Is It Time To Close All But The Top Humanities Ph.D. Programs?

[dismalist]

He transferred to Chicago after one semester. The following semester, he was back! He said he didn't like the atmosphere, which is likely true, but maybe he was kicked out.

The eternal struggle over resources ... .

It would tend to create a really unpleasant environment if you value collegiality and camaraderie...

The point is that some places are trying to get higher quality students. There may well be a cost in collegiality. Maybe there's a tradeoff, maybe there isn't.

Anyway, how much are we willing to pay for collegiality. Maybe not much.

[mleok]

The point is that some places are trying to get higher quality students. There may well be a cost in collegiality. Maybe there's a tradeoff, maybe there isn't.

Anyway, how much are we willing to pay for collegiality. Maybe not much.

Berkeley stopped doing it because word got around, and they were likely losing their best picks. In any case, their financial aid package was much worse than the elite private universities, which had more fellowships as part of the offer and lower teaching loads for TAs.

[dismalist]

The point is that some places are trying to get higher quality students. There may well be a cost in collegiality. Maybe there's a tradeoff, maybe there isn't.

Anyway, how much are we willing to pay for collegiality. Maybe not much.

Berkeley stopped doing it because word got around, and they were likely losing their best picks. In any case, their financial aid package was much worse than the elite private universities, which had more fellowships as part of the offer and lower teaching loads for TAs.

Fine, but why would one lose one's best picks in the face of competition? One would lose the worst, which is desirable.

Of course, if Berkeley can't pay, that's another matter.

But that's the point of this thread -- when should a place shut down?  My answer is when they can't finance the education of the students who they accept, by whatever existing means.

Usually advocacy of more finance from government is just that, advocacy also for keeping programs open. Here on this thread, it's been that there should be less finance by non-government, such as self finance! Oh my god, a self contradiction!

Nay, it's about raising wages, nothing more. Wishing some center to close programs that are financially viable is just a different means.

[marshwiggle]

The point is that some places are trying to get higher quality students. There may well be a cost in collegiality. Maybe there's a tradeoff, maybe there isn't.

Anyway, how much are we willing to pay for collegiality. Maybe not much.

Berkeley stopped doing it because word got around, and they were likely losing their best picks. In any case, their financial aid package was much worse than the elite private universities, which had more fellowships as part of the offer and lower teaching loads for TAs.

Fine, but why would one lose one's best picks in the face of competition? One would lose the worst, which is desirable.

Not necessarily. I was a first-gen university student from a rural area. Even though I got top marks in my subject in high school, I had no idea what the competition would be like in university. And when I went to grad school, it was pretty much the same thing all over again.  Unless a person had a parent or some other mentor who was a senior faculty member in that discipline, I don't imagine anyone would have a good idea how they'd stack up against the others. (I was an A student as an undergrad, but since grad students would potentially be coming from all over the world, I couldn't assume my undergrad performance would hold up.)

So a 50% attrition rate would be something I'd avoid, unless I had solid evidence that I would be in the top 50%.

[dismalist]

The point is that some places are trying to get higher quality students. There may well be a cost in collegiality. Maybe there's a tradeoff, maybe there isn't.

Anyway, how much are we willing to pay for collegiality. Maybe not much.

Berkeley stopped doing it because word got around, and they were likely losing their best picks. In any case, their financial aid package was much worse than the elite private universities, which had more fellowships as part of the offer and lower teaching loads for TAs.

Fine, but why would one lose one's best picks in the face of competition? One would lose the worst, which is desirable.

Not necessarily. I was a first-gen university student from a rural area. Even though I got top marks in my subject in high school, I had no idea what the competition would be like in university. And when I went to grad school, it was pretty much the same thing all over again.  Unless a person had a parent or some other mentor who was a senior faculty member in that discipline, I don't imagine anyone would have a good idea how they'd stack up against the others. (I was an A student as an undergrad, but since grad students would potentially be coming from all over the world, I couldn't assume my undergrad performance would hold up.)

So a 50% attrition rate would be something I'd avoid, unless I had solid evidence that I would be in the top 50%.

I was in a position very similar to yours, marsh, identical except for the rural part.

What are we gonna do about it? We can't have insurance against all bad outcomes caused by retrospectively wrong decisions, because of information asymmetries and the bad behavior that that allows.

Maybe insurance is what people want.  Maybe that's behind the desire for equality of outcomes. I don't know. We ourselves have to bear some risk, but we can give the least fortunate among us money, and we do.

Greetings from another working stiff! :-)

[mleok]

Fine, but why would one lose one's best picks in the face of competition? One would lose the worst, which is desirable.

Berkeley stopped this because they were losing their best picks. Why go to a school with such a toxic policy when you have the option of going somewhere equally prestigious where you know they are truly interested in you? Their policy simply made their offer less desirable than similarly prestigious institutions, so people with options just refused Berkeley's offer.

[marshwiggle]

I was a first-gen university student from a rural area. Even though I got top marks in my subject in high school, I had no idea what the competition would be like in university. And when I went to grad school, it was pretty much the same thing all over again.  Unless a person had a parent or some other mentor who was a senior faculty member in that discipline, I don't imagine anyone would have a good idea how they'd stack up against the others. (I was an A student as an undergrad, but since grad students would potentially be coming from all over the world, I couldn't assume my undergrad performance would hold up.)

So a 50% attrition rate would be something I'd avoid, unless I had solid evidence that I would be in the top 50%.

I was in a position very similar to yours, marsh, identical except for the rural part.

What are we gonna do about it? We can't have insurance against all bad outcomes caused by retrospectively wrong decisions, because of information asymmetries and the bad behavior that that allows.

I'm not sure it's about insurance per se.

Consider these two messages:

Message 1
"There are only N spaces in the highly competitive Basketweaving program. We admit 2N students each year, and at the end of first year only the top N will proceed."


Message 2
"Previous grades aren't a perfect predictor of university performance. If a cutoff is set for admission, some students above the cutoff will still fail, and some who were below the cutoff would have succeeded.  For this reason, we use a cutoff low enough that many just above the cutoff will probably fail, so that the class size after first year will be roughly half of the number admitted."

Now, consider either of those with this supplemental message:

Supplemental
"Based on your high school grades, you are in the 90th percentile of incoming students."


The second message has two important things going for it that might appeal even to good students.

• It's descriptive, not prescriptive. (50% attrition rate is likely, but not necessary.)
• The reason for admitting extra is a benefit to the students, rather than gladiatorial.

For me, even knowing I was above 50%, I would have been hesitant about the first. Without the supplemental message I would have never even considered it.

Maybe insurance is what people want.  Maybe that's behind the desire for equality of outcomes. I don't know. We ourselves have to bear some risk, but we can give the least fortunate among us money, and we do.

For the best students, I think quantified risk is perfectly fine.

Greetings from another working stiff! :-)

I'm proud that my dad was working class and my mom was a teacher, so I can't be accused of having been culturally "privileged" to thrive at university. :)

[mamselle]

Ask any Ivy retention officer how many "heritage" admissions are really leveraged into success in their school.

They still have to do the work and take responsibility for their actions.

They may know a bit more about what those actions should be, and how to finesse disciplinary results when they act otherwise, but a goodly number also don't finish, despite their apparently simpler admission process.

So, not a lot of room for reverse-entitlement, really (having had two parents who both finished college, and worked in R1s)

M.

[dismalist]

Fine, but why would one lose one's best picks in the face of competition? One would lose the worst, which is desirable.

Berkeley stopped this because they were losing their best picks. Why go to a school with such a toxic policy when you have the option of going somewhere equally prestigious where you know they are truly interested in you? Their policy simply made their offer less desirable than similarly prestigious institutions, so people with options just refused Berkeley's offer.

Ya, I see your point. But none of this is secret. Why would someone who won't deal with a toxic policy or is highly risk averse apply to such a program in the first place? He'd go if no other school took him? That's not very anti-toxic or risk averse.

At least according the US News -- here survey based -- both Berkeley Math and Chicago Econ are top ranked. Chicago Econ thrives on its toxicity, but Berkeley Math didn't?

Seems to me you already gave the best answer:

In any case, their financial aid package was much worse than the elite private universities, which had more fellowships as part of the offer and lower teaching loads for TAs.

[Parasaurolophus]

The USNews rankings are garbage. They're even more garbage for graduate education. Where they're the only rankings available, they are decidedly not better than nothing. Just look at their methodology.

Students tend to apply broadly, and see where they are accepted. The decision of which program to attend is made later, with (hopefully) more information in hand. And that kind of toxicity, while it may be well known to people familiar with the field in question, is not generally well known to undergraduates. Indeed, my experience suggests that it's actually pretty rare even for people in the field (including at R1s!) to be all that well informed about graduate education in their own field, meaning that the quality of advice faculty advisors give is going to be pretty variable. It takes a certain kind of person to keep up with all the gossip and relative ranking stuff, and most academics just aren't that person (I am...). It also helps if a few central people in the discipline publicly keep track of that sort of stuff—rankings, faculty movement, etc. But that seems to be pretty rare. Philosophy has it, Law has something comparable (courtesy of the same guy!), and IIRC economics has something similar. I'm sure there are more, but it's rare.

[mamselle]

OK, Sciences:: Humanities :: :: Soup :: Nuts, but here goes:

So, a friend's son (bright, has some ADHD stuff going on, but a good, steady worker, with supportive, well-educative family--his dad's a prof with industry experience in his own field and tenure in his own school) finished his B.S. at one R1 and started applying around for an Engineering MA-to-Ph.D. program with a focus on mathematics (his major) and, I think, ecology (his minor).

He must have applied to 20 places, finally got in at one that, while not the top 1/3 or even the top 1/2 of his list, was respectable and will probably be fine (a family member went there and did quite well). I don't know if grades or a poorly-written reference letter or something else made it so hard, but it's just also the fact that there are thousands more like him.

That school, to all appearances, is pretty solid, but it's not in the higher echelons of the country. If all goes well, he'll get a decent degree, find a job, and be able to settle sometime in the next decade or so.

Why would it make sense to close it down, since it's not a "top" Ph.D. program? What is so inherently more valuable about STEM/STEAM work over the humanities that the target is painted on the back of one side of the equation but not the other?

Just to broaden the question a bit....

M. 

[dismalist]

OK, Sciences:: Humanities :: :: Soup :: Nuts, but here goes:

...

Why would it make sense to close it down, since it's not a "top" Ph.D. program? What is so inherently more valuable about STEM/STEAM work over the humanities that the target is painted on the back of one side of the equation but not the other?

Just to broaden the question a bit....

M.

Precisely, mamselle! There is no reason to close down any program if it is working and can finance itself. The field is irrelevant. STEM, SCHTEM!

Wanting to close something down that is working presupposes knowledge about what is desirable that we don't have. What is desirable for others may well not be desirable for me.

We should therefore restrict ourselves to general principles in advocating policy.

[dismalist]

The USNews rankings are garbage. They're even more garbage for graduate education. Where they're the only rankings available, they are decidedly not better than nothing. Just look at their methodology.

Students tend to apply broadly, and see where they are accepted. The decision of which program to attend is made later, with (hopefully) more information in hand. And that kind of toxicity, while it may be well known to people familiar with the field in question, is not generally well known to undergraduates. Indeed, my experience suggests that it's actually pretty rare even for people in the field (including at R1s!) to be all that well informed about graduate education in their own field, meaning that the quality of advice faculty advisors give is going to be pretty variable. It takes a certain kind of person to keep up with all the gossip and relative ranking stuff, and most academics just aren't that person (I am...). It also helps if a few central people in the discipline publicly keep track of that sort of stuff—rankings, faculty movement, etc. But that seems to be pretty rare. Philosophy has it, Law has something comparable (courtesy of the same guy!), and IIRC economics has something similar. I'm sure there are more, but it's rare.

In the discussion, I've used the term "risk averse", which is not pejorative. "Toxicity" is a value laden synonym in this discussion -- to some. I knew it would come up. But only U Chicago Econ does this 50%  stuff, so students there might like toxicity or like gambling. But, hell, they are good!

I used the US News rankings to be able to compare an apple to an apple. Other rankings will tell us the same, Para. There is information in the rankings, just like there are nuggets in garbage! Anyway, the point is that the rankings placed both programs highly and that everybody sees the rankings. So there is something comparable.

Undergraduates considering going on to an Economics graduate program are knowledgeable to the point of being obsessive, not only about rankings [plural], but also about faculty movement and gossip you rightly mention.

Anyway, it's not about rankings here. It's about strategies departments use to succeed. And one department succeeds beyond any dreams. Just one, though.

[mamselle]

But, owing to things like issues over submitted materials, etc., significant players like Columbia can be omitted altogether in the USN&WR standings, so that doesn't seem quite right, either.

GIGO.

M.

[dismalist]

But, owing to things like issues over submitted materials, etc., significant players like Columbia can be omitted altogether in the USN&WR standings, so that doesn't seem quite right, either.

GIGO.

M.

Incorrect. But it doesn't matter to my point.