Skip to content
Back to the collection

Systematic inequality and hierarchy in faculty hiring networks

Aaron Clauset, Samuel Arbesman, Daniel B. Larremore

2015 · Science Advances

Read the paper
HN score
0
Mentions
3
Readers
3
Months
3
What’s in a score?

From the abstract

An analysis of networks of graduate-to-faculty hires reveals systematic hiring biases and patterns.

Metadata: Crossref. Abstracts retain their original authors’ rights.

In the conversation

Original HN comments, with labels from simple text rules. A label describes the whole comment and may miss context or irony. Read the discussion to make up your own mind. About the labels

3 selected excerpts · 3 total mentions

_hark
Neutral mention · rule
I'm a researcher at Oxford, and I've both taught and studied here and in the US. The undergraduate teaching here is phenomenal. It's incredibly labor intensive for the staff, but the depth and breadth students are exposed to in their subject is astonishing. It's difficult to imagine how it can be improved. My favorite study of university rankings comes from faculty hiring markets, which compute implicit rankings by measuring which institutions tend to hire (PhD->faculty) from others. [1] It's not perfect, but at the very least it's a parameter free way to get a sense of how different universities view each other. The parameters in most university rankings are rather…
Read the full comment
arbitrary and game-able. Some have pointed to things like contextual admissions [2], and more broadly some identity politics capture of the administration for declining standards. While this might be true, in my view Oxford is still far more meritocratic than US institutions on the whole. There are no legacy admissions, and many subjects have difficult tests which better distinguish between applicants who have all done extremely well on national standardised tests (British A Levels are far more difficult than the SAT/ACT/AP exams.) Lastly, admissions at Oxford are devolved to the individual colleges, of which there are ~40. The faculty at each college directly interview and select the applicants which they will take as students. This devolved system and the friction it creates is surprisingly robust and makes complete ideological capture more difficult. The most pressing issue for Oxford's long-term viability as a leading institution, in my view, is the funding situation. For one the British economy is in a long, slow decline. Secondly, even though Oxford has money, there are lots of regulations/soft power influence from the British govt to standardise pay across the country, which makes top institutions like Oxford less competitive on the international market for PhD students, postdocs, and faculty in terms of pay. [1]: https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.1400005 [2]: https://www.ox.ac.uk/admissions/undergraduate/applying-to-ox...
bglazer
Neutral mention · rule
You’re not the elitist, unfortunately you’re stating the truth and its academic hiring committees that are elitist. Research backs up the idea that there is a small clique of “elite” universities that exclusively hire from each other. Also, the only direction of mobility is downwards, it’s rare to get hired at a more prestigious university than your postdoc institution. https://www.science.org/doi/full/10.1126/sciadv.1400005
wheelinsupial
Neutral mention · rule
> I don't know how many are included in the top 25%, but I'd guess over 250 (anyone know?). From [1], “placements of nearly 19,000 tenure-track or tenured faculty, among 461 North American departmental or school-level academic units, in the disciplines of computer science, business, and history (see Supplementary Materials and table S1).” The 25% is from 461 universities, so probably 115 or 116 universities is included in that number. Edit: On further reading of the supplement, there is a table that says they investigated CS faculty from 205 universities with 87% "doctorates in sample" meaning 87% of faculty having doctorates from those 205 universities being…
Read the full comment
investigated. Business has 112 unis with 84% of doctorates in sample and history has 144 unis with 89% doctorates in sample. It's not clear to me how many institutions of the "doctorates out of sample" are represented. There is a stat in the supplement showing 50% of CS profs have doctorates from 18 universities, 50% of business profs have doctorates from 16 universities, 50% of history profs have doctorates from 8 universities. It's possible the 25% of institutions could be closer to 51 for CS, 28 for business, and 36 for history. [1] https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.1400005

Keep following the thread.

More in Economics

More from the same topics.

2018arXiv

Talent vs Luck: the role of randomness in success and failure

A. Pluchino. A. E. Biondo, A. Rapisarda

The largely dominant meritocratic paradigm of highly competitive Western cultures is rooted on the belief that success is due mainly, if not exclusively, to personal qualities such as talent, intelligence, skills, efforts or risk taking.

16 mentions14 months
2.5HN score