psstein

Which one has outcomes closer to the career outcome you'd like? Which one has more financial/archival resources available? Where do you "fit" better into the department?

Yes. It's a form letter.

Here's what I'd suggest: 1) Ignore the USNWR rankings. They're useless and come from a survey with an astonishingly low response rate. They don't measure anything that matters. 2) Look at the program that gave you an offer. What are its graduates doing? Are those the types of jobs you're interested in pursuing? 3) Look at the professors you'd work with. What are their former students now doing? Do those jobs match your own interests? I realize this is an unpopular opinion, but many of the "alt-ac" jobs are jobs that you can hold with a PhD, rather than ones requiring a PhD. The other thing I'd say is this: if you're especially wedded to one location, don't pursue a PhD in history. While you have a choice as to where you go to grad school, if you're in the lucky group who find a TT job, you have virtually no control over where you go. Most of the existing jobs are at R2/R3/PUI institutions in the US Midwest and South, many of which don't pay particularly well and some of which are in otherwise undesirable locations. Back in the day, the CHE fora had a thread on "embracing your inner North Dakotan."

English is a horrible state as well. All humanities is either collapsing or in terminal decline.

Academic history is shrinking. The number of TT positions is in terminal decline. Departments are either not replacing retiring faculty or outright consolidating. Pretending otherwise is not a good idea. And despite my grim demeanor, I'm not some type of ogre. I would love for academic history (and the humanities more generally) to have its star rising.

I agree with @dr. telkanuru for the most part. What's the placement record like at school 1 in your subfield? Good, bad, middling?

You might be better served asking this in the English sub-forum, but FWIW, some programs have waves of acceptances. They'll send a first, then a second, then a third round, based on priority/which students have chosen to come/funding. Alternatively, some programs do wait until the last minute to send out rejections.

Yeah, that would explain some of the issues. A lot of history of science departments are adamant that STS is not the same thing (though I'd argue the line between the disciplines is much, much thinner than it used to be). I would encourage you to think about your future in terms of your goals. History of science is a tiny sub-field in the ever-shrinking pool of history. STS is even smaller. Would earning a 1 yr MA/MPhil bring you closer to your goals? Or would you be better served narrowing your focus and improving your application materials? Realistically, a one-year program is closer to a two-year time investment, if you wanted to make the most out of it to get into a top-tier PhD program. Time is the most precious resource we have!

What's your research area in history of science?

Depends on subfield. Columbia is far behind the other two on history of science.

I would ignore the US News rankings and focus on the one ranking that matters: placement. Are graduates from your program getting the types of jobs you want to have when you finish? If they are, stay on. If not, leave.

With the usual caveat of "the GRE doesn't really matter," some programs will use it to determine funding (esp. for things like MAs). I don't see omitting a GRE score hurting you. If I had to rank order the most important elements of a successful application, it would look like this: 1) Statement of Purpose 2) Writing Sample 3) Letters of Recommendation 4) Undergraduate grades 5) GRE score

In the past, I've mentioned that there's an "expiration date" for PhDs. This came to my attention today:

From my own perspective in the consulting world, a lot of firms don't fully understand the value of a non-STEM PhD (or non-MBA masters'). It won't hurt you, but it may lead to some unnecessary frustrations. FWIW, I'm a bit of a weird case, because my MA thesis is related to my current job.

Yes, I agree that most of the potential top-down solutions are terrible. AHA is never going to start accrediting programs (which it shouldn't), and barring universities from having PhD programs is an elitist, pointless idea. I would argue that history is already dying via isolation in the academy (or largely has died).