next »

[2nd tier]

OK, here goes:  I attended a very non-prestigious public undergraduate institution, followed by grad school in a none-too-prestigious state university (where I learned a lot from exceptional faculty).  Since completing my PhD, I have published a lot--and have had a book (not my dissertation, but in field) accepted by a major U press--taught a wide variety of courses with documented effectiveness, and taken on a boatload of service work.

I am fortunate enough to be employed by yet another non-prestigious public college, which (I suspect) hired me in part because I could connect with the type of students they draw.  For various reasons, but mostly geographic ones, I continue to apply to positions each year.

I have come to believe that, no matter what my credentials, I will never be considered employable next to a less accomplished scholar/teacher who happens to have been trained in a more prestigious program.  Did I make a mistake that will follow me my entire career when I didn't attend the most prestigious PhD program in which I was accepted?  I'm not at all convinced that I would be a better professor if I had done so; I know for sure that I'm a different person now than the one who, years ago now, made that choice.

The bottom-line question:  To what extent does the "snob factor" trump other considerations made by hiring committees?

[%sig%]

[Sharon]

I think you are already very qualified to answer that question...

[dark globe]

it depends on the individuals who are looking at you application. at my school (a very prestigious liberal arts college) some depts. really look at the person's research and ability to teach. on the other hand, there's a prof here who considers Columbia a "plebean" institution.

[helpful]

It depends on the field you are in. Some "lower" tier universties are well known in their field. Better known than so called
'upper' tier universities. So what is your general field.?

[Anon]

I hate to bring you bad news, but yes where you went to school will always follow you. This should not come as a big shock. Look at school webpages and books - they regularly list where people got their phd even if it was 20 years ago.

If I were you I'd check out the phd schools of faculty at the place you'd like to apply. Typically there are only moves laterally and down, meaning the faculty got their phd from a univ that has the same or better reputation than they one they work at now. You will find exceptions, but not many - hey, that doesn't mean you can't be one of the few to jump up a level or two. You sound ready to do that.

There are things you can do to up your pedigree. One thing is to get a postdoc, adjunct, or some other position at a "higher" ranked school.

[EC]

Perhaps there is another explanation. Judging from what you wriote, I suspect that you are no longer a junior faculty member and most universities hire assistant professors.

[Cake]

There is actually some research into this and it indicates that pedegree is everything (unfortunately) or more appropriately "it's not what you know it is who you know".  In sociology an "inner-circle" of maybe 10 or 12 prestigous schools only hire from each other.  For other schools, with a few exceptions, you can expect to do no better than the type of school you did your undergraduate work in.  If you went to state, you will get hired at a state school etc.  There are always coups, but only if you publish like crazy, are at the top of a specfic sub-field or are in an underepresented group or some combination of the three.

I went to a undergrad liberal arts school then a second-tier grad school and got hired at an undergrad liberal arts school.

[Mahoo]

"Perhaps there is another explanation. Judging from what you wriote, I suspect that you are no longer a junior faculty member and most universities hire assistant professors."


Cake wrote:

> There is actually some research into this and it indicates
> that pedegree is everything (unfortunately) or more
> appropriately "it's not what you know it is who you know".  In
> sociology an "inner-circle" of maybe 10 or 12 prestigous
> schools only hire from each other.  For other schools, with a
> few exceptions, you can expect to do no better than the type of
> school you did your undergraduate work in.  If you went to
> state, you will get hired at a state school etc.  There are
> always coups, but only if you publish like crazy, are at the
> top of a specfic sub-field or are in an underepresented group
> or some combination of the three.
>

I think both of the above posts are right on the mark.  When a department hires, it wants to raise the average rather than getting the average. You have to be much better than the current faculty average  to get hired at a more senior level.  You also cannot compete with the fresh Ph.Ds even though you may have more publications. What they have is the elusive "potential".  And a prestigious degree, to some, signifies it.

I also have found the best time to move up is 2 or 3 years after ph.d. People still consider you to be junior but you have proven yourself somewhat. It is much more difficult once you are 5 or 6 years out.

People do move up, but rarely. I always advise my students to go to the most prestigious program they can get into. I know this is probably not what you want to hear. I got my ph.d from an elite private university, but my program is only top 20 in my field. So I completely understand how you feel.

[%sig%]

[Sarah]

What do you mean by "in an underrepresented group?"  Do you mean that a person has new research ideas, not commonly seen in the field?

[moom]

All of this unfortunately seems to be true to some extent. You have to be very strong to move at the more senior level. PhD schools do seem to be important in Econ and the Humanities to a greater extrent than in the Natural Sciences. I had no idea. I was udner the impression as a prospective PhD student that I should go to a school where they seemed to be doing research I was interested in (and one where there was good grad student funding). Well I was in England going to the Fulbright Commission office and trying to work out for myself where to go with only vague information. I was under the impression that school names were more important for undergrad schools than for grad schools.

It makes me ambivalent about encouraging students to come to our program. Our good students are getting decent jobs at least so I don't feel too bad about it... and good students coming here will help the students already here. Maybe my connections will be more useful for my own students than for myself! :)

[troll]

"What do you mean by "in an underrepresented group?" Do you mean that a person has new research ideas, not commonly seen in the field?"

Gender, ethnic group...

[dismal reality]

I'm in the Humanities, and I've now come in second for some really plum jobs (both at assistant and, more recently, at the associate level); in every case, the person who got the job was someone who had published less than me, often with less prestigious presses than mine, but who had the Ivy League degree.  This has happened to me at least three times (perhaps more--I've given up on keeping track of who got jobs I didn't get!).  Of those three, I've been told "off the record" twice that the prestige of the other person's degree was the final factor.  I'm extremely frustrated that, three books (one of which won a major prize) and eight years out of grad school, I'm still evidently being judged and found wanting based on the school on my diploma.

Now, my degree comes from a place extremely well respected in my subfield, but others in the hiring departments in different subfields didn't know, or didn't care, about that.  So in one of the cases, I learned that every single faculty member in my subfield chose me as the first choice, but they were outvoted by others swayed by the prestige of the Ivy degree.  

There's been a whole thread elsewhere recently on the Ivy League, snobbery, and comparative value of Ph.Ds.  I'll just make the point that, after long careers at my grad alma mater, two of my dissertation committee members are now AT Ivy League schools--and their current students will, it seems, always, for their entire careers, get better jobs than their former ones!

[Cake]

> "What do you mean by "in an underrepresented group?" Do you
> mean that a person has new research ideas, not commonly seen in
> the field?"
>
> Gender, ethnic group...

Yes, since (in general) top schools do such a poor job recruiting and retaining grad students from racial miniorities the pedigree rule has been known to be violated for minorties as top schools sometimes dip into lower tiers to find qualified minority candidates.

[whisme]

Uhoh. I hope this thread doesnt turn into an anti AA!

Your post does point out how complicated hiring is...You mention "qualified minority hiring" from lower tier schools..which means just that...
"qualified"...And that qualification doesnt mean lower qualification than if one studied at an Ivy or elite school.

A lot of people go to grad schools based on who is teaching there, the emphasis of the program or plain and simple geographic location. Some people have already mentioned they don't want to live in cold winters. So that means not going to Ivys and most Ivys are in the winter areas of the US, arent they?

[Larissa]

Excuse me, but I find it unfair on your part to criticize the hierarchical system we have in the US: when you went to do your PhD you knew that the Ivy League is the best. Things have not changed overnight. The reality is that the brightest students do go to prestigious programs and THIS explains why they will always get better jobs. It is difficult for one with an average IQ to understand the ways in which he/she is inferior to a highly-powered brain. Let alone to cope with the issue emotionally. Stop complaining and learn to be happy with what you've got. I sympathise with you, but you need to understand how the world works.