The new US News rankings are out...

[Swagato]

I find the S- and R-ratings the most relevant. I think perception within the academic community is rather important, so a big disparity between those two rankings would be cause for concern. 

[Cactus Ed]

None of mine are even close to being that high, unless you count the S-ratings from the NRC (in which case UConn is in the top 20 ;P).

 

I find the range of rankings comforting, too.  I was accepted to ASU, who's high S ranking is 5

[asleepawake]

Buffalo and Rochester have such inconsistent results between the two rankings systems. How should I read this?

Edited March 12, 2013 by asleepawake

[sebastiansteddy]

Buffalo and Rochester have such inconsistent results between the two rankings systems. How should I read this?

 

Buffalo also fell off the top theory programs list

[asleepawake]

Buffalo also fell off the top theory programs list

 

I saw that! I'm sad even though those rankings are kinda nonsense.

[jrockford27]

I saw that! I'm sad even though those rankings are kinda nonsense.

 

They're ranking fewer theory programs this year.  The last list had rankings going to like 16 or 17?

[bfat]

I did an insane thing in an earlier thread about rankings and actually averaged all the NRC ranking numbers (highs and lows across the chart) for a bunch of schools, giving programs a "score" between like 10 and 100 with lower numbers being better. It's still not really clear what these numbers might mean, or if they're important, but I think it's probably more accurate than either the USN or trying to guess which NRC score is weighted most accurately. This is only for a few schools, but kinda interesting:

 

Princeton: 11.7

Stanford: 12

Harvard: 23

Cornell: 23.8

UMichigan: 26.4

Penn State: 27.5

UPenn: 27.6

Yale: 30.6

Duke: 33.1

UMaryland: 41.6

UVA: 44.8

NYU: 45.1

Berkeley: 46.7

Carnegie Mellon: 56.3

UPittsburgh: 65.2

SUNY Buffalo: 74.9

 

Note, though, that if you remove the "diversity" rating, Yale and Harvard would bump up to the top. It would be interesting if someone started a wiki or shared doc or something where we could rank all the schools by their "average." Maybe just the high and low S and R rankings, though, since they seem to be the most important.

 

Or maybe this is all a totally ridiculous waste of time because these things don't really matter (except they kind of do in some ways) and also this doesn't take into account sub-fields.

 

But anyway, back to my thesis and 50 hours of mid-term grading (uuuuuuuggghhhh)...

Edited March 12, 2013 by bfat

[NowMoreSerious]

Rankings are somewhat arbitrary and kind of BS, but I actually kind of understand why they averaged them. They didn't want knee jerk reactions from the last few years (bad economic years, bad job market, etc.) to make somebody's ranking plummet.

I agree with the other poster, though, who said that even small ranking changes mean much more now. Santa Barbara jumped,which is nice to hear.

But yeah, I am also not surprised that more movement occurred in the mid tiers because those schools would be more affected by external economic and social forces, I would think.

[TripWillis]

Who on here, when asked about top programs for theoretical work, honestly thinks, "Ooh, Yale!"?

Maybe their fellowship package comes with a time machine to the early 1980s.

[Two Espressos]

For obvious reasons, I'm very interested in your comment re: Yale/lit crit+theory. What has changed, which are the go-to programs, and where is Yale English today, in your opinion?

 

Of course, I don't really give much credence to USNWR rankings, but I am interested in what those in the field think.

 

I'm not in a position to pontificate about the discipline, but Yale's English department never struck me as being particularly cutting-edge re: theory.  They seem kinda traditionalist to me.  But I know nothing about History of Art or Film Studies at Yale; they may very well be doing state-of-the-art theoretical work in those departments.  I'm sure Yale English has theory scholars, but the fact of the matter is that practically every program has theory scholars, so for a program to really stand out as one of the best theory departments, they'd need a comprehensive theoretical research program, something I think Yale English lacks.

 

Again, I'm by no means an expert; perhaps someone else can chime in?

[bluecheese]

Maybe their fellowship package comes with a time machine to the early 1980s.

 

I hear the graduate experience at Yale is very similar to the plot of the novel The Man Who Folded Himself by David Gerrold.

 

Quick plot summary: "This is a novel about time travel, and as such it comes with all the expected weirdnesses - time paradoxes, alternate realities, etc. However, the really weird part of this book is the way that the protagonist interacts with past and future versions of himself. While he starts off with the generic stuff, like betting with his past self on sporting events of which he already knows the outcome, he graduates to having sex and a relationship with his past and future selves, including massive time-traveling orgies. He eventually impregnates a female version of himself, and she may turn out to be his own mother. Basically, time-wimey, orgy-porgy."

 

(I assume their reputation in theory comes partially from historicists who are often hostile to theory? If they have any say in the reputation ratings, I'd assume Yale would do okay. I assume this is true of Harvard also. Both of their English departments seem rather conservative to me.)

Edited March 13, 2013 by bluecheese

[Swagato]

I'm not in a position to pontificate about the discipline, but Yale's English department never struck me as being particularly cutting-edge re: theory.  They seem kinda traditionalist to me.  But I know nothing about History of Art or Film Studies at Yale; they may very well be doing state-of-the-art theoretical work in those departments.  I'm sure Yale English has theory scholars, but the fact of the matter is that practically every program has theory scholars, so for a program to really stand out as one of the best theory departments, they'd need a comprehensive theoretical research program, something I think Yale English lacks.

 

Again, I'm by no means an expert; perhaps someone else can chime in?

 

This is interesting, thank you. If I have any concerns about Yale, it actually is their traditionalist approach, which I have heard is shared across departments. I view myself as rooted in fairly conservative theoretical grounding, but my interests are definitely a blend of the historical and the contemporary. A program like Chicago's is almost sexy, in comparison. But, as you note, theory is a core component of any program (this is common to English and art history/film), so I'm hoping that I won't really lack for resources. Interestingly, if you look at the NRC S- and R-rankings on CHE, Yale English is still rated quite highly (#5 and #2 respectively).

[ComeBackZinc]

Perceptions of a program's prestige certainly matter on the job market, but the perceptions that matter will be those of hiring committees, which will certainly be far more nuanced and informed than any rankings. And English profs are exactly the kind of people to resist the rankings of an organization like US News and World Report. However, it's also true that many, many professors are not at all up-to-date about perceived prestige of other programs, or even who is still on which faculty. I guarantee that the people reading this board are more informed about such things than many sitting faculty. And perversely, given the realities of seniority, it's often the people who are most out of touch who have the most pull on search committees. 

 

So take this Yale discussion. while people are making compelling points about their relative prestige, the Ivy name does matter. It just does. I don't think it should, but it does. That's less likely to be true of English faculty than of the world writ large. In the greater world, saying you've got a Yale (or Harvard or whatever) PhD just holds more sway with the average person than a school that we might all consider better. And while I don't doubt that sitting profs in departments have a better handle on things than Joe Schmoe, it's naive to think that academics are immune to Ivy envy or getting starry eyed about the prestige of those schools. Which, I think, is reflected in the fact that a lot of people who are in programs they perceive to be better than a Harvard or a Yale would have thought very hard about going to one of those schools if they got in. People turn down Yale admits. They don't do so lightly. 

 

Does any of that make sense? No. But then, neither do any of these external rankings of prestige. Like I told you guys: you're getting trolled.

[Swagato]

Oh, I definitely agree that HYPS-star-factor continues to play a role in public perception. This is a problem of ignorance, since the public at large cannot be expected to know the sort of inside information that we, even at this early stage, have gathered. But, as you note, this plays a role even within academia. What concerns me--selfishly, I suppose--is the perception of the program within academia, within my fields. That's where I feel that the weight of a "traditionalist" program may matter much more. 

Edited March 13, 2013 by Swagato

[thestage]

I'm not in a position to pontificate about the discipline, but Yale's English department never struck me as being particularly cutting-edge re: theory.  They seem kinda traditionalist to me.  But I know nothing about History of Art or Film Studies at Yale; they may very well be doing state-of-the-art theoretical work in those departments.  I'm sure Yale English has theory scholars, but the fact of the matter is that practically every program has theory scholars, so for a program to really stand out as one of the best theory departments, they'd need a comprehensive theoretical research program, something I think Yale English lacks.

 

Again, I'm by no means an expert; perhaps someone else can chime in?

as far as English is concerned, Yale more or less invented literary theory, and did so twice over. I'd imagine that still holds weight in the rankings process.

[Two Espressos]

as far as English is concerned, Yale more or less invented literary theory, and did so twice over. I'd imagine that still holds weight in the rankings process.

 

True, but these rankings are for programs in 2013, not 1980.

[TripWillis]

True, but these rankings are for programs in 2013, not 1980.

Hah! I'm torn -- they do deserve credit, but the culture of their English program has changed and they're no longer on the cutting edge of theory. Their American Studies program, on the other hand...

[ComeBackZinc]

I'm curious, Two Espressos-- if they offered you an admission, would you definitely turn it down? I'm so out of touch with the lit world.

[sebastiansteddy]

I have a different question about these rankings. I noticed that Bryn Mawr College is ranked #59 in US English PhD programs, above schools like SUNY Binghamton and George Washington, for example. Does Bryn Mawr even have an English PhD program? I can't find it on their website. In the ranked list of English PhD programs, shouldn't universities that HAVE English PhD programs be ranked higher than those that don't?

[HHEoS]

Shenanigans. You should email US News and World Report asking for more info on the program since they seem to be more aware of its existence than Bryn Mawr itself. 

[Two Espressos]

I'm curious, Two Espressos-- if they offered you an admission, would you definitely turn it down? I'm so out of touch with the lit world.

 

I don't have an easy answer to that question.  I didn't even apply to Yale this cycle.  If it were my only offer, of course I'd take it.  Were I offered admission at Yale and another program like NYU, Chicago, UNC-Chapel Hill, etc., I'd probably turn the former down for one of the latter, even knowing that so doing precludes me from benefiting from Ivy league prestige.

 

I have a different question about these rankings. I noticed that Bryn Mawr College is ranked #59 in US English PhD programs, above schools like SUNY Binghamton and George Washington, for example. Does Bryn Mawr even have an English PhD program? I can't find it on their website. In the ranked list of English PhD programs, shouldn't universities that HAVE English PhD programs be ranked higher than those that don't?

 

Hm, I can't find any information about this either.  The Bryn Mawr Graduate School of Arts and Sciences website only lists six graduate programs: art history, archaeology, classics, mathematics, physics, and chemistry.

 

If Bryn Mawr doesn't even have a Ph.D. in English, then these new US News rankings are even more fucking pathetic than they first appear.

[sebastiansteddy]

If Bryn Mawr doesn't even have a Ph.D. in English, then these new US News rankings are even more fucking pathetic than they first appear.

 

Exactly.

[ComeBackZinc]

If Bryn Mawr doesn't even have a Ph.D. in English, then these new US News rankings are even more fucking pathetic than they first appear.

 

It's almost like an Easter egg, hidden in the rankings to tip people off that they're bullshit.

[Two Espressos]

It's almost like an Easter egg, hidden in the rankings to tip people off that they're bullshit.

 

Seriously.  It's farcical.

 

One of the lucky few of us who ends up getting tenure somewhere needs to create a separate ranking system with a more honest and productive methodology.  Plus I think an established academic would get a better response rate than US News and World Report (theirs is a paltry 21%).

[Swagato]

USNWR rankings were based on a 21% response rate?

 

My sides, they hurt.