Universities Hire PhD Graduates Based On....... give your opinion

[canadian phd]

I'm considering several PhD programs in marketing at Canadian universities. Schools I'm considering include:

 

University of British Columbia (Sauder)

University of Alberta

University of Calgary (Haskayne)

University of Toronto (Rotman)

Queen's University

 

My question is, what do univerisities look at when evaluating potential faculty members (PhD grads)?

 

Also, a break down (in percent weighting of importance) would be helpful.

 

Personally, my guess is:

 

35% Quality of the unversity attended for the PhD

25% Quality of dissertation

20% Previous articles published

20% Reputation of supervisor

 

If my above weightings are correct, then, in my opinion, it might not be worth it to make a huge sacrifice (ex. lose wife's job, sell house, be poor for four years, be away from friends and family four years sooner) in order to attend a more prestigous program.

 

What are your thoughts on the weightings?

[possible_phd]

I think your weightings are off, and the factors are not independent; they are all highly correlated with one another.

 

In the end, the only thing that matters is your research potential. Weight that at 100%. What makes up research potential? Publications, papers under review, projects in the pipeline, having solid training at solid schools with solid faculty members that will go to bat for you on the job market, etc. Trying to break it down into independent proportions is impossible, but if you had to pick one as being most important, it would be publications/papers under review.

[phdhope]

Agreed to above. School prestige is important and so is the support of your supervisor but research potential is really what is being evaluated. Now since you are asking this question in order to determine where to go to school I think the question that should be asked is "where is the school that I would be able to maximize my research potential".

[Bloomsbury]

School prestige is not so important. You can have well-known supervisors in 2nd rank schools. What is important is your pipeline of future publications.

[cosmokramer]

I'm surprised no one said faculty connections to the schools you are targeting! I mean, isn't that a big deal?

[AppleAndOrange]

I'm surprised no one said faculty connections to the schools you are targeting! I mean, isn't that a big deal?

 

Yes, faculty connections matter, but only if one does good research and develops friendships. One should not attend school X because one thinks profs there might have connections with school Y. This would be speculative and risky given the tremendous circumstantial variables that come into play.

 

It's an obvious point but it is worth mentioning: everything depends on YOU. Faculty references only come if you do very good work, are friendly, and manage your graduate career in light of the goal of being placed. I've heard firsthand from grad students and faculty that schools admit based on who they feel will turn into the most attractive job-market candidates; this is directly related to research skill and sociability (will this person be a good colleague? will he/she get good reviews from our cash cow MBA/Exec Ed students? will he/she bring in money/prestige?). No faculty will go to bat for you simply because you're in their program, but being in their program gives you more of an opportunity to earn their respect.

[haread]

Although scholarship and publication are the primary career builders, certain programs also feed certain other schools. I had this discussion a few months ago with a Ph.D. alumni regarding his initial placement. Although he had two A-list publications, and there were openings at certain top-tier schools he was unable to secure interviews with them due to the fact that he went to a large state school (he placed at a solid program nonetheless and was happy with his decision).

 

As we discussed it, he shared with me information on how the game is played. There are established feeder networks that certain top schools share (you could call it in-breeding). This plays well for new Ph.D.'s if they are lucky enough to get placement there (not all do).

 

The downside in some situations is that the likelihood of getting tenure is extremely limited at these top schools. They have a revolving door of highly motivated Ph.D.'s who work their butts off for a few years before getting pushed out to make way for a new crop. They then end up moving down a notch to another school where they get tenure.

 

This was attributed in some cases to the need to maintain the prestige of MBA and Executive Education programs (i.e. "We hire the best, the brightest and most promising"). Someone paying tons of money to attend a top-tier MBA/Exec Ed program needs to get their money's worth, and the perception is that if the professor went to a "top" school, this may be the case.

 

The fact that they are so busy focusing on teaching (while senior professors focus on research) that their research output may be curtailed and there may not be a realization that this is hurting them until the second, third or fourth year, at which point it may be too late for them the play catch-up in time for their tenure review.

 

A good idea is to speak to alumni of programs you are considering and ask them what they thought of the experience and how well prepared they felt they were at graduation, five and ten years down the road.

 

Haread

[Bloomsbury]

Hmm once a prof get tenure there is much less incentive to do research, usually tenured professor tend to do more teaching and less research.

[haread]

It all depends on how the school is structured and the focus of the faculty. Some schools focus less on their MBA programs and more on faculty productivity.

 

Some of the programs with incredibly productive faculty members focus less on teaching than on the their research. These can be great places to be if you really want to learn how to get your research publishes. In many cases several of the faculty members have held editorial positions for the A-List journals.

 

Haread

[canadian phd]

With regard to getting a job after graduation, does it matter whether a PhD graduate has different research interests than the current marketing professors at a prospective university?

 

Would most universities hire a PhD grad with quite different research interests than current faculty members?

OR

Do universities prefer people who can add to the specialization of the marketing department?

[taxPhD]

With regard to getting a job after graduation, does it matter whether a PhD graduate has different research interests than the current marketing professors at a prospective university?

 

Would most universities hire a PhD grad with quite different research interests than current faculty members?

OR

Do universities prefer people who can add to the specialization of the marketing department?

 

It's hard to say.

 

But in general, I would say that schools tend to hire folks with similar research interests to current faculty. This may me intentional or it may be an unintentional bias, but either way I would say that the hiring committee tends to learn towards those with more similar research interests to the current faculty. But this could also be driven by the candidates more heavily pursuing jobs at schools where the research interests align better as well. So it is probably driven by both sides.

[elsenot]

If you are looking for a job within Canada perhaps it will matter less what school you go to. However, if you are seeking a job outside Canada you should pick one which has recently placed people in good international schools.

 

Sometimes it really isn't a matter of weightings as preferences can be lexicographic.

[elsenot]

Although scholarship and publication are the primary career builders, certain programs also feed certain other schools. I had this discussion a few months ago with a Ph.D. alumni regarding his initial placement. Although he had two A-list publications, and there were openings at certain top-tier schools he was unable to secure interviews with them due to the fact that he went to a large state school (he placed at a solid program nonetheless and was happy with his decision).

 

As we discussed it, he shared with me information on how the game is played. There are established feeder networks that certain top schools share (you could call it in-breeding). This plays well for new Ph.D.'s if they are lucky enough to get placement there (not all do).

 

The downside in some situations is that the likelihood of getting tenure is extremely limited at these top schools. They have a revolving door of highly motivated Ph.D.'s who work their butts off for a few years before getting pushed out to make way for a new crop. They then end up moving down a notch to another school where they get tenure.

 

This was attributed in some cases to the need to maintain the prestige of MBA and Executive Education programs (i.e. "We hire the best, the brightest and most promising"). Someone paying tons of money to attend a top-tier MBA/Exec Ed program needs to get their money's worth, and the perception is that if the professor went to a "top" school, this may be the case.

 

The fact that they are so busy focusing on teaching (while senior professors focus on research) that their research output may be curtailed and there may not be a realization that this is hurting them until the second, third or fourth year, at which point it may be too late for them the play catch-up in time for their tenure review.

 

A good idea is to speak to alumni of programs you are considering and ask them what they thought of the experience and how well prepared they felt they were at graduation, five and ten years down the road.

 

Haread

There is only one "top" school where that critique could conceivably apply. All the other top schools actually have remarkably light teaching loads and as a result their junior professors do get a lot of time to do research relatively.

[canadian phd]

If you are looking for a job within Canada perhaps it will matter less what school you go to. However, if you are seeking a job outside Canada you should pick one which has recently placed people in good international schools.

 

Sometimes it really isn't a matter of weightings as preferences can be lexicographic.

 

Yes, upon graduation I plan to secure a position in Canada. After graduation, I will also apply to other universities in places that would be enjoyable to live in (Oregon, Washington, California etc.)

[theworstisover]

Not that I disagree with the importance of connections or fit with the current faculty research (either similiar or dissimilar interests, depending on the direction the dept is moving in), but the thing I hear over and over (and over and over) again is A-level publication(s).

 

I know that many (but not necessarily all) top schools sort applicants into two piles: those with A-level pub(s) and those without. From what I understand, an A-level pub dramatically increases your chances of getting a job talk. That said, getting a job talk is not the same as getting a job - lots of promising candidates crash and burn in the job talk. The faculty are not only selecting someone with potential for strong research productivity, but also someone that they'd want to sit at their proverbial lunch table for 6+ years.

[possible_phd]

An A-level pub increases the chances of a job talk because almost nobody has one when they go on the market.

[theworstisover]

Eh, I don't think "almost nobody" has one. Maybe not in print, but I think a healthy minority of people from solid programs have a forthcoming or at least an R&R (speaking from the management side of the b-school). And, in any event, it's important to bear in mind at the outset of the PhD program because you have to hit the ground running with substantive research to have the possibility of an A-level pub at the end.

 

Lol, if "almost nobody" had one, it would be tough to sort in two piles... wouldn't make much of a pile...