-4

According to one book I read, by an academic who has served on search committees, the first thing he looks for when he looks at an application is where the applicant did their PhD. The second thing is whether the applicant has a lot of publications in high-end journals. Why does the prestige of where a tenure-track faculty member got their PhD matter so much to hiring committees?

My guess is that universities want to be more like the prestigious universities, so by hiring people who went to those universities, they can claim that they are similar.

Sursula
  • 20,540
  • 8
  • 62
  • 121
cgb5436
  • 3,852
  • 2
  • 18
  • 40
  • Related: https://academia.stackexchange.com/q/90/27515 and https://academia.stackexchange.com/q/180379/27515 – Buzz Jul 26 '23 at 04:11
  • In my experience in the U.K., where you did your PhD doesn't count for much at all in and of itself. Of course, there tends to be a correlation between a good research output and a high rep university, but once you account for that, I dont think it matters at all. In any case, I don't think the question should be based on a single anecdote from a book rather than any hard evidence. – user438383 Jul 26 '23 at 12:12
  • 1
    Someone wrote, What matters is the rep of the program or department ultimately in my experience-- nobody is sitting down and sorting applications based on US News ranking or anything like that. But if I don't know a lot about modern Japanese history specifically and I do know that Michigan Ann-Arbor has a strong history department in general I might give that more credence than I would a Ph.D. from the South Dakota State Poultry Institute. – cgb5436 Jul 26 '23 at 13:12
  • 2
    Right now the question is "some anonymous person, whom you believe to be an authority, claims something. Can you give arguments for that claim?" The answer to that is: those arguments should be in the book you are reading. If they are not, than it is not a good book. – Maarten Buis Jul 26 '23 at 15:28
  • Alternatively, you are misunderstanding the statement made by the book. You claim that the book says " the first thing he looks for when he looks at an application is where the applicant did their PhD. " You interpret that as "the prestige of where a tenure-track faculty member got their PhD matter". That is not necessarily true. Different departments from different universities specialize in different sub-sub-fields or schools. Maybe that is what the original author is looking at rather than prestige. – Maarten Buis Jul 26 '23 at 15:31
  • In short, give the reference. – Maarten Buis Jul 26 '23 at 15:33
  • https://www.amazon.com/Good-Work-You-Can-Get/dp/1421437961 – cgb5436 Jul 26 '23 at 15:35
  • 1
    Now, given that where they did their PhD is, for a fresh graduate, right at the top of the CV and the publication list is at the end, it comes as no surprise that one is looked at before the other. – Jon Custer Jul 26 '23 at 15:52

1 Answers1

2

If we assume (counterfactually) a completely meritocratic system, then the best (= most talented) high school students go to the most prestigious (= highest quality) universities for the first degree, the best go on to the doctorate at the highest quality universities, so that looking at the Ph.D. granting university would give a rather clear ranking. In this fictional scenario, there would even be some error correction, because of the relative ranking of students.

One can argue that the real world is not that_far from this ideal scenario.

A more down-to-earth argument looks at the decision process of the selection committee. There used to be a slogan "No-one ever got fired for buying from IBM". Replace IBM with Cal Berkeley or MIT, and take in addition the fact that the successful candidates at a famous university needs to have good publications and good letters, you can see that hiring candidates from the prestigious universities is much less of a risk.

Another argument is that it is easier to get a good education if you are surrounded by other good students. At one of the best universities in any large country, the Ph.D. students would be able to educate themselves if suddenly all faculty were to vanish.

This means that exceptional people from humdrum places will have it harder to get a really good job in academia. But they have second chances.

Thomas Schwarz
  • 22,862
  • 2
  • 54
  • 92
  • someoen wrote What matters is the rep of the program or department ultimately in my experience-- nobody is sitting down and sorting applications based on US News ranking or anything like that. But if I don't know a lot about modern Japanese history specifically and I do know that Michigan Ann-Arbor has a strong history department in general I might give that more credence than I would a Ph.D. from the South Dakota State Poultry Institute. – cgb5436 Jul 26 '23 at 13:03