<p>
[quote]
and time and time again, despite my asking for it, he stringently avoids putting any sort of quantifying label on the effect
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Uh, how exactly would you like me to quantify an inherently unquantifiable attribute such as status? Sociologists have been trying to quantify status for years, without much success.</p>
<p>
[quote]
...and I think it's a touch ludicrous to avoid following your interests/passions based on prestige
[/quote]
</p>
<p>And that's probably our most fundamental disagreement, because I don't think it's ludicrous, in fact, I often times think it's entirely rational, for the simple reason that things change. What you are passionate about now may not be what you are passionate about later in life. I know quite a few PhD students who have switched research interests - in some cases, quite radically - because they became less interested in what they were doing before and more interested in something else. Heck, I even know some professors who have radically switched their research interests. For example, Kent Bowen used to be a prominent engineering professor at MIT who researched the electrical properties of ceramic and other advanced materials, publishing in such journals as the J. of the American Ceramics Society and the American Ceramic Society Bulletin. Then he got more interested in technology strategy and operations management, and that's when he became a professor at Harvard Business School. For example, one of his latest publications is "Decoding the DNA of the Toyota Production System", which was published in the Harvard Business Review. What exactly does that have to do with the electrical properties of ceramics? </p>
<p>Biography</a> - H. Kent Bowen</p>
<p>Heck, some people even change interests that lead them out of academia entirely. For example, I remember one of my old ChemE TA's who used to do research on fuel cells and electrolytes. I just checked in with her recently. What is she doing now? She's the chairwoman of an NGO that is dedicated to saving endangered species. What exactly does that have to do with fuel cells and electrolytes? </p>
<p>That all gets to my general point: you never really know what you are going to end up doing, because you never know what the future is going to bring. You don't know if your professional interests will change. You won't know if the technology of the world will change. For example, Jerry Yang and David Filo were extremely bored with their Stanford engineering PhD research projects on VLSI, and far more interested in goofing off by exploring at-the-time nascent technology of the World Wide Web. Hence, they decided to instead spend their time founding the company that we know of as Yahoo. Heck, sometimes even if you want to work on a topic, that doesn't mean that you will be able to do so. I distinctly remember the tech crash of 2001 when lots of computer science and engineering Phd's got laid off from their industrial research jobs and had to find other things to do. For example, just a few years ago Lucent/Bell-Labs laid off thousands of PhD researchers including one woman I know who still hasn't found a job (but then again, she also recently had 2 kids and now she's more interested in being a mother rather than finding a job, but that's yet another example of how people's interests change.) </p>
<p>The point is, life is highly unpredictable, and you just don't know for sure what exactly you're going to be doing in the future. Prestige and brand names are therefore ways to reduce your risk in case you want or need to change your interests. It is far easier to change careers if your PhD is from Harvard or MIT than if it is from, say, Wright State University.</p>
<p>If you knew exactly what you wanted to do in life, and you knew that you would never change, then sure, you really can just follow your passions without any regard for prestige. But nobody actually knows this. The future is uncertain. Nobody knows what's going to happen in the future, which is why having a flexible and marketable brand name is so valuable. Sure, you might not need it, but then again, you might. Who knows?</p>
<p>game, set, and match.</p>
<p>
[quote]
It is far easier to change careers if your PhD is from Harvard or MIT than if it is from, say, Wright State University.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>There you go again, Sakky. </p>
<p>You, an aspiring academic, should know enough by now to see that just comparing the relative success of your MIT grads to Wright State grads tells one nothing about the significance of attending one or the other. Why? Because different kinds of people attend each. </p>
<p>So, it is just not possible to separate out institutional effects from personal effects. </p>
<p>Regarding Peters & Ceci, surely you discussed in your seminar where you first discovered this gem that the delay of a year or two (whereby the re-submission became old news) could have an impact on publication success?</p>
<p>Your point about career changes is rather trivial, as it is so well documented. BTW, I know MIT and Harvard PhDs that are doing the same jobs as folks with degrees from far lesser institutions. (so by your reasoning, I guess that proves prestige does not matter?) Nonetheless, it may well be true that Harvard and MIT grads do have an easier time transitioning into other high prestige careers. </p>
<p>What is not clear is that whether these changes were enabled or hindered by their elite educations...or whether the changes were enabled by the same factors that led an elite institution to admit them in the first place.</p>
<p>But you should know all this.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Uh, how exactly would you like me to quantify an inherently unquantifiable attribute such as status? Sociologists have been trying to quantify status for years, without much success.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I'm not looking for some sort of ranking system that's evidence based or any sort of rigid, definitive metric. But if going to a low prestige school is so bad that you'd rather find a different career path, how low is low? I'll assume that for US Med schools, going to the top 25 research schools is considered an excellent thing...but that's a full 1/5 of the total number of schools. At what rank does one reconsider getting an PhD...50? 75? I know it's a spectrum, but at what point does that grey area start - where do you start having reservations, what number is the school that makes you ponder the implications and say "I'm not sure I'm comfortable going here"? Where's the number where you become so uncomfortable you'd turn down admission?</p>
<p>Coming at this issue from the regular grad school path and taking into consideration how many schools award PhD's, somehow I doubt you're going to say the prestige from schools at that 20% mark is sufficient to warrant going there. Where do you start feeling uncomfortable then? </p>
<p>Further, I think you continually overlook the importance of the individual programs in certain fields. Take for example WUSTL...a good undergrad school, but certainly one that's more likely to confuse the average American than to impress them. But tell a bunch of MD's that you graduated from WUSTL for med school, and you'll raise eyebrows...Same thing applies to programs like Astronomy at the University of Arizona - UofA might not impress most academics, but I promise you that it carries a lot of weight in Astronomy. Would you tell an aspiring Astronomer not to go there because the overall institution is not as good as someplace like Caltech or Harvard?</p>
<p>Finally, I continue to maintain and agree with you that prestige in PhD admissions matters to some extent, but it's only a part of the overall picture. To reduce the question down to one factor is undeniably troublesome.</p>
<p>
We must be watching different games. ;)</p>
<p>I continue to be troubled with the overwhelming belief and focus of these threads that one needs to attend a "prestigious" university for undergrad to get into the "top" med schools or to get the "top" research opportunities.</p>
<p>Just for grins I just scanned the CVs of the FOUR Noble Laureates on staff at UTSouthwestern Med School (more on staff there than at ANY med school in the world) as well as its members of the National Academy of Sciences. You'd be surprised at the lack of "prestigious" undergrad institutions in the mix.</p>
<p>The Nobel Laureates attended Penn, Washington and Lee, Technical University of Munich and Case Western Reserve for their undergraduate education; all very good schools but one would hardly say they were the "elite of the elite."</p>
<p>The NAS members list had one each from Yale, Cornell, WUSTL and Stanford but the rest included Texas, NYU, Wake Forest, UNC, Northern Arizona, and several foreign universities among other "less prestigious" schools. Again, for the most part very good schools but certainly not considered the elite in the views of most.</p>
<p>What I fear is driving this discussion is ego and the need to attend institution "X" that is fed by that ego. My son turned down Yale, Princeton, Stanford, WUSTL and others for undergrad to attend an OOS public school and accept the free ride that was offered to him. It was his decision. He graduated debt free, got an outstanding education, had research opportunities at several top ten medical schools and the hospitals associated with them and ultimately will be attending his top choice medical school (UT-SW) which will cost him a fraction of what some of the other schools he declined admission to would have cost him.</p>
<p>I know it can be difficult to do, but put your egos aside, look at the big picture. It's a long haul before anyone of you will have any real income. Burying yourselves in debt especially in light of the ever changing world of Medicine and more importantly the compensation associated with an MD these days doesn't make sense. At the end of the day, you will ALL be called "Doctor" even those who graduate in the bottom half of the class. Your performance in Med school (regardless of the school) will determine your residency match etc, etc.</p>
<p>I really find it interesting and somewhat sad when I see posters putting down some of the med students on this forum (like BRM) because they are an "anti prestige person." They are in Med school and you aren't.</p>
<p>Simply doing well at your "prestigious" school and scoring well on the MCAT is not an automatic punch of the admission ticket. There is real truth in the stories about kids with 3.9s and 4.0s from "elite" schools with 40 Plus MCATs not getting into ANY med school. Do the research and you will see that just like HYPS annually turn down thousands of Valedictorians with 2400 SATs, Med school admissions run at a FAR lower admit rate in a FAR more highly selective pool.</p>
<p>I'm sorry for getting preachy but the unending focus on prestige is really getting tiresome.</p>
<p>eadad: While I agree wholeheartedly with the point you are making, I think you overstate your case somewhat:
[quote]
There is real truth in the stories about kids with 3.9s and 4.0s from "elite" schools with 40 Plus MCATs not getting into ANY med school.
[/quote]
This is probably an extremely rare situation with major screwups at play.</p>
<p>Since this discussion seems to be going toward the importance of getting MDs or MD/PhDs from "elite" institutions, here are my 2 cents about Pharma R&D.</p>
<p>In my ~20 yrs in top tier Pharma R&D, I have seen MDs and MD/PhDs come from both elite schools and completely unknown schools. Heck, for that matter, I have seen MDs, MBBSs, and 'equivalents' hailing from all corners of the world rise to the top tiers of R&D. The number of investigators from unknown/non top tier schools actually far outweigh the number of investigators from the top tier med schools.</p>
<p>On the other hand, if I think about to the investigators who were booted out the door, most of these were actually from the "top tier" schools! The reason? They had the brains but had no clue how to work in teams and could not get along with other intellectuals on the teams!</p>
<p>So, I can say with confidence that an elite degree may get your foot in the door but won't help you rise the ladder in Pharma R&D!</p>
<p>That's odd...from what Pharmagal seems to be saying, it's your talent, creativity and skill as a researcher that seems to matter.</p>
<p>I do find it interesting that the person who was so upset that regular MD admissions put too much weight on 'soft' factors has now been defending his supposedly more meritocratic system's own much more portentous soft factor. Quite the twist if you ask me...</p>
<p>Eadad - I don't mind. I proudly wear my anti-prestige badge in full view.</p>
<p>
[quote]
You, an aspiring academic, should know enough by now to see that just comparing the relative success of your MIT grads to Wright State grads tells one nothing about the significance of attending one or the other. Why? Because different kinds of people attend each. </p>
<p>So, it is just not possible to separate out institutional effects from personal effects.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Uh, sure you can. I can give you a very simple example. Look at the list of recruiters in the career office of MIT. Now, do the same at, say, Wright State. Somehow I doubt that McKinsey or Goldman Sachs will be found at the latter.</p>
<p>Now, I can agree with you that obviously, the MIT students are going to be better than the Wright State students in general, and that is precisely why top firms tend to recruit at the former rather than the latter. But that only holds in general. It does nothing for the brilliant Wright State PhD grad who decides that he wants to become an investment banker but can't. Why? Because he can't even get an interview because the recruiters just aren't available at his school. The hardest part of getting hired at most top jobs is simple access to the interview. Whether we like it or not, that's the reality of labor markets. Maybe that one Wright State grad is better than all of the guys at MIT. But that doesn't matter in terms of getting the job he wants because he never even gets the chance to show what he knows. </p>
<p>
[quote]
Regarding Peters & Ceci, surely you discussed in your seminar where you first discovered this gem that the delay of a year or two (whereby the re-submission became old news) could have an impact on publication success?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Not at all, because, firstly, the study excluded those who were caught as resubmissions. Secondly, the rejections were not rejected because they discussed 'old' results but because they were deemed 'unworthy'. Why? Because the editors/referees thought they were written by people who were not backed by prestige. </p>
<p>
[quote]
Your point about career changes is rather trivial, as it is so well documented. BTW, I know MIT and Harvard PhDs that are doing the same jobs as folks with degrees from far lesser institutions. (so by your reasoning, I guess that proves prestige does not matter?) Nonetheless, it may well be true that Harvard and MIT grads do have an easier time transitioning into other high prestige careers.</p>
<p>What is not clear is that whether these changes were enabled or hindered by their elite educations...or whether the changes were enabled by the same factors that led an elite institution to admit them in the first place.</p>
<p>But you should know all this.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>See above. Much of your career success is simply a matter of opportunity. You can't get a job at McKinsey if you can't even talk to somebody at McKinsey. </p>
<p>Nor do I think this is a particularly controversial point. The same reason why people value brand names in education is akin to why people value brand names in a professional setting. For example, one major reason why people are attracted to working for large, famous companies such as Microsoft or Google as opposed to the same job at some no-name company is because they know that doing so enhances their resume and hence improves their chances of getting a better job later in life. Again, it's a matter of brand management and self-marketing. </p>
<p>Note, don't get me wrong. I am not really defending the status quo. I too am bothered by some of its ramifications. I think it's unfair. But what can I say? It is what it is. Whether we like it or not, marketing matters. Branding matters. Somebody who has a degree from Harvard or MIT is going to draw more attention from recruiters than somebody with the exact same qualifications but who went to Wright State. </p>
<p>But I'm sure you know this, even if you don't want to know it.</p>
<p>ok, but it's not like the vast majority of top tier grads have personality flaws or something. i'd actually make the case that a smart, motivated, and personal ivy grad will rise to the top of pharma R&D faster than anyone else.</p>
<p>and i'd much rather say "here are my publications, here is my diploma, here is the advisor i worked with, and here are my excellent recommendations" as opposed to saying "i love helping people...managed care sucks. please let me in!"</p>
<p>finally, prestige might not matter for someone like brm who, i assume, would like nothing more to settle down somewhere in the midwest, start a family, and continue to watch the days go by until he retires. but for those of us who want to get somewhere in life -- fast -- then we'll make sure to reap the rewards of a high prestige academic degree. it might not be everything, but it'll help you get your foot in the door. just my two cents...</p>
<p>
[quote]
I'm not looking for some sort of ranking system that's evidence based or any sort of rigid, definitive metric. But if going to a low prestige school is so bad that you'd rather find a different career path, how low is low? I'll assume that for US Med schools, going to the top 25 research schools is considered an excellent thing...but that's a full 1/5 of the total number of schools. At what rank does one reconsider getting an PhD...50? 75? I know it's a spectrum, but at what point does that grey area start - where do you start having reservations, what number is the school that makes you ponder the implications and say "I'm not sure I'm comfortable going here"? Where's the number where you become so uncomfortable you'd turn down admission?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>See here, you're effectively asking me to quantify status, something that, like I said, sociologists have not been able to do. </p>
<p>Suffice it to say that we all know there are certain schools with strong brand names (however you want to define "strong"). We can debate exactly which schools these are, but I think we can all agree that such schools do exist. </p>
<p>
[quote]
Further, I think you continually overlook the importance of the individual programs in certain fields. Take for example WUSTL...a good undergrad school, but certainly one that's more likely to confuse the average American than to impress them. But tell a bunch of MD's that you graduated from WUSTL for med school, and you'll raise eyebrows...Same thing applies to programs like Astronomy at the University of Arizona - UofA might not impress most academics, but I promise you that it carries a lot of weight in Astronomy. Would you tell an aspiring Astronomer not to go there because the overall institution is not as good as someplace like Caltech or Harvard?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>It gets back to what I was saying before: how sure are you that you really are going to be pursuing that particular discipline later in your career. Let's use your example of Arizona and astronomy, because I think it's a good one. How many Arizona grads actually stay in astronomy for their whole careers, vs. how many end up doing something else, either immediately after they graduate, or sometime later in their career? Perhaps even more importantly, how likely are you to stay? Let's be honest. Not every astronomy PhD grad is going to get a job in the field, and even of those that do, not all of them will get to stay. For example, let's say that you do get a tenure-track Astro faculty job. What if you don't pass your tenure review? Now you have to find another job, which may or may not still be in astronomy, and if you leave, suddenly nobody is going to care about how good Arizona happens to be in astronomy. All they are going to see is that you have a PhD from (what they think is an) average state school. </p>
<p>Look, I know a lot of people with PhD's who no longer work in their field of research. Some of them left voluntarily (i.e. guys who went immediately to banking or consulting, or were promoted to management). Some guys left involuntarily (i.e. got laid off from their industrial research jobs). </p>
<p>Like I said before, life is uncertain. You don't know what's going to happen in the future. Will your topic of research still be interesting to employers in 20 years? Will there even be any jobs at all available for that topic? Will you even still be interested in that topic in 20 years? You don't know. Nobody knows. That's the point. Life is too uncertain.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Just for grins I just scanned the CVs of the FOUR Noble Laureates on staff at UTSouthwestern Med School (more on staff there than at ANY med school in the world) as well as its members of the National Academy of Sciences. You'd be surprised at the lack of "prestigious" undergrad institutions in the mix.</p>
<p>The Nobel Laureates attended Penn, Washington and Lee, Technical University of Munich and Case Western Reserve for their undergraduate education.as well as its members of the National Academy of Sciences. You'd be surprised at the lack of "prestigious" undergrad institutions in the mix.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Actually, no, if you're talking about undergrad, you made a factual error. Alfred Gilman went to Yale. He went to Case for graduate school. </p>
<p>I would also argue that Penn is pretty darn prestigious.</p>
<p>But all of that is neither here nor there. What I and BigRedMed agree on is that brand-name prestige tends to matter less as long as you stay in your field, because then your publication history and advisory recommendations will precede you. But my question has always been: what if you don't stay?. Lots of people don't stay in their research field. I know a lot of newly minted engineering PhD's who did not take engineering or research jobs, instead opting for jobs in consulting, banking, private equity, etc. Even those that did take research jobs often times grew out of them - I know guys who worked as senior researchers in industry for several years but are now looking to get promoted to general management. Heck, I know some guys who ditched promising research careers to become businessmen in China (and are now making far more money doing that than they ever did as researchers). </p>
<p>
[quote]
What I fear is driving this discussion is ego and the need to attend institution "X" that is fed by that ego. My son turned down Yale, Princeton, Stanford, WUSTL and others for undergrad to attend an OOS public school and accept the free ride that was offered to him. It was his decision. He graduated debt free, got an outstanding education, had research opportunities at several top ten medical schools and the hospitals associated with them and ultimately will be attending his top choice medical school (UT-SW) which will cost him a fraction of what some of the other schools he declined admission to would have cost him.</p>
<p>I know it can be difficult to do, but put your egos aside, look at the big picture. It's a long haul before anyone of you will have any real income. Burying yourselves in debt especially in light of the ever changing world of Medicine and more importantly the compensation associated with an MD these days doesn't make sense. At the end of the day, you will ALL be called "Doctor" even those who graduate in the bottom half of the class. Your performance in Med school (regardless of the school) will determine your residency match etc, etc.</p>
<p>I really find it interesting and somewhat sad when I see posters putting down some of the med students on this forum (like BRM) because they are an "anti prestige person." They are in Med school and you aren't.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>So does that mean that if I am in a PhD program and BRM isn't, then it is equivalently interesting and sad that BRM would comment on it? </p>
<p>Uh, this is all beside the point. I have always said that prestige matters little if you just want to get an MD and become a practicing physician. </p>
<p>The problem is if you want to become a researcher, especially in academia. Why is that a problem? Because there just aren't enough jobs for everybody. Many people with PhD's who want academic jobs won't get placed. Even of those that do get placed, not all of them will successfully win tenure. In fact, at some schools, the vast majority of incoming assistant profs won't get tenure. {For example, I have heard that at some departments at MIT and Harvard, the 'tenure-fail-rate' for new asst. prof's is over 75%, and that's obviously not even including the vast majority of candidates who didn't even get offered the job in the first place.} Even in industrial research, not everybody is going to get a job, and even if you do, the job is not exactly secure. I know a lot of people with technical Phd's who got laid off during the dotcom bust of 2001 and hence had to find other careers in order to put food on the table. </p>
<p>So, sure, if there really were enough research jobs for everybody, then prestige probably wouldn't matter very much. But, sadly, there are not. Hence, it behooves you to consider what you will do if you can't get a research job. What are you going to do now? That's where the notion of branding comes in, because it gives you a marketable name that will allow you to easily transition to other careers. </p>
<p>MD's don't have to worry about this, because they can almost always find a job. That's why prestige doesn't matter so much for them. But research? That's different. Research jobs are not always available.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Eadad - I don't mind. I proudly wear my anti-prestige badge in full view.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Uh, how so? I believe you yourself have indicated that people should prefer highly ranked programs in their specific discipline, i.e. Arizona in astronomy, because the astronomy community will know how strong the program at Arizona is. Now, how exactly is that different from choosing a school because of 'prestige'? It's the same idea. The guy who gets his PhD in astronomy from Arizona will enjoy prestige within the astronomy community. </p>
<p>The only thing that is different is the audience for that prestige. Arizona connotes prestige for the astronomy audience, whereas, say, Harvard connotes prestige for the general audience. But that gets back to my very point in this whole thread - who exactly is your audience?. Like I said, if you are sure you are going to want to stay in your field, and you know you will be able to stay, then, sure, specific program prestige is more important than general prestige. But what if you don't want to stay? Or, what if you can't stay? Then specific audience prestige doesn't really help you. </p>
<p>But in any case, you hardly display an "anti-prestige" view. To say that somebody should prefer Arizona for astronomy is a highly prestige-conscious statement. The only difference is the audience.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Since this discussion seems to be going toward the importance of getting MDs or MD/PhDs from "elite" institutions, here are my 2 cents about Pharma R&D.</p>
<p>In my ~20 yrs in top tier Pharma R&D, I have seen MDs and MD/PhDs come from both elite schools and completely unknown schools. Heck, for that matter, I have seen MDs, MBBSs, and 'equivalents' hailing from all corners of the world rise to the top tiers of R&D. The number of investigators from unknown/non top tier schools actually far outweigh the number of investigators from the top tier med schools.</p>
<p>On the other hand, if I think about to the investigators who were booted out the door, most of these were actually from the "top tier" schools! The reason? They had the brains but had no clue how to work in teams and could not get along with other intellectuals on the teams!</p>
<p>So, I can say with confidence that an elite degree may get your foot in the door but won't help you rise the ladder in Pharma R&D!
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I believe I answered these issues above: what you are saying is all predicated on whether you are actually going to stay in your field. What if you don't? </p>
<p>Heck, Big Pharma is an excellent example to illustrate my point, for as I'm sure you know, pharma firms have been laying off scientists left and right for the last few years. What are these guys going to do now? They have to find other jobs in other industries.</p>
<p>I've said it before, and I'll say it again. It would be fantastic if there were enough research jobs for everybody. But, sadly, there are not. Hence, you simply can't presume that you will be able to get a research job in your field of interest. You have to carefully consider the possibility that you might have to do something else.</p>
<p>
[quote]
See here, you're effectively asking me to quantify status, something that, like I said, sociologists have not been able to do.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>ABSOLUTE COP OUT. </p>
<p>I'm not quite sure how you can so vehemently defend your position and then simply refuse to participate in an exercise which would effectively illustrate your point. I've tried to leave it as wide open as possible for you. I've readily said that there is undoubtedly a spectrum and that there will be a range of schools at which you still might decide to study, though with varying degrees of reluctance. But it's absolutely asinine that you won't step up to the plate and apply some labels to a phenomena you unflinchingly defend, and defend to the point of saying a PhD is a throw away degree if you don't go to the right schools. Again, I ask you just how important is prestige? You've been around this board long enough to know that BDM and myself routinely offer rough comparisons (some might even say vague) on a number of 'hard to quantify' issues, and that's all I'm asking for. No one is going to hold a message board post over your head if you later change your mind about the issue...</p>
<p>I mean, if this is going to be at all helpful to anyone reading this thread rather than a meaningless argument of theoretical paradigms, some identification of what type of school is too low to be useful seems more than appropriate.</p>
<p>I've held back on this for awhile but you've picked the wrong person to cite sociology at. As someone who's bachelors is in sociology, I can assure, that while it may not be precise, and it certainly fluctuates from study to study, there are methods and surveys that have defined things like occupational status - in fact this is one subject which has been a long standing interest of sociologists and annual surveys of occupational prestige have been done since at least before World War II. There are numerous sociologists who spend all their time studying the stratification of society. It shouldn't be news to you, but Sociology as a field in which qualitative research is a major component lends itself to multiple researchers each looking for a way to tweak measurements of nearly anything. It's not dealing with absolutes, there's no way to put together a Kelvin scale of prestige. More over to make declarations that make sociologists look entirely incapable of finding their collective a** with both hands is insulting. It's not like sociologists haven't put prestige in context (what I'm asking you to do)...a Google Scholar search of the term "occupational prestige" turns up over 2300 hits just since 2003. </p>
<p>I find your point of "going into other fields" sketchy at best...especially when your prime example is Ibanking, a field that I heartily endorse as being a place in which prestige is the single biggest factor in getting a foot in the door. For proving your point, it's akin to looking at an overflowing sink and quickly surmising that the drain is clogged.
Further, career switching is an argument that's barely tangential to your original contention, and completely irrelevant to what you've raised with citing of the Peters study multiple times. If you take your "no one knows what they'll be doing in 20 years" line to full extension, then what's the point of getting an advanced degree in the first place? Why am I in medical school? We might as well follow the lead of my aimless best friend and get degrees in psychology and then no door is ever closed...</p>
<p>Finally...and this is entirely of an academic point, but have there been an reexaminations of the findings of the Peters study? I have very limited access to non-biomedical journals though my school and as such even an EBSCO search was pretty limited with it's results. A study that's older than I am just causes me to raise my eyebrows and simply because of the academic practices I've become accustomed to, my first thought is to question the current applicability and validity of something that old.</p>
<p>
[quote]
ABSOLUTE COP OUT.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Tell that to all of the sociologists who spend their entire careers debating status. </p>
<p>
[quote]
But it's absolutely asinine that you won't step up to the plate and apply some labels to a phenomena you unflinchingly defend,
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Uh, how's that? I think you agreed yourself that such a thing as status exists, despite the fact that it is difficult to precisely define. I don't ask you to precisely define it because I know that you can't (and neither can I). </p>
<p>
[quote]
nd defend to the point of saying a PhD is a throw away degree if you don't go to the right schools.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Uh, I never said anything about any Phd being a "throwaway degree". Those are YOUR words, not mine. </p>
<p>I am making the quite elementary point that some PhD degrees are more marketable than others. I don't think that is such a difficult point to grasp. </p>
<p>
[quote]
Again, I ask you just how important is prestige? You've been around this board long enough to know that BDM and myself routinely offer rough comparisons (some might even say vague) on a number of 'hard to quantify' issues, and that's all I'm asking for. No one is going to hold a message board post over your head if you later change your mind about the issue...</p>
<p>I mean, if this is going to be at all helpful to anyone reading this thread rather than a meaningless argument of theoretical paradigms, some identification of what type of school is too low to be useful seems more than appropriate.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Uh, I provided no comparisons? I specifically said that a PhD from Harvard or MIT is probably better than one from Wright State University. </p>
<p>
[quote]
I've held back on this for awhile but you've picked the wrong person to cite sociology at. As someone who's bachelors is in sociology, I can assure, that while it may not be precise, and it certainly fluctuates from study to study, there are methods and surveys that have defined things like occupational status - in fact this is one subject which has been a long standing interest of sociologists and annual surveys of occupational prestige have been done since at least before World War II. There are numerous sociologists who spend all their time studying the stratification of society. It shouldn't be news to you, but Sociology as a field in which qualitative research is a major component lends itself to multiple researchers each looking for a way to tweak measurements of nearly anything. It's not dealing with absolutes, there's no way to put together a Kelvin scale of prestige. More over to make declarations that make sociologists look entirely incapable of finding their collective a** with both hands is insulting. It's not like sociologists haven't put prestige in context (what I'm asking you to do)...a Google Scholar search of the term "occupational prestige" turns up over 2300 hits just since 2003.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>So if you seem to know so much about sociology, then why are you asking me to define status? I think that, given your knowledge, you should be able to come up with your own reasonable ranking for prestige and status that accommodates the fact that Harvard is probably better than Wright State. Heck, I think even took a stab at the notion of status yourself when you asserted that Arizona is strong for astronomy, and I never challenged you to define a status hierarchy within the field of astronomy. </p>
<p>So why don't we just leave it at that? I think everybody knows instinctively that some schools are more prestigious than others, and hence attempting to actually define the terms does not add to the point of discussion. Heck, given your sociology background, I am frankly quite surprised that you continue to debate this point - that is, unless your real goal is to simply waste my time in answering questions that you already seem to know. </p>
<p>
[quote]
I find your point of "going into other fields" sketchy at best...especially when your prime example is Ibanking
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Uh, how's that? I barely talking about Ibanking in this thread. I made one reference to it in post #34, and another in post #35. That's two references. I also talked about consulting. I talked about general management. I talked about the Chinese guys I know that went back to China to start their own companies. I talked about one woman I know that became a full-time mother. Hence, I had numerous examples.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Further, career switching is an argument that's barely tangential to your original contention
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Uh, I am making two points. Don't get them mixed up. </p>
<p>Point #1 - Field-specific prestige is important in academia and research.</p>
<p>Point #2 - On the other hand, many people leave academia/research. </p>
<p>Peters & Ceci speaks to point #1. </p>
<p>
[quote]
If you take your "no one knows what they'll be doing in 20 years" line to full extension, then what's the point of getting an advanced degree in the first place?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Because it allows you to do what you want right now. People are supposed to be getting PhD's because they presumably are interested, at that point in their lives, in researching a topic of their interest to great depth and coming up with original findings.</p>
<p>But just because you want to do something now doesn't mean that you'll still want to do it later in life. Or even if you still do, that you will be given the opportunity to do so. That's my point. </p>
<p>But, maybe speaking to your question directly, I agree that a lot of people who are pursuing PhD's probably shouldn't be doing so, because it's quite clear that they're not actually interested in what they are researching, and hence I seriously doubt that they will successfully graduate. </p>
<p>
[quote]
Why am I in medical school?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Again, I presume it's because, right now, you believe that curing people is important to you. </p>
<p>But again, things change. Maybe later in your life, you will be more interested in management and want to become an administrator. Or you'll be more interested in the entrepreneurial side of running your own practice. Or you'll enjoy teaching and so want to become a faculty member. That's why flexibility is so important. You don't want to tie yourself down too tightly if you can help it. It is important to keep options open. </p>
<p>
[quote]
Finally...and this is entirely of an academic point, but have there been an reexaminations of the findings of the Peters study? I have very limited access to non-biomedical journals though my school and as such even an EBSCO search was pretty limited with it's results. A study that's older than I am just causes me to raise my eyebrows and simply because of the academic practices I've become accustomed to, my first thought is to question the current applicability and validity of something that old.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Later findings have continued to show distinct bias within the peer review process and Peters & Ceci is a highly cited article. </p>
<p>Look, I bring up P&C simply to illustrate the point that academia is hardly immaculately fair. In fact, it is arguably one of the most status-conscious industries in the world, and people who are thinking of entering academia should know that going in. Like I said, if you just want to be a physician, then getting an MD from any old school is probably no problem. But if you actually want to be a professor, then the prestige of your program does play a role.</p>
<p>I can speak for only Pharma R&D. Investigators in in Pharma are hired for the 'specialization' and the specific research background they bring to the organization rather than the name of the school they graduate from.</p>
<p>So, a specialist in Epilepsy will be more likely hired for an Investigator position in a Project with Epilepsy indication, even if he is an Epilepsy specialist who graduated from a non-top tier school. It's not likely that they would select someone from Harvard simply for his degree if he does not have the specific background sought for that specific position.</p>
<p>Now, of course, if both grads have the same background, then the granularities of years of education, places where postdocs, and fellowships were completed come into play. But usually, by the time docs apply to Pharma for jobs, they have so many years of fellowship and postdoctoral experience, that the institution where they gained their degree is buried way down in their CVs. I have interviewd many candidates in my lifetime in Pharma and I mean it when I say that the experience matters more than the school name.</p>
<p>I am not saying that all MDs from top schools have a chip on their shoulder, just that I have seen a few Harvard MDs get sacked in my company for not having team working skills.</p>