Noodles

I am interested in the field of economic history and plan to attend graduate school. Currently, I'm an undergraduate at a very large public research institution and taking an introductory course in geology to fulfill a physical science general education requirement. I am considering changing the grading status of the course from A-F to Pass/Fail because I am not confident that I will earn an "A" in the course. I'm unsure if I will manage a "B" because I've been told by several students that the final exam is brutal for non-science types. Currently, I have a "B" average. If I change to Pass/Fail I will fulfill the general education requirement, but the grade will NOT be calculated into my GPA so it will not affect it one way or the other. How does a Pass/Fail grade in a science course play in graduate school admissions? Would I be better off taking it Pass/Fail or risking a lower GPA? I am interested in the MSc Economic (Research) program at the London School of Economics and Political Science. Does anyone know how this could affect my chance of admissions there? Thanks.

The overall fit and funding of the M.A. program are superior to that of the Ph.D program. The time spent in a M.A. program - as you have already highlight - will enable you to improve your profile and more than likely help you to focus your studies. You definitely seem to be an ideal candidate for a master's program and the fit, funding, and potential for improved prospects over the long-term lead me to recommend you accept the offer of admission at the master's program. Good luck!

I'm glad to see that you are considering turning down a fully funded offer to a very good program for the right reasons (e.g., fit) and considering the master's program for the right reasons (e.g., education). Ordinarily I would recommend accepting a funded offer, but if it you think you will be on somewhat of an "island" in the department then I would advise you to do the M.A. if you believe you will benefit from it academically and intellectually. It is a considerable financial investment though. I would definitely be sure that fit at your funded public ivy offer is poor enough to warrant passing on the offer. Check to be sure that there aren't faculty in other related departments that would be able to advise or serve on your dissertation committee. It is often the case that doctoral students are enrolled in and funded by a particular department, but do much of their graduate work outside of the department. For example, a graduate student interested in the social history of the family in China (I just made that up) could end up doing most of their graduate work outside their home department and work with scholars in the demography, sociology, and East Asian studies departments. A friend of mine is in such a situation and works out of an institute and has little involvement with her home department. The home department supports her with a stipend, but she receives additional grant funding from the institute and does her research there as well. Another friend of mine is similarly disconnected from his home department, but his funding is more closely tied to it. Assuming none of this applies to you I would consider the M.A. only after very serious consideration. Just make sure you know what you are turning down before you do so. Good luck! This is quite a dilemma. P.S. You could accept the offer with intention of completing the program and if you find that fit is an issue you could take a terminal M.A. and apply to other programs. However, this may have its own set of problems.

I agree with many of the previous replies. You should focus on fit in terms of research interests, interpersonal relationships, placements, and funding. If either of your acceptances meets those requirements I recommend that you accept the offer because you have already done what is necessary to improve your profile. However, if you will be doing something further to improve your chances next year (e.g., applying to more programs or some type of work experience) then maybe you should wait until next year. If not, you're gambling that "next year will be different" and relying on other applicants to gain admission (i.e., it's about who they are and what they did rather than who you are and what you did). Granted, more spots may open in an area of a department or more funding could be available, but there is also a chance that next year you will be worse off. If you decide to apply again next year don't apply to any programs you aren't willing to attend because you'll face a similar dilemma. Fit, placements, and funding are what matter most. Prestige is only relevant if it translates to a better placement in your field of study. Better to teach at Harvard than to have gone there. Who are the top junior faculty in your field and how did they get there?

I agree that certain programs (e.g., Harvard) are sometimes ranked higher than they deserve because of the reputation of the university more generally. That being said, Harvard looks and sounds amazing to just about everyone. Pitt won't impress your friends, family, or even most of your colleagues except for those truly "in the know". Most of whom you have exhaustively explained this to at great length. My friend had to explain to her family why Rutgers was a better choice than Brown for her field of study. I don't think they ever quite bought the argument. LOL.

While I tend to agree with your general sentiment, the data shows that majority of graduate programs seeing large increases in applications are primarily professional programs (e.g., education or law) or academic programs in the physical sciences or other mathematical subjects. In other words, people who may actually get paid for the time they invest in their education. Haha. Also, I believe it is a misnomer that people are generally not interested in "blue collar" work. Part of the issue is funding for primary education. Funds that had previously been used to fund vocational programs are now geared towards college prep or have simply been cut. This is likely due to the fact that people who serve on school boards and the like are from higher income brackets and have children less likely to benefit from those programs due to established middle-class norms. Obviously these are broad generalizations. Furthermore, technical education is often unaffordable to those most likely to seek it. Private, for-profit institutions - I attended one and got a very good technical education, but realized after two years in the field that the Ivory Tower called - tend to dominate technical/trade education because they charge higher rates for tuition. Unlike community colleges, they are able to maintain modern facilities and equipment necessary for training students for careers in auto repair, HVAC, etc. Community colleges simply don't have the funding to expand their facilities, buy equipment, etc. Programs that have existing programs constantly have scheduling issues because their are more people interested in classes than slots available.

Brandeis appears to have a few faculty members working in areas that interest me and the comparative methodology is definitely something I would like to engage in. I'm sure Brandeis has a fine history program, but I think most people would agree that all of the universities listed ahead on USNWR do as well. Brandeis is probably hurt in the rankings because it is a small program. Also, Georgetown has better graduate placements thank several programs ranked ahead of it. The methodology is somewhat dubious because the rankings are based on the opinion surveys of historians. Then again reputation may be the only thing that matters. In any case, Brandeis definitely intrigues me because of its focus on world history and comparative methodology. Plus, the location is very good for me. Good luck! I'm sure you'll enjoy it there if you attend.

Harvard's endowment is still over $26 billion dollars - higher than #2 Yale was at its peak, but I suspect the humanities are near the front of the line for any cutbacks in funding.

Thanks for all your help. You've really been quite helpful. CMU seems to offer more courses in the history of technology that I'm interested in taking, but Pitt seems to be a better fit overall. I'll explore the the World-historical Dataverse website for more information on the program. Thanks again.

I just realized I failed to mention what I'm interested in. My primary interests are early and late modern world economic history. I am interested in trade, long-run growth, financial markets, thought of political economy, and pre- and post-Soviet economies. For popular reference, think Kenneth Pomeranz and Niall Ferguson. I'm not making a statement about the quality of their work, just the focus of it. That's the kind of stuff I'm interested in. Also, I looked at Pitt's website and saw the World-historical Dataverse project. That looks VERY interesting and seems as though it would be quite useful for my potential research. Any comments on it?

Thanks for your help. Congratulations on a few excellent admits! I'll take your advice and contact any faculty I suspect have interests similar to mine. I am interested in early and late modern world economic history so I'll probably avoid the Ancient historians. LOL. Your interests are indeed quite similar to mine - I too am interested in the social history of financial market calamities. I'll be sure to PM you if I think of anything. Thanks for your help. Best of luck!

Regarding world history and comparative history - I am kinda looking for boh. Haha. I think I phrased that somewhat awkwardly. Thank you so much for the inside information regarding Pitt's World History Center. That was exactly what I was looking for - direction of the department, new hires, etc. So helpful indeed. As for CMU, I was really just wondering if there was any crossover - hoping someone, unprovoked, would just mention there was. I am interested in taking a few history of science/technology courses to supplement my focus on global economic history. I really appreciate your help and putting Pitt on my short list.

I knew I forgot a Boston area school! Do you know much about it?

Thanks for your help. I looked at the department's website and while many of the courses look interesting I can see your point regarding cross-listing. I also can't tell how often many of the courses run - some of the History of Science and Medicine courses are appealing too. Overall, it does seem lacking. I guess I will check again when I am ready to apply. It's hard to tell as these programs have faculty coming and going. Thanks again.

Yes and no. I have narrowed my geographic area - in terms of where I would prefer to study - and have wanted input on specific programs outside the top tier. So far feedback has been good.

My primary area of interest is global economic history (and other related fields such as technology or politics). I would prefer to attend graduate school in the Northeast for personal reasons, but I would also be willing to go elsewhere for the right program. I am aware that other departments (e.g., political science or international affairs) may offer programs that fit my interests, but for now I would like to focus on history programs: What are the best departments to study world or comparative history in the U.S., Canada, or Europe? What lesser known departments offer respectable programs in world or comparative history in the Northeast? Does anyone have any knowledge or opinion of the following departments - they are listed in no particular order? I have left out most of the Ivies and similarly regarded departments (e.g., JHU, LSE, Oxford). University of Rochester SUNY-Binghamton SUNY-Stony Brook Boston University Boston College University of Connecticut Fordham University Northeastern University CUNY Graduate School Clark University University of Pittsburgh University of New Hampshire University of Delaware University of Maine Lehigh University

Ithaca and other college towns in Upstate New York are often LGBT friendly. Plus, Ivy League institutions and their surrounding areas tend to be more socially liberal. I know several people who have attended Cornell University and Ithaca College. All of them seemed to be quite happy there. Ithaca is somewhat isolated though and the nearest "major" city is Syracuse.

My fiance is a graduate student at Rutgers. I am somewhat familiar with the area and I would say it is definitely somewhere that I wouldn't mind living for five years or so. Rutgers University and New Brunswick have a gritty sort of appeal. There are lots of great restaurants and bars. New Brunswick grants you easy access to NYC and Philly. I like it there quite a bit. Be sure to stop by for a beer and a "boli" at Stuff Yer Face on Easton Ave. Also, there is a Chinese restaurant next door that serves amazing bubble tea in dozens of varieties. Congratulations on your admit and enjoy!

A "flyout" does not mean you have been admitted, but it does mean you are on the short list. You will most likely be admitted if your visit goes well. Good luck!

Thanks for your input. I expect that my interests may change between now and when I begin filling out applications in a couple of years. Do you know of any work being done on the history of various IGOs such as the UN, WTO, IMF, and so on?

I have been planning to apply to political science programs for graduate school, but I am majoring in history at UMN because the course selection of this particular history department is better aligned with my interests than the UMN political science department. This is not true of many universities though. I am taking courses in economics and political science as well. I chose the major at UMN with the most courses related to my interests. I am going to start Russian in the Fall and while I realize German would be the next best language for studying Eastern Europe, I was considering French because it is one of the two official languages - the other is English - of the United Nations and other IGOs. So, essentially, I asked about history programs because I know less about them than political science, international affairs, or economics departments. I have concluded that an economics program would not be a match for me. I am open to history, political science, international affairs, or interdisciplinary programs. I am also quite interested in long-run growth and political science departments tend to have very few faculty members working in this area. There are probably very few departments in each discipline that will suit my needs well; so I am broadening my horizons to include many types of programs and departments. Some universities in the U.K. (e.g., LSE) have economic history departments and so I am looking for a few history departments in the U.S. to apply to as well. The departments that seem to be the best match also happen to be the most difficult to get into. Haha.

I would rather you reply harshly than dishonestly. However, I believe it was neither. I am anticipating having to complete a master's degree to focus my research interests and improve my foreign language (i.e., French or Russian) skills. I have several more history courses to complete at my undergraduate institution. They will be primarily focused on economic, world, and Eastern European histories. I am currently attending the University of Minnesota (that is why I asked what others thought about the history department - it is supposed to be strong in historical demography). My strongest interests are in comparative histories of post-Soviet nations and IGOs. I understand that I will need to narrow my list of target schools and that is what I am doing. I expect to apply to about 10 programs (including a few of master's programs). I'm planning to apply to departments that have several faculty members working in my areas of interest because people retire or move on to other institutions. Thanks for your input. Are you at JHU? If so, how do you like it there? What areas is the department strong in?

Oops. I somehow forgot to include Chicago, Northwestern, Cornell, NYU, WUSTL, and Georgetown. I probably forgot a few other places as well. What departments are strong in economic history that are generally not as well recognized? Also, I changed my major to history and have some requirements to make up. I will not be applying next admissions cycle.

I am interested in studying economic history, but I have not yet defined any particular interest. I am interested in global economic history, political economy, post-Soviet transitions, economic growth, economic development, business history, etc. I am not interested in attending a graduate program in anthropology, economics, or sociology. I tend to be be macro or "big picture" minded. What are the best history departments to study economic history? My list, in no particular order, is currently: Stanford, UC-Berkeley, UCLA, Harvard, Penn, Yale, LSE, Oxford, Cambridge, Michigan, UC-Irvine, Edinburgh, and Columbia. I am sure I have left some out. Any suggestions? How is Minnesota?

Overall rankings based on the USNWR methodology are important because programs looking to expand into another area may lack knowledge about what departments are strong in that subject. Only departments already strong in that area are likely to know the other departments in their field of study. It is a problem of asymmetric information. Harvard will always impress. Rutgers will only impress some of the people, some of the time.