Why do some Ph.D.'s languish in positions with little authority, and what does educational background have to do with it? Hypotheses predicted that life scientists with Ph.D.'s from elite programs would be the most likely, those from middle-ranked programs the next most likely, and those from lower ranked programs the least likely to achieve supervisory positions. A sample of 2,062 life scientists with doctorates from U.S. universities was collected from records archived from 1983 to 1995. In contrast to hypotheses, Ph.D.'s from elite and lower ranked schools did not have a significantly different chance of supervising. Within prestigious organizations, however, Ph.D.'s from top 10 programs did have a greater likelihood of leading. Ph.D.'s from middle-ranked programs were less likely to advance into supervisory positions. Qualitative interviews explored how, in a knowledgeexpanding field such as the life sciences, being stuck on the bottom rung early on can adversely affect a scientist's career.
Allison, P. D., & Long, J. S. (1987). Interuniversity mobility of academic scientists. American Sociological Review, 52, 643-652.
2.
Astin, A. (1968). Undergraduate achievement and institutional “excellence.”Science, 161, 661-668.
3.
Blau, P. M., & Duncan, O. D. (1967). The American occupational structure. New York: John Wiley.
4.
Bowen, H. R., & Schuster, J. H. (1986). American professors. New York: Oxford University Press.
5.
Clark, B. R. (1987). The academic life: Small words, different worlds. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
6.
Cole, J. R., & Cole, S. (1973). Social stratification in science. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
7.
Coleman, J. S. (1984). The transition from school to work. Research in Social Stratification and Mobility, 3, 27-59.
8.
Crane, D. (1969). Social class origin and academic success: The influence of two stratification systems on academic careers. Sociology of Education, 42, 1-17.
9.
Croissant, Jennifer and Sal Restivo, editors. 2001. Degrees of Compromise: Industrial Interests and Academic Values. Albany: SUNY Press.
10.
Eaton, S. C. (1999). Surprising opportunities: Gender and the structure of work in biotech firms. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 869, 175-189.
11.
Featherman, D. L., & Hauser, R. M. (1978). Opportunity and change. New York: Academic Press.
12.
Grusky, D. (1983). Industrialization and the status attainment process: The thesis of industrialization reconsidered. American Sociological Review, 48, 494-506.
13.
Hackett, E. J. (2001). Afterword to “Science as a vocation in the 1990s: The changing organizational culture of academic science.” In J. Croissant & S. Restivo (Eds.), Degrees of compromise: Industrial interests and academic values (pp. 134-136). Albany: State University of New York Press.
14.
Hartnett, R. T., & Katz, J. (1977). The education of graduate students. Journal of Higher Education, 48, 646-664.
15.
Holden, C. (2001). AAAS salary and job survey. Science, 294, 396-411.
16.
Hout, M. (1988). Expanding universalism, less structural mobility: The American occupational structure in the 1980s. American Journal of Sociology, 93, 1358-1400.
17.
Hurlbert, J., & Rosenfeld, R. A. (1992). Getting a good job: Rank and institutional prestige in academic psychologists' careers. Sociology of Education, 65, 188-207.
18.
Ishida, H. (1993). Social mobility in contemporary Japan. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
19.
James, E., Alsalam, N., Conaty, J. C., & To, D.-L. (1989). College quality and future earnings: Where should you send your child to college?AEA Papers and Proceedings, 79, 247-252.
20.
Kingston, P. W., & Smart, J. C. (1990). The economic pay-off of prestigious colleges. In P. W. Kingston & L. S. Lewis (Eds.), The high-status track (pp. 147-174). Albany: State University of New York Press.
21.
Lee, S., & Brinton, M. C. (1996). Elite education and social capital: The case of South Korea. Sociology of Education, 69, 177-192.
22.
Long, J. S., Allison, P. D., & McGinnis, R. (1993). Rank advancement in academic careers: Sex differences and the effects of productivity. American Sociological Review, 44, 816-830.
23.
Long, J. S., & Fox, M. F. (1995). Scientific careers: Universalism and particularism. Annual Review of Sociology, 21, 45-71.
24.
Long, J. S., & McGinnis, R. (1981). Organizational context and scientific productivity. American Sociological Review, 46, 422-442.
25.
Merton, R. K. (1968). The Matthew effect in science. Science, 159, 56-63.
26.
Morgan, J. N., & Duncan, G. J. (1979). College quality and earnings. Research in Human Capital and Development, 1, 103-121.
27.
National Research Council. (1994). Meeting the nation's needs for biomedical and behavioral scientists. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
28.
National Research Council. (1995). Research-doctorate programs in the United States: Continuity and change. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
29.
National Research Council. (1998). Trends in the early career of life scientists. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
30.
National Science Foundation. (2002). Science and engineering indicators (NSB 02-01). Arlington, VA: Author.
31.
National Science Foundation. (2006). Science and engineering indicators (NSB 06-02). Arlington, VA: Author.
32.
Owen-Smith, J. (2001). Managing laboratory work through skepticism: Processes of evaluation and control. American Sociological Review, 66, 427-462.
33.
Owen-Smith, J., & Powell, W. W. (2001). Careers and contradictions: Faculty responses to the commercialization of the life sciences. In S. P. Vallas (Ed.), Research in the sociology of work, Vol. 10: The transformation of work (pp. 109-140). Greenwich, CT: JAI.
34.
Powell, W. W., Koput, K. W., & Smith-Doerr, L. (1996). Interorganizational collaboration and the locus of innovation: Networks of learning in biotechnology. Administrative Science Quarterly, 41, 116-145.
35.
Shan, W., Walker, G., & Kogut, B. (1994). Interfirm cooperation and startup innovation in the biotechnology industry. Strategic Management Journal, 15, 387-394.
36.
Shrum, W., & Campion, P. (2000). Are scientists in developing countries isolated?Science, Technology and Society, 5, 1-34.
37.
Slaughter, S., Campbell, T., Holleman, M., & Morgan, E. (2002). The “traffic” in graduate students: Graduate students as tokens of exchange between academe and industry. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 27, 282-312.
38.
Slaughter, Sheila and L. L. Leslie. 1997. Academic Capitalism: Politics, Policies and the Entrepreneurial University. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
39.
Smith, E., & Tang, J.1994. Trends in science and engineering doctorate production, 1975-1990. In W. Pearson & A. Fechter (Eds.), Who will do science? Educating the next generation(pp. 96-124).
40.
Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. Smith-Doerr, L. (2004). Women's work: Gender equality vs. hierarchy in the life sciences. Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner.
41.
Solmon, L. C. (1975). The definition of college quality and its impact on earnings. Explorations in Economic Research, 2, 537-587.
42.
Solmon, L. C., & Wachtel, P. (1975). The effects on income of type of college attended. Sociology of Education, 48, 75-90.
43.
Spring, J. (1976). The sorting machine. New York: David McKay.
44.
Stuart, T. E., Hoang, H., & Hybels, R. (1999). Interorganizational endorsements and the performance of entrepreneurial ventures. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44, 315-349.
45.
Trusheim, D., & Crouse, J. (1981). Effects of college prestige on men's occupational status and earnings. Research in Higher Education, 14, 283-302.
46.
Useem, M., & Karabel, J. (1986). Pathways to top corporate management. American Sociological Review, 51, 184-200.
47.
Zuckerman, H. (1977). Scientific elite: Nobel laureates in the United States. New York: Free Press.
48.
Zuckerman, H., Cole, J. R., & Bruer, J. T. (Eds.). (1991). The outer circle: Women in the scientific community. New York: Norton.
