This paper is about the South African job market for PhDs. PhD to first job mobility involves the preferences of both the hiring institution and the candidate. Both want to make the best choice and here institutional prestige plays a crucial role. A university's prestige is an emergent property of hiring interactions, so we use a network perspective to measure it. Using this emergent ordering, we compare the subsequent scientific performance of scholars with different changes in the prestige hierarchy. We ask how movements between universities of different prestige from PhD to first job correlates with academic performance. We use data of South African scholars from 1970 to 2012 and we find that those who make large movements in terms of prestige have lower research ratings than those who do not. Further, looking only those with large prestige movements, those with higher prestige PhDs or first jobs have higher research ratings throughout their careers.

This paper investigates the effect of university prestige stratification on scholars’ career achievements. We focus on 766 STEM PhD graduates hired by Mexican universities between 1992 and 2016. We rank university according to their prestige based on the pairwise assessment of quality contained in the PhD hiring networks. Further, we use a quasi-experimental design matching pairs of individuals with the same characteristics, PhD training or first job experience. Our results challenge the positive association between prestige and academic performance as predicted by the ‘Matthew effect’. Scholars hired internally sustain higher performance over their careers in comparison to those who move up or down the prestige hierarchy. Further, we find a positive (negative) relation between downward (upward) prestige mobility and performance that relates to the “big-fish-little-pond” effect (BFLPE). The evidence of a BFLPE-like effect has policy implications because hinders the knowledge flows throughout the science system and individual achievements.