For phd
Illinois UC vs USC vs Arizona State vs Rice
-
Well, UIUC placed someone at Columbia last year, how about the others?
It makes no sense to judge a place by its best placement. More important is what was the median placement? Or even the 25th percentile placement?
If the median placement is not a TT-AP academic placement, then the school should not have a PhD program.
-
It's not about making sense. It's about where you think you sit in the skill distribution. At top departments, unless you're a star, your placement will approximate that of a worse school (usually industry). It may be easier for you to place in the industry, but you won't place at top 10 (likely not even top 20). Now, the question is if you're the star at one of these departments, are they good enough to overcome stigma and still allow you a top placement? If I see a place like Rice and there isn't one top 10 placement in the last 30 years (haven't looked at it), does that mean Rice did not have *any* good enough student or could not get that student through?
Well, UIUC placed someone at Columbia last year, how about the others?
It makes no sense to judge a place by its best placement. More important is what was the median placement? Or even the 25th percentile placement?
If the median placement is not a TT-AP academic placement, then the school should not have a PhD program. -
Well, UIUC placed someone at Columbia last year, how about the others?
It makes no sense to judge a place by its best placement. More important is what was the median placement? Or even the 25th percentile placement?
If the median placement is not a TT-AP academic placement, then the school should not have a PhD program.So literally just MIT and maybe Harvard should have PhD programs?
That’s a spicy take
-
Well, UIUC placed someone at Columbia last year, how about the others?
It makes no sense to judge a place by its best placement. More important is what was the median placement? Or even the 25th percentile placement?
If the median placement is not a TT-AP academic placement, then the school should not have a PhD program.So literally just MIT and maybe Harvard should have PhD programs?
That’s a spicy takeWell the equilibrium would have more than two schools. Probably somewhere around 10-20 in total. But there definitely should not be a 50th ranked school with a PhD program.
-
How about GE? And why do you think so many schools added PhD programs over the decades? It's not like that they're making money off it.
Well, UIUC placed someone at Columbia last year, how about the others?
It makes no sense to judge a place by its best placement. More important is what was the median placement? Or even the 25th percentile placement?
If the median placement is not a TT-AP academic placement, then the school should not have a PhD program.So literally just MIT and maybe Harvard should have PhD programs?
That’s a spicy takeWell the equilibrium would have more than two schools. Probably somewhere around 10-20 in total. But there definitely should not be a 50th ranked school with a PhD program.
-
How about GE? And why do you think so many schools added PhD programs over the decades? It's not like that they're making money off it.
Schools have PhD programs for two reasons: (1) to provide cheap skilled labor to the faculty, and (2) for academic prestige.
Faculty like to have skilled RAs that will be around for a number of years, along with people to do the grunt work in their research, and cite their papers. Sure, the schools don't make money off it, but its an expense that the faculty want.
But that's also why the number of PhD programs has clearly over-expanded. The faculty don't have to care about student placement since that really isn't the point of having the program to begin with.
-
I think you're applying a top 20-ish thinking to all departments. If a bad department that "should not have a PhD program" is bad, so are their faculty on average, so will be their students according to your thinking. Their labor may be "cheap", but given that faculty are less productive than at top departments, I find unlikely this is really the model that dominates in lower-ranked departments. It may well be because of teaching, but again, how much does a lecturer make at a place like UIUC? 50k and you put them to teach 3 courses. Seems cheaper than paying a PhD TA/instructor.
Prestige seems a better story, but again, how much prestige does Oklahoma State add by having a PhD program? And why wouldn't Dartmouth also want it? There seem to be too many incongruences for this to be the driving force here.
How about GE? And why do you think so many schools added PhD programs over the decades? It's not like that they're making money off it.
Schools have PhD programs for two reasons: (1) to provide cheap skilled labor to the faculty, and (2) for academic prestige.
Faculty like to have skilled RAs that will be around for a number of years, along with people to do the grunt work in their research, and cite their papers. Sure, the schools don't make money off it, but its an expense that the faculty want.
But that's also why the number of PhD programs has clearly over-expanded. The faculty don't have to care about student placement since that really isn't the point of having the program to begin with.