Date: Mon, 01 Dec 1997 11:57:01 -0500
From: tombrown@jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu (Thomas F Brown)
Subject: Re: reports on labor market
To: socgrad@csf.colorado.edu
Message-id: <199712011657.LAA11158@jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu>

I personally have no objections to using prestige as an
indicator. Wayne's point was that it is meaningful to use 
prestige as a predictor of institutional characteristics, and
less predictive for characteristics of individual graduates.

For example, as an entry-level job applicant, I would predict that 
a job at a high-prestige school is on average going to pay better 
(eventually, over the long run), be less secure with regards to gaining 
tenure, probably require more effort to gain tenure, and give me better 
and more opportunities to successfully network within the discipline.
I could fairly confidently predict these things about high
prestige schools as a group or as individuals, relative to
second or third rank schools. So prestige is a useful
indicator to me as a job applicant.

But what can I predict about an individual graduate from a
high-prestige school? I would predict that this person
knows how to work the academic system pretty well, is
probably fairly well-connected in the discipline for
a beginner, and has a statistically better than average
shot at having an academic research career. But I can't
predict much at all about the quality of this individual's
work. I could say that on average, students from this
program are better than students from that program, and
say that with some confidence, but I can't predict with
any confidence the quality of individual graduates.

However, knowing something about the average quality
of the grads from one school is worth something as
a predictor, even though one does risk error from
the fallacy of division. Everything else being equal,
if I'm on the hiring committee then I'm probably
going to use prestige to make the cut. While I
risk error on individual plays, over repeated plays
the odds should be on my side. It strikes me as
a perfectly rational system if you consider it
from an evolutionary perspective.

Is it fair to the individual applicants to consider
the prestige of their degrees? I'd say yes. You have 
control over where you go to school. If you want that 
edge in the employment market, you can get it. If you 
can't work the system at these lower levels, then you 
probably won't be able to work it at the career levels 
either. In that limited sense, the prestige system is 
universalistic and meritocratic.