|
Post by plusone on Oct 31, 2011 7:56:50 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. +1
|
|
rrr
Full Member
Posts: 113
|
Post by rrr on Oct 31, 2011 8:25:33 GMT -5
Wow, heated discussion.
The above point is good, but unrealistic, because when we were all making decisions about departments 5-10 years ago, the economy was in a lot better shape. Even if you did a lot of research on departments, the placement rates would have looked pretty good, because we weren't in a recession, and college attendance has been growing.
With the economy now, people coming out of places that retained high placement rates despite the economic issues of the last 3 years are in an OK position, but it's unfair to tell others that they made a bad decision if they chose a department with a reasonable placement rate at the time they entered. Suggesting that people do research on the later job market is one thing, but expecting them to psychically know the economy was going to collapse in 5-8 years is quite another thing.
This is especially true because it's not like we're talking about English programs with continuing job market issues since the 1970s, where anyone entering a program at any time knew they had very low odds of making any placement, much less a good one.
|
|
|
Post by guest321 on Oct 31, 2011 8:43:11 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. I wouldn't put students at top universities on such a pedestal as that. I have good friends who attend or have attended most of the schools in the Top 20, and their profiles weren't so amazing that they were unattainable by otherwise-good candidates. The main difference was performance on the GRE, which does reflect a degree of privilege, but "meeting the standard" is not impossible otherwise. Of course, there are limited spots at any department, so just meeting this standard does not, in and of itself, guarantee admission; my own Top 20 department has turned away several owners of elite GRE scores because they just didn't fit what we do here. I do think that reallyreally speaks from a position of advantage (not necessarily privilege, but CERTAINLY advantage) when speaking of grad school as nothing more than a choice that people made. For some, getting into several Top 20 programs is normal, and they usually have several to pick from. (We've lost admits to Chicago, Wisconsin, etc.; there's nothing to be done about such a thing!) However, for others, the option really isn't there, and it is foolish to argue that people should pursue degrees only if they get into Top 20 schools. I will say that I did, in my own search, set a cut-off point below which I was unwilling to apply because I didn't want to "fall off of the map" by going to an underwhelming department. Having said this, I had a good number of places to choose from and did select the one at which I believed I would best fit. No, I don't get to wear the prestige of some of the higher-ranked options, but a PhD is only worth something if the candidate can attain it, so fitting a department at which one is likely to succeed makes more sense than going to a highly-ranked department, getting lost in the crowd, and cutting out after year 2.
|
|
|
Post by drbearjew on Oct 31, 2011 8:51:23 GMT -5
This debate (and the one about overrated/underrated departments) feels like a pissing contest between grad students at top 10 universities. From the perspective of someone not at a top 10, it's pretty funny to watch.
Anyway, when I finished my MA, I applied to several higher ranked departments. I got accepted into a few, but ultimately they could not match the funding I was receiving at my current program, so I stayed. I have absolutely no regrets. The fit (something many of you will be well aware of in the next few months as places either move you up or down their list for jobs) in my department was excellent. That isn't to say I would not have had the same fit elsewhere, but being broke and hoping for a similar fit was not a viable option.
For those who are stressing...It's still quite early in the job market, and please don't let any of the "Top 10ers" make you feel as though you don't have a shot at a good job.
|
|
|
Post by guest321 on Oct 31, 2011 8:58:41 GMT -5
This debate (and the one about overrated/underrated departments) feels like a pissing contest between grad students at top 10 universities. From the perspective of someone not at a top 10, it's pretty funny to watch. Anyway, when I finished my MA, I applied to several higher ranked departments. I got accepted into a few, but ultimately they could not match the funding I was receiving at my current program, so I stayed. I have absolutely no regrets. The fit (something many of you will be well aware of in the next few months as places either move you up or down their list for jobs) in my department was excellent. That isn't to say I would not have had the same fit elsewhere, but being broke and hoping for a similar fit was not a viable option. For those who are stressing...It's still quite early in the job market, and please don't let any of the "Top 10ers" make you feel as though you don't have a shot at a good job. Truer words were never spoken. I've watched my brother go through this process a couple of times in a related discipline, and he assures me that people are preparing to jump off of bridges (hopefully not literally) for no good reason; the process is very far from over, which is one reason that places aren't contacting those who haven't advanced yet. (Really, it would be presumptive of School #70 to assume that it could select the top 3 applicants from its list of submissions and have none of those be candidates for more preferable jobs elsewhere, since people are applying broadly regardless of how gaudy their profiles are.) I will point out, though, that the thread wasn't started by one of the Top 10ers, although elitist voices have certainly made their voices heard to the rest of us in particularly arrogant fashion.
|
|
|
Post by sucker on Oct 31, 2011 9:30:53 GMT -5
Well, since I seem to have started this kerfuffle, I guess I should chime in.
I'm not sure where really really is getting the idea that I only received this advice from people trying to recruit me and that I just went with that. In fact, I said that I heard this from many people, and not just those recruiting at non-elite schools. I may have been naive, but I wasn't dumb. Further, I have no idea why really really is so intent on equating "intellectual fit" with picking up girls, but that's for a different thread.
Anyway, I guess this will be a surprise for some people out there, but there are actually very good people doing good work at non-top-ten, -fifteen, or even -twenty schools, and one can benefit from working with them.
I think those who have pointed out that the whole system has just changed so much since we were picking schools have a good point. 10 years ago it probably wasn't unreasonable to think that with a good vita and strong connections in one's subfield someone could get a decent position regardless of rank.
|
|
|
Post by postdocette on Oct 31, 2011 10:20:41 GMT -5
But what does "regardless of rank" mean here? Are there departments that are strong in a subfield that are at the bottom of the rankings? I am not trying to be sarcastic here, this is an honest question. I would find it hard to believe that with a good vita and an education from a place that is strong in a subfield would not get one a decent job in a place that hires people in that subfield (let's not forget that not all departments hire people from all subfields).
|
|
|
Post by onoff on Oct 31, 2011 10:32:23 GMT -5
This debate (and the one about overrated/underrated departments) feels like a pissing contest between grad students at top 10 universities. From the perspective of someone not at a top 10, it's pretty funny to watch. Agreed. It's incredible, also, how unsociological "reallyreally"'s argument is - very rational choice / economic, assumes complete information, mobility, etc. Maybe he's a troll from the econ boards.
|
|
|
Post by yeah on Oct 31, 2011 10:43:37 GMT -5
But what does "regardless of rank" mean here? Are there departments that are strong in a subfield that are at the bottom of the rankings? I am not trying to be sarcastic here, this is an honest question. I would find it hard to believe that with a good vita and an education from a place that is strong in a subfield would not get one a decent job in a place that hires people in that subfield (let's not forget that not all departments hire people from all subfields). I don't know about "bottom of the rankings," but there are several schools that are top 5/10 in a specialty but not top 20 overall. As someone mentioned before, Iowa and Emory in social psych, UC santa barbara in a couple of fields (gender and culture), UC San Diego in culture, etc. Now, I don't know about the relative placement of these institutions, so I won't comment on that. But as someone who has been in more than one search committee, let me tell you that SCs often have people outside the specialty they are hiring in them who may not be familiar with the subfield. On top of that, there is something that hasn't been said so far, which is that from the department's point of view it is rational to go for prestige since part of the audience they are seeking to please are deans and alumni. Hiring a candidate with pedigree can serve to indicate to the dean and the alums that the department is going places. Finally, regarding privilege: I'd say the vast majority of us, regardless of top 10 or top 50 department, are the children of some privilege. Going to grad school in sociology full time requires some degree of cultural capital and is something that has quite significant opportunity costs. So let us all tone down the self pity a bit.
|
|
|
Post by frequency expected on Oct 31, 2011 11:36:44 GMT -5
It's incredible, also, how unsociological "reallyreally"'s argument is - very rational choice / economic, assumes complete information, mobility, etc. Maybe he's a troll from the econ boards. There it is! No discussion is complete without an allegation that someone is not "sociological enough." Thanks for your contribution.
|
|
|
Post by onoff on Oct 31, 2011 12:05:53 GMT -5
It seems that a lot of people on this thread knew they wanted to be a sociologist when they grew up. I didn't. I grew up in a rural area and didn't have a telephone or a flight on an airplane until I went to a state college. I went on to a top-50 graduate program because I was interested in [issue] and chose based on who had faculty who studied that issue and the advice of faculty at my undergraduate institution. It was in graduate school that I realized I loved research.
So yeah, reallyreally isn't presenting a very sociological argument. And it makes me sick that people with that sort of attitude toward work and inequality apparently get to call themselves sociologists. Seems like his elite graduate preparation actually failed him.
|
|
|
Post by agree on Oct 31, 2011 12:32:57 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. THANK YOU FOR THIS. Reading this thread has been absolutely maddening. Aside from the fact that the argument of "you went to a grad school based on the fact that it has a sunny beach and is near the girlfriend you met waitressing at Chili's" is completely asinine and absurd, this whole "you didn't do any research and you ended up at a crappy department because of it so you deserve what you're getting" diatribe is a little overdone as well.
|
|
|
Post by volting on Oct 31, 2011 13:11:13 GMT -5
Yeah, I presumed reallyreally was some sort of a troll. If his/her argument was intellectually stronger, they wouldn't have to resort to being profane and condescending in their rhetoric. I'd say they were an econ troll, but most economists are smarter than that!
|
|
|
Post by guest321 on Oct 31, 2011 13:38:23 GMT -5
But what does "regardless of rank" mean here? Are there departments that are strong in a subfield that are at the bottom of the rankings? I am not trying to be sarcastic here, this is an honest question. I would find it hard to believe that with a good vita and an education from a place that is strong in a subfield would not get one a decent job in a place that hires people in that subfield (let's not forget that not all departments hire people from all subfields). I don't know about "bottom of the rankings," but there are several schools that are top 5/10 in a specialty but not top 20 overall. As someone mentioned before, Iowa and Emory in social psych, UC santa barbara in a couple of fields (gender and culture), UC San Diego in culture, etc. Now, I don't know about the relative placement of these institutions, so I won't comment on that. But as someone who has been in more than one search committee, let me tell you that SCs often have people outside the specialty they are hiring in them who may not be familiar with the subfield. On top of that, there is something that hasn't been said so far, which is that from the department's point of view it is rational to go for prestige since part of the audience they are seeking to please are deans and alumni. Hiring a candidate with pedigree can serve to indicate to the dean and the alums that the department is going places. Finally, regarding privilege: I'd say the vast majority of us, regardless of top 10 or top 50 department, are the children of some privilege. Going to grad school in sociology full time requires some degree of cultural capital and is something that has quite significant opportunity costs. So let us all tone down the self pity a bit. Your points about hiring committees are well-stated; the task is to bring aboard someone who will appease the most influential people involved in the hiring process, and rankings matter in that regard. I do disagree with your claim that "the vast majority of us... are children of some privilege." Privilege typically is accompanied by heightened cultural capital, but is neither a mandatory precursor for it nor a direct derivative of it.
|
|
|
Post by yeah on Oct 31, 2011 14:11:50 GMT -5
Your points about hiring committees are well-stated; the task is to bring aboard someone who will appease the most influential people involved in the hiring process, and rankings matter in that regard. I do disagree with your claim that "the vast majority of us... are children of some privilege." Privilege typically is accompanied by heightened cultural capital, but is neither a mandatory precursor for it nor a direct derivative of it. But I didn't make any causal arguments or anything of the sort. But taken together, the cultural capital requirements and the ability to incur in substantial opportunity costs means that graduate degrees in sociology do not generally attract students from disadvantaged backgrounds. Not that they don't exist, but I'd have to think long and hard to come up with names of graduate students who didn't come from at least a middle class background and at least one parent with college degree. (Survey of Earned Doctorates puts this number overall at close to 70% in terms of parental education).
|
|