Received: from pewtrusts.com (pewtrusts.com [204.242.21.3]) by csf.Colorado.EDU (8.7.6/8.7.3/CNS-4.0p) with SMTP id RAA17169 for <socgrad@csf.colorado.edu>; Mon, 23 Jun 1997 17:38:29 -0600 (MDT)
Received: from PEW-Message_Server by pewtrusts.com
	with Novell_GroupWise; Mon, 23 Jun 1997 19:39:08 -0500
Message-Id: <s3aed0dc.076@pewtrusts.com>
Date: Mon, 23 Jun 1997 18:37:33 -0500
From: "Jonathon E. Mote" <jmote@pewtrusts.com>
To: socgrad@csf.colorado.edu
Subject: Prestige Redux
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Content-Disposition: inline

>I have two comments. Regarding the perception of sociology and the
>prestige of particular areas of study, I think that the question
>originated in an earlier thread on the hiring of Ph.D.s and so was based
>more in the professional perception than the public perception of
>particular areas. I would like to hear more contibutions! I'm beginning to
>wonder about the connection between grants and prestige. At UCSB,
>where I received my masters, Soc. of Religion was very respected but
>faculty in this area had also received several sizeable grants. Does grant
>money=exposure=scholarly debate=departmental prestige? And how
>does this all reflect trends in theoretical development? Or are we just
>making "in" and "out" lists? 

I would say there is a close, if not direct, correlation between grant money
and departmental prestige.  I'm speaking from my experience in working
with a large national foundation.  Of the "prestigious" specializations
mentioned in this thread so far, most of them are ones I have noticed
which receive significant grant money.  Of course, I think it would be
difficult to sort out causality---are the specialties prestigious because of
grant money, or do they get grant money because they are prestigious.  It
would probably be a little of both factors.

Jonathon E. Mote
jem@pewtrusts.com