3 ms·

> 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 facu

> 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 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 https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.1400005

wolverine876 5y ago
> 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. That seems to confuse the school whence the professor graduated, and the school at which they teach. 25% refers to the former, 461 to the latter, afaict. Or am I the one misunderstanding?
- wheelinsupial 5y ago
  Yes, I think you’re right, which is why I added the information about the supplement after the “Edit:” placed in my comment. I should have made that edit more clear to say that I was mistaken with the first piece. If I understood the supplement to the paper correctly, there were only 205 CS departments investigated and fewer departments for business and history. The 461 would refer to the sum of universities across the CS (205) business (112), and history (143) fields, which is where faculty are currently teaching. The supplement had a statistic saying 87% of the profs in CS departments had “doctorates in sample.” Which meant 87% of the profs came from those 205 schools. I couldn’t find how many universities made up the remaining 13% of faculty. The supplement says 50% of CS faculty came from 18 universities. I believe the 25% is referring to the 205 CS programs (which is both where the profs are currently teaching but also where most of them earned their PhDs from - the 87% doctorates in sample statistic) which would be 51 universities producing most of the faculty at the 205 universities in the study. At least I think… For all I know, I am misunderstanding the supplement, and further muddying the waters with poor explanations.

wolverine876 5y ago

> 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. That seems to confuse the school whence the professor graduated, and the school at which they teach. 25% refers to the former, 461 to the latter, afaict. Or am I the one misunderstanding?

wheelinsupial 5y ago
Yes, I think you’re right, which is why I added the information about the supplement after the “Edit:” placed in my comment. I should have made that edit more clear to say that I was mistaken with the first piece. If I understood the supplement to the paper correctly, there were only 205 CS departments investigated and fewer departments for business and history. The 461 would refer to the sum of universities across the CS (205) business (112), and history (143) fields, which is where faculty are currently teaching. The supplement had a statistic saying 87% of the profs in CS departments had “doctorates in sample.” Which meant 87% of the profs came from those 205 schools. I couldn’t find how many universities made up the remaining 13% of faculty. The supplement says 50% of CS faculty came from 18 universities. I believe the 25% is referring to the 205 CS programs (which is both where the profs are currently teaching but also where most of them earned their PhDs from - the 87% doctorates in sample statistic) which would be 51 universities producing most of the faculty at the 205 universities in the study. At least I think… For all I know, I am misunderstanding the supplement, and further muddying the waters with poor explanations.