Clarity for prospectives
(66 posts) (1 voice)-
Posted 1 year ago #
-
Thank you for posting.
Posted 1 year ago # -
Those Duke numbers are not completely honest.
Posted 1 year ago # -
Still seems like they are trying to spin (or "give additional context to") the numbers in a favorable way, but at least they are starting from an objective baseline.
A side-by-side comparison table would be even more transparent and honest.
Posted 1 year ago # -
Strikes me as a useless webpage.
Posted 1 year ago # -
It was last updated next year.
Posted 1 year ago # -
The graduate survey has some data on this. You can either download the data file, or search on http://www.phds.org. You can ccompare programs there too.
That said, having specific data rather than percentages will be useful. - and there is no data on attrition in this eiter.
Posted 1 year ago # -
This looks like a useful initiative that I fully support.
Two observations: For one, all of these schools have small to non-existent theory programs. That will always make your numbers look better. They are also relatively small doctoral cohorts (although NYU seems to have grown a lot) and its easier to do well per student when you have fewer of them to worry about.
More transparency is always good. But my guess is that some of the bigger programs, especially those with substantial theory cohorts, are not going to be excited to present their data in this manner.
Posted 1 year ago # -
I'm sure students would like to see figures by subfield. But for a small program perhaps that doesn't make sense, since the numbers in any program are so small.
Should big programs fear to report their data? I think everyone already knew that the bigger programs tend to have long left tails of poor performers and dropouts, while still placing some top students. I do suspect that they tend to present their results in a way that implies the outcomes for the top 20% are modal.
Posted 1 year ago # -
^^Your claim about not having large theory programs is true of Wash U, Emory, and (especially) NYU, but Duke is a major theory program (I believe in the last two years or so they've graduated more people in theory than in all other subfields, combined), and though Stanford theory is small by comparison to other subfields at Stanford, it is a solid program and definitely on the rise as they've made some major hires over the last few years.
Posted 1 year ago # -
That's awesome! Hopefully folks will start asking questions if a dept refuses to upload its data. Before that happens, there will need to be a critical mass of programs uploading their data (including CHYMPS).
Let's see if we get there. I have to assume, for instance, that Rochester, UNC, and other programs that already report their entire placements on their webpage.
Posted 1 year ago # -
"Those Duke numbers are not completely honest. "
If so, you should point it out. Let's hold departments accountable. Or send an email to Beck pointing out the mistake. As long as there's a way to hold depts accountable (e.g., dropping them from the list if they keep making "mistakes") then it has the potential to be really helpful.
Posted 1 year ago # -
Sorry, but the numbers posted on that web page are not accurate. Being a graduate student at Duke, I can say with certainty that the cohort that entered in Fall 2006 had 10 members, and three of them have left without earning a PhD (although the department may still technically classify them as "ABD" even though they are not actively pursuing the PhD).
I'm also not absolutely certain, but I'm pretty sure the cohort entering in Fall 2008 had 13 members, not 9.
Some of the attrition numbers on the Duke page just sound fishy. Maybe it's just that the department considers inactive students who have already left to still be "ABD." But there's no excuse for misstating the number of students that entered in each cohort - It's a pretty black or white number.
Posted 1 year ago # -
phds.org says average quant scores for top ten schools are 750+... is this true? I thought the average for most was about 700?
Posted 1 year ago # -
They post their graduates' placements, but not attrition. Is it so bad? Unraveling theory says I must infer yes.
http://www.rochester.edu/college/psc/new-site/people/phd-alumni/
Posted 1 year ago # -
^ True. Is there any department that posts this info on its dept webpage? That must be pretty rare.
So Duke is lying. What about the other ones?
Posted 1 year ago # -
The Duke numbers for 2005 are even worse. I'm not sure of the precise number, but the entering class was much closer to 20, and there were 5 or 6 people who left the program, at least. My guess is that they do not count people who left with MAs in their attrition numbers. I think that makes more sense of how they get to one. It would also suggest that they are reclassifying people who entered as PhD students but left with MAs as not part of the entering class (as though they entered as MA students). This is very dishonest.
Posted 1 year ago # -
That sounds pretty sketchy if this is how departments are revising history when reporting the size of their past incoming cohorts. I wonder which other departments are also concealing their true attrition rates. The department where I am currently a graduate student does not appear on that website, but I have never seen our DGS ever report the true number of incoming cohort members over the past several years.
Note to department chairs and DGS's: As graduate students, we will defend our department vigorously to the death, but we also will not tolerate it when you lie to prospective grad students about any of the following relevant numbers:
- Average time to completion of the PhD.
- Percentage of incoming cohorts that eventually land a tenure-track job.As grad students, most of us know quite well that departments tend to fudge these numbers or only selectively report certain outcomes in order to paint a rosier picture. Sadly, much of what appears on that website appears to be more of the same.
Posted 1 year ago # -
Very good initiative. Would have been helpful when I was looking for schools - at least, you have a way to put some pressure on schools to reveal their data.
Also for ^^^ and ^^^^: as far as I can see, they do post the attrition number.
Posted 1 year ago # -
They post their graduates' placements, but not attrition. Is it so bad? Unraveling theory says I must infer yes.
http://www.rochester.edu/college/psc/new-site/people/phd-alumni/
LOL at Rochester listing all placements from 1967-2011 by alphabetical order, instead of listing them by year. This format so subtly disguises the fact that Rochester has had very few TT placements during the past two years.
It would be more revealing to know the true number of incoming cohort members from the past ten years. One could then compare these numbers to the number of TT placements in recent years.
Posted 1 year ago # -
^^The problem is not pressuring schools to reveal numbers about incoming cohorts. The real problem is getting department to be TRUTHFUL when reporting these numbers.
The use of subterfuges, such as Duke omitting those students who left with a MA, only contribute to the misinformation of prospective grad students at these schools. I know of other departments that have used similar tricks.
Posted 1 year ago # -
It seems bizarre to me that a school like Duke would go out of its way to join (and laud) this transparency initiative while fudging its numbers in an obvious manner that was sure to be discovered once anybody really looked under the hood.
I'm not saying it didn't happen (I have no info at all) but would like to hear from Munger on this one.
Posted 1 year ago # -
Looks like "terminal MAs" are listed on the right-hand side for some schools, and attrition numbers are people who left before receiving a terminal MA or ABD status.
Posted 1 year ago # -
^This is not the case in the Duke one. More importantly, they seem to be reclassifying people who entered as PhD students but left with MAs as though they were never part of the incoming class. This makes their graduation and placement rates look much better than they are.
If the goal is to be honest with prospectives, then they should be honest about how many people are leaving the program, and that includes people who leave with an MA (which is the overwhelmingly preferred option because it gives you something to show for this period of your life, even if it is pretty worthless).
Would you be more or less blindly optimistic about grad school if you thought about one or two people left from each class, or if you had the more accurate numbers, including terminal MAs?
Posted 1 year ago # -
At least Rochester shows all its placements, alphabetical and all. I wish other departments did at least that.
Posted 1 year ago # -
So, Neal Beck, Nate Jenson, Jonathan Rodden, Jeff Staton and Mike Ward take PSJR srsly.
Posted 1 year ago # -
^^ That's basically the aim of this project, isn't it? Sure you don't know the placements by name, but then again, you can easily recover that. The really non-transparent thing so far is the attrition rate and the non-academic placement. At least this project makes the former a bit clearer.
Posted 1 year ago # -
Does Robert Walker still even work at Washington University St. Louis?
Posted 1 year ago # -
^^The project does more to mislead prospective grad students when departments selectively delete grad students from their past cohort rosters.
Seriously, does anyone think it's ethical to under-report the size of your incoming cohorts by excluding everyone who dropped out after receiving an MA?
I don't think it's right to single out Duke for this offense, though, because I doubt they are the only ones doing it.
Four years ago, when I was a prospective grad student, a certain DGS refused to give us information about the average time to completion of the PhD in her program (Or more specifically, she claimed the data had never been collected.) What she then did offer, however, was the *median* time to completion among students that eventually *were placed* in a TT-position. In other words, the median excluded anyone who took so long to complete their PhD that they couldn't be hired for a TT job.
And also, who calculates the *median* and then claims that the *average* of that same variable has never been calculated?
Posted 1 year ago # -
Who wants to wager that the numbers on the Duke webpage will be revised within the next week? And who says that PSJR has no effect on what faculty in the profession do?
Posted 1 year ago #