Why do more undergrads from some schools go on for PhDs?

College Search & Selection
21

<p>Last time I checked the PhD productivity ranks, Chicago sends the highest percentage of students onto PhD programs of non-tech universities. (I seem to remember that we were outdone by MIT and Caltech on the university side and Oberlin, Bryn Mawr, Swarthmore, Reed, and maybe Carleton on the LAC side, and that we send a hair of a percentage more students on to PhD programs than HYP).</p>

<p>Some other thoughts:</p>

<ol>
<li><p>LAC's overall do a better job at selling students on the idea of grad school than schools with grad students in them do. I have a feeling that if I attended an LAC and got the warm and fuzzies, I would want to nosedive into a PhD program. But because I know lots and lots of grad students here at Chicago, I know I don't want to spend 7-10 years of my life earning a PhD. PhD programs have exceptionally high drop rates because students don't always get to see it before experiencing it, IMO.</p></li>
<li><p>One's desire to earn a PhD probably has a lot to do with the educational level of one's family. This follows from students and families "knowing," as vossron pointed out, which schools are top-notch for a certain kind of academic atmosphere and for seeking those schools out. For example, I've always thought that Chicago does not have a lot of members of the money elite, but that a lot of students' parents here are members of the intellectual elite. I heard about Chicago through the intellectual elite, of which my parents are card-carrying members. (PhD in an obscure field from the #1 university for that field? My mom's got it!) It isn't unusual to hear sentences here like, "When my parents met in their PhD program..." or "When I go to grad school..." so part of me thinks it can be par for the course for some students coming into a school. I know too many people who describe their hometown as a "little college town." ;-)</p></li>
<li><p>PhD productivity ranks are amusing, but, IMO, ultimately useless. I like the idea of partnering them with other sorts of post-graduate placement ranks, but even that might not give the whole picture.</p></li>
</ol>

22

<p>
[quote]
Isn't it a self-selection vicious circle? Truly academically-oriented HS seniors know the schools that produce future PhDs, so they attend and later earn those PhDs, unaware of instructor pay.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>This.</p>

<p>Way back when I was touring colleges to attend I asked at each what percentage of their students went on to get PhDs after graduating. At RIT the person actually laughed when I asked the question, then said maybe 5-10%. At CMU within my chosen department, the number was 40-50%. That was one of the biggest reasons I chose CMU.</p>

23

<p>
[quote]
3. PhD productivity ranks are amusing, but, IMO, ultimately useless.

[/quote]
For a student interested in research in whatever field, it sure seems good to know which undergrad schools historically send their graduates on to grad schools that successfully prepare for such research. Having a list of, e.g., the top ten producers of future PhDs in physics gives the student of physics good (and maybe appropriate) targets for college applications. But I do agree that the actual ranking of schools on such short lists can be ignored. I.e., the lists are useful, if the actual ranking is useless, IMO.</p>