Top Schools for a Particular Sub-Field

[Hogs of War]

Plan for this thread: List Sub-Fields and then list within those subfields the best schools to study that field and why. Additionally, feel free to leave requests for sub-field information. (To be honest, this idea came to me when I was thinking about my subfield, and realized I didn't really know where I should be applying for my Ph.D in a few years)

Medieval History

• School 1 (Reason why School 1 is good, a professor who is awesome to work with)
  
• School 2 (Reason why School 2 is good, a professor who is awesome to work with)
  
• School 3 (Reason why School 3 is good, a professor who is awesome to work with)
  
  
  Modern American History
  
  • School 1 (Reason why School 1 is good, a professor who is awesome to work with)
    
  • School 2 (Reason why School 2 is good, a professor who is awesome to work with)
    
  • School 3 (Reason why School 3 is good, a professor who is awesome to work with)
    

  Above is just a temporary Template. Feel free to fill it in, expand on it, change it, whatever you want.

[remenis]

I think your question is a tough one because the best programs for any given sub field will vary a lot depending on what in particular you want to work on. For example, some medieval history programs are great for the Mediterranean but bad for northern Europe or great for economic history but bad for intellectial history or vice versa so you can't make a definitive list of what programs are "the best" for the whole subfield, you just need to sort through the pool of available programs for which would be the best fit for your own interests. I do medieval history as well if you want to PM me.

[StrangeLight]

hmmm...

i'm gonna be honest. i don't think this is a good idea.

1) i firmly believe that this sort of program-by-program research is something students need to do themselves. we're supposed to be professional researchers, and while this is time-consuming work to do individually, we should be able to do it. moreover, you'll actually remember that X prof is at Y school working on Z. i built a database of almost every program i could think of in my subfield, who is there, and what they work on. it's been helpful years later while in graduate school more times than i can count.

2) what counts as "good" and "awesome" are really subjective, so i don't know how useful this will be to anyone. plus, a program that is good at medieval political history won't necessarily be one that's good at medieval gender history, so unless these subcategories get insanely specific, they won't be that useful to people and will risk directing applicants to programs that really aren't as "good" or "awesome" for them as they've been led to believe.

obviously people are going to do what they want to do with this, but my first instinct upon seeing this was that it's well intentioned but a bad idea.

[TMP]

Given my own "journey," this would not work. I never, EVER thought that I would end up where I've decided to go during my first round of PhD applications. Given all the schools I've applied to, this place just ultimately ended up being a perfect place, even if it's not the first school people think of right away for my sub-field. You have to understand the particularities and movements within that field among the professors and things do take time to develop.

Also, we should consider the retirements over the next few years that can have an effect on the program's quality and ability to support graduate students in their first 3 years, the most critical years for faculty support. For example, in my sub-subfield, what would be considered top 3-4, it's not *quite* the right time as the senior faculty at 3 of the 4 places are nearing the end of their careers (but no retirement date), even if they're reluctant to show any signs. Program #4 just had a faculty leave to another program and the remaining faculty member is mid-career and is now in the transitional phase of visualizing the program's future while waiting for a replacement to support that.

Seriously, it's amazing what a difference time makes. Back then, my waitlists involved working with senior scholars. Now my choices involved only mid-career scholars!

[uhohlemonster]

Yeah, I have to agree this wouldn't be useful. Our fields should be too specific for this. For example, if someone studies Jewish History, it really will depend on what type of Jewish History you study in order to find a meaningful match in a department. A list is pretty unhelpful. Though if you must see a list, go check out the US News one. They break it down by field (well, some fields.)

[Sigaba]

Our fields should be too specific for this.

The issue of specialization will be one many of you will hear professors kick around in seminar--mostly in passing.

I urge many of you to give some thought to uhohlemonster's argument. That is, are the broader interests of history best served by the degree of specialization the practice of professional academic history currently sees?

Edited April 11, 2012 by Sigaba

[Simple Twist of Fate]

While I agree with a lot of the comments that have been made, there is something to be said with having a place to start looking. For instance, I know what many would consider to be the top 3 programs for my sub-field. However, that is mostly common knowledge and isn't far different from the (rapidly aging) US News rankings. And I bet that 6 months ago, I would have loved to have a nice, fat set of rankings to dig my teeth into.

Nevertheless, I'm glad I didn't have that detailed set of subfield rankings for my subfield. They would have driven me nuts and I might have applied to a whole bunch of programs I had no reason to apply to. Now I'm headed to a program that wouldn't be ranked highly in my sub-field, and isn't an obvious choice, but is nevertheless an excellent fit for me.

[calamari19]

While I agree with a lot of the comments that have been made, there is something to be said with having a place to start looking.

I agree too. Anything posted here shouldn't be the end all, be all for any prospective student, but a general list of "hey, i found that this school has good people for x field" could be great. I'd leave out the rankings, because honestly I wouldn't even know how to determine them that well, but no harm listing ones I liked. Everyone has to do their own research to figure out what would work for them, but these forums are about sharing information, so why not?

I just applied for late 19th/early 20th century American women's history with a focus on popular culture. I found that UNC-Chapel Hill, Wisconsin-Madison, UChicago, Harvard (AmCiv) and Michigan had good departments given my interests, along with a few others with less depth in the sub-field. Of course, there are certainly other good schools that I didn't look at for various reasons (location, retiring/leaving professors, etc.) but if you want to do something similar, check out those schools!

[crazedandinfused]

there is something to be said with having a place to start looking.

I agree with this and I don't think that Hogs' intent was the creation of a formulaic list of categories to be taken as gospel. I think that it would be helpful, especially for people with somewhat 'esoteric' subfields, to have some idea of what departments have different strengths in different areas. Maybe a list could be organized along those lines.

But I do agree that tracing scholarship, a clumsy way of saying going down the bibliographic rabbit-hole, is the best way to build an initial list of POIs and then potential departments. In my case, I really enjoyed a book by my soon-to-be adviser and it turned out that she was at an awesome, awesome department. And I'm stoked about where I'm going, so just follow your interests and don't pay too much heed to the deranged fumblings of US News 'n World Report.

Edited April 12, 2012 by crazedandinfused

[maeisenb]

I don't have much to add really, but as one of my last posts I'll say this: I would encourage you to PM people (I'm fine with it at least) in your particular field for their insights and thoughts following each individual application season. Having just spoken to professors and, in many cases visited places, they will often know some of the most up to date information at each particular place and have a feel of comparing the schools. As others have said, this comes down to a really personal view of places, especially given your own narrow research interests. You've stated in the fields thread that you want to work on monastic studies and conflicts in authority in the medieval period (early, high or late is unclear and would need to be specified obviously), so I would encourage you to get in touch with the medievalists who were on here (myself, Remenis, and a few others that I know of). The schools will undoubtedly change over the two years of your MA, but it's never to early to at least know the field to begin with.

I'll use this as my quasi official sign off and goodbye as well. I'm sure I'll stick check these forums from time to time, but best of luck to everyone starting in the fall and good luck to those starting the application process.

[Hogs of War]

I agree with this and I don't think that Hogs' intent was the creation of a formulaic list of categories to be taken as gospel. I think that it would be helpful, especially for people with somewhat 'esoteric' subfields, to have some idea of what departments have different strengths in different areas. Maybe a list could be organized along those lines.

This is pretty accurate. I was looking to create a "Place to start" and have people collect information based on their experiences. What I am 100% NOT intending is a rating system or an end-all, be-all list. I was looking to create a living document that WE could work with/on together.

[StrangeLight]

i understand that. but i think the first point i made still stands: this is the kind of thing we should be able to do on our own. especially if the aim of such a working list is to "just get us started," we should all be able to use the power of the internets to get started on finding grad programs in our fields. doing that sort of work will help each student refine and reevaluate what they see as their specific interests. it's the sort of "thinking" work that is crucial for our own development as scholars.

when i was applying to schools a million years ago, the first place i looked was my bookshelf. what were my favourite books, which scholars asked the kinds of questions i wanted to ask in my work, and then i set to google to find out where they teach. i found that, in two instances, 3 profs i loved in my subfield were at the same institution. those two schools became my top 2 choices, and i'm currently approaching ABD-status in one of them. and guess what? neither of them were on the US news world rankings for my subfield. neither of them would make it into the top-10 list of an informal working list such as the one being proposed, despite the profs being pulitzer finalists and AHA book prize winners.

the easiest way to know where to start in forming this list is to go to a bookshelf. this is so crucial and it's incredibly personal. this may not hold water for everyone, but i truly believe that no one should apply to a program unless they are familiar with and like their potential advisor's work. i certainly applied to a bunch of "top ranked" programs without knowing the work of my potential advisor, and i didn't get in. and i'm glad, because going there would have led my research down a much different path, one that i probably wouldn't feel fulfilled by.

the second step (for me, anyway) was to go to my undergrad advisor and ask for her thoughts on my bookshelf list. she quickly helped me cross off half of the US news world rankings top 10 in our field because 1) all the profs in our subfield there have retired in the last 5 years, or 2) the faculty in our subfield hate each other at that school, or 3) the program is notorious for having the worst student morale, or 4) their approach to our field is really "old school" and they won't want to work with you unless you believe in objectivity. these are very "inside" sort of insights that most of us wouldn't know, even those of us mid-degree. i think only the most advanced PhDs or the ones with a love of gossip would be able to offer most of these insights, and frankly, most of us here are too green to know this sort of stuff. it's important information to have, but the resource to obtain it is our current profs, not junior grad students.

i'm sorry i rambled. again: people will do what they do. but i don't think we should form these lists ourselves because we're all highly specialized. i think we should form these lists ourselves because the process of doing it will help us think more critically about the type of work we hope to do. i could share my database of latin americanist programs here, but i think there's something to be said for the personal discovery that building such a database entails.

Edited April 13, 2012 by StrangeLight

[Hogs of War]

Ok, sorry for the shitty idea. My bad.