good" programs are for graphic design, based on however the 'graphic designer caste system' is set up at the time. John was originally considering Schools A, B, and C, but realizes that A's grads don't land great jobs, and is not well respected. He finds that school B has a highly ranked graphics design program,, has a lot of alumni, and places a lot of graduates in well paying jobs... he knows this because he used his brain to find out this stuff in advance. John applies to and is accepted at B and C (which he discovered was a good but not top program), but ultimately chooses school B because it has the outcomes he's interested in (i.e., a job). Sure, he asked about placement of grads, training, and other things during his campus visits, but he takes the answers with a grain of salt knowing the faculty are trying to sell a product to him. Fast forward N years, and Bob and John are both new grads on the market. Bob liked School A, but the training wasn't all that great, and Bob specialized in drawing anime, which is apparently a dying market. Bob is shocked that School A isn't considered a good program to the hiring managers at graphic design firms, and his specialty isn't in demand. Bob applies and applies, but has to take an less-than-ideal job at a crappy location because he simply doesn't have the credentials, skills, networks, etc, etc, etc, to land the sweet jobs. He gnashes his teeth and curses his program for misleading him. John, however, went to a top ranked program, networked with alumni at conferences, learned a lot of in-demand skills, and has a degree that is respected in the field. He lands a good-paying job in a great place. So, what did we learn today folks? Well, don't be a Bob and do your fucking research on what the realities are in the market before jumping feet first into a future career. It would be great if this was Lake Wobegone and every School was above average, but it's not. The world isn't fair, and rankings aren't even for a reason. Top schools hire top schools' grads. Is it right? I dunno, but if you want to change that, then get a degree from a top program, get hired at a top program, and then hire non-top program grads. Period. Anything else is either A) naive, b) stupid, or c) A and B. The end. I think that the example here isn't "worse program" vs "better program." It's better fit vs more prestige. Better intellectual fit. I thought that was clear. Not all top programs are the best in all specialties. So way to set up a strawman. secondly, you'd think that for someone so condescending, so full of him/herself would have actually read the FUCKING RESEARCH that is cited in this very thread. Patterns of prestige and hiring networks are stable regardless of actual scholarly output. But then again, that is one of the hallmarks of privilege, isn't it? That it survives even in the face of evidence contrary to its claims. So yes, in a made up world where prestige is perfectly determined by quality, and quality of graduates is perfectly determined by prestige, your little example would be very appropriate. Are you willing to say that is an actual representation of the truth?
|
|
|
Post by aaaaa on Oct 30, 2011 23:17:03 GMT -5
Are some people really assuming there are no quality differences in training? Just as some faculty members clearly suck at giving advice (oh sure, rankings mean nothing, go to a top 125 because it is a better fit for you than a top 5 program) there are true quality differences between graduate programs and departments in general. I don't think anyone is suggesting anything like that at all. A look at the posts and research cited here show that it is not about denying differences in quality, but that hiring patterns depend more on prestige than on things like actual scholarly output and the like.
|
|
|
Post by reallyreally on Oct 30, 2011 23:32:42 GMT -5
So yes, in a made up world where prestige is perfectly determined by quality, and quality of graduates is perfectly determined by prestige, your little example would be very appropriate. Are you willing to say that is an actual representation of the truth? I'm saying the world currently works that way (top school = top job), and frequently the training IS better at higher ranked schools. Not always, but more so than not. People who are blindsided by that fact have either been lied to by people without the balls to tell them the truth (or who had no comprehension of how the world works themselves), or had blinders on when they chose a program on the assumption that "A great fitting program means I'll get a great job!" Sorry, but the world isn't all gumdrops, and someone choosing an amazing fitting program at a low ranked school, and disregarding the inherent quality/prestige/ranking/whatever-you-call-it-to-fall-asleep-at-night-without-sobbing-into-your-pillow 'caste system', and hoping to play the game like a champ is living in a fantasy world. Better luck next reincarnation. BTW, doesn't a caste system typically imply something you're born into and have no control over? If so, then the 'caste system' is bullshit on the individual level, since people have the ability to choose their program (within the bounds of the strength of their application, which is based on their undergrad degree, which is based on their high school grades, which are based on early childhood education blah blah blah read-to-your-kids-folks). So, if you don't want to be in the 'untouchable class', DON'T FUCKING GO TO A SHITTY DEPARTMENT.
|
|
|
Post by aaaaa on Oct 30, 2011 23:58:35 GMT -5
I'm saying the world currently works that way (top school = top job), and frequently the training IS better at higher ranked schools. Not always, but more so than not. People who are blindsided by that fact have either been lied to by people without the balls to tell them the truth (or who had no comprehension of how the world works themselves), or had blinders on when they chose a program on the assumption that "A great fitting program means I'll get a great job!" Sorry, but the world isn't all gumdrops, and someone choosing an amazing fitting program at a low ranked school, and disregarding the inherent quality/prestige/ranking/whatever-you-call-it-to-fall-asleep-at-night-without-sobbing-into-your-pillow 'caste system', and hoping to play the game like a champ is living in a fantasy world. Better luck next reincarnation. BTW, doesn't a caste system typically imply something you're born into and have no control over? If so, then the 'caste system' is bullshit on the individual level, since people have the ability to choose their program (within the bounds of the strength of their application, which is based on their undergrad degree, which is based on their high school grades, which are based on early childhood education blah blah blah read-to-your-kids-folks). So, if you don't want to be in the 'untouchable class', DON'T FUCKING GO TO A SHITTY DEPARTMENT. I guess it is easier to keep setting up strawman arguments than to actually engage in what is being said, backed up by actual data. If that is the training you got at your superduper department, I feel sorry for the discipline. The point isn't whether people from top programs get the top job because of better training. The point is that prestige very frequently actually trumps quality of candidate. And this isn't a rant, a woe is me, or anything of the sort (especially since I am, in fact, employed). And this isn't denying the qualities of the top programs, or the quality of its students. But that in the real world, prestige actually trumps quality. Often prestige goes hand in hand with quality, but sometimes it does not. Especially since there are many, many programs that are small and top 10 in a specialty but not overall (UC Santa Barbara in gender, Iowa and Emory in Social Psych, UC San Diego in Culture, Maryland in demography, etc.) But hey, you are no different from my undergrads at my very expensive institution when it comes to privilege. They are there because they worked hard, damn it. And your prescription for changing things is actually the same.
|
|
|
Post by choices on Oct 31, 2011 0:58:54 GMT -5
It's pretty remarkable how most of the posts on this thread have become so drunk on the Kool-Aid that there seems to be little acknowledgment at all of the fact that GRAD SCHOOL ADMISSIONS ARE NOT PURELY CHOICE DRIVEN. You don't just "choose" to attend a top five, ten, twenty, or hundred in some sort of free choice vacuum. Nor is there enough space in the "top" programs to accommodate all graduate students.
|
|
|
Post by silverspoon on Oct 31, 2011 7:22:03 GMT -5
It's pretty remarkable how most of the posts on this thread have become so drunk on the Kool-Aid that there seems to be little acknowledgment at all of the fact that GRAD SCHOOL ADMISSIONS ARE NOT PURELY CHOICE DRIVEN. You don't just "choose" to attend a top five, ten, twenty, or hundred in some sort of free choice vacuum. Nor is there enough space in the "top" programs to accommodate all graduate students. Seriously. The admitted students at top programs have resumes that look like they've been groomed from birth for this acceptance letter.
|
|
|
Post by really really on Oct 31, 2011 7:54:57 GMT -5
if only i'd gone to harvard instead of east polytech state with that girl i met at chili's the night before...i could a been somebody...
cain 2012, right buddy?
|
|