tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-232811637669592992.post582261993391297606..comments2024-03-28T03:17:53.945-04:00Comments on In the Service of Clio: Blog CLXXXI (181): The Raw NumbersNick Sarantakeshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08071764464888181459noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-232811637669592992.post-47062155927238489342015-04-20T10:27:42.996-04:002015-04-20T10:27:42.996-04:00There's a real risk in reading the numbers thi...There's a real risk in reading the numbers this way. If I read the methodology for this study correctly, they look at the faculty employed at PhD-granting history departments to get their count of PhDs, and they do not assess the department in which they received their degree. So the numbers for each institution can be inflated by universities with an array of departments (American Studies, Classics, Gender Studies) that place students in departments. As a result, the numbers may or may not shed light on the placement rate for history departments.<br /><br />Alongside the risks of over-interpreting their raw numbers, using placement rates into PhD-granting departments does not tell the whole story about academic job placement for history PhDs. As my study with Maren Wood noted, students from lower-ranked schools (as measured by NRC and U.S. News) generally had higher placement rates into departments that did not grant PhDs.Robert Townsendhttp://humanitiesindicators.orgnoreply@blogger.com