But in terms of libraries? Even
Yeah, no.
Harvard or Michigan?
-
Harvard lists every person that earned a degree and their initial placement (with some missing data).
http://sociology.fas.harvard.edu/pages/graduate-degrees-awarded
Michigan is a little less transparent.
https://www.lsa.umich.edu/soc/graduate/recentgraduatesandplacement
No need to rely on SJMR trolls, or one year of data if placement is something you think is important for deciding between the two programs.
-
And true to Ivy form, Harvard invents postdocs for its students who don't get placed, rather than admit/display that their students couldn't get placed:
Burak Eskici
(Sociology, May 2014)
Thesis Title: Institutional and Cultural Roots of Industrial Development in Modern Turkey
Committee: Orlando Patterson (Chair), Filiz Garip, and Jason Beckfield
Initial Placement: Harvard College Fellow, Department of Sociology, Harvard UniversityHarvard lists every person that earned a degree and their initial placement (with some missing data).
http://sociology.fas.harvard.edu/pages/graduate-degrees-awarded
Michigan is a little less transparent.
https://www.lsa.umich.edu/soc/graduate/recentgraduatesandplacement
No need to rely on SJMR trolls, or one year of data if placement is something you think is important for deciding between the two programs. -
and here again:
Matthew Kaliner
(Sociology, March 2014)
Thesis Title: Art, Crime, and the Image of the City
Committee: Robert J. Sampson (Chair), William Julius Wilson, and Christopher Winship
Initial Placement: Lecturer on Sociology, Harvard UniversityAnd then for others, their placement is simply unlisted.
So to conclude: harvard is not more transparent than michigan with its placement listings, it's just more contrived .
-
AGAIN!
Eva Rosen
(Sociology & Social Policy, May 2014)
Thesis Title: The Rise of the Horizontal Ghetto: Poverty in a Post-public Housing Era
Committee: Mary C. Waters (Chair), Matthew Desmond, Kathryn Edin, Michele Lamont, and William Julius Wilson
Initial Placement: Harvard College Fellow, Department of Sociology, Harvard UniversitySo I counted and of Harvard's 7 2014 grads, only three were actually placed as APs, and all of their postdocs were *internal* postdocs in the dep of sociology. Weak.
-
"continue to support"
yes, like a 29 yr old who lives with his mom "continues" to get support. They could best support their students by getting them TT jobs and real postdocs that lead to jobs instead of coddling them on the harvard teat to end up with CVs that scream "I couldnt get placed to Daddy Harvard told me I could stay."
This is a tiny cohort of grads. How hard is it to place 7 harvard graduates? They placed three. Michigan placed 4X as many. This isn't even a real discussion.
Sure. But another way to look at that is that they continue to support their students in a way that is not common among even very highly ranked, wealthy programs.
-
Mentorship: they both suck egregiously at actual hands on mentorship. Pick your poison.
-
Actually, I have gotten incredible hands on mentorship from all of my committee members at U of M - the majority of whom are "famous." My is that this is true for many, many grad students at Umich. Is it not like this at other places?
-
And true to Ivy form, Harvard invents postdocs for its students who don't get placed, rather than admit/display that their students couldn't get placed:
Burak Eskici
(Sociology, May 2014)
Thesis Title: Institutional and Cultural Roots of Industrial Development in Modern Turkey
Committee: Orlando Patterson (Chair), Filiz Garip, and Jason Beckfield
Initial Placement: Harvard College Fellow, Department of Sociology, Harvard University
Harvard lists every person that earned a degree and their initial placement (with some missing data).
http://sociology.fas.harvard.edu/pages/graduate-degrees-awarded
Michigan is a little less transparent.
https://www.lsa.umich.edu/soc/graduate/recentgraduatesandplacement
No need to rely on SJMR trolls, or one year of data if placement is something you think is important for deciding between the two programs.It's a competitive university-wide program: http://isites.harvard.edu/icb/icb.do?keyword=k15149&tabgroupid=icb.tabgroup153195. It's nothing something randomly made up.
-
"continue to support"
yes, like a 29 yr old who lives with his mom "continues" to get support. They could best support their students by getting them TT jobs and real postdocs that lead to jobs instead of coddling them on the harvard teat to end up with CVs that scream "I couldnt get placed to Daddy Harvard told me I could stay."
This is a tiny cohort of grads. How hard is it to place 7 harvard graduates? They placed three. Michigan placed 4X as many. This isn't even a real discussion.And it's great that you strongly support your school, but the 11 or 12 placements Michigan had this year was exceptional. The previous few years Michigan placed something like 5 on average. Check some of the older threads where this has already been hashed out.
-
it's not that competitive if half of the grads without TT offers got it. And it's strange because the faculty selecting you are in the same department as those who would presumably write your letters. This is harvard coddling its flock.
It's a competitive university-wide program: http://isites.harvard.edu/icb/icb.do?keyword=k15149&tabgroupid=icb.tabgroup153195. It's nothing something randomly made up.
-
And the argument here is that Harvard is more transparent with it's placements. It's not.
And it's great that you strongly support your school, but the 11 or 12 placements Michigan had this year was exceptional. The previous few years Michigan placed something like 5 on average. Check some of the older threads where this has already been hashed out.
-
it's not that competitive if half of the grads without TT offers got it. And it's strange because the faculty selecting you are in the same department as those who would presumably write your letters. This is harvard coddling its flock.
I don't understand the rationale here. On one hand, we chastise programs that don't provide support for their students (see any discussion thread about Wisconsin). On the other, programs that DO provide support are 'coddling.' I get that providing postdocs to your own students isn't exactly the same as providing, say, additional write-up funding. But really, how different is it? Seems like shifting titles around for the same effect.
So do we want support, or don't we? I think a lot of us would be thrilled to get an upgrade in title (if only symbolic) and another year or two of funding. It would get my parents off my back, anyway.
-
I think by 'providing support' we mean guiding people through the program, providing resources, and then getting them TT jobs.
Keeping your former students around so that they can continue to do the same labor for you they were doing as grad students is not "support." Getting them a TT job is support. I also find it a strange conflict of interest when a school hires its own graduates as postdocs. There is a reason this practice is frowned upon. It's stifling and it doesn't encourage career growth. It also just looks strange to "apply" for a position from the department from which you just graduated. What are you going to say in that cover letter? "My training was superb because X professor-- meaning you-- advised me. GIven my research and area, I would like to work with X professor-- the same woman who has been my chair this entire time."
-
Can I add, this harvard cannibalistic postdoc think screams elitism to me. Instead of letting precious harvard snowflakes go out into academia and have to "settle" for a job at an MRM state school or VAP/postdoc like the rest of us, harvard invents these internal postdocs to make sure their offspring retain the harvard brand. Wouldn't want to have them tainted by the less-than-elite market, would we?