<p>
[quote]
Now, all of a sudden she is more intellectual than I am, and her undergrad school
gets some kind of credit for her getting a PHD? Ridiculous.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>You are one using terms like "getting credit" or "more intellectual".</p>
<p>Personally, I find these list useful in trying to assess what the overall academic climate of the schools will be. Whether you want a school that produces a lot of PhDs or one that does not depends on what you are looking for. For example, which is the "better" Chicago area university: Northwestern or UChicago? Neither one is "better". However, if you are a geeky future professor or think-tanker, you'll probably fit better at Chicago. If you are a future I-banker, you'll probably find a larger like-minded cohort at Northwestern. The differences in the style and emphasis of the two schools are captured by these lists.</p>
<p>Let's cool it a little. The difference between the atmosphere at Chicago and at Northwestern is indeed worth noting. My immediate question is whether there is a comparable difference between, say, Yale and Stanford or Willams and Pomona.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Do you really think that a kid who majors in Art History and then takes that BA and ends up with a curatorial job at a world class museum is less of an intellectual than the kid who doesn't have the chops to get a job so winds up hanging around for a PhD?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I don't know. The school that produces the most museum curators on a per capita basis is a small liberal arts college that ranks very high on per capita PhD production. I am guessing that the noted historic academic rigor of that particular school probably plays a role in its disproportionate production of museum curators and academic art historians. I am certain that the close mentoring relationships between art history students and their professors has played a role.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Personally, I find these lists useful in trying to assess what the overall academic climate of the schools will be. Whether you want a school that produces a lot of PhDs or one that does not depends on what you are looking for.
[/quote]
That's exactly how I regard these stats. I also find them useful in helping to identify which programs (majors) within schools are likely to be strong.</p>
<p>I think for my son, his choice of UChicago was precisely because it was a place where it was widely valued to think. At the same time, though, he chose the city of Chicago because of its extracurriculars, in particular major league sports.</p>
<p>I have been working with numbers all my life and I just find this PHD % reasoning as garbage, and a way to sell books (Loren Pope) or sell schools.</p>
<p>Wow. so now kids need to decide at age 18 if they're going to be an I-banker or a nerdy think-tanker. I'm happy my kids were content to see if there were cute girls in the library before assessing "fit". And yes, we visited both Chicago and Northwestern and my kids liked them both.</p>
<p>I'm happy my kids were content to see if there were cute girls in the library before assessing "fit". And yes, we visited both Chicago and Northwestern and my kids liked them both.</p>
<p>If they "liked them both" equally, I think they were not thinking or not paying attention to anything important. Do they also play to apply to every school on the top 15 ranking?</p>
<blockquote>
<p>The NSF surveys tabulate with a great deal of precision the undergrad school of every PhD receipient in the United States<<</p>
</blockquote>
<br>
<p>Well so far as I know they missed me. I never communicated anything to the NSF, not when I entered grad school and not when I finished. Our lab, in fact our whole department, had no connection to the NSF.</p>
<p>Well, this is not the time to admit my PhD is in an education field, is it? LOL </p>
<p>I don't find the argument about poor-quality students in undergraduate education to be convincing evidence that there is no notable achievement attached to earning a PhD in the field. This is not just true of education. You can document a lack of academic rigor in whatever undergrad field, the graduate field may not necessarily mirror it. This is because PhD seekers are simply a subset of the people in any field--and contrary to what some posters believe, the doctorate is not generally sold as the ideal pursuit for the least able of the sorry lot. Also, some fields at the graduate level may attract (and certainly admit) people from a wide variety of undergraduate majors. </p>
<p>Furthermore, the EdD is also a degree available to education people. Thus a PhD is in Education is going to attract and even smaller subset than might pursue doctoral study in other fields.</p>
<p>I find the idea that PhDs are for "people who hang around college because they couldn't hack a real job" a little, well, surprising (especially on this board, where people tend to be more open to the value of inquiry, academics, and pursuit of knowledge). But then my bias is obvious.</p>
<p>I'm not arguing the merits of the "PhD" productivity measure. I think it's useful, perhaps not for high schoolers choosing colleges however. I don't agree with the implication that earning the PhD is a mark of laziness or lack of capability, however. I can't reconcile why someone would feel this way, and then seek to send their child to an institution which values most highly those faculty who have earned it themselves!</p>
<p>Earning a Ph.D = laziness??? We used to have a t-shirt at Chicago that said: Grad School at U of C, Not just a job, and indenture (a take off on an army recruitment slogan of that era). In our program one had to request permission to move or get married because it might detract from ones work time!</p>
<p>"Actually, Engineering produces the fourth largest number of PhD or equivalent degrees in the U.S., behind Education, Biological sciences, and Psychology -- all of which are captured by the NSF data."</p>
<p>Still doesn't matter. The terminal working degree for a working engineer is not a Ph.D. The Ph.D. is the terminal working degree for an engineering "professor". The terminal working degree for a social worker is an MSW, not a Ph.D., which is the terminal working degree for a social work "professor". Could do the same with nursing Ph.D's as well. Schoolteachers, too. (I won't even begin with "divines".)</p>
<p>What the consistent use of the Ph.D. data does is systematically devalue occupations predominantly held by women (as well as first generation college students, and lower-income students, regardless of their intellectual capacities), and (secondarily, because there are so many fewer of them) those who decide to go into the professions rather than to "profess". It's not an intellectually respectable measure of anything but the reproduction of college faculty. Nothing wrong with being a college professor, of course, or even one who is looking for a job as one. ;)</p>
<p>
[quote]
What the consistent use of the Ph.D. data does is systematically devalue occupations predominantly held by women
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Huh? In 2003 (the most recent year available), 26,411 graduates of US colleges and universities received PhD or equivalent research doctorates. The gender breakdown of these was:</p>
<p>Female: 13,243
Male: 13,165
Unknown: 3</p>
<p>Even if that weren't the case, providing statistics on one thing does not "devalue" something else. For example, we could look at the percentage of Biology majors at each school and that would neither tell us anything about, nor "devalue", the Economics majors at those schools.</p>
<p>When you post the statistics on the baccalaureate origins of all MSW recepients in the US last year, that will hardly "devalue" the students from those schools who got a Dentistry degree. Or, those who became licensed Chiropractors. It will simply add another data point, that may or may not be useful to a particular individual considering colleges.</p>
<p>BTW, here's the gender breakdown of PhDs awarded in 2003 to graduates of a few selected private colleges and universities. This probably adds something interesting to understanding the campus cultures at these schools as well. Maybe Larry Summers could shed some light on the disparities:</p>
<p>Amherst College FEM 26 MALE 28
Brown University FEM 81 MALE 76
Carleton College FEM 26 MALE 41
Claremont McKenna College FEM 2 MALE 10
Columbia University in the City of New York FEM 64 MALE 60
Dartmouth College FEM 42 MALE 47
Davidson College FEM 18 MALE 12
Duke University FEM 58 MALE 73
Emory University FEM 39 MALE 30
Grinnell College FEM 22 MALE 24
Harvard University FEM 101 MALE 152
Harvey Mudd College FEM 12 MALE 13
Haverford College FEM 14 MALE 21
Pomona College FEM 39 MALE 22
Princeton University FEM 60 MALE 87
Reed College FEM 26 MALE 31
Stanford University FEM 101 MALE 90
Swarthmore College FEM 42 MALE 30
University of Pennsylvania FEM 77 MALE 69
Vanderbilt University FEM 29 MALE 25
Vassar College FEM 28 MALE 14
Williams College FEM 31 MALE 53
Yale University FEM 86 MALE 90</p>
<p>BTW, for anyone who thinks that PhD production is not 21st century issue:</p>
<p>There were 36,907 research PhDs granted by US universities in 2003.</p>
<p>26,411 (72%) went to graduates of US undergrad schools.</p>
<p>10,496 (28%) went to graduates of foreign undergrad schools.</p>
<p>I suspect that it is in our national interest to have our undergrad colleges continue to produce future research scientists in fields such as engineeering, biology, etc.</p>
<p>
[quote]
secondarily, because there are so many fewer of them
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I'm not entirely sure what you mean by that. However, I doubt that anyone would bat an eyelash if somebody posted the percentages of students at schools going on to get law degrees. Yet, more graduates of US colleges get doctorate degrees than law degrees and far more get doctorate degrees than all of the medical degrees combined. </p>
<p>Here are the historic totals from the Williams report:</p>
<p>I would like to thank the OP and all of you who have added additional data and links. I think this information and approach is very valuable. Certainly this approach makes more sense than looking at graduation rates which are heavily influenced by factors such as part time students and financial factors. </p>
<p>If the data was available, I would really like to see a ranking based on the number of graduates who enroll for any type of advanced degree. I suspect the rankings would not change much. I am sure we would hear the same agruments. We would hear that advanced training is irrelevant because it is too intellectual and not necessary for some careers. Some people would find their favorite schools ranked low on the listing, would have all sorts of agruments and would be itching for a fight. Rather than argue, I would like to understand why some colleges like Dartmouth are so low on the ranking. More importantly, in selecting colleges, I would do more research on schools that I don't know well, such as K-zoo, Beloit and Hendrix.</p>