|
|
Post by Thoughts on Feb 14, 2011 15:42:22 GMT -5
I was chatting with my friends yesterday about how the competition (e.g., other PhD programs) is viewed in our specific subfield related to Sociology (~40 PhD programs total in said subfield).
We realized that while we could say who the best programs were in our field (and what general categories of prestige there were), we didn't really know how the general Soc community views competing Sociology programs, other than the few coveted 'Ivy League' programs at the top, and the online-only schools (UoP, DeVry, etc.) at the bottom.
So here are my question(s) to all you Sociology PhDs (or soon to be PhDs):
How does the Sociology field view its departments/programs? For instance, is there a well known 'cutoff' for the absolute top programs (i.e., top 10, top 20), a grouping of the next prestigious programs (top 50, top 100, etc.) and so on down the line. If it's fairly clear on the delineations of these categories, whose rankings are typically used (US News?). Are specialties really paid attention to in terms of determining 'good programs', such as certain programs being considered the best for gender specialties, labor, deviance, etc. etc., or is the university/department prestige typically much more important?
Any thoughts would be appreciated.
|
|
|
|
Post by Thoughts on Feb 15, 2011 20:02:52 GMT -5
200 views and no one willing to comment? Is it because talking about rankings/prestige is taboo? Is no one willing to honestly talk about it? Or is it simply a bad question?
|
|
|
|
Post by laughthroughit on Feb 15, 2011 21:02:07 GMT -5
I don't find it taboo... personally, I find rankings overly discussed and I simply don't care. I find discussions of rank tiring and pointless because most people know the general rankings already, even though they vary slightly and there are not really universal rules for determining rank. Discussions like this tend to just lead to arguments and people trying to one-up each other and a lot of snark. So perhaps others just feel the same way and are choosing not to comment as to keep the boards as civil as possible. Not sure.
|
|
|
|
Post by howthisworks on Feb 22, 2011 19:59:42 GMT -5
Worth reading if you haven't already.
Burris, Val. 2004. "The Academic Caste System: Prestige Hierarchies in PhD Exchange Networks." American Sociological Review 69.
|
|
|
|
Post by max on Feb 22, 2011 22:16:09 GMT -5
One thing I do know from reading this board is there are somewhere in the neighborhood of 15-20 schools in the top 10.
|
|
|
|
Post by yes on Feb 22, 2011 22:26:08 GMT -5
^probably my favorite post on boards this year. 1000 internets to you.
|
|
|
|
Post by taketwo on Feb 23, 2011 10:06:33 GMT -5
thank you max for calling out the dick measurers on this board!
|
|
|
|
Post by toogood on Feb 23, 2011 13:56:04 GMT -5
Right. I think all these claims of 'top 10' or 'top 20' are ridiculous. And all of this from sociologists, or sociologists-to-be. Ah, the power of status --that very sociological concept.
|
|
|
|
Post by statusmatters on Feb 23, 2011 18:04:49 GMT -5
Right. I think all these claims of 'top 10' or 'top 20' are ridiculous. And all of this from sociologists, or sociologists-to-be. Ah, the power of status --that very sociological concept. Unfortunately, the ranking of your program, as flawed as rankings are, matters. If you've gone to a shit program you probably won't get a job, at least not a good one. |
|
|
|
Post by anon on Feb 23, 2011 19:13:18 GMT -5
I don't think anyone is really denying that status matters. Of course it does. The larger point is the hilarity that the people who authored "Inequality by Design:Cracking the Bell Curve Myth" would almost never consider taking a serious look a candidate who didn't come from a top program. No wonder sociology isn't taken seriously: our job market consistently ignores one of the core findings of our discipline--that one's position in the status hierarchy is not primarily a function of merit, intelligence, creativity, scholarly ability, etc.
|
|
|
|
Post by lolwut on Feb 23, 2011 19:21:48 GMT -5
I don't think anyone is really denying that status matters. Of course it does. The larger point is the hilarity that the people who authored "Inequality by Design:Cracking the Bell Curve Myth" would almost never consider taking a serious look a candidate who didn't come from a top program. No wonder sociology isn't taken seriously: our job market consistently ignores one of the core findings of our discipline--that one's position in the status hierarchy is not primarily a function of merit, intelligence, creativity, scholarly ability, etc. Is that particular to our discipline? Do all of the other disciplines "practice what they preach"? |
|
|
|
Post by econ on Feb 23, 2011 19:25:32 GMT -5
Econ certainly does.
|
|
|
|
Post by Duh on Feb 23, 2011 20:32:01 GMT -5
How hard is it for economists to not practice what they preach. They reduce everything to rational-choice non-sense which justifies basically any type of behavior. Then creat non-sense abstractes models which work in a vacuum. They extract the individual or whatever unit of analysis from the actual sociocultural and sociohistorical dynamics affecting it. So, yeah practicing what you preach is easy in a vacuum especially when you consider the market should be unregulated and capitalism is great.
|
|
|
|
Post by rightonanon on Feb 24, 2011 7:55:53 GMT -5
Right on, "anon"! And I don't think we should be comparing sociology with economics. I DO think sociology should at least try to practice what it preaches.
|
|
|
|
Post by crap on Feb 24, 2011 8:07:24 GMT -5
Right on, "anon"! And I don't think we should be comparing sociology with economics. I DO think sociology should at least try to practice what it preaches. You only think that because you went to a crap program. (I'm joking, I'm joking) But seriously, on average the quality of the graduate students at a program ranked 10th versus a program ranked 50th is huge in my experience. Though I have come across some really good ones in a 50th program, on average they don't really compare. |
|
