2013 U.S. News and World Report History Rankings

[Wicked_Problem]

http://grad-schools.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/best-graduate-schools/top-humanities-schools/history-rankings

[stillalivetui]

Definitely interesting update. I thought the UW would rise a bit in the rankings, but apparently not. 

[CrazyCatLady80]

I think these are the same as the 2009 rankings. 

[Wicked_Problem]

I think these are the same as the 2009 rankings. 

Maybe so; didn't check.

[jogatoronto]

The rankings have changed (at least for African History).  

[New England Nat]

I wouldn't be as big on trusting the subfield rankings.  That you have to know the field (my home subfield isn't even listed).  I would generally use that list to say where is the department in general relative to peers.  And seriously question applying to anything below 40-50.

[Dawg05]

I wouldn't be as big on trusting the subfield rankings.  That you have to know the field (my home subfield isn't even listed).  I would generally use that list to say where is the department in general relative to peers.  And seriously question applying to anything below 40-50.

Hi New England Nat! Just curious...What are your reasons for suggesting applicants shouldn't consider applying to anything below 40-50? Can you elaborate?

Edited March 12, 2013 by Dawg05

[LeatherElbows]

I really wish US News & World Reports wouldn't try to assign a numeric value to something that complicated. Supporting that school A is 0.1 better than school B seems pretty tenuous to me, regardless of whatever methodology they employ. I think it makes a lot more sense to rank schools in categories of overall quality, then quibble about the break-off line for each division. That wouldn't sell as well though or get as many website hits.

 

Wouldn't it be funny if we applicants had a counter-study that ranked programs by how many people applied? I wonder if this list would correspond with the current US News & World Reports list, and why this similarity might exist. 

[New England Nat]

The job market.  People talk about the over production of PhDs as if this is an even playing field.  It isn't.  There are departments where most people are getting jobs within a year of graduating.  There are others where no one will get a job in academia.  If what you want is a job in academia than a PhD from an institution lower than the top 50 programs will make getting hired very difficult.

 

In another thread it was pointed out that AHA studies have shown that more than fifty percent of PhDs granted in the United States uncompetative on the job market.  A PhD from such a place is a preventable mistake.

[vtstevie]

Well not to go round and around on this subject again, but as you mentioned in the other thread, a school with a particular specialization (Temple, in my personal case) which is well respected can counteract an otherwise weaker department - and Temple is ranked number 64 or something on that list. So it's a little more complicated than that.

[vtstevie]

whoops, got you mixed up with Simple Twist of Fate it looks like - but my point still stands, I think.

[This is my Screen Name]

And then you look at U.S. World's methodology, and you wonder how useful these rankings are...  

 

There's no doubt that the top 25 seems "right."  Ask somebody who is not familiar with the field to guess which schools are in the top 25, and most would include all the Ivy League schools, Stanford, Cal, UCLA, Chicago, Northwestern, Vandy, and Duke.  All of those are just known in general as good schools, even though their quality varies from field to field.  Once you get below 25, though, I think you really need to do your own research to find out if graduates are getting jobs.

[Dawg05]

You're absolutely correct, Nat. Nevertheless, I didn't have a chance in Hell of getting into a top 40 school due to my GRE score. While my profile was competitive, the GRE really did me in ( and yes, I took it multiple times). Thus, I decided to change my outlook on the process. It was either waste the 8 years that I had already put into the field, or apply to schools where I had a good chance of getting accepted. I guess we will see what the future holds.

 

Hey, I have an idea! Does anyone want to start a pool? Will Dawg 2005 land a full-time position as a professor of history (doesn't have to be tenured) or will she end up as a manager at Mickey D's?

 

I guess marrying a bright, young CPA wasn't a bad idea after all !

[vtstevie]

I got $50 on red!

[vtstevie]

wait what are we betting on again?

[ReallyNiceGuy]

I don't want to be rude, and I don't want to derail a thread, but I've literally never heard anyone say that a GRE score, unless it is really, really low, can "do you in." I thought the consensus was "do well enough" on it and then move on? 

Either way, thanks for the link to the rankings!

[remenis]

I don't want to be rude, and I don't want to derail a thread, but I've literally never heard anyone say that a GRE score, unless it is really, really low, can "do you in." I thought the consensus was "do well enough" on it and then move on? 

Either way, thanks for the link to the rankings!

Obviously the importance of the GRE score depends heavily on the program. But, when I was applying I was told by one of my professors that certain minimum GRE scores are used as a cut-off point for funding at a lot of schools. (Not even necessarily because of the department, but because of the Graduate School). And getting no funded offers can really do you in.

[LeatherElbows]

I'm undecided on where the magic cutoff in the rankings (or any system of quality assessment) is for getting a job. I corresponded with a few professors at well-ranked programs before I applied this year. One of them told me they thought it wasn't worth my trouble to apply to anything less than a top 10 school, and proceeded to offer the usual laundry list beginning with Harvard. While I appreciate their viewpoint, I thought it was an oversimplification.

 

As I see it, the ultimate responsibility in getting a job is my own. Yes, some things will make the job search easier. A name brand program and an advisor respected in the field do help considerably. However, hard work, a well-built CV, and connections are what land positions. 

 

It's easy to say that top 10 program applicants get most of the tenure track positions. But, how much of this success is the programs' and how much is the work ethic of the students enrolled in them? My drive to find a good job and produce quality research will be exactly the same, regardless of what program I end up in. I just may have to work harder in some environments.

[czesc]

I really wish US News & World Reports wouldn't try to assign a numeric value to something that complicated. Supporting that school A is 0.1 better than school B seems pretty tenuous to me, regardless of whatever methodology they employ. I think it makes a lot more sense to rank schools in categories of overall quality, then quibble about the break-off line for each division. That wouldn't sell as well though or get as many website hits.

 

Tiers would indeed make way more sense and I think this is how many people in academia actually think of institutions. I mean, even US News sort of recognizes this -- no school in the top 10 isn't tied with another, or several, in the rankings.

 

Does anyone know where I can find last year's list to compare? It seems to have disappeared now that 2013 is up.

Edited March 12, 2013 by czesc

[Simple Twist of Fate]

I'm undecided on where the magic cutoff in the rankings (or any system of quality assessment) is for getting a job. I corresponded with a few professors at well-ranked programs before I applied this year. One of them told me they thought it wasn't worth my trouble to apply to anything less than a top 10 school, and proceeded to offer the usual laundry list beginning with Harvard. While I appreciate their viewpoint, I thought it was an oversimplification.

 

As I see it, the ultimate responsibility in getting a job is my own. Yes, some things will make the job search easier. A name brand program and an advisor respected in the field do help considerably. However, hard work, a well-built CV, and connections are what land positions. 

 

It's easy to say that top 10 program applicants get most of the tenure track positions. But, how much of this success is the programs' and how much is the work ethic of the students enrolled in them? My drive to find a good job and produce quality research will be exactly the same, regardless of what program I end up in. I just may have to work harder in some environments.

This is an admirable sentiment, but advisors (not only their names) are extremely important in helping you build those connections, pushing you to excel, and making sure your research is top notch. One of the schools I was looking at last year was in the high 40s on the new rankings, but my POI had a 100% placement rate for his advisees (I think there were three of them, so the sample size was small, but that's pretty impressive).

 

I would also say that not looking outside the top 10 is nuts. Think of all the great schools that would leave off.

 

 

Does anyone know where I can find last year's list to compare? It seems to have disappeared now that 2013 is up.

Had the same thought. I looked at the google cache. Spoiler alert - it's essentially the same as the last rankings (2009). 

[hanbran]

If you're worried about placement, ask. In my experience most schools will tell you what their graduates do. If they have a good record, they'll brag about it.

[czesc]

I would also say that not looking outside the top 10 is nuts. Think of all the great schools that would leave off.

 

Yes. I mean, my sole acceptance right now is from a school ranked #11 (and was previously ranked 12). If I'd only looked at the top 10, I wouldn't have an acceptance at this point, and it's hard to believe the dropoff for hiring is that steep between 10-11 or 12, especially since my school does seem to have a pretty good record.

 

This is doubly true for certain subfields. It would make no sense not to apply to Cornell for Southeast Asia, for example. Many schools in the top 10, if not all, don't have many or anyone focused in that area.

[SLF0001]

Agreed. The "only ranking matters" mindset is the refuge of frustrated academics. Good work gets noticed. Always. Correlation is not causation. Low ranked programs feature a lot of low ranked students. They also feature some really good students. High ranked programs feature a lot of high ranked students. They also feature some low ranked students.  

[hdunlop]

I hope the value of rankings isn't completely dismissed because of some professor who said anything beyond the top ten is garbage, which is complete hyperbole (whether the prof intended that way or not). The difference between #10 and #11 is clearly notional, but as far as I can tell the difference between #10 and #50 is very real, in terms of reputation, faculty, fellow students and funding. The way I understood what NE Nat was saying is far more useful -- that folks shouldn't look beyond #40-50 to mean that if you look at #60 you had better have a damn good reason, and need to be aware of the liability involved in picking it over #20 if you have the choice. So far as I can tell, rankings, like polls, are inherently imprecise, but they're also, like polls, one of many useful guideposts for framing choices.

[vtstevie]

I think some of us are just bristling a little because we know there are excellent historians at University #85 that may fit very well with a prospective student's research interests and just to ignore them because the program as a whole isn't as highly regarded as, say, Stanford (or even Michigan) seems a little silly, even allowing for the realities of future job prospects and the vagaries of hiring committees.