next »

[jameswhitby]

Hey guys, I'm in psychology (the social sciences). I'm just curious how potential employers view undergraduate and master's (applicable for me) institutions aside from the one where you got your PhD? Here's my situation. I did my undergrad at Berkeley, did master's work at Princeton, and now, I went back "home" to the University of British Columbia to do my Ph.D. (for various reasons aside from academic, although UBC is a great school). Obviously, UBC is not as prestigious as Berkeley or Princeton, but would my undergrad and masters schools help me in the job market, when I will be? Thanks.

[madhatter]

Their influence on a review of your cv would be very, very small. In psychology, most students only do their serious work in graduate school. If you had some stellar undergraduate research experience, that would speak in your favor, but I don't think it would matter where you did it.

[thundering_m]

Whatever collateral a prestigious undergrad degree got you was used up getting into and being ready to complete graduate school. It does  help for networking, if you have cultivated some professional connections with professors in your field there.

[hegemony]

I would disagree -- I think it does help a tiny bit.  Let's say the impression you give is 60% grad school, 20% M.A., 20% B.A.  Your grad school is second-tier, but in terms of credentials you still rank ahead of someone with a B.A, M.A., and Ph.D. all from second-tier or third-tier places.  If I were looking at your application, though, I'd wonder slightly why you dropped a tier when doing your PhD, and whether that was because your grades at M.A. level weren't very good.  You might do something to counter that -- somehow have a recommender drop your M.A. gpa into the line-up of your fabulousness; or drop some of the reasons you chose your PhD university into your letter, to make it look like a career-directed choice (or whatever) rather than a last-choice resort.  I'm not saying that second-tier universities are bad, not at all, just that you want to maximize the impact of your credentials.  Anyway, on the whole I think it's to the good.

[mended_drum]

It has very little effect at my place.  It can be a minor factor if your undergrad institution is an SLAC (since that's the kind of institution where I teach), if it's in the region where we are (and your grad institution isn't) or if it's, well, us (not always a positive factor; it can go either way).

But there's really nothing you can do about it at this point anyway, right?  I think this falls under the category of "Things You Can Futilely Worry About While On the Market If You Really Want To."  Personally, I think it's better to concentrate your attention elsewhere.

[onestep]

OP, I bet you want to hear that the answer is "yes."

But the truth is, if it matters, it will matter very little.  If it swings the vote on someone reviewing your CV somewhere, consider yourself extremely lucky.

So like the others said, focus on doing well in your studies and on the activities that are relevant to your future job (i.e. research and/or teaching).  And of course, finishing.

[geonerd]

If you are applying for faculty positions, then little or no attention will be paid to your undergraduate institution, other than to confirm that a degree was earned. The SC's focus will be on your accomplishments in teaching and scholarship, and your potential for continued success in those areas. Good luck with your job search.

[sciencephd]

Oh dear.

[midwestgrad]

I've heard of cases where the faculty hiring at one type of institutions (say, a SLAC) tend to prefer a candidate who did his/her undergrad work at a similar type of institution.  But you aren't going to get a "bump" because you did your undergrad work at a superawesome institution, if that's what you're asking.   

[archman]

I can think of some elite schools that show preferential hiring for their alumni.

[glowdart]

I've heard of cases where the faculty hiring at one type of institutions (say, a SLAC) tend to prefer a candidate who did his/her undergrad work at a similar type of institution.  But you aren't going to get a "bump" because you did your undergrad work at a superawesome institution, if that's what you're asking.   

I'm at a SLAC, and yes, someone with a degree from a SLAC is given the "okay, they *should* get it" stamp.  That doesn't mean that we won't interview and hire someone who didn't go to a SLAC.  It sometimes means that we ask you different questions during the phone interview.  (Rather than:  "what excites you about teaching here," you might get "what aspects of your undergraduate experience did you find most valuable as a student and how did that experience impact your job search and preparation" -- or something more eloquent than that mouthful.)

[thundering_m]

I've heard of cases where the faculty hiring at one type of institutions (say, a SLAC) tend to prefer a candidate who did his/her undergrad work at a similar type of institution.  But you aren't going to get a "bump" because you did your undergrad work at a superawesome institution, if that's what you're asking.   

I'm at a SLAC, and yes, someone with a degree from a SLAC is given the "okay, they *should* get it" stamp.  That doesn't mean that we won't interview and hire someone who didn't go to a SLAC.  It sometimes means that we ask you different questions during the phone interview.  (Rather than:  "what excites you about teaching here," you might get "what aspects of your undergraduate experience did you find most valuable as a student and how did that experience impact your job search and preparation" -- or something more eloquent than that mouthful.)

The bump works both ways. They have the advantage of knowing people who knew you back when, and whatever impression you made then helps or hinders your future chances. One thing about the Hawthorne effect of a search committee assuming your under grad experience means you are 'one of them': you will be joining a very old guard who will continue to base decisions on associations rather than practical or intellectual merit. One thing about returning to an alma mater: you still need to show that you've been enriched by a broader gene pool and will be bringing back more than you left with.