Institutional Prestige vs Program Prestige For Interdisciplinary Field?

[gael2020]

Since you say that you'll likely be sending job applications all over the place, I will assume that you are not independently wealthy and will need to work to support yourself. In that case, the question is not "A or B?" but "Should I go to graduate school for an interdisciplinary humanities degree?" And the answer is "no."

Sending out job applications for TT positions widely seems to be the norm in academia. I don't know of anyone, even those in top ranked traditional departments, who only send out 5-10 applications with confidence.

You miss my point. Even with 200 applications, the chances of getting an academic humanities job that pays a living wage are slim to none.

Originally published in 2008.

Published in 2018.

Noted. I'll be sure to take a thorough look at both (thanks for linking!). I'm aware of the abysmal state of the job market - and am not under any delusion that I'm special or somehow different.

One of the draws of the Harvard PhD. Even though it has a lesser reputation than school 2, It has more value in the strong possibility that I'll be nonacademic or alt-ac. School 2 seems to place pretty well and is a strong program, but that could very well change, especially for interdisciplinary programs. I'd imagine they're often the first to feel the pressure.

Of course, the better option would have been to have a solid nonacademic plan B. But I was working odd jobs and finished a BA at a low ranked public school, so I don't know what I'd do if I turned down either of these schools.

[Ruralguy]

So, are you even given this choice yet? Are you thinking of applying or were you just accepted and making a decision?

Prestige is a funny thing. Though I suppose Harvard probably has the closest thing to universal national and probably international prestige, US South will swear by Vanderbilt and Duke before Harvard much of the time, especially outside of academia.  Similar with Chicago, Northwestern, Purdue in he Midwest. Stanford and Berkeley in the West, etc..  So, though you probably can't really lose, especially in relative sense, with Harvard, that other school might be fine or better, depending on the field, region of country, whether or not you are in or out of academia.

By the way, in response to the previous post re: NYU....the low regarded commuter school thing was probably mostly the 70's and maybe a bit into the 80's. By the 90's, they were already prestigious in many fields.  Similar transitions with first BU and then Northeastern in
New England.

Anyway, if you hate the region of the non-Harvard place, better not to stay anyway.

[ciao_yall]

For what it is worth, until very recently (25 years ago?) NYU had a rather poor reputation, for students too rich for City and too dumb for Columbia. My recollection is that NYU essentially bought its way out of being a mediocre commuter school in the 1990s, in part by attracting a lot of international students. While its graduate program (at least in history) is top notch, I am not sure about the calibre of its undergraduates. And, given the choice, I might still prefer to get a doctorate from Columbia. (Note: my degree is from neither, and both NYU and Columbia rejected me.)

That said, if you have your heart set on doing a graduate degree in an interdisciplinary program in the humanities, then choose school A if you are independently wealthy or only interested in the intellectual stimulation of the degree. Otherwise, choose Harvard because it would make you more attractive to a wide range of schools who do not care about your speciality.

This is assuming, of course, that Harvard offers you a good package. I don't think I would advise anybody to get a humanities degree from anywhere on their own dime.

Harvard is actually offering me more money (maybe a 2 grand more?). School A's rep, great program, and good placements the last 10 years are what has made this decision hard. But you think Harvard is still the better choice?

Something else I've been trying to factor in is that interdisciplinary humanities is the most precarious sector of academia. Not that either of these programs will have their funding cut (theyre both rich) but if school A's reputation declines or the field gets cut institutionally, at least a Harvard degree seems more robust.  I don't know if that thinking holds but it seems right?

The problem is that it really isn't possible to offer good advice in the abstract here. It really depends on what the field is and what the schools are. It also really depends on who you would be working with. Do you have undergraduate mentors? Ask them. One thing I would try not to consider would be the location. If you're hoping to get a job in academia, having a lot of ideas about places you do and don't want to live is just a recipe for unhappiness. The only way I'd factor it in is in terms of cost of living and the stipend.

I emailed two mentors familiar with the field and they both said something like this: School 2 is the top in the country and the superior program in reputation, scholarship production, intellectual community, etc. That being said, Harvard has benefits in terms of getting regional/institutional variety (since my undergrad was at a low ranked public institution) and also more legibility within traditional disciplines, in alt-ac, and the nonacademic job market.

How "low-ranked" was your undergrad that you were still able to get into Harvard?

[gael2020]

For what it is worth, until very recently (25 years ago?) NYU had a rather poor reputation, for students too rich for City and too dumb for Columbia. My recollection is that NYU essentially bought its way out of being a mediocre commuter school in the 1990s, in part by attracting a lot of international students. While its graduate program (at least in history) is top notch, I am not sure about the calibre of its undergraduates. And, given the choice, I might still prefer to get a doctorate from Columbia. (Note: my degree is from neither, and both NYU and Columbia rejected me.)

That said, if you have your heart set on doing a graduate degree in an interdisciplinary program in the humanities, then choose school A if you are independently wealthy or only interested in the intellectual stimulation of the degree. Otherwise, choose Harvard because it would make you more attractive to a wide range of schools who do not care about your speciality.

This is assuming, of course, that Harvard offers you a good package. I don't think I would advise anybody to get a humanities degree from anywhere on their own dime.

Harvard is actually offering me more money (maybe a 2 grand more?). School A's rep, great program, and good placements the last 10 years are what has made this decision hard. But you think Harvard is still the better choice?

Something else I've been trying to factor in is that interdisciplinary humanities is the most precarious sector of academia. Not that either of these programs will have their funding cut (theyre both rich) but if school A's reputation declines or the field gets cut institutionally, at least a Harvard degree seems more robust.  I don't know if that thinking holds but it seems right?

The problem is that it really isn't possible to offer good advice in the abstract here. It really depends on what the field is and what the schools are. It also really depends on who you would be working with. Do you have undergraduate mentors? Ask them. One thing I would try not to consider would be the location. If you're hoping to get a job in academia, having a lot of ideas about places you do and don't want to live is just a recipe for unhappiness. The only way I'd factor it in is in terms of cost of living and the stipend.

I emailed two mentors familiar with the field and they both said something like this: School 2 is the top in the country and the superior program in reputation, scholarship production, intellectual community, etc. That being said, Harvard has benefits in terms of getting regional/institutional variety (since my undergrad was at a low ranked public institution) and also more legibility within traditional disciplines, in alt-ac, and the nonacademic job market.

How "low-ranked" was your undergrad that you were still able to get into Harvard?

It's not a public or flagship state school like Berkeley, U Mich, UCLA, or Penn State - if that's what you're asking. I doubt many outside my home state (or even city perhaps) would even know it.

[Chairman X]

+1 for Harvard. In my humanities field, Harvard is no way the top in terms of faculty quality or overall scholarly firepower. But it still a good choice for most students.

There are both good and not-so-good academic reasons for that. Here's a good one: some of the best students end up going to Harvard (and its few peers) because of the university's overall reputation and because its placement record is on a par with programs that have a deeper and wider footprint in the discipline. So while Harvard's academic infrastructure might not be tops in your field, you will nevertheless have some excellent peers with whom to study. That matters.

Here's another valid argument for Harvard: people who go into smaller academic specializations such as yours will probably not be hired into a department with another specialists in your field. So those doing the hiring won't necessarily have the institutional knowledge to distinguish between a PhD from Harvard as compared to one from an excellent program at a less well known university. Under those circumstances the hiring committee will probably give your application a closer than average look simply because of the Ve-Ri-Tas shield on your faculty advisors' letterhead.

There are two caveats here: The program at Harvard must be good enough to support you in the writing of an excellent dissertation. (I can think of at least one discipline at Harvard that everyone knows is hopelessly behind the times, and whose students therefore struggle to find jobs.) Second, if there is someone at the other institution with whom you really really want to work (and who isn't awash in graduate students), you might consider going there to do the kind of work that you wish to.

Good luck!

[gael2020]

+1 for Harvard. In my humanities field, Harvard is no way the top in terms of faculty quality or overall scholarly firepower. But it still a good choice for most students.

There are both good and not-so-good academic reasons for that. Here's a good one: some of the best students end up going to Harvard (and its few peers) because of the university's overall reputation and because its placement record is on a par with programs that have a deeper and wider footprint in the discipline. So while Harvard's academic infrastructure might not be tops in your field, you will nevertheless have some excellent peers with whom to study. That matters.

Here's another valid argument for Harvard: people who go into smaller academic specializations such as yours will probably not be hired into a department with another specialists in your field. So those doing the hiring won't necessarily have the institutional knowledge to distinguish between a PhD from Harvard as compared to one from an excellent program at a less well known university. Under those circumstances the hiring committee will probably give your application a closer than average look simply because of the Ve-Ri-Tas shield on your faculty advisors' letterhead.

There are two caveats here: The program at Harvard must be good enough to support you in the writing of an excellent dissertation. (I can think of at least one discipline at Harvard that everyone knows is hopelessly behind the times, and whose students therefore struggle to find jobs.) Second, if there is someone at the other institution with whom you really really want to work (and who isn't awash in graduate students), you might consider going there to do the kind of work that you wish to.

Good luck!

Is this the English department? I've heard they've struggled to place their graduates recently.

[spork]

Seriously: No. Jobs.

Even if you are in a PhD program that is 100% funded for its entirety, you will not be trained for a career that has a reasonable chance of existing when you exit the program, and during the 5-10 years you are in the program you will not be earning an income/building career experience/moving into more senior and better-paid positions. You might as well shovel cash into a furnace.

[secundem_artem]

Harvard or whatever.... blah blah blah

The reputation of any academic unit is whatever it was 10 years ago. 

If you think you have even the remotest shot at a career in an R01 school, perhaps Nirvana on the Charles is the better choice.  But for those of us at more teaching oriented schools (which far outnumber the R01s) we may be more concerned with your ability to manage a classroom full of 18-22 year olds (Or, gawd forbid, a 40 yr old single mom trying to re-tool her life) than your cutting edge, ground breaking, Nobel Prize worthy research.

I'd rather my college hire a PhD with a realistic perspective on life at schools like mine and who are from Regional Compass Point than an Ivy grad with their head so far up their ass they can see their own teeth. 

I've watched colleagues with quite undistinguished pedigrees be wildly successful and Ivy-ish colleagues struggle.  Better you get good career-focused advice from your faculty than be out on the ragged edge of research but unprepared for the realities of life at a SLAC, or a regional comprehensive.  It's far more likely your future is in freshman comp or Chem 100 than it is changing the future of your discipline. 

[gael2020]

Harvard or whatever.... blah blah blah

The reputation of any academic unit is whatever it was 10 years ago. 

If you think you have even the remotest shot at a career in an R01 school, perhaps Nirvana on the Charles is the better choice.  But for those of us at more teaching oriented schools (which far outnumber the R01s) we may be more concerned with your ability to manage a classroom full of 18-22 year olds (Or, gawd forbid, a 40 yr old single mom trying to re-tool her life) than your cutting edge, ground breaking, Nobel Prize worthy research.

I'd rather my college hire a PhD with a realistic perspective on life at schools like mine and who are from Regional Compass Point than an Ivy grad with their head so far up their ass they can see their own teeth. 

I've watched colleagues with quite undistinguished pedigrees be wildly successful and Ivy-ish colleagues struggle.  Better you get good career-focused advice from your faculty than be out on the ragged edge of research but unprepared for the realities of life at a SLAC, or a regional comprehensive.  It's far more likely your future is in freshman comp or Chem 100 than it is changing the future of your discipline.

What would you say is the best way to make yourself legible as teacher and not a "ivy grad with their head up their ass?"

I'm from an underfunded urban public institution - and a lot of my organizing work (and my full time job) has been centered on public education and diversity initiatives for higher education. So I'm more than familiar with the struggles of nontraditional students, being one myself. That being said, I doubt SC's will care about my undergrad.

The PhD program in question allows TA'ships/Fellows but not teaching your own stand alone courses. What would you want to see from a prospective hire that could accommodate to that weakness?

[mamselle]

Depending on the humanities field, also, some of the grad programs are tiny.

Advisors don't want a lot of advisees, they want to research and write. Unlike the labor-extensive sciences, where a nice grad farm fuels the labs and turns out papers at a respectable pace, the humanities are labor-intensive, and time spent working with your grad student(s) doesn't necessarily contribute to your own work.

The art history program has, say, six profs to cover basic teaching topics, and there are funds for, say, three new grad students each year. So, max, there might be 6 grad students in that program because every other year 1-3 slots fall open and a new student is taken on. Musicology is another boutique department. Econ might be bigger, History maybe the same, etc.

Other programs like the B-School, the Law School, or KSG (that deal with, and attract more, money, somehow) might be a little bigger, but their visibility masks the tiny, hugely competitive programs in the other humanities.

So, you may or may not get any help or attention from your prof (the better-known, the less likely), it's expensive even with financial aid, and you can't eat prestige.

Just to balance the glare in your eyes that's the dazzle of a well-enough-deserved name, but is only as perfect as the humans that make it up.

M.

[spork]

The academic job market is even worse now than it was when this was written: http://activelearningps.com/2016/03/20/mamas-dont-let-your-babies-grow-up-to-be-academics/.

[polly_mer]

secundum_artem was too polite: you're not competitive for a 4/4 teaching job with a Harvard PhD at most places.  Add in the interdisciplinary humanities area and spork's articles seem optimistic on job prospects.

If you're already working an admin or outreach job, then an online relevant master's degree is a better job bet, especially if you want to continue to live in the same town.

[gael2020]

secundum_artem was too polite: you're not competitive for a 4/4 teaching job with a Harvard PhD at most places.  Add in the interdisciplinary humanities area and spork's articles seem optimistic on job prospects.

If you're already working an admin or outreach job, then an online relevant master's degree is a better job bet, especially if you want to continue to live in the same town.

So, for a host of reasons (primarily my admin job) I'm well aware of the abysmal job market. That being said: the Harvard program places %60ish percent of its graduates straight into TT jobs (mostly at public and private R1s). Another 20% do post docs for 1-3 years before landing a TT job. The other 20 pursue alt-ac or non academic jobs. I spent a few days digging up information about cohort placements of the program for the last 10 years/and talking to graduates-so it's not just PR website rhetoric. The job market is an absolute shithole-but I feel like I'm missing something with the totalizing rhetoric. Factually speaking, the majority of graduates of both programs are getting tenure track jobs. How do you account for that?

[apostrophe]

Another vote for Harvard. It opens so many doors.

[HomunculusParty]

secundum_artem was too polite: you're not competitive for a 4/4 teaching job with a Harvard PhD at most places.  Add in the interdisciplinary humanities area and spork's articles seem optimistic on job prospects.

If you're already working an admin or outreach job, then an online relevant master's degree is a better job bet, especially if you want to continue to live in the same town.

So, for a host of reasons (primarily my admin job) I'm well aware of the abysmal job market. That being said: the Harvard program places %60ish percent of its graduates straight into TT jobs (mostly at public and private R1s). Another 20% do post docs for 1-3 years before landing a TT job. The other 20 pursue alt-ac or non academic jobs. I spent a few days digging up information about cohort placements of the program for the last 10 years/and talking to graduates-so it's not just PR website rhetoric. The job market is an absolute shithole-but I feel like I'm missing something with the totalizing rhetoric. Factually speaking, the majority of graduates of both programs are getting tenure track jobs. How do you account for that?

polly_mer is not in the humanities, and her only experience of the humanities has been at abysmal tiny schools with no graduate programs, so that's how you account for that.

Look, the odds are terrible, but you know that. Interdisciplinary programs are extra hard, but you know that too. If you're passionate about the work and you have the chance to study something you love for a few years while not getting into debt, then do it. You're going in with eyes pretty open; keep one of those eyes out for alt-ac development options (digital humanities groups are a great place to get some skills), do everything you can to bolster your teaching portfolio, and don't expect an academic job on the other end. Maybe you'll be pleasantly surprised, maybe not. But you will have spent a few years of your life working on something you truly love.