<p>So when assistant professors get their position at whatever university, what distinguishes candidates from lower ranked to higher ranked universities?
I.E Why does assistant professor A get to be a professor at Princeton vs assistant prof B who gets to be a professor at a lesser known university?</p>
<p>Typically a relatively slight edge in number and/or quality of publications and having a PhD advisor with more connections.</p>
<p>There tend to be a great number of faculty at top universities who also went to top, “name-brand” universities for their undergraduate and/or PhD studies (i.e. the Ivies, Duke, Stanford, MIT, Berkeley, Michigan, etc.). This is not to say that if you go to a top university, you’re golden, but rather that these people also tend to produce higher quality research that is cited more often. There are definitely Ivy League-educated professors at lower tier universities and even several at community colleges, but these are the exceptions rather than the rule. </p>
<p>Additionally, to get on tenure-track, PhDs need to publish and publish often. I suspect that the distinguishing factor between PhD A who gets a tenure-track position at Princeton versus a PhD who gets a tenure-track position at a lower tier school is the quality of their research, measured by which journals they get published in and how many citations they get. It seems that many of my science professors produce a good, solid body of research when they were postdocs and got cited a whole lot of times.</p>
<p>A large part of it is not only publications, but is the field sexy, is their research unique, will it compliment the department’s strengths, will it bring notoriety to the school, how much will it cost to build their facilities, and will it bring in a lot of money.</p>
<p>A professor with cheap lab facilities (requires a small start-up grant) but can bring in large amounts of money and make high profile publications is probably the best combination for tenure at big name schools.</p>
<p>As you might imagine, a place like Princeton can pretty much pick and choose who they want from tons of amazing candidates. They can be assured of getting terrific PhD students who will multiply the research they will become responsible for. </p>
<p>Texas Tech might not be as desirable destination. They don’t get the same quality of PhD student, and therefore the professor won’t be able to produce as much innovative and high quality research.</p>
<p>It’s really hard to get a position at a top research university, and many people who do work 85-90 hours a week for 7 years in hopes of getting tenure. After that many still work very long hours just because that’s what they need to do to remain competitive. If you work at a top research university, and don’t get tenure, it is still quite possible that you can obtain a nice tenured position at a lower ranked school. These people are effectively running their own businesses. </p>
<p>If you don’t get tenure at a lower ranked school, your academic career is probably over. Fortunately, these people can often find good positions in industry.</p>
<p>It’s also a matter of pay. Research professors at top universities earn magnitudes more than their lower-tier counterparts. [Colleges</a> with the Highest-Paid Professors - MainStreet](<a href=“http://www.mainstreet.com/slideshow/money/investing/colleges-highest-paid-professors]Colleges”>http://www.mainstreet.com/slideshow/money/investing/colleges-highest-paid-professors)</p>
<p>So, those top universities get their pick of top postdocs vying for tenure track positions.</p>
<p>One thing I noticed with Stanford professors vs. professors at other schools I went to is that Stanford professors are very entrepreneurial. They do a great job marketing and promoting themselves, their classes, their departments, and their fields of study. I mean that in a good way, in that they don’t come off as self-centered or narcissistic. They’re enthusiastic about what they do, and that attitude rubs off on the students.</p>
<p>I have the feeling Stanford professors got their jobs because they knew how to present themselves to the school in the best possible light.</p>
<p>I agree with a lot of what has been said here, but I think you guys are assuming a much larger difference in initial qualifications between an assistant professor at a tier 1 research university and one at a tier 2 research university. The academic job market is absolutely cutthroat. There are so few jobs for so many applicants that even the lower tier jobs are still filled with a lot of people coming from top tier universities with impressive pedigrees. Often the difference is fairly slight and may just be the quality of the journals a give candidate publishes in or the person who advised them on their PhD.</p>
<p>That said, for all the reasons discussed above, the new professors at the top tier universities generally have an easier time ramping up their research program and making a name for themselves, especially due to the effect of the higher average quality of graduate students. A professor at Caltech or MIT can be pretty sure that no matter who they take on as a student, they will be a top-performing student at their previous school. A professor at a lower tier school has to be a bit more choosy with their selection of students. This is all in general, of course. There are exceptions.</p>
<p>Of course, remember that rankings and prestige as they apply to faculty and PhD students and their “quality” are very much department/major specific, and may not necessarily resemble the common school prestige rankings that are based mostly on general selectivity of the school’s undergraduate admissions.</p>
<p>93tiger16, I do not particularly agree with that PhD students from prestigious universities mainly find jobs in prestigious universities. In fact, from what I’ve seen, the percentage of professors from prestigious universities is relatively the same across universities from different tiers.</p>
<p>DoubleD, are you questioning my own experience with my professors? Here are the alma maters of all of the professors I have had - those that were listed, anyway (also note that these are where they obtained their PhDs and/or master’s from, not undergrad degrees; also, I only included full professors, not non-tenured lecturers): Harvard x 3, Princeton x 2, Oxford x 2, Johns Hopkins x 2, and North Carolina. The only professor I’ve had that did NOT obtain his/her PhD from a top tier university went to North Carolina, an outstanding school in its own right. That is, in my small sample, 90% of my professors went to a top-tier university for his/her PhD. Can you cite “your experience” that boasts similar percentages, or is that just your opinion? If you’re going to question something, at least show me the money.</p>
<p>Re: #10 and #11</p>
<p>Note that #10 makes a different claim from what #11 opposes.</p>
<h1>10 claims that PhD graduates from “top” universities (let’s say in the major for the sake of argument) go widely to faculty positions of various “tiers” of universities. #11 claims that faculty at “top” universities generally got their PhDs from “top” universities.</h1>
<p>It is certainly possible for both claims to be true, and non-opposed.</p>
<p>It does appear that faculties tend to hire those with PhDs from similar or higher “tier” departments, although there may be some exceptions. For example, the Berkeley CS faculty roster is heavy with faculty who got their PhDs at one of the “big four” in CS universities (Stanford, MIT, CMU, and Berkeley itself), but with some scattered among other schools (Washington, Harvard, Georgia Tech, Utah, Pittsburgh, UCSD, UIUC, etc.). However, UC Davis’ CS faculty roster indicates a more varied set of PhD origins of the faculty (including some from Berkeley).</p>
<p>
This is not possible given #10’s (I do find it interesting that you are reducing us to mere numbers) following claim:
I’m assuming by this that #10 is including top tier universities in this claim. That is, there would be an 8% rate of professors from prestigious universities across the board, including at prestigious universities (#10 did not make that distinction, so this must be true according to the argument; 8% is arbitrary). </p>
<p>Therefore, your reading doesn’t make sense.
DoubleD does say that these PhD graduates go to various schools, but DoubleD ALSO qualifies that with “the percentage of professors from prestigious universities is relatively the same across universities.” This suggests that your PhD graduates from top programs are evenly distributed (by percentage) across all tiers of universities. As you yourself acknowledge, ucbalumnus, universities hire faculty who graduated from universities at or above their own “tier.” There will be higher concentrations of faculty from top universities at the top schools, as opposed to your average state school. Therefore, in no world can DoubleD and yourself be correct; thus, your reading is wrong.</p>
<p>93tiger16, why are you so getting so mad? lol, calm down.
Do a simple search for faculty at schools from different tiers and take a look at where their profs got their PhDs. Most of the ones from lower tiers still graduated from prestigious universities. What you said (that it is an exception rather than common for professors at lower tier schools to have graduated from top schools) is simply not true. </p>
<p>"There are definitely Ivy League-educated professors at lower tier universities and even several at community colleges, but these are the exceptions rather than the rule. "</p>
<p>I’m not going to waste my time compiling a list of schools for you. just do a simple search. here’s one of many to get you started: [url=<a href=“http://www.eng.fsu.edu/me/people/]Mechanical”>http://www.eng.fsu.edu/me/people/]Mechanical</a> Engineering :: Faculty and Staff<a href=“1st%20link%20that%20came%20up%20on%20google,%20not%20intended%20to%20criticize%20any%20university/single%20out%20any%20university%20here”>/url</a></p>
<p>ITT, everyone is wrong. 93tiger16 is God. </p>
<p>And none of the posts are even relevant to the OP, but I do agree there isn’t a a significant variation in the percentage of faculty who graduated from prestigious schools @ lower tier universities vs top tier universities.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Those PhD graduates distribute themselves to faculty positions at various “tiers” of universities as a percentage of the those PhD graduates, not the percentage of the faculty at the universities. At least that is how I read it.</p>
<p>Of course, those PhD graduates from “lower tier” programs may be more restricted in finding faculty positions. But remember that they do not necessarily become employed as faculty. In a subject like CS, industry comes recruiting. In some other subjects, it may be a bit tougher.</p>
<p>I will not resort to mud-slinging and questioning of character as a substitute for reasoned argument. That is the realm of those who refuse to reason. Grow up. Therefore, I will only address ucbalumnus’s post. </p>
<p>
Can you please explain this a little more? I’m not sure I understand. Do you mean that the top PhD graduates go to the top universities as faculty and lower PhD graduates go to lower-tier universities? I would agree with that, but DoubleD seems to have something else in mind, as that post led off with:
Or perhaps you were thinking of something else? </p>
<p>If PhD graduates are recruited by industry, I would be interested in seeing why graduates from lower-tier programs are being recruited, and therefore unable to vie for faculty positions at higher tier universities, and graduates from top-tier programs are not being recruited and go on to become heavily represented at top universities.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The PhD graduates from “top” programs may go to any “tier” program for faculty position. There really are nowhere near enough faculty openings at the “top” programs to absorb all of their PhD graduates, so it is impossible for all of them to end up in the “top” programs as faculty, so many of them have to go to other “tiers” of programs for faculty jobs, or go to non-faculty jobs.</p>
<p>Regarding industry or other non-faculty jobs, there is recruiting for PhD graduates from all “tiers” of programs.</p>
<p>I did not mention anything about industry. </p>
<p>ucbalumnus has the correct idea.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>MOST PhDs in engineering from top universities don’t take faculty jobs. There are nowhere near enough of of those jobs, not to mention that the industry jobs are far more lucrative in the wallet. Why work 85-90 hours/wk and be a peon for 7 years when you can work 50-55 hours/wk and quickly become a star in a corporation or a startup while maintaining work-life balance. If you’re good enough to compete for a top tier university, then that could be more lucrative because professors at places like Stanford, Berkeley and MIT do a lot of startups, but you have to work nearly as hard to get tenure at a mid tier also, and will have far less to show for it, in my opinion</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I’d be surprised if this were true. If received your PhD from a mid-tier, and you just had to have a faculty position, the only positions that would be open to you would be from lower tiers. If you received your PhD from a top-tier, and just had to have a faculty job, you’d have the whole spectrum available to you, but going from the rich intellectual environment of the top tier to a low tier school would be hard to enjoy both intellectually and financially compared to working in industry. Therefore, it’s more likely that the lowest tiered schools would have a larger fraction of faculty from mid and lower tier schools than the top tier, whose professors generally speaking always come from the top tier.</p>