Current "rankings"?

[nisbet]

Hey everyone,

Since the NRC rankings are already outdated and even omit several programs, does anyone have an accurate idea of the basic tiers of classics programs? Of course individual advisors matter most, but perceptions and prestige do count, and I was wondering if anyone had any rough idea. Since others have asked this, it may help them too.

thanks,

nisbet

[Veilside1]

Even if an organization were to attempt to rank classics PhD programs, it would be a useless list for most.

Classics has some very specific specialties which certain schools are well-known for being the best in, while otherwise not so strong. For example, the University if Cincinnati is probably the best for Bronze Age archaeology, but for every other aspect of classics it is mediocre. So how do you rank UCinn? This is the problem.

The bottom line is quite clear. For job security you need a PhD from an Ivy or the few 'Par-Ivies'. If you don't have a PhD from one of them you're pretty much out of luck. Unless of course you are a Bronze Age archaeologist with a PhD from UCinn, or another such 'exception school'.

Also, since there is only around 12 solid programs out there worth your time, what does it really matter to rank them? Apply to them all, whoever accepts you compare them. If you're accepted into even two top-12 programs you're a real fortunate applicant, so at that time worry about who is better by directly comparing the faculty, program, placement, fit, etc,...

But, if you asked for my simple, humble opinion of a general guide to a ranking of PhD classics programs... here you go.

1. Princeton University

2. UC-Berkeley (AHMA)

3. Stanford

4. University of Pennsylvania

5. Yale University

6. UNC-Chapel Hill

7. Columbia University

8. University of Michigan

9. University of Chicago

10. Cornell University

11. Brown University / Duke University

12. Harvard University

Yes, Harvard is 12th of the top-12. Take a good hard look at their faculty list; it is awful!! There is nobody there of any real significance--long gone are the days of Badian and Bowersock. Harvard is coasting in neutral right now, and quite honestly has been for the last 5-10 years. But it's Harvard. So the name is deliciously tempting to anyone who would get accepted, but from people that I know who are there, they all wished they chose somewhere else.

But....this is only "my" perception of the best schools. Now, to clarify, if I were to assign numerical values to these programs, Princeton would be a 100, and Brown/Duke would be about a 95. So no real heavy variation in the overall quality..... Harvard, probably dips to about a 90, with name recognition, job placement, and their amazing library being their saving grace.

How does Ohio State, UTexas-Austin, UCLA, NYU, Boston U, U-Cinn, CUNY, UVirginia fare? I would say in the low 70s. Maybe some people get jobs, but unless community college or private prep school is your goal stick to the top 12.

[random_classicist]

I have to say that I disagree with almost the entirety of Veilside's post.

First of all, how can you say that there is "nobody ... of any real significance [at Harvard]"? What about Ziolkowski, Thomas, and Tarrant, to name but a few? Do they not count? And how did Yale come to be ranked 4th in your list? They have been in decline for years - they just lost Celia Schultz to Michigan because of the constant rancor within their department.

Stanford has almost no Latinists to speak of, with the notable exception of Barchiesi, and he is only there six months out of the year.

Lastly, I would say that UCLA and UT Austin are easily on par with UNC, Duke, Brown/Cornell/Columbia.

The Department of Classics at UT Austin has a decent ranking of the top graduate programs on their website. Here is the URL:

http://www.utexas.edu/cola/orgs/lacs/_files/pdf/GS%20Handbooks/CLA%20Handbook.pdf

[Rendar]

I agree with random_classicist.

It's a tricky question and, like so much, comes down to specifics. Even NRC rankings have to be taken with a grain of salt as they certainly emphasis certain aspects of a program over others. For instance, although Bryn Mawr is rated number 12 I've heard more than a bit of grumbling that it's archaeology division isn't exactly the hottest these days.

Naturally my own area is archaeology which is a rather different world within traditional Classics. Just off the top of my head I'd say places like Brown, Michigan, UNC, Penn, and Stanford have excellent programs for archaeology in the Classical realm.

UCLA is a little different due to the Cotsen being a research unit which pulls in people from Classics. Anthro, Ancient Near East, etc, which is what attracted me to it. I like being an archaeologist first who happens to work in the Classical area. So often I find that Classics departments have a horrible lack of training in anthropological thought and theory.

It also depends on what opportunities each school has. I did my MA at U of Alberta which probably wouldn't even register on Veilside's list but allowed me to work on a new project that has led to amazing research, publications, and introduced me very nicely to the inner workings of the Greek bureaucracy in the area I want to work.

Of course listening to scuttlebutt and the like from people established in the field (or current PhD students) is always interesting, as well

Long story short, it's a complicated matter that you have to personally look at a lot of factors to figure out.

Edited August 23, 2011 by Rendar

[Veilside1]

I have to say that I disagree with almost the entirety of Veilside's post.

First of all, how can you say that there is "nobody ... of any real significance [at Harvard]"? What about Ziolkowski, Thomas, and Tarrant, to name but a few? Do they not count? And how did Yale come to be ranked 4th in your list? They have been in decline for years - they just lost Celia Schultz to Michigan because of the constant rancor within their department.

Stanford has almost no Latinists to speak of, with the notable exception of Barchiesi, and he is only there six months out of the year.

Lastly, I would say that UCLA and UT Austin are easily on par with UNC, Duke, Brown/Cornell/Columbia.

The Department of Classics at UT Austin has a decent ranking of the top graduate programs on their website. Here is the URL:

http://www.utexas.ed...%20Handbook.pdf

Well.... as I said this is 'only "my" perception of the best schools.' Myself, being an ancient historian I view these programs from a different perspective. Also, I think you failed to grasp that I also said that all 12 of them are very, very close in terms of their respective separation in the "ranking"--accept for Harvard.

This only acts as living proof that for any organization to attempt to apply a ranking system to PhD programs in classics fails before it begins.

Stanford has a great selection of historians who offer a variety of specialties. No one "does Latin" though? I'm sure that they all are capable and equipped to tackle the nuances of the language, but I'll take your philology-oriented perspective to be true that Stanford does not house an adequate number of Latin philologists.

But see? How would the issue of ranking Stanford be addressed? I see it, as an historian, as a very strong department, yet from another discipline's point of view it is quite flawed.

As I stated above, ranking is a pointless exercise anyway. The best strategy is to apply to all the "obvious" schools and if you're lucky enough to get in anywhere or even have a choice, then worry about it. I only provided a ranking out of boredom and for the sake of the argument to demonstrate my single perspective... and you, random_classicist complemented my entire point perfectly, even though you stated that you "disagree with almost the entirety of Veilside's post." I assume that the disagreement was essentially due to my slanted ranking.

As far as Harvard goes, yes, I am not impressed. As an historian who examines their faculty list there is nobody. Emma Dench is it; and she, although she very well might be a fantastic person and great lecturer, is not really a 'somebody' in academia. Bowersock and Badian, and to some extent C.P. Jones, kept the historical interests of the department in quite high regard, and perhaps some day Harvard will bring in someone, or hopefully a few scholars, of high caliber, but that time is not now.

Princeton is an academic powerhouse in classics, and from what I can tell is probably no less than 2nd on anyone's ranking. In terms of history, and just on the Roman side of things, Princeton has Edward Champlin, Brent Shaw and Harriet Flower, and if later antiquity is your interest the history department has Peter Brown.

....I don't know. Everyone will have their own opinion, but the core of what I was trying to originally say is true: Ranking doesn't mater, we all know where is good, and that short list is perhaps in constant flux, but the top 12 stay the top 12.

Edited August 23, 2011 by Veilside1

[JonathanEdwards]

Harvard is 12th of the top-12. Take a good hard look at their faculty list; it is awful!! There is nobody there of any real significance…

As far as Harvard goes, yes, I am not impressed. As an historian who examines their faculty list there is nobody … perhaps some day Harvard will bring in someone, or hopefully a few scholars, of high caliber, but that time is not now.

For the record, I don’t see Harvard as particularly hallowed ground either, but these are all strong schools with good faculty. The above sort of rhetoric sounds much more appropriate for bashing rival sports clubs than comparing academic departments.

My research in ancient history/late antiquity has benefited greatly from Kathleen Coleman’s work, particularly her seminal article ‘Fatal Charades’,

JRS

80 (1990). So that no one has to follow the

link

, she’s the James Loeb Professor of the Classics at Harvard.

Edited August 23, 2011 by Westcott

[random_classicist]

I respect your opinion, Veilside - I just think it's a little extreme to say that anyone who gets a PhD at a school outside of your "top 12" list is most likely going to teach at a community college or prep school.

... And I agree with you that these debates are largely pointless (which makes me wonder why I am participating in it - oh well). A historian's list of the best graduate programs, the "obvious schools," is generally going to be quite different from that of a philologist's or an archaeologists.

[ajeclizm]

I have to say that I disagree with almost the entirety of Veilside's post.

First of all, how can you say that there is "nobody ... of any real significance [at Harvard]"? What about Ziolkowski, Thomas, and Tarrant, to name but a few? Do they not count? And how did Yale come to be ranked 4th in your list? They have been in decline for years - they just lost Celia Schultz to Michigan because of the constant rancor within their department.

Stanford has almost no Latinists to speak of, with the notable exception of Barchiesi, and he is only there six months out of the year.

Lastly, I would say that UCLA and UT Austin are easily on par with UNC, Duke, Brown/Cornell/Columbia.

The Department of Classics at UT Austin has a decent ranking of the top graduate programs on their website. Here is the URL:

http://www.utexas.ed...%20Handbook.pdf

Thanks for that link. UT Austin gives more pertinent information for prospective grad students than all the other school websites. Very useful stuff!

[losemygrip]

I think the fact that UT-Austin has provided such a nice intro to graduate study in the field might make one more seriously consider their program. That shows both organization and strong mentorship of students.

[nisbet]

Wow, I'm glad this thread got some attention. What community colleges hire classicists? I'd be interested in this option, though I'm nowhere near the job market yet.

[Myshkin]

"First of all, how can you say that there is "nobody ... of any real significance [at Harvard]"? What about Ziolkowski, Thomas, and Tarrant, to name but a few? Do they not count? And how did Yale come to be ranked 4th in your list? They have been in decline for years - they just lost Celia Schultz to Michigan because of the constant rancor within their department."

I can say from experience that this is not true. The supposed "rancor" from the 90's is not around and is hardly visible. The loss of Celia, from what I've been told, was very unfortunate, but it was not her choice. Yale University tenure policy is pathetic, but it is the university's and not the department's: they rarely, if ever, give tenure to faculty who are not hired with tenure as part of their contract.

As for gains, the past five years has seen a chair who has completely turned the department around: Chris Kraus. New faculty also include Joe Manning and Emily Greenwood (here I'm speaking only of faculty brought in with tenure). The assistant profs are all wonderful.

The department is close and all the grad students get along very well (it helps that everyone has the same five year funding guaranteed, always been given for 6 or 7, and that we don't have to compete with each other for it; our research interests are all very diverse so, again, little competition and lots of collaboration).

The department is floating in money, such that there is an endless array of speakers and colloquia every year from across the US and Europe. Administrative assistants are delightful, kind, and not insane. Seriously, being part of a massive endowment ($16 billion) pays, especially when the department itself has its own huge number of funds. The Library collection is second only to Harvard's, but hey, now that Widener is part of the Borrow Direct system, who the hell cares.

The materials here are in many ways second to only the UK's and the Vatican's. We have an insane materials collection: coins, Babylonian artifacts, the Beinecke (for papyri and MSS), other Near-East stuff; oh right, and you can play with it to your heart's delight.

The department requires its students to take classes in other departments, so the opportunities for interdisciplinary here are immense.

All I can say is, thank God I chose this department. If you apply and are asked to come for the interview process and show genuine interest, you will be left in awe. It is beyond first-class. I wouldn't want to be anywhere else.

[JonathanEdwards]

I can say from experience that this is not true.

Thanks, Myshkin. It’s always nice to hear about a program from someone with actual experience. Conference gossip likely sounds like a worthwhile source to someone desperate for information about a field, but it’s usually both biased and unhelpful. Having heard someone with zero firsthand contact represent one of my alma maters in a similarly unrecognizable fashion, I’m incurably wary of inflammatory statements from people who are ‘in the know’ because they attended last year's A.P.A. or C.A. conference.

Bottom line for new readers: The most productive way to differentiate between excellent programs (like all those mentioned in this thread) is personal, i.e. fit between you and your potential research supervisor, availability of the resources you need, etc.

Edited November 22, 2011 by Westcott

[OdiEtAmo]

I know this thread has been quiet for awhile, but I feel I should add one thing in case future applicants read this thread. It applies to Harvard's Ancient History program, which I had very wrongly initially written off for the reasons Veilside mentioned. Harvard had three ancient historians on the job market this year (the first three since the program started in 2005), and they got tenure-track jobs at Harvard, Yale, and Cincinnati. Although arguably the program won't place this well every year, I think it is helpful to note that other departments seem to think highly of it and/or the people it produces.

[non humilis mulier]

Hey all, does anyone know where to find admissions statistics for various schools? I'm curious about the ivies, in particular, for classics/classical studies PhD programs. I was able to find the information for a few schools, but not all.

Here are the statistics for Duke, for example:

http://gradschool.duke.edu/about/stats.php

[B. Blumenstrauss]

I've made this for fun...

 

If you had to create a "top five list" with your classics/classical studies dream programs, how would it be?

 

Mine:

 

1. Princeton

2. Stanford

3. Columbia

4. Yale

5. Chicago

 

... and let me add these...

 

6. Berkeley

7. Brown

8. Texas at Austin

9. NYU

10. Harvard

 

(if extra US admitted, I would probably put Toronto between 3 and 4)

 

What do you think?

Edited February 12, 2015 by Beatrice Blumenstrauss

[salvoquat]

 

I've made this for fun...

 

 

... and let me add these...

 

6. Berkeley

7. Brown

8. Texas at Austin

9. NYU

10. Harvard

 

(if extra US admitted, I would probably put Toronto between 3 and 4)

 

What do you think?

 

I believe that in a Top Classics Schools list one could never leave out the Scuola Normale Superiore di Pisa

[poliorkein]

 

I've made this for fun...

 

 

... and let me add these...

 

6. Berkeley

7. Brown

8. Texas at Austin

9. NYU

10. Harvard

 

(if extra US admitted, I would probably put Toronto between 3 and 4)

 

What do you think?

 

Taking into account your admittedly very personal ranking of these programs, may I ask why you think so highly of Texas? I suspect it's a difference in interests but whenever I glanced at their faculty, I found very few people interesting for Greek literature so I dismissed them immediately for my own purposes but I didn't actually look to see if they had strengths in other areas.

[B. Blumenstrauss]

Taking into account your admittedly very personal ranking of these programs, may I ask why you think so highly of Texas? I suspect it's a difference in interests but whenever I glanced at their faculty, I found very few people interesting for Greek literature so I dismissed them immediately for my own purposes but I didn't actually look to see if they had strengths in other areas.

 

I really love Woodruff's, White' and Perlman's work (all brilliant in Greek + Philosophy)... but yes, the roman side of the department is not breathtaking, I guess.

 

I wonder why Harvard lacks of a strong department (as we would expect from Harvard University) in Classics...

[heliogabalus]

Is Galinsky not a big deal these days?

[B. Blumenstrauss]

Is Galinsky not a big deal these days?

[hypsipyle]

 

Mugatu! A+ GIF choice, Beatrice.

[B. Blumenstrauss]

What a great movie. I'll keep on saying it until the end of times.

[ZwibbleDibble]

I am exceptionally new to the whole world of grad programs, and am finding this forum quite helpful, so thank you to all of the contributors. I was wondering however, why has no one mentioned the program at Notre Dame? I was under the impression that it was easily one of the most respected programs in the country, but perhaps I simply heard wrong?

[ἠφανισμένος]

Notre Dame does not offer the PhD in classics.

[Furcifera]

And Notre Dame's MA in Classics has been in existence for... what... five years? No slight to their faculty, merely some question marks as to their track record/history. But I don't know by what rubric it would be "easily one of the most respected programs in the country." Maybe if you were studying late (as in Church, really) Latin?

Edited March 1, 2016 by Furcifera