Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Most US professors are trained at same few elite universities

nature.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 207 posts

Re: Most US professors are trained at same few elite universities

#121

Post by NtochkaNzvanova »

0xbadcafebee wrote: post #6

This is a really ignorant question and I'm pretty sure I already know the answer. But say I wanted to become a teacher at some school, specifically teaching things like "how to organize and execute the operational side of a tech product", or "managing Enterprise IT". You have to have a degree (in something) first, right? They won't just hire someone with 25 years experience and no degree to teach a class?

This reply is not meant to be dismissive at all, just direct: things like "how to organize and execute the operational side of a tech product" or "managing Enterprise IT" are not things that are taught in the "elite" research universities being discussed in this article. They are more likely taught (here in the US) in community colleges, vocational schools, or (at best) university extension programs (i.e., professional education programs run on the side by research universities, such as the University of California).

Whereas research universities require (or almost require) a PhD to teach undergrads (and certainly graduate students), these more professionally-oriented programs are much more flexible. They might like to see an advanced degree such as an MS or MBA, but probably would put significant value on industry experience. No bachelor's degree might be a hard sell though.

Re: Most US professors are trained at same few elite universities

#122

Post by psKama »

mrkeen wrote: post #13
psKama wrote: post #7

Not sure in what context the word "elite" is used when it comes to claiming there is a hiring bias. It may be thought that those schools have very high fees to attend but I would argue/claim (with no data in my hand) if it was looked deeper into their background, it is very likely that majority of those professors attended those schools via a sort of scholarship to start with as a result of their success prior to uni…

> it is very likely that majority of those professors attended those schools via a sort of scholarship to start with as a result of their success prior to universities they got accepted. When it comes to admissions to elite schools, money can all but guarantee access to those who can afford it https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/mar/13/rich-kids-top-college-admissions

It is an obvious fact that majority of ivy league school students are coming from rich families. My argument is rather that (again with zero data to back it up) even if the ratio of full scholarship to full fee students is around 20%, a big majority of the ones who pursue an academic career (and become a professor) are the ones who got into those schools via scholarship in the first place while the rich kids mostly go back to running their family business or aiming for high paying jobs immediately after their graduation.

Re: Most US professors are trained at same few elite universities

#123

Post by xbar »

The authors complain that graduate programs at elite universities rely on standardized tests as a key contributor of racial bias. I am surprised by this. I suspect this is a misapplication of the racial bias studies that relate in high school (and lower) standardized tests.

I would expect that strong undergraduate candidates to elite programs (e.g. 3.9+ GPA with letters of recommendation from professors) would not have statistically different GRE/LSAT/MCAT scores based on race. Has anyone studied high GPA students' GRE scores for racial bias?

Re: Most US professors are trained at same few elite universities

#124

Post by Maursault »

throwaway0asd wrote: post #109
Maursault wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The presence of bias is purely numerical and is allowed to thrive due to the lack of controls. This statement is wonderfully self-contradictory. The study overwhelmingly proves the first part wrong. The presence of bias is numerical, certainly, but it is not purely numerical and must actually exist, which is acknowledged after the "and," in contradiction. > Prestige is an unrelated red herring masking the very huma…

No, the study proves that bias, in this one case, demonstrates the Pareto Principle which is a purely numerical thing. Alignment to bias is essential to mobility anywhere that bias prevails irrespective of prestige. Prestige is the effect not the cause. The rest of your comment is built upon that cause/effect confusion.

> No, the study proves that bias, in this one case, demonstrates the Pareto Principle which is a purely numerical thing.

This is a category error. The study nicely demonstrates the 80/20 rule, which itself is purely numerical, but the subjects, the academics, are real people, not numbers, nor is the demonstrated bias purely mathematical, it actually exists. The bias is real irregardless of demonstrating the Pareto Principle. The land ownership that Pareto originally demonstrated as following an 80/20 rule is not numerical, i.e. owning land is not numerical; it is land tenure.

> Alignment to bias is essential to mobility anywhere that bias prevails irrespective of prestige.

This is question begging, assuming the conclusion, aka petitio principii.

> Prestige is the effect not the cause. The rest of your comment is built upon that cause/effect confusion.

And this is a straw man and contradictory to your original statements. Unravelling your OP, it was your claim that prestige was the cause of something:

>> Prestige... is generally the most common cause of...

You write beautifully, your prose flows exceptionally smoothly, a talent I wish I had. I'm honestly envious. But the underlying argument is at times contradictory and wholly fallacious.

Re: Most US professors are trained at same few elite universities

#125

Post by blt »

commandlinefan wrote: post #23

Both times I was in college (undergraduate and master's degree), it seemed like at least 90% of my professors were immigrants from foreign countries. I never really thought to ask, but I would have assumed that they attended a foreign university in their home country at least for undergraduate... does this mean they all went to the same 8 institutions for a U.S.-generated PhD before they could move into academia?

Yes, basically.

Re: Most US professors are trained at same few elite universities

#126

Post by ninjin »

barry-cotter wrote: post #57
humanistbot wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is why it has become normal to do 3-7 years of postdoc research positions before being considered for a tenure-track faculty position, even for those from elite universities.

Only in fields where there’s no demand for their skills outside academia, like English literature or History, or vastly more supply than demand, like most of the sciences. Fields like Economics or Computer Science have post docs but they’re not normative. Most people who end up with tenure track jobs never do one.

Hogwash! It depends on far more than the field. In Computer Science, factors such as the current “heat” of the market, saturation in terms of hires at institutions in your field, procedures in a given country, “production rate” of PhD students, etc. all have a major impact on whether you will have to “run the postdoctoral gauntlet”. About half of the tenured professors that I know in my “generation” had to do several years of work before ending up on the tenure track and I am both in Computer Science and in a field that has been very hot for nearly ten years.

Re: Most US professors are trained at same few elite universities

#127

Post by julianeon »

setgree wrote: post #5

> “Accepting that prestige is a good measure of excellence means that we’re not looking into the history of how things became prestigious,” Gonzales says. The founding of elite US universities is “intertwined with exclusion”, she adds. For instance, many institutions have a history of seizing land from Indigenous groups, or originally derived their wealth from or supported their infrastructure with the labour of ensl…

It's not clear that the non sequitur is the fault of Gonzales.

It is true that the history of elite universities is highly related to exclusion, as she said. One clear as day example: the historical exclusion of Jews. It's easy to find others.

The article says: "For instance, many institutions have a history of seizing land from Indigenous groups, or originally derived their wealth from or supported their infrastructure with the labour of enslaved Black people." But did Gonzales give those examples? Even a friend to her argument would probably agree that exclusion in the admissions context of elite schools would be more relevant.

Re: Most US professors are trained at same few elite universities

#128

Post by fny »

derbOac wrote: post #111
OJFord wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But is that entirely wrong? Isn't 'good pedigree' saying 'we can trust the unknown here more than in other cases'?

Maybe? I think that's where this gets murky. What are you basing that trust on?

The individual has been "vetted" in a more rigorous setting. For example, is someone who graduates with a 3.5GPA Math BA from the University of Central Florida trained as well as someone who graduates with 3.5 from the University of Maryland? What about UNC? What about MIT?

If pedigree was a useless signal, it wouldn't be used. Mind you, I've seen this used against people as well. For example...

"The last few MIT grads we hired were full of themselves and way too combative." These are real words from a hiring manager.

Re: Most US professors are trained at same few elite universities

#129

Post by fny »

gammarator wrote: post #119
BurningFrog wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is some truth to the heuristic that "if you got into Harvard" you have to be pretty good. Because Harvard is really good at finding the "Harvard quality" people among applicants.

Jared Kushner would like a word: https://www.propublica.org/article/the-story-behind-jared-ku...

Having a lot of money is Harvard quality. Remember these institutions survive because the rich donate. This is also how brilliant minds come in contact with capital, and how we fund people studying knots and english literature all day long. It's a form of patronage.

In turn, no one would ever give Jared Kusher a professorship unless he bought it.

Post reply on HN