<p>Professor's</a> research raises questions about graduate admissions | Inside Higher Ed</p>
<p>I just skimmed it, but right off the bat I’d suggest a study based on Philosophy PhD students at top universitiess might be a bit limited in scope and overall applicability. How many are there anyway? How many people reading this have PhD philosophy degrees? (Not that it’s not a great degree, and very difficult- Philosophy students do very well on the GRE and are highly sought after).</p>
<p>Obviously you just skimmed it.</p>
<p>
I see the article mentions another study based on the history department.
Okay, enlighten us. What were the other study samples?</p>
<p>"Riverside, where he teaches, is not considered an elite graduate program like those Schwitzgebel studied. But having served on the graduate admissions committee there, he said that he saw some of the same attitudes that appear to prevail in the top programs. “My experience is that a student from a really elite institution like Stanford or Princeton – that person’s G.P.A. will be viewed more charitably. A student there who has A-minuses might be considered quite seriously, where a Cal State student with that grade would be considered less seriously.”</p>
<p>Once they are enrolled, Schwitzgebel said, he doesn’t see any particular difference in the performance of students from elite and non-elite undergraduate institutions. “I tend to forget where students came from,” he said."</p>
<p>:)</p>
<p>I read it and tried hard not to skim but it seemed like one more inflated rant against perceived elitism. Maybe someone should tell the author that the majority of kids at Princeton are on FA and come from modest income homes. They are just extremely talented and motivated – and competing in a pool of similar kids and managing a good gpa is, indeed, impressive.</p>
<p>A VERY interesting article-this finding is the reason that students from “less elite” colleges or U’s have a harder time gaining acceptance at “elite” PhD programs</p>
<p>"the key thing about admission to Ph.D. programs is that “it’s really faculty-driven, and because it’s faculty-driven, they are going to be looking for their own goals”</p>
<p>"one reason students at non-elite colleges may be at a disadvantage is not because of any perception of the quality of their institutions, but because their professors are not well-known. “When a member of the admissions committee at, say, Rutgers reads a letter of recommendation from a Princeton colleague whom she knows and whose work she admires, that letter is likely to carry more weight than an equally glowing letter from Sam Houston State University,”</p>
<p>^^ Yes. And that is why the argument you hear so often that it isn’t a good investment of effort or money to go to a prestigious undergrad institution because what matters is where one gets one’s advanced degree is really not a very sound argument, imo. Whether we like it or not, things just keep getting more competitive and the branding begins at the undergrad level, sometimes at the high school.</p>
<p>“the argument you hear so often that it isn’t a good investment of effort or money to go to a prestigious undergrad institution because what matters is where one gets one’s advanced degree is really not a very sound argument”
HUH? this article is SHOWING that it is INDEED important where you get your UG degree, IF your goal is a PhD program at an “elite” U.</p>
<p>My post is making the point that the argument that UG doesn’t matter is wrong. Granted, it’s a long awkward sentence.</p>
<p>Read the article and the blog post on which it’s based. Many, many questions with the methodology that might be addressed in the blog post comments.</p>
<p>First, the blog author is looking at matriculation lists, not acceptance lists. There’s no data on how many students applied from different types of colleges, let alone the acceptance rates for, say, UC undergrads as compared to CSU undergrads. </p>
<p>I think it’s a little sloppy to equate USNWR ranking with the caliber of the undergrad philosophy department at that university, but it’s a quick and dirty analysis. Regardless, I’d also like to see the analysis consider many philosophy majors are graduated from the different types of programs, both as raw numbers and as a percentage of the graduating class. I am too lazy to go look up how many philosophy majors are generated each year at the UCs versus the Cal States, but I have my suspicions. 
Though Steve Martin was a philosophy major at a Cal State, and he’s done OK in life. :)</p>
<p>There’s the entire issue of financial aid. If a student comes from a family of modest means, the student is going to be looking for at least some financial support for grad school. Those are the best of the best. For everyone else, once you get in there’s the question of finding funding. Loans and part-time work are possibilities, but I’d expect that there’s also a factor of having family resources as a safety net.</p>
<p>The comment about how admissions committees look askance at A minuses–good heavens. They’d probably fall over with shock if someone had the audacity to apply with a scattering of B’s. :rolleyes:</p>
<p>“Once they are enrolled, Schwitzgebel said, he doesn’t see any particular difference in the performance of students from elite and non-elite undergraduate institutions. “I tend to forget where students came from,” he said.”</p>
<p>In my d.'s Ivy, top-5 graduate program, despite having scores of applicants from Ivies (including the school itself) (maybe several hundred over the past five years), they haven’t accepted a single Ivy applicant in five years. Not one. And among the faculty, again at this Ivy, top-5 graduate program, only one faculty member has an undergraduate degree from an Ivy (Harvard). Would you call it “reverse branding”?</p>
<p>I also know that they hardly look at GPA. They do look at grades in the courses preparing for the graduate program, at research accomplished and submitted, at personal statement, and carefully at letters of recommendation. The way they look at it, they are accepting a future colleague, and want to know those things that would really matter in a future colleague.</p>
<p>All those accepted receive full funding.</p>
<p>Having said that, I think it is true that those in 100 “elite” institutions have an edge. My d’s colleagues come from Beloit, Vassar, Earlham, UToronto, McGill, Swarthmore, Occidental, University of Puget Sound - all top 100 institutions, to be sure. The head of her department (and her mentor) came from Brandeis; the top scholars in her field, off the top of my head, have undergrad degrees from Vassar, University of Georgia, and UCLA.</p>
<p>How many people from non top 100 schools even apply to Phd programs in history or philosophy? My guess is next to none. </p>
<p>People intending to get Phds tend to go to top undergraduate schools to begin with.</p>
<p>This ‘data’ is only relevant for Phd programs. What about the many MA/MS programs where that is the terminal degree for your profession…such as MPA, MSW, MS in Geology, Urban Planning, etc? A hell of a lot more people go through these programs than Phd programs. Is there a bias in these programs?</p>
<p>I don’t think the major point of the article was philosophy majors. Also if you go to a PhD program without funding you are an idiot. Even moreso in philosophy.</p>
<p>Even a modestly wealthy school Like UW ofers full funding to all philosophy PhD students. And most if not virtually all other PhD students. If they don’t offer funding don’t go there. They don’t really want you.</p>
<p>"What is your typical funding package?
We offer 5 years of support guaranteed to all incoming graduate students provided that they make satisfactory progress toward their degree, and perform their teaching duties acceptably.</p>
<p>And, if I remember correctly, mini’s D’s field is musicology. Drawing any conclusions about what happens across the board from that field is at least as subject to criticism as drawing them from philosophy. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Very few people go into philosophy without full funding. Phil grad students don’t have to seek out financial support. </p>
<p>Now, getting a job is a different matter. A friend of my kid’s was told not to even apply for college teaching jobs in philosophy. His Ph.D. is from a top 5 program.</p>
<p>The recent UW grads, which is not even a Top 20 program in philosophy, seemed to do OK considering.</p>
<p>[Placement</a> History | Department of Philosophy | University of Wisconsin?Madison](<a href=“http://philosophy.wisc.edu/graduate/placement_history.php]Placement”>http://philosophy.wisc.edu/graduate/placement_history.php)</p>
<p>Some of my kids and some of their friends are currently in top humanities PhD programs. I know people who have been on graduate admissions committees at this sort of school in recent years. It seems to me successful students are usually Phi Beta Kappa, with graduate level course work and a significant piece of writing, and have a mentor who has been talking them up to colleagues for a couple of years. Or they have gone someplace for an MA. I do think the undergraduate institution matters. Because who your professors are matters a whole lot. And most of the students I know who have been successful knew their field of interest while still in high school.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>For PhD programs, I’d agree with you though it isn’t just branding, but also perceptions…rightly or wrongly…of the level of preparation/socialization a given undergrad institution provides for someone bound for what are essentially academic apprenticeship programs. </p>
<p>However, other grad schools…especially professionally oriented ones like business, med, or law…high standardized scores and/or great working experience can push many without strong undergrad pedigree into elite programs. </p>
<p>Among high school classmates and friends who attended the local high school who ended up at top 14 law schools, engineering, or AMA approved med schools, it was about evenly split between those who went to elite private U and your local SUNY/CUNY colleges. Among top-10 B-schools including HBS, the tilt was definitely in favor of the local SUNY/CUNY graduates. YMMV, of course.</p>
<p>“And, if I remember correctly, mini’s D’s field is musicology. Drawing any conclusions about what happens across the board from that field is at least as subject to criticism as drawing them from philosophy.”</p>
<p>(My d. is a dual. Italian Studies as well.) Certainly true. It’s just one data point, though I doubt a particular anomaly. You would think the Ivies would have produced ONE student in the past five years - even the institution itself - who would have gained admission. And it is clearly true that where you get your Ph.D. fund does affect one’s job prospects.</p>
<p>I think Alh’s post #18 is pretty much on the mark. And as I indicated, I DO think the undergraduate institution matters. I know that at least in the case of my d’s Ivy, students would have to work extra hard to know their professors well. The professors do lecture, but a lot of the work (discussions, presentation of new material, grading papers, grading exams, office hours) is left to the preceptors. So the number of students likely to get the kind of mentoring relationship with senior faculty they would at a good (not necessarily even top, but good) liberal arts college is likely to be relatively small, given the size of the institution. (The professors are very busy nurturing and grooming graduate students.) So it matters greatly, but not necessarily in the way most folks would imagine it.</p>
<p>(If you go the Princeton Philosophy site, you might be somewhat surprised at the undergraduate degrees - from Calvin College, UArizona, Monash University, UPitt - more striking to me was the number of MIT Ph.Ds. But then, what do I know about philosophy?)</p>
<p>Now I’m curious. Most of what I’ve read here on CC and in the media about grad school in the humanities is about how it’s not worth going unless you’re fully funded. The impression I got was that most grad humanities programs don’t fully fund. But the replies on this thread talk about humanities departments that fully fund their grad students. Is this just true of top programs? Or is it just in a few departments?</p>