The Future of History

[Nytusse]

I was just wondering about the general state of history right now. This isn't meant to be another doom-and-gloom post, because we all know what a rough road lies ahead. Does this massive economic downturn and the corresponding cut in liberal arts admissions, coupled with a difficult job market for historians, result in a fundamental change in the profession?

For example, School X has always been very highly ranked, but this year begins cutting history admissions and minimally funding those admissions. Some promising students choose to go to School Y, a lower-ranked institution but one which has managed to maintain funds for the history program. The next year, things only get worse, and fewer students apply to School X because of the funding issues. After a couple of years, do we see some schools emerge as more highly regarded, and some decline?

Or, to view it from another perspective, is this rotten economy ultimately good for history? By artificially constricting admissions, will it help the job market to improve later on? I would like to think that this could be a benefit, except that the students who will be excluded will likely be those who have less money and fewer connections, i.e., in a bad economy, top programs will revert to selecting among the "knowns" or those who have had elite educations all along.

I'm curious what you all think.

[RockEater]

For example, School X has always been very highly ranked, but this year begins cutting history admissions and minimally funding those admissions. Some promising students choose to go to School Y, a lower-ranked institution but one which has managed to maintain funds for the history program. The next year, things only get worse, and fewer students apply to School X because of the funding issues. After a couple of years, do we see some schools emerge as more highly regarded, and some decline?

I'm not sure. I think in order for that to truly happen, more would have to happen than students choosing to go to University of Y. A school would also have to cut classes and dismiss faculty. Unfortunately, we know this is happening at a good deal of schools. If X University is to "decline," then it must not offer the same standard of education that applicants seek. I think most students select which school to apply to based off four things, in this order:

1. Is this school known for producing quality historians?

2. Are there faculty currently at this school that share my research interests?

4. If I apply, do I stand a good chance of acceptance?

3. Is the funding adequate?

Funding comes last, because there are so many ifs in the equation: "If the school produces quality historians," "If there are faculty that share my research interests," "If I get in." What I'm saying is that whether a school declines or not has more to do with its educational aspects than the money you can get from them. Let's say that for 2011 forward, Harvard only covered two years' tuition and a stipend of 12,000 per year. That's a pitiful offer, compared to what the standard appears to be, but people will still go because it's Harvard for God's sake, and you are still going to have access to a world-class education. So to summarize, when/if this economic clusterf*** ends, there will of course be some schools that will dip in our ratings, simply because they no longer have the intellectual resources to offer students, on top of the financial resources. But some, even if they've gone flat broke, will somehow remain on top. Will some emerge as more highly regarded? It depends on if they can entice the dismissed faculty from other schools to work for University of Y, if they can adequately fund incoming students, and most importantly, if they produce quality historians (that's where you and I come in). The last one is about job placement.

Or, to view it from another perspective, is this rotten economy ultimately good for history? By artificially constricting admissions, will it help the job market to improve later on? I would like to think that this could be a benefit, except that the students who will be excluded will likely be those who have less money and fewer connections, i.e., in a bad economy, top programs will revert to selecting among the "knowns" or those who have had elite educations all along.

Will the job market improve later on? It depends; some of us may get our degree just in time for the next economic downturn (a favorite joke I use when others ask me about my plans)! The job market may improve in the idea that there's a smaller number of possible hires, but if there's a number of active faculty members that far exceeds the fresh doctoral pool, then finding a job will be as hard as ever. Fortunately, I'd like to think that in 5 (or 6, 7, 8) years' time, a great number of the Boomer professors (or older) will either be dead or retiring, and that if/when we get out of grad school, there'll be a number of positions open at schools across the country.

In general, I feel that the huge number of applicants this year is tied to a number of causes. First, people can't get jobs, and when they can't get jobs, they further their education (or sit on the sofa and drink beer). Now, some of these people see it as a chance to pursue a dream, or enter a different career track, and that is great- these are the people that should be accepted. However, some people see graduate school as a place to retreat to for a couple years and collect stipend, and when the economy begins to recover, bust on out with perhaps a Master's degree. These people shouldn't be in grad school, but some of them make it. How will we be able to tell? Check the retention rates of graduate schools next year, two years from now, and three years from now. Lower retention rates implies a less-able set of students (unlikely, given the smaller numbers of acceptances and generally higher qualifications), or a greater number who hid from the economy.

The second cause is that the bachelor's degree has become cheapened. There, I said it. There's such pressure from family, friends, everyone you know; you have to go to college, you have to get a degree. Of course, this is the fate of any society that has an information-based economy. Everyone going and getting their B.A. or B.S. means the degree becomes cheapened. I've heard some people say that the bachelor's is the new high school diploma. This is true, in many aspects. But there are, in this world, some people just not cut out for college. I'm sorry, but its true. They end up going, wasting four years or more of their life to barely graduate, and then they have a degree but no one will hire them because there are better applicants out there. In reality, this individual should have gone to a technical/trade school, if they would have liked it more! We need electricians and plumbers, construction workers and mechanics. The reason our infrastructure is in the crapper is not only because we don't spend the money on repairs, but also because the lack of manpower. People don't want to become electricians, plumbers, construction workers, or mechanics because "everybody" needs to get a college degree! If only to increase the value of our own degrees, and to reduce the number of applicants to graduate school, people need to recognize that college isn't for everyone, and that you can still make great money in a trade. We need to make every job appealing so that someone will want to do it.

Anyway, there're my thoughts. Sorry for ranting.

[chlobot]

I'm not sure. I think in order for that to truly happen, more would have to happen than students choosing to go to University of Y. A school would also have to cut classes and dismiss faculty. Unfortunately, we know this is happening at a good deal of schools. If X University is to "decline," then it must not offer the same standard of education that applicants seek. I think most students select which school to apply to based off four things, in this order:

1. Is this school known for producing quality historians?

2. Are there faculty currently at this school that share my research interests?

4. If I apply, do I stand a good chance of acceptance?

3. Is the funding adequate?

Funding comes last, because there are so many ifs in the equation: "If the school produces quality historians," "If there are faculty that share my research interests," "If I get in." What I'm saying is that whether a school declines or not has more to do with its educational aspects than the money you can get from them. Let's say that for 2011 forward, Harvard only covered two years' tuition and a stipend of 12,000 per year. That's a pitiful offer, compared to what the standard appears to be, but people will still go because it's Harvard for God's sake, and you are still going to have access to a world-class education. So to summarize, when/if this economic clusterf*** ends, there will of course be some schools that will dip in our ratings, simply because they no longer have the intellectual resources to offer students, on top of the financial resources. But some, even if they've gone flat broke, will somehow remain on top. Will some emerge as more highly regarded? It depends on if they can entice the dismissed faculty from other schools to work for University of Y, if they can adequately fund incoming students, and most importantly, if they produce quality historians (that's where you and I come in). The last one is about job placement.

Will the job market improve later on? It depends; some of us may get our degree just in time for the next economic downturn (a favorite joke I use when others ask me about my plans)! The job market may improve in the idea that there's a smaller number of possible hires, but if there's a number of active faculty members that far exceeds the fresh doctoral pool, then finding a job will be as hard as ever. Fortunately, I'd like to think that in 5 (or 6, 7, 8) years' time, a great number of the Boomer professors (or older) will either be dead or retiring, and that if/when we get out of grad school, there'll be a number of positions open at schools across the country.

In general, I feel that the huge number of applicants this year is tied to a number of causes. First, people can't get jobs, and when they can't get jobs, they further their education (or sit on the sofa and drink beer). Now, some of these people see it as a chance to pursue a dream, or enter a different career track, and that is great- these are the people that should be accepted. However, some people see graduate school as a place to retreat to for a couple years and collect stipend, and when the economy begins to recover, bust on out with perhaps a Master's degree. These people shouldn't be in grad school, but some of them make it. How will we be able to tell? Check the retention rates of graduate schools next year, two years from now, and three years from now. Lower retention rates implies a less-able set of students (unlikely, given the smaller numbers of acceptances and generally higher qualifications), or a greater number who hid from the economy.

The second cause is that the bachelor's degree has become cheapened. There, I said it. There's such pressure from family, friends, everyone you know; you have to go to college, you have to get a degree. Of course, this is the fate of any society that has an information-based economy. Everyone going and getting their B.A. or B.S. means the degree becomes cheapened. I've heard some people say that the bachelor's is the new high school diploma. This is true, in many aspects. But there are, in this world, some people just not cut out for college. I'm sorry, but its true. They end up going, wasting four years or more of their life to barely graduate, and then they have a degree but no one will hire them because there are better applicants out there. In reality, this individual should have gone to a technical/trade school, if they would have liked it more! We need electricians and plumbers, construction workers and mechanics. The reason our infrastructure is in the crapper is not only because we don't spend the money on repairs, but also because the lack of manpower. People don't want to become electricians, plumbers, construction workers, or mechanics because "everybody" needs to get a college degree! If only to increase the value of our own degrees, and to reduce the number of applicants to graduate school, people need to recognize that college isn't for everyone, and that you can still make great money in a trade. We need to make every job appealing so that someone will want to do it.

Anyway, there're my thoughts. Sorry for ranting.

I agree with RockEater. I would also emphasize that our situation is similar to that of PhD students entering school during the 1970s (my dad was one of them). Applications to programs skyrocketed in response to the bad economy/Vietnam war dodging (no judgment here, just a fact). Consequently, when cohorts from those years graduated with their PhDs, there was a serious glut of applicants for positions. Thus, some folks had to settle for jobs outside academia or in smaller and less prestigious institutions than they would have preferred. I think that our saving grace may be -- as RockEater said -- that a number of baby boom professors will be retiring/kicking the bucket by the time we hit the market *fingers crossed*

[JerryLandis]

The question is whether the retiring baby boomers will just be replaced with adjuncts.

[chlobot]

The question is whether the retiring baby boomers will just be replaced with adjuncts.

Yes, that is a big question.

[kelsey]

A professor I was talking to started apologizing to me for the small size of the cohort this year--this is a school where they've gone from ~50 entering students to ~15 over the past five years--and used the same reasoning you're using, saying "It might be lonely, but you'll thank us when you're on the job market."

I didn't argue with her.

[StrangeLight]

two people in my program turned down fully funded PhD offers from harvard to go to pitt. so for what it's worth, people definitely turn down harvard, even though "it's harvard!!" because the program doesn't offer what they're after. both of their decisions were based primarily on the opportunity to work with a particular advisor and a less "traditional" methodology.

there is one member of my program who has received two offers for tenure-track positions, one at a research institute in an undesirable location and the other at a highly-ranked LAC in a very desirable location. it's taken him 9 years to complete his MA and PhD, but he's been published three times and has a litany of prestigious fellowships on his CV. he's in a relatively competitive field (colonial american history) and he's got two solid offers to choose from with a few more interviews to go.

so... the work is out there. and you don't need to be from harvard or yale to get the job. your research needs to stand out and your CV needs to go beyond the "standard funding, three conference presentations, two book reviews, and maybe one article" minimum that most PhDs have on their CVs.

just this year, two highly desirable, well-funded research institutions in a fantastic city in the pacNW called off their searches for new faculty. they got plenty of applications, went through the interview process, voted on the candidates. one department decided that none of them were particularly good and just called it off right there. the other offered the job to one candidate, despite half the faculty insisting his work was just not any good, and the guy turned it down for another job offer (!!). both schools that offered the gigs were top-30 in the world. not top 30 in the US. not top 30 public. not top 30 research. top 30 overall.

the moral of that story being, good work will set you apart. you may even get hired without good work. but if you take your research seriously and genuinely contribute something of value to your field (MUCH easier said than done), then a tenure track job is definitely possible to obtain. you have to be exceptional, though, whether you're at harvard or arizona.

so seriously, be cheered. there are places that are hiring tenure-track faculty and the jobs aren't going to people with ivy league degrees and nothing interesting to say. make your work really, truly count, do something innovative with it, and you'll get a job.

as for the retirees being replaced with adjuncts... sure, that's a concern. the bigger concern is whether those boomers even retire. a lot of them are sticking around into their 70s and 80s. just from looking at what's up on h-net for job listings, yeah, a lot of them are lectureships or "visiting professors" or whatever other terminology they use to say "temporary without benefits," but i've also seen probably 10 listings since september for tenure-track positions in my field. that's not bad considering the number of people that get PhDs in my field each year isn't that high.

[chlobot]

I think that it's also important to remember that there are lots of jobs outside of the academy that PhDs can do -- I know a couple of people in my current program are pursuing public policy or archival positions, for example. At least for me, having worked for years in a profession that I found completely unfulfilling (law), I am just happy to be doing something that I love to do. Getting a tenure-track position after graduation would be icing on the cake.

[StrangeLight]

also, to some degree, the schools do move around in the rankings, but the rankings are also meaningless. i've used this example before, but harvard's in the top 10 for latin american history, and they've got one mexicanist who isn't exactly a heavyweight in the field. they never offer grad courses on latin america. unless you wanted to work with that advisor on some project quite close to his/her own research, it would be silly to apply there. and yet... top 10 for latin american history. it's meaningless.

indiana's really moved up the rankings in the last 10 years, primarily from a giant injection of cash and a concerted effort to recruit big names and promising young scholars.

the big names are expensive to get. the innovative young scholar whose dissertation won an award is a much cheaper buy. that's how we'll get hired: by being the innovative young ones who can become the future heavyweights of a department, not (necessarily) by having "ivy league" stamped on our degrees. a school looking to become a staple in asian history, for example, will throw some money at one or two profs and poach them from other schools and then they'll pour the rest of their dollars into newbies like us. when, suddenly, a program has 7 or 8 asianists and a litany of awards and grants behind their faculty, they'll move up the subfield ranking. once they're firmly in the top 10 there, they'll creep into the top 20 overall.

i guess the rough part is, some schools have put their expansion on hold due to money shortages, and others are looking to expand into new regional and thematic fields, making things still seem bleak for americanists and europeanists. and that sucks. to love something and dedicate your life to it and then have people tell you, "oh yeah, we're not really looking for that right now."

Edited February 28, 2010 by StrangeLight

[Noodles]

I'm not sure. I think in order for that to truly happen, more would have to happen than students choosing to go to University of Y. A school would also have to cut classes and dismiss faculty. Unfortunately, we know this is happening at a good deal of schools. If X University is to "decline," then it must not offer the same standard of education that applicants seek. I think most students select which school to apply to based off four things, in this order:

1. Is this school known for producing quality historians?

2. Are there faculty currently at this school that share my research interests?

4. If I apply, do I stand a good chance of acceptance?

3. Is the funding adequate?

Funding comes last, because there are so many ifs in the equation: "If the school produces quality historians," "If there are faculty that share my research interests," "If I get in." What I'm saying is that whether a school declines or not has more to do with its educational aspects than the money you can get from them. Let's say that for 2011 forward, Harvard only covered two years' tuition and a stipend of 12,000 per year. That's a pitiful offer, compared to what the standard appears to be, but people will still go because it's Harvard for God's sake, and you are still going to have access to a world-class education. So to summarize, when/if this economic clusterf*** ends, there will of course be some schools that will dip in our ratings, simply because they no longer have the intellectual resources to offer students, on top of the financial resources. But some, even if they've gone flat broke, will somehow remain on top. Will some emerge as more highly regarded? It depends on if they can entice the dismissed faculty from other schools to work for University of Y, if they can adequately fund incoming students, and most importantly, if they produce quality historians (that's where you and I come in). The last one is about job placement.

Will the job market improve later on? It depends; some of us may get our degree just in time for the next economic downturn (a favorite joke I use when others ask me about my plans)! The job market may improve in the idea that there's a smaller number of possible hires, but if there's a number of active faculty members that far exceeds the fresh doctoral pool, then finding a job will be as hard as ever. Fortunately, I'd like to think that in 5 (or 6, 7, 8) years' time, a great number of the Boomer professors (or older) will either be dead or retiring, and that if/when we get out of grad school, there'll be a number of positions open at schools across the country.

In general, I feel that the huge number of applicants this year is tied to a number of causes. First, people can't get jobs, and when they can't get jobs, they further their education (or sit on the sofa and drink beer). Now, some of these people see it as a chance to pursue a dream, or enter a different career track, and that is great- these are the people that should be accepted. However, some people see graduate school as a place to retreat to for a couple years and collect stipend, and when the economy begins to recover, bust on out with perhaps a Master's degree. These people shouldn't be in grad school, but some of them make it. How will we be able to tell? Check the retention rates of graduate schools next year, two years from now, and three years from now. Lower retention rates implies a less-able set of students (unlikely, given the smaller numbers of acceptances and generally higher qualifications), or a greater number who hid from the economy.

The second cause is that the bachelor's degree has become cheapened. There, I said it. There's such pressure from family, friends, everyone you know; you have to go to college, you have to get a degree. Of course, this is the fate of any society that has an information-based economy. Everyone going and getting their B.A. or B.S. means the degree becomes cheapened. I've heard some people say that the bachelor's is the new high school diploma. This is true, in many aspects. But there are, in this world, some people just not cut out for college. I'm sorry, but its true. They end up going, wasting four years or more of their life to barely graduate, and then they have a degree but no one will hire them because there are better applicants out there. In reality, this individual should have gone to a technical/trade school, if they would have liked it more! We need electricians and plumbers, construction workers and mechanics. The reason our infrastructure is in the crapper is not only because we don't spend the money on repairs, but also because the lack of manpower. People don't want to become electricians, plumbers, construction workers, or mechanics because "everybody" needs to get a college degree! If only to increase the value of our own degrees, and to reduce the number of applicants to graduate school, people need to recognize that college isn't for everyone, and that you can still make great money in a trade. We need to make every job appealing so that someone will want to do it.

Anyway, there're my thoughts. Sorry for ranting.

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.

[Noodles]

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.

[Nytusse]

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.

Yeah, I am NOT looking forward to this explanation.

[StrangeLight]

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.

you're completely right, most of their family and friends think they're mental for turning down harvard. many of the grad students in our department also think they're crazy for turning down harvard. but i don't think most people spend 5-8 years of their life toiling away on a dissertation no one will read to impress their friends and family. you go where the best academics in your field are, and a lot of times, those people are not at harvard (or brown or wherever else).

shit, i had a hard time just explaining my list of applications to my family. "no, mom, i promise, michigan is one of the best schools in the country. ... mom, upenn IS ivy league. yes, it is. i swear." that familial pressure to give them the ability to impress their friends at bingo night caused me to waste about $500 on applications to schools without grad programs in my field, like upenn, and to forgo applying to schools that were much better fits for my specific research, like indiana and tulane. when i told my mom where i was applying, there were a lot of silences, punctuated occasionally by, "oh, i've heard of that one!" my parents have never been to college, my dad never finished high school or got his GED. you'd think they'd be easier to impress.

[StrangeLight]

when i spoke with potential advisors at the top 10 schools (and some ivy leagues that weren't in the top 10), i got a lot of this: "i only work on cuba." okay. "i went to school X for my grad degree and i really had an awful time. they ignore anyone that doesn't do mexico. you'll feel very lonely there, i hated it." okay. "we really only do colonial latin america and modern brazil here." okay. "we have no funding for international students." okay. "oh, prof. X [the big name] doesn't teach here anymore." okay. "we've got three latin americanists retiring in the next five years." okay. "the person at prestigious school Y? she's my arch-nemesis and she HATES me and if she knows i was your undergrad advisor, you probably won't get in. plus, she's an awful human being." okay. "the program at prestigious school Z is a total mess right now. that entire subfield is like a dysfunctional family and most of the big names are looking to jump ship soon." okay. "oh, i don't really work on that. i know it's listed on my CV as part of my interests, but i couldn't advise your project." okay.

the list i had in the summer before i applied was WAY different than the one i ended up with.

a lot of the departments on the top 10 lists are great. but it seemed like a lot of them were also in transition, losing their heavyweights to other schools or to retirement. i don't think anyone pays attention to that stuff unless it's their own subfield, and since the USNWRs are determined in part by other professors' opinions, the fewer profs there are in your subfield, the less likely it is that they'll know big name from X moved to Y or half of the faculty at Z just retired.

[JerryLandis]

I'd be interested to meet one of my professor's arch academic nemeses (is that the plural?). The stories I've been hearing are making me rather curious if she is actually human or not.

All the big names in my field either work at departments that only offer completely unrelated PhD fields, or are independently wealthy/emeritus faculty who write books all the time but never take students. Actually, there's one relevant woman who has the benefit of being young (wouldn't retire or die during my time with her), but I tend to disagree with everything she writes so I don't intend to apply where she works.

[Nytusse]

you're completely right, most of their family and friends think they're mental for turning down harvard. many of the grad students in our department also think they're crazy for turning down harvard. but i don't think most people spend 5-8 years of their life toiling away on a dissertation no one will read to impress their friends and family. you go where the best academics in your field are, and a lot of times, those people are not at harvard (or brown or wherever else).

shit, i had a hard time just explaining my list of applications to my family. "no, mom, i promise, michigan is one of the best schools in the country. ... mom, upenn IS ivy league. yes, it is. i swear." that familial pressure to give them the ability to impress their friends at bingo night caused me to waste about $500 on applications to schools without grad programs in my field, like upenn, and to forgo applying to schools that were much better fits for my specific research, like indiana and tulane. when i told my mom where i was applying, there were a lot of silences, punctuated occasionally by, "oh, i've heard of that one!" my parents have never been to college, my dad never finished high school or got his GED. you'd think they'd be easier to impress.

LOL. Well, I started at a complete no-name, now I'm getting my Master's at an Ivy, so I have nowhere to go but down in everyone's estimation. I think I passed my peak already!

Edited March 1, 2010 by Nytusse

[deuterides]

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.

Oh this is so familiar. My mother refuses to believe that Wisconsin,Virginia, and Pitt (the schools I am deliberating between right now) are not only perfectly good schools, but excellent programs. I'm just getting recriminations because Princeton and (I'm assuming) Harvard turned me down.

[RockEater]

Oh this is so familiar. My mother refuses to believe that Wisconsin,Virginia, and Pitt (the schools I am deliberating between right now) are not only perfectly good schools, but excellent programs. I'm just getting recriminations because Princeton and (I'm assuming) Harvard turned me down.

Tell your mom I'm offended that she thinks Wisconsin is not an excellent program. This school is a world class school (and I would assume UVA and Pitt are as well)!

[deuterides]

Tell your mom I'm offended that she thinks Wisconsin is not an excellent program. This school is a world class school (and I would assume UVA and Pitt are as well)!

I know that, its why I can't really make a decision until I visit all three next week, but the woman thinks outside of rational appraisals. Believe me, if I didn't think any were not absolutely first-rate, I would at least be a step closer to making a decision.

[dflanagan]

If I was getting a PHD to impress people with the name of my school, I'd be losing my mind (especially as I just got my rejection from Harvard haha). Brandeis is super strong in my interests, and the people there seem kind and pleasant as well as knowledgeable. The school itself has a good deal of prestige, but people are mainly aware of it as an undergraduate institution. I guess my only problem with names is that I go to a very prestigious LAC, and while some of my classmates haven't gotten in anywhere I know of one person with very similar interests who just got into Hopkins. I'm happy for her, of course, but I guess there's pressure somewhere like Wes (or Swarthmore, or Middlebury, of Williams, or...) to impress your peers. That said, I'm actually really happy to be in where I'm in, so I'm not gonna worry about the knee-jerk responses of non-historians.

[Caligula]

"I guess there's pressure somewhere like Wes (or Swarthmore, or Middlebury, of Williams, or...) to impress your peers."

AMEN.

[deuterides]

"I guess there's pressure somewhere like Wes (or Swarthmore, or Middlebury, of Williams, or...) to impress your peers."

AMEN.

I'm coming out of a small, but good LAC. That same pressure is everywhere. In my cohort of history majors, three of us, including myself, are looking for history PhD's and the posturing is immense.

[africanhistoryphd]

This is such a great thread. This process is, ultimately, pretty ridiculous--some kind of bizzare brains pageant where nothing is substantively being judged, per se.

I'm perhaps a bit older than some of you coming straight from undergrad, so my only advice would be not to let people who aren't deeply engaged in your academic field make you feel especially good or bad about where you go.

We're all pretty lucky folks to get this far into this bizzaro world of academia; something like 3 percent of the nation ever gets a PhD in anything.

You are deeply blessed and highly lucky: enjoy your expereience--it'll be tough enough without you or anyone else second guessing you for whatever reason.

[chlobot]

This is such a great thread. This process is, ultimately, pretty ridiculous--some kind of bizzare brains pageant where nothing is substantively being judged, per se.

I'm perhaps a bit older than some of you coming straight from undergrad, so my only advice would be not to let people who aren't deeply engaged in your academic field make you feel especially good or bad about where you go.

We're all pretty lucky folks to get this far into this bizzaro world of academia; something like 3 percent of the nation ever gets a PhD in anything.

You are deeply blessed and highly lucky: enjoy your expereience--it'll be tough enough without you or anyone else second guessing you for whatever reason.

Totally agree. This is my second career (I'm an ex-lawyer), and I can't even explain how fantastic it is to get to do what you love on a daily basis, whether it's in a top 75 or a top 10 program. Screw the naysayers.

[ChibaCityBlues]

Screw the naysayers.

Especially when the naysayers are 21 year old kids who have no clue what the f*ck they're talking about.