Sponsored Ad:
See the top rated post in this thread. Click here

Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 45

Thread: Maketing PhD ranking by Group in North America

  1. #11
    Within my grasp! BrazilianPhD's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2016
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Posts
    192
    Rep Power
    3


    Good post? Yes | No

    Re: Maketing PhD ranking by Group in North America

    Sponsored Ad:
    Quote Originally Posted by PobleNou View Post
    Agree, like a moderation or mediation effect from research quality to placements.
    Yeah, that sounds a lot like what I heard recently from a professor from another university who is now responsible for evaluating profiles of people who are applying to tenure-track positions.

    "School" is like a moderator. But not exactly "school ranking", by what he told us. A lot of professors I talked with are extremely skeptical about a ranking for PhD programs. It's more about "school reputation", which is different from ranking. Reputation includes schools' strengths and weaknesses, cultural values, teaching philosophies, lines of research they are specialized, faculty they know, etc. That reputation can help them to identify the applicants with better odds of fitting with what they are looking for.

    Let's say they are looking for someone for empirical research, to try to strengthen ties between the school and firms. For that particular purpose, probably there are some A schools that are actually better than some A+ school. Or they are looking for someone who can teach MBA courses, since many top schools also have a need for teaching. Again, some A schools may be known to provide better training for teaching than some A+ schools that are only focused on research. So, school is a moderator, but not necessarily ranking.

    Let me use my own school as example. University of Houston/Bauer is rising, but is not yet a really top school. However, if some top school is looking for people who do research about sales management, lots of them know that we have some of the very best researchers for that kind of thing here. Even if the school is not a top school by itself, Dr. Michael Ahearne is a powerhouse name for that particular line of research.

    The professor who is hiring for his school told us another example related to "ranking". He very clearly told us that they look for people who may be hidden gems from schools with fewer resources (so, probably lower ranked schools). People who could do much better if they had access to better resources, resources that his school can provide.

    So, of course school ranking is a variable to take into consideration. But its importance compared to other aspects of those schools and also of the students is really something to think about. Rankings sometimes seem like an obsession here at Urch, but I don't see that when I talk with professors from several universities. And, as you can guess, tips about getting a tenure-track position is one of the things we always ask when we meet them.

  2. #12
    Eager!
    Join Date
    Oct 2017
    Posts
    43
    Rep Power
    2


    Good post? Yes | No

    Re: Maketing PhD ranking by Group in North America

    Some schools do care about prestige when hiring but more and more (at least within management) what hiring committees look at is ability to publish. When going on the market, if you are on an A journal (solo or first-authored is best) this is a very good signal to hiring committees regardless of where you did your PhD (within reason...)

  3. #13
    A long long time ago XanthusARES's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    1,482
    Blog Entries
    14
    Rep Power
    12


    Good post? Yes | No

    Re: Maketing PhD ranking by Group in North America

    While I certainly agree strongly that ranking is extremely over inflated on here, and that it matters significantly less to hiring committees, there is an implicit ranking system that schools use. For example whether they admit it or not, coming from a Wharton or a Stanford will open more doors, given the exact same profile, than coming from UIUC. That being said if you're first author on an A pub and have a strong pipeline, that will open a lot of doors no matter where you're from.

    Basically what I'm getting at is that profs often pay lip service to what really matters being research, and I truly believe that they believe this cognitively. But there are often subconscious (and sometimes explicit) rankings that affect their decision to interview someone for a job. We could spend days going over whether a degree from a top school correlates with stronger research and if so, does that imply an inherent value to rankings. But I don't really want to do that. I do, though, want to state that whether that is true or not, and whether faculty say that or not, there is an understood hierarchy in the hiring process. It's not nearly as nuanced as those trying to decide where to apply want it to be. And nothing is ever straightforward in the hiring process. For instance maybe a school is looking for a particular type of research, or more likely specifically not looking for a certain type of research. But the hierarchy does exist.
    Til now I always got by on my own
    I never really cared until I met you...

  4. #14
    Eager! hngu178's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2017
    Posts
    57
    Rep Power
    2


    Good post? Yes | No

    Re: Maketing PhD ranking by Group in North America

    Quote Originally Posted by another user View Post
    How do you measure difficulty on admission and rigor of curriculum? Not even admission rate is a good measure for this, you would need data on students choice and their possible choices (what school they chose when they could have chosen others) to make a revealed preference approach. Or at least have the enrollment rate of those admitted. Do you have this data or this is just your feeling?

    Maybe I have a biased sample here but I can tell you that I know lots of people who chose some schools from group A and A- over some of the group A+. To be more specific, I find hard to believe that UCLA, USC and WUSTL are in group A+ while Michigan, Maryland, UCSD and Toronto are not. Also, following the criteria presented, it's very weird to think that UCSD and Dallas are in the same group as Western Ontario and Florida State for example, and in the group below that of Boulder and Florida.

    From what I've seen for the two first groups it should be (in no specific order):
    A+: Harvard, Stanford, MIT, Chicago, Yale, Columbia, NYU, Northwestern, Penn, Berkeley
    A: UCLA, USC, UCSD, Duke, Michigan, Cornell, CMU, WUSTL, Maryland... maybe UW, Rochester, Minnesota, Toronto (I think these are slightly below).
    A- should include Dallas, Emory, UBC, UNC, Wisconsin, Ohio State, Penn State, Austin ... maybe Indiana, Houston, TAMU.

    But I don't have access to any kind of data on admissions, so my ranking would be based on my perceptions about students' choices and on placements after graduation for quant.

    As for rigor of curriculum, this may vary a lot especially if the classes are taken with the economics students, because some of these universities have very different rankings in economics. For example, USC, UW, CMU, WUSTL have considerably worse economics programs compared to their quant program, Michigan, Duke, Cornell, UCLA have similar ranked programs (top 15), and Wisconsin and Minnesota are better ranked in economics.
    Also some schools have very flexible structure and students don't all take the same courses (Cornell and USC are examples).

    Nice exercise anyway, better than just take a look at UTD.
    Your statement could be true for Quant, but not true for CB. Columbia has professors from Baruch and UCLA: Keith Todd Wilcox | Columbia Business School Directory My ranking is for 3 tracks not only for Quant.
    USC has placement at MIT, Chicago, Michigan even in finance, more heavily quantitative:PhD Program | USC Marshall
    even for Quant Marketing, Harvard has Prof from Pittsburgh Rohit Deshpande
    - Faculty & Research - Harvard Business School
    .
    Stanford has 2 Prof from Duke, 2 from Ohio state in CB track.
    Ranking in Economics does not matter that much in Business School.
    Last edited by hngu178; 04-06-2018 at 12:16 AM.

  5. #15
    Eager! hngu178's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2017
    Posts
    57
    Rep Power
    2


    Good post? Yes | No

    Re: Maketing PhD ranking by Group in North America

    Quote Originally Posted by XanthusARES View Post
    While I certainly agree strongly that ranking is extremely over inflated on here, and that it matters significantly less to hiring committees, there is an implicit ranking system that schools use. For example whether they admit it or not, coming from a Wharton or a Stanford will open more doors, given the exact same profile, than coming from UIUC. That being said if you're first author on an A pub and have a strong pipeline, that will open a lot of doors no matter where you're from.

    Basically what I'm getting at is that profs often pay lip service to what really matters being research, and I truly believe that they believe this cognitively. But there are often subconscious (and sometimes explicit) rankings that affect their decision to interview someone for a job. We could spend days going over whether a degree from a top school correlates with stronger research and if so, does that imply an inherent value to rankings. But I don't really want to do that. I do, though, want to state that whether that is true or not, and whether faculty say that or not, there is an understood hierarchy in the hiring process. It's not nearly as nuanced as those trying to decide where to apply want it to be. And nothing is ever straightforward in the hiring process. For instance maybe a school is looking for a particular type of research, or more likely specifically not looking for a certain type of research. But the hierarchy does exist.
    I agree with you

  6. #16
    Eager! hngu178's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2017
    Posts
    57
    Rep Power
    2


    Good post? Yes | No

    Re: Maketing PhD ranking by Group in North America

    Remove

  7. #17
    Eager! hngu178's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2017
    Posts
    57
    Rep Power
    2


    Good post? Yes | No

    Re: Maketing PhD ranking by Group in North America

    Quote Originally Posted by BrazilianPhD View Post
    Trying to create a ranking is always a big problem. But, more important than the ranking, hngu178 provided the reasoning behind the ranking. Each one may come up with a different ranking, because it is really a personal thing. But the things to think about are more or less the same. So, very good.


    Just to add my two cents.


    I did some sort of ranking for myself when I was applying. But if I tried to do a ranking again now, after a few months of experience doing a PhD, it would be very, very different. And, curiously, it would be much harder now (yeah, having more information and experience can make things even more confusing). I know my experience is still limited, my sample is small, there is a lot of survival bias etc. But the more I learn, the more rankings seem less and less relevant, at least for me.


    I've met professors and PhD students from other schools, at different levels of ranking. I've seen them presenting their research, talking about their careers, etc.


    I've been greatly impressed by some research from lower level schools, and really disappointed by some presentations from people from A+ schools. A very eye-opening moment to me was to see a presentation from a guy from a really top school get completely crushed when someone in the audience pointed a major flaw in his reasoning that made everything he was showing useless. Beautiful math, wrong reasoning, useless work.


    I've talked with professors from A+ schools talking about their experiences, and thinking that's not what I'd like to do with my life. I've talked with professors who left A+ schools (really dream school level) and are now at a lower ranked school, doing much better.


    By now, it seems to me that the ranking of a school is weakly correlated with the quality of the work produced by their PhD students for at least the top 50 schools. There doesn’t seem to be a really significant difference between A+, A, and A-, and even if there is a difference in general, there are many exceptions to the rule. It is no wonder that hngu178 said that A schools hire from A+, A, A-, and even A+ schools can hire from A-.


    And, by now, it seems to me that the ranking of a school is also weakly correlated with the quality of the job they offer to their professors. Several professors from several schools mentioned something like that in one way or another.


    So, if the goal is to get a good job, getting too fixed on ranking can be a very bad strategy. It can make you go to a bad job at an A+ school, instead of getting a great job at an A- school, for example. Particularly if a positive working environment is more important than status for you. I've seen some bad things said about a few A+ schools, by people who are there and people who decided to leave them. And some great things about schools that were completely off my radar.
    thank you for understanding my ideas. Merrit based hiring system still works here to improve productivity. But we accept that Biased process exists!

  8. #18
    Trying to make mom and pop proud
    Join Date
    Feb 2018
    Posts
    29
    Rep Power
    1


    Good post? Yes | No

    Re: Maketing PhD ranking by Group in North America

    Your statement could be true for Quant, but not true for CB. Columbia has professors from Baruch and UCLA: Keith Todd Wilcox | Columbia Business School Directory My ranking is for 3 tracks not only for Quant.
    USC has placement at MIT, Chicago, Michigan even in finance, more heavily quantitative:PhD Program | USC Marshall
    even for Quant Marketing, Harvard has Prof from Pittsburgh Rohit Deshpande
    - Faculty & Research - Harvard Business School.
    Stanford has 2 Prof from Duke, 2 from Ohio state in CB track.
    Ok then check out the last 5 years of placements (Marketing +Strategy) for Toronto and Michigan, which you put in group "A":

    Toronto: City University HK, New South Wales, Northwestern (2x), Dalhousie U., INCAE Bus. Sch., Southern California, UCSD, LBS, U. Groningen, U. Technology Sydney, Western Ontario, MIT, Duke, Queen's, Rochester, Ryerson, Paris Inst. of Tech, Penn State.

    Michigan: Duke, LBS, U. Tech Sydney, Arizona State, SKEMA Business Sch., National U. Singapore, U. Florida, Southern California, UC-Davis, Wisconsin, California State (Long Beach), U. Kansas, Oregon State, Georgia Tech, Iowa State, Facebook

    Rochester: Brandeis U., U. of Buffalo, Purdue U., Adobe, Wash U., Nielsen Marketing

    Now look at the following:

    Florida: Oxford, Denver, City U. of HK, Renmin U. of China, Xiamen U., U. of Cincinnati (2x), Walsh College, U. of Mississippi

    Pittsburgh: their website is a mess, it's not in chronological order and some of the students listed under the "marketing" have something else on their CV, like the first person listed. His CV says he has a PhD in Information Systems and Technology Management despite his placement being listed under "Marketing" on Pittsburgh website.
    Just check out their placements (PhD Student Job Placements | University of Pittsburgh Katz Graduate School of Business) and you'll see it's nowhere close that of Toronto, Michigan or Rochester, even though your ranking puts all of them in the same group.

    Also, check out the placement for the following schools, which according to your ranking should be a tier above:

    Wash U: Pacific U., Ohio State, UBC, Rutgers, UT-Austin, UC-Riverside, Amazon, Peking U., Georgia State, U. Singapore, Illinois Urbana Champaign, U. of Alberta, Fudan U., Shangai U., Catolica Lisbon, UBC

    UCLA: Chapman, Columbia (2x), Catolica de Chile, Wharton, SMU Cox, Post Doc at CMU, No placement (2x), Michigan, Rutgers, Wisconsin, U. of Hong Kong, South Carolina, Boston U., Azusa Pacific U.

    How is this a better placement record than those of Toronto, Michigan, and Rochester? I don't see it. Furthermore, your ranking has way too many schools in each group, and ranking Quants + CB + Strategy all together is also weird since those are very different things (especially quant and CB).
    I think you just browsed Wharton, Stanford, Chicago, Harvard and whatever other schools you think are great to see where the professors got their PhD from, but you're not considering that those guys may be outliers. IMHO we should pay attention to the median placements, not the outliers.

    Ranking in Economics does not matter that much in Business School.
    That's not the point. You said that your ranking is based on two things: first the competitiveness in admissions and second the rigor of the curriculum. Most quants take the microeconomics and econometrics sequences at economics department, therefore you should also look at the economics ranking as a way to measure coursework rigor (better-ranked schools attract better students and can afford to design more difficult/complete courses). Personally, I don't think you can measure how difficult courses are, and that's why I don't see how you can make a ranking based on something you can't measure.

  9. #19
    Trying to make mom and pop proud
    Join Date
    Feb 2018
    Posts
    29
    Rep Power
    1


    Good post? Yes | No

    Re: Maketing PhD ranking by Group in North America

    Your statement could be true for Quant, but not true for CB. Columbia has professors from Baruch and UCLA: Keith Todd Wilcox | Columbia Business School Directory My ranking is for 3 tracks not only for Quant.
    USC has placement at MIT, Chicago, Michigan even in finance, more heavily quantitative:PhD Program | USC Marshall
    even for Quant Marketing, Harvard has Prof from Pittsburgh Rohit Deshpande
    - Faculty & Research - Harvard Business School.
    Stanford has 2 Prof from Duke, 2 from Ohio state in CB track.
    Ok then check out the last 5 years of placements (Marketing +Strategy) for Toronto, Michigan and Rochester which you put in group "A":

    Toronto: City University HK, New South Wales, Northwestern (2x), Dalhousie U., INCAE Bus. Sch., Southern California, UCSD, LBS, U. Groningen, U. Technology Sydney, Western Ontario, MIT, Duke, Queen's, Rochester, Ryerson, Paris Inst. of Tech, Penn State.

    Michigan: Duke, LBS, U. Tech Sydney, Arizona State, SKEMA Business Sch., National U. Singapore, U. Florida, Southern California, UC-Davis, Wisconsin, California State (Long Beach), U. Kansas, Oregon State, Georgia Tech, Iowa State, Facebook

    Rochester: Brandeis U., U. of Buffalo, Purdue U., Adobe, Wash U., Nielsen Marketing

    Now look at the following, which are also group "A":

    Florida: Oxford, Denver, City U. of HK, Renmin U. of China, Xiamen U., U. of Cincinnati (2x), Walsh College, U. of Mississippi

    Pittsburgh: their website is a mess, it's not in chronological order and some of the students listed under the "marketing" have something else on their CV, like the first person listed. His CV says he has a PhD in Information Systems and Technology Management despite his placement being listed under "Marketing" on Pittsburgh website.
    Just check out their placements (PhD Student Job Placements | University of Pittsburgh Katz Graduate School of Business) and you'll see it's nowhere close to that of Toronto, Michigan or Rochester, even though your ranking puts all of them in the same group.

    Also, check out the placement for the following schools, which according to your ranking should be a tier above:

    Wash U: Pacific U., Ohio State, UBC, Rutgers, UT-Austin, UC-Riverside, Amazon, Peking U., Georgia State, U. Singapore, Illinois Urbana Champaign, U. of Alberta, Fudan U., Shangai U., Catolica Lisbon, UBC

    UCLA: Chapman, Columbia (2x), Catolica de Chile, Wharton, SMU Cox, Post Doc at CMU, No placement (2x), Michigan, Rutgers, Wisconsin, U. of Hong Kong, South Carolina, Boston U., Azusa Pacific U.

    How is this a better placement record than those of Toronto, Michigan, and Rochester? I don't see it. Furthermore, your ranking has way too many schools in each group, and ranking Quants + CB + Strategy all together is also weird since those are very different things (especially quant and CB).
    I think you just browsed Wharton, Stanford, Chicago, Harvard and whatever other schools you think are great to see where the professors got their PhD from, but you're not considering that those guys may be outliers. IMHO we should pay attention to the median placements, not the outliers.

    Ranking in Economics does not matter that much in Business School.
    That's not the point. You said that your ranking is based on two things: first the competitiveness in admissions and second the rigor of the curriculum. Most quants take the microeconomics and econometrics sequences at economics department, therefore you should also look at the economics ranking as a way to measure coursework rigor (better-ranked schools attract better students and can afford to design more difficult/complete courses). Personally, I don't think you can measure how difficult courses are, and that's why I don't see how you can make a ranking based on something you can't measure. What I suggested is just a (lousy) way to proxy for coursework rigor.

  10. #20
    Trying to make mom and pop proud
    Join Date
    Feb 2018
    Posts
    29
    Rep Power
    1


    Good post? Yes | No

    Re: Maketing PhD ranking by Group in North America

    Your statement could be true for Quant, but not true for CB. Columbia has professors from Baruch and UCLA: Keith Todd Wilcox | Columbia Business School Directory My ranking is for 3 tracks not only for Quant.
    USC has placement at MIT, Chicago, Michigan even in finance, more heavily quantitative:PhD Program | USC Marshall
    even for Quant Marketing, Harvard has Prof from Pittsburgh Rohit Deshpande
    - Faculty & Research - Harvard Business School.
    Stanford has 2 Prof from Duke, 2 from Ohio state in CB track.
    Ok then check out the last 5 years of placements (Marketing +Strategy) for Toronto, Michigan and Rochester which you put in group "A":

    Toronto: City University HK, New South Wales, Northwestern (2x), Dalhousie U., INCAE Bus. Sch., Southern California, UCSD, LBS, U. Groningen, U. Technology Sydney, Western Ontario, MIT, Duke, Queen's, Rochester, Ryerson, Paris Inst. of Tech, Penn State.

    Michigan: Duke, LBS, U. Tech Sydney, Arizona State, SKEMA Business Sch., National U. Singapore, U. Florida, Southern California, UC-Davis, Wisconsin, California State (Long Beach), U. Kansas, Oregon State, Georgia Tech, Iowa State, Facebook

    Rochester: Brandeis U., U. of Buffalo, Purdue U., Adobe, Wash U., Nielsen Marketing

    Now look at the following, which are also group "A":

    Florida: Oxford, Denver, City U. of HK, Renmin U. of China, Xiamen U., U. of Cincinnati (2x), Walsh College, U. of Mississippi

    Pittsburgh: their website is a mess, it's not in chronological order and some of the students listed under the "marketing" have something else on their CV, like the first person listed. His CV says he has a PhD in Information Systems and Technology Management despite his placement being listed under "Marketing" on Pittsburgh website.
    Just check out their placements (PhD Student Job Placements | University of Pittsburgh Katz Graduate School of Business) and you'll see it's nowhere close to that of Toronto, Michigan or Rochester, even though your ranking puts all of them in the same group.

    Those are not on par with the first 3. Also, check out the placement for the following schools, which according to your ranking should be a tier above, "A+":

    Wash U: Pacific U., Ohio State, UBC, Rutgers, UT-Austin, UC-Riverside, Amazon, Peking U., Georgia State, U. Singapore, Illinois Urbana Champaign, U. of Alberta, Fudan U., Shangai U., Catolica Lisbon, UBC

    UCLA: Chapman, Columbia (2x), Catolica de Chile, Wharton, SMU Cox, Post Doc at CMU, No placement (2x), Michigan, Rutgers, Wisconsin, U. of Hong Kong, South Carolina, Boston U., Azusa Pacific U.

    How is this a better placement record than those of Toronto, Michigan, and Rochester? I don't see it. Furthermore, your ranking has way too many schools in each group, and ranking Quants + CB + Strategy all together is also weird since those are very different things (especially quant and CB).
    I think you just browsed Wharton, Stanford, Chicago, Harvard and whatever other schools you think are great to see where the professors got their PhD from, but you're not considering that those guys may be outliers. IMHO we should pay attention to the median placements, not the outliers.

    Ranking in Economics does not matter that much in Business School.
    That's not the point. You said that your ranking is based on two things: first the competitiveness in admissions and second the rigor of the curriculum. Most quants take the microeconomics and econometrics sequences at economics department, therefore you should also look at the economics ranking as a way to measure coursework rigor (better-ranked schools attract better students and can afford to design more difficult/complete courses). Personally, I don't think you can measure how difficult courses are, and that's why I don't see how you can make a ranking based on something you can't measure. What I suggested is just a (lousy) way to proxy for coursework rigor.

    By the way, I used Toronto, Michigan and Rochester as examples but I'm pretty sure others such as Minnesota, Maryland and UT-Austin are also a tier above Florida and Pittsburgh. Also, at least for quants, I can tell you I'm pretty confident that it's way more difficult to be accepted at Toronto, Michigan, Rochester, Maryland than Pittsburgh,Boulder, UNC, Florida, TAMU, Indiana, Penn State...
    Last edited by another user; 04-06-2018 at 03:53 AM.

Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 4
    Last Post: 06-11-2012, 02:36 AM
  2. Replies: 1
    Last Post: 03-07-2009, 10:13 AM
  3. Maketing Analyst - bold face
    By mbawannabe in forum GMAT Critical Reasoning
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 08-12-2008, 08:39 PM
  4. university ranking Vs course ranking
    By shank1983 in forum Graduate Admissions
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 06-18-2007, 10:13 AM

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •