|
Post by guest321 on Oct 31, 2011 14:32:00 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). There are plenty of us, actually. You are correct in noting that the modal case would not fall into this category, but be careful about failing to account for a substantive group of outliers when speaking about these characteristics. I take no personal offense to this, but just wanted to point out that there are plenty of people who started from a kneeling position before arriving at this point and that, indeed, such lived experiences are what made sociology attractive in the first place.
|
|
|
Post by 99percent on Oct 31, 2011 16:31:18 GMT -5
Sure, most grad students come from privilege, but that doesn't mean underprivileged ones don't exist -- I am a first-generation college student with parents who only finished high school (incidentally, my maternal grandmother did not even finish grade school). I funded my education with scholarships and loans, and have had a rather difficult time in grad school among privileged peers. It is my experience that most first-generation students who pursue grad school do so because we were inspired by our college professors, and want to reinforce that type of passion in academia. But, I could be wrong since I obviously should have known better than to end up at a top-50 program.
|
|
|
Post by difference on Oct 31, 2011 17:06:38 GMT -5
I think there's really two different arguments going on that are getting muddled together.
Argument 1. "Top programs reinforce the 'academic caste system' (however defined), by only hiring other top-program-graduates."
Short answer: Yes, this exists, and yes, it sucks, but is there anything anyone can really do about it *other* than those currently working at those top programs? It would be nice if everyone had a fair shot at a top 10 (or 20) position, but that's unrealistic to expect, and I don't see that changing anything soon, especially given the cramped market.
Argument 2. "People entering academia should realize that attending a higher ranked program (whether top specialty or top overall ranking) would likely help in getting a better position after graduating."
Well, yes... This fact really shouldn't have surprised anyone, because the same thing happens with the BA/BS degree for people looking for post-undergrad jobs. That is, in-demand skills + degree prestige = job outcome. If you didn't realize that choosing best fit over best rank might hurt you afterwards, then you should kick your high school guidance counselor square in the nuts.
The difference between this formula for undergraduate degree and a PhD degree is that prestige typically gets much more weight than in-demand skills, and a 'promising CV' that shows prior pubs, grants, etc. is thrown into the mix. Again, if you didn't see the fit vs. rank tradeoff, you should kick your undergrad advisor square in the nuts.
So I guess I don't see the point in arguing/worrying/fighting/etc. over Argument 1, since we lowly folk can't fix the caste system problem on our own.
I also don't really see how #2 should come as a surprise to anyone. It stinks that some (most) people can't end up at a Top 10/20 school for their Ph.D., whether that's the result of lifelong disadvantage (but really, you're getting a Ph.D.... you're closer to the 1% than you are to the average 99%). I know I didn't go to a top 20 school, and yes there's always the twinge of jealously at that fact in the back of my mind. But on the flip side, only a select few faculty can end up working at a Top 10/20 school, and aside from the salary, I would imagine the heart attacks that come with trying to get tenure offset much of the advantages (because really, other than a higher salary and walking a little taller at ASA, what do you GET from being a faculty at a Top 10?). And it's not like only a select few get screwed out of a 'top' job, leading to a small 'truly disadvantaged' class in academic -- most people get screwed by this system, if your definition of 'screwed' is not landing a top-ranked job.
So other than the (crudely put) recommendation posted earlier of 'If you want a top job, go to a top school', given the reality of the job market, I don't see what the answer to this problem can realistically be. At least, not without a complete 180 of the hiring practices of top schools, and I don't see that happening anytime soon.
So my recommendation is to find yourself a good-fitting job that you're happy/comfortable at, and then warn your future undergrad and MA advisees about the reality of the job market so they go into PhD programs with open eyes.
(Also , if you happen to land a top-10 spot, throw the rest of us a bone next time an open position comes around, but good luck convincing the senior faculty on the search committee of that.)
Security question: know your rights
|
|
|
Post by abasedf on Oct 31, 2011 17:16:26 GMT -5
I'd say they were an econ troll, but most economists are smarter than that! Well, let's not get carried away.
|
|
|
Post by equal on Oct 31, 2011 17:36:48 GMT -5
That was a very well thought out post, difference.
But let me bring up some points here:
1- Yes, there is likely nothing we can do about it. But a) that hasn't stopped sociologists from writing about other forms of inequality they are equally helpless about and b) the myth of academic meritocracy survives even within sociology.
2- Yes, rank generally trumps fit. But how would an undergraduate know that overall rank trumps specialty rank?
3- I guess this wouldn't be as much of a problem if things were still like in the early 00s and people were still generally getting TT jobs. But now the problem has gone beyond getting hired by a top 20 department, and into getting hired at all. In fact, an argument could be made that smaller, non PhD institutions are even more prestige conscious at this point, since hiring someone from a big shot school would look even better there. I have a friend in a different field who teaches at a smaller, 4-4 public institution in PA, and even she was sort of shocked by the elitism of certain deans and professors there.
|
|
|
Post by difference on Oct 31, 2011 17:57:39 GMT -5
That was a very well thought out post, difference. But let me bring up some points here: 1- Yes, there is likely nothing we can do about it. But a) that hasn't stopped sociologists from writing about other forms of inequality they are equally helpless about and b) the myth of academic meritocracy survives even within sociology. True, although those discussions (inequality of race, gender, etc.) have taken place in outlets like academic journals, the CHE, and other sources that might be, if not more scholarly, then at least more academic and impactful than an annual job wiki consisting of anonymous posters, and that would have a greater chance to *maybe* change current practices just a bit (though I doubt it). What this really requires is a group of those with the power to change this (i.e., 'top 10' faculty) to start discussing this openly, in order to change the current practices. We could also try camping out on the lawn in front of the top 10's soc departments with signs until the campus police fire tear gas and flash grenades at us. I think both are equally likely of happening, unfortunately. 2- Yes, rank generally trumps fit. But how would an undergraduate know that overall rank trumps specialty rank? Hence the kicking of the advisor(s) square in the nuts But yes, I think there needs to be more professional and timely advice given to any undergrads considering a Ph.D., especially for a potential run in academia. Of course, there have been tons of articles in CHE about this ('The myth of higher education' or something similarly titled sounds familiar...) 3- I guess this wouldn't be as much of a problem if things were still like in the early 00s and people were still generally getting TT jobs. But now the problem has gone beyond getting hired by a top 20 department, and into getting hired at all. Totally agree. And as long as there's top 10/20/30 grads willing to take jobs at non top 10/20/30 programs, the lower-ranked programs won't ever be forced to change their ways, and so this will likely become an even bigger problem as tenure-track lines get squeezed out and adjunct lines sprout up.
|
|
|
Post by sucker on Nov 1, 2011 8:53:56 GMT -5
Thanks for your post Difference, I didn't say that I expected a job in an elite school. I said a "decent" job. The problem is that the market these days is such that one from a top 30-50 cannot easily find a "good-fitting job that you're happy/comfortable at." I can't speak for the other frustrated people on this thread, but that's what I've been talking about all along. There is such a backlog of job seekers that these jobs are going to people from top 10-20s.
|
|
|
Post by sick on Nov 4, 2011 15:08:28 GMT -5
I have to say this all makes me sick. One *should* be able to publish oneself into top jobs. Stellar publications + grants + awards *should* matter. In reality, they don't if you want a job in the top 10 but don't have a PhD from a top 15 program. Sure, you can publish yourself into a job. You may even be heavily recruited at mid-rank R1s. But, you will not break into the elite. My advice to ambitious rock stars at schools with mid-level rankings is to settle in to a comfortable job at a mid-level ranked department and be a big fish in your small pond.
|
|
|
Post by irony on Nov 4, 2011 16:14:16 GMT -5
The sick irony of all this is that we are talking about sociologists who make a living denouncing power structures, inequality and the unfair distribution of resources in societies.
And yet, in the only field in which they do have effective power to create a fairer system, they just recreate all the ills and vices they denounce elsewhere.
Bravo!
|
|
|
Post by Inpractice on Nov 4, 2011 16:56:20 GMT -5
I realized the discipline was filled with hypocrisy a few years ago when I interviewed at a sociology department where some of the faculty members actually believed women should not be in the academy.
|
|
|
Post by indeed on Nov 4, 2011 17:35:03 GMT -5
The sick irony of all this is that we are talking about sociologists who make a living denouncing power structures, inequality and the unfair distribution of resources in societies. And yet, in the only field in which they do have effective power to create a fairer system, they just recreate all the ills and vices they denounce elsewhere. Bravo! I have said this before, and I will say it again: sociologists are comfortable DISCUSSING inequality, but not ADDRESSING inequality. We are very quick to speak to the wrongness of social stratification, but yet find it appropriate to conduct ourselves as though disadvantage either doesn't exist or is excusable in some way. Worse, we also see many instances in which people who study inequality are, nevertheless, outright oblivious to some of the VERY structural constraints that they evaluate every day!
|
|
|
Post by kindaobvious on Nov 4, 2011 18:14:04 GMT -5
Well, if academia in general, and sociologists in particular, were immune from the social processes we study, then they wouldn't be actual social processes.
In particular, I think Bourdieu's idea of distinction is alive and well in practice within the social sciences. The different "worth" of teaching advanced students from privileged backgrounds as opposed to teaching the basics to disadvantaged backgrounds (think of how teaching an advanced seminar at a top school is evaluated in comparison to teaching intro at your local community college), and the different "worth" assigned to doing theoretically heavy work aimed at the few in comparison to applied research or writing books for a popular audience are examples of that.
And it is not a matter restricted to search committees, faculty in top institutions, or the academic elite.
|
|
|
Post by bullocks on Nov 4, 2011 19:45:51 GMT -5
It's bull caca that one cannot get a top job if they don't come from an "elite" program, even if hey have top publications and grants.
Publish in ASR/AJS, you will have a shot at those jobs.
|
|
|
Post by moving on Nov 4, 2011 20:11:17 GMT -5
It's bull caca that one cannot get a top job if they don't come from an "elite" program, even if hey have top publications and grants. Publish in ASR/AJS, you will have a shot at those jobs. Your ingenuity is indeed moving.
|
|
|
Post by Abd candidate on Jan 12, 2018 22:23:22 GMT -5
The sick irony of all this is that we are talking about sociologists who make a living denouncing power structures, inequality and the unfair distribution of resources in societies. And yet, in the only field in which they do have effective power to create a fairer system, they just recreate all the ills and vices they denounce elsewhere. Bravo! I’m on the market this year and this thought keeps running through my head. We are sociologists. We should know better. We should do better.
|
|