The Weird Hierarchy of Doctoral-level Institutions

[Writer]

A few years ago, I talked to a friend of mine whose boyfriend had just completed his PhD. He told me that because his boyfriend had attained his PhD from a land-grant state institution, and not from a "Tier 1" research university, that he was at a disadvantage for getting a job at a large state university or better.

As a doctoral student myself, I've begun noticing the weird hierarchy of doctoral programs, and how that structures your eventual career path, especially for those PhD's who wish to enter the university setting. Even for those (like myself) who don't wish to enter the university setting, it becomes immediately clear that large think tanks, non-profit research organizations, and the like grab the ivy league docs to the almost pure exclusion of everyone else. Luckily, I attend a large state Tier 1 research university, but would passion and strong research ever permit me to enter the ivory walls that ivy league docs enter? No.

PhDs, especially those who enter the university setting, do tend to make a jump early in their careers, from a small "starter" school to a larger research institution. However, it seems to me that the quality of your degree translates into the potential level of your ascent. Small state school graduates can best hope for small liberal arts or state institutions, large state research universities can only best hope for large state or small private institutions, and ivy league graduates can go all the way, and more.

Are you a PhD or a doctoral student? Have you also noticed this hierarchy? Have you ever witnessed anyone break the academic glass ceiling? What's your take on this issue?

[frazzled]

1. Well, there is also the opposite career path

My nephew had both undergraduate and doctoral degrees, plus postdocs, from elite institutions. He also received a very large National Science Foundation grant, which will usually get you a spot at a top research institution (especially because you bring a lot of money with you). He chose instead to teach at a small (but fairly prestigious) liberal arts college because he didn't want the other path. An unusual choice, but one he is deliriously happy with.

But in general, you may be correct. There are always exceptions however, though it might take a remarkable achievement in publishing, etc. to overcome the "pedigree" issue.

This is not the case at all for professional fields, like law or medicine.

[Writer]

2. I'm in the social sciences...

and it's much stickier for us, because we're the result of the professionalization of academia that occurred over the 20th Century, in which academia become much less an avenue of inquiry than a teaching profession. What irks me the most is when everyone, after hearing I'm earning a doctorate, assumes that I'm going to teach. I loathe that.

[leveymg]

3. Same applies to law schools. Big Wall St and DC firms only hire top Ivy grads

That's been a fact for a century or longer. It's an iron rule that few ever break.

The small breeding pool accounts for the group-think in all major institutions. George Orwell, it should be remembered, once gave the perfect expression of the fact that alleged smartness—like might—does not necessarily make right. That’s an idea that fits with the variety of notions which, as Orwell once explained, "is so stupid that only an intellectual could believe it."

Leads to an inbreeding and nepotism problem that is so severe that major empires run by self-selecting elites repeatedly collapse.

[mike_c]

4. interesting-- I got my doctorate at a research 1 institution that was ALSO...

...a state land grant school-- the University of Georgia. I did a short post-doc there too, then most of the interviews and job offers I received were from state universities outside the usual research one clusters, e.g. my current job at the California State University. Of course, I was always on an academic science track, from day one. I got a number of offers, so my non-Ivy course seemed to work out well for me, but I presume I would not have been even remotely competitive at the Ivy League institutions, even if I had applied to them. I never really thought about it. I was just happy to not be stuck in revolving, perpetual post-doc positions.

[lurky]

5. I'm doing one in a scientific/technical field.

Where you get your doctorate is clearly a factor in hiring, just as where you did your undergrad affects your ability to get into graduate school (I got my BS from a not-highly-ranked urban public university and I think that worked against me when I was applying to grad schools). Mainly, I think that this is a bit of laziness on the part of hiring/admissions people. I suspect it also is at least partly because they went to those elite schools themselves and tend to buy into the mythology.

However, I think that's a lot less important than who your advisor is. If you work under some world-famous Nobel-laureate type who happens to be a professor at East Springfield Agricultural College, your CV will not be thrown in the trash. Additionally, even third-tier universities tend to have certain research areas in which they are really famous. Within that narrow subfield, going to that school may be equivalent to attending an Ivy. Conversely, the elite schools often have areas or whole departments where they are weak.

Finally, the most important thing is the actual work you do as a PhD student. If you have published important papers in top journals or conference proceedings, do you think they really care that you were working for an unknown professor at some "cow college"? I know it's a lot harder to do that without the guidance of a famous researcher and the support that a top university can provide, but it definitely happens.

I realize this probably depends a lot on your field. I am in one where students often publish (are expected to publish, actually), and where results can be empirically judged, for the most part. I'm guessing that other fields may be more subjective, and therefore more vulnerable to prejudices, intellectual fads, and so on.

Just my thoughts. I hope they're helpful!
:hi:

[CBR]

6. I am a Ph.D. student at the University of Delaware and the

hierarchy definitely exists but our grads (public policy program) have gone on to a variety of academic and professional settings -- NC State, small NC school, Florida International, Brookings Institute, State Budget Office, Wheaton, Nemours Foundation. I will say it does seem Public Policy does have a very strong applied component which opens a different type of position than some more traditional fields. It can be frustrating.

[Igel]

7. Depends on the field.

In large fields most schools have a PhD program. Ivy League and top tier research institutions tend to make sure that they have good programs.

It's a question of numbers. If you have 200 good faculty in a field you can bet that many more of the top 10% will be at schools top-rated in lots of areas. They have money, tenure lines, facilities. They're big and impressive. They have a certain critical mass.

But if you have 10 good faculty in a field, what are the chances they're at the top-rated schools? Odds are many of the top-rated schools won't even have a program for them to fit into--or, if they would make room, there's nothing in it for the researcher unless he really wants to have the name recognition after having had a lesser institution support him (or her) for years. So if you get a few really good faculty in a lesser school, that program is top rated in the field. Only the dean and people in the field would know this.

This creates an anti-feedback loop, as far as those programs are concerned. If you're in ling or psych and want to go into psycholinguistics, what are the odds that your undergrad faculty know the best grad programs? Probably not great. So you'd be attracted to the default "brand name" schools. So a lot of lesser schools get the best students, at least to start. Then you find that the big names in your field are elsewhere and you have to transfer or settle. A consequence is that those programs have more or less two tiers to their grad program--the top notch students who knew where to go because they actively researched the field prior to applying, and those who went to the school more or less by accident; the first tend to be brilliant, the second not so much.

Of course, in the last 15 years a lot of smaller schools have cut out minor, "unnecessary" programs, some of which were excellent as they directed resources to the cheap popular fields--English, history, etc.

You're right: There is a hierarchy. But it's a funny amalgam of overall reputation + field-specific reputation. Some is deserved, some isn't. As a prof in my MA program said that reputations are funny, they tend to lag reality by a number of years. So I was going to apply to Harvard and he said not to waste my time--even if I got in and everything was paid for, I shouldn't waste my time because U. Illinois Urbana-Champaign was far better. I found out later that Harvard had lost two of their top faculty a couple of years earlier because Harvard's prickly with tenure; while neither went to U Ill., it still meant that U. Ill. (and a couple of other non-Ivy League schools) had the largest concentration of top faculty in my field. I should've gone there.

[Posteritatis]

8. I did an MA at a tier 1 research university and found the place horrible

Much harder to do the independent thought thing than was possible at my mere undergrad institution where I did my bachelor's; the place was almost the cliche of what people think when they complain about the inanities of the ivory tower, and it led to me needing a second MA before I can pursue my plans for a doctorate.

I know the ranking system is there, but I also have trouble seeing the justifications for it, if there are any that don't just involve funding levels.

(Of course, in the long run I want to end up teaching at some podunk undergraduate school someplace, so the whole thing feels less critical to me.)

[lurky]

10. I'm told the unofficial student motto at MIT

is IHTFP (I Hate This Fucking Place).

Just because a place produces great research (and they do, without question), doesn't mean it's a positive experience.

[Posteritatis]

11. I wouldn't say the research side of things was great at my school either. (nt)

[AngryAmish]

9. The Yale douche

I did not go to a great law school but the then dean insisted that every faculty member go to Yale or Harvard. Undergrad or law school. One got through by doing a fellowship there for a year, receiving the Yale douche, as it was called.

Morans.