2013 U.S. News and World Report History Rankings

[czesc]

I met with a professor last week (chair of one of those top 10 schools) who told me that the biggest problem grads of the lesser known programs have is that they have not obtained the training to continue to do research specifically in academia. He said the candidates that he has seen have all been highly intelligent, respectable students who he couldn't do anything with because the skillset was not there.

 

What exactly were the skills he thought made the difference?

[Riotbeard]

Even more important that the position of faculty members in the social network of academia is the institutional support Program #2 can give to graduate students that Program #65 can't. Basically I'm talking about time and money. It takes time, a lot of time, to learn a sub-field well, to craft a well-positioned project, to do the research, to write up, and to learn all the networking and performance skills required in order to do well in the social network of academia. The difference between the graduate student from Program #2 and the one from Program #65 isn't that the former is smarter than the latter. It's that the former only had to teach one or two years during the six or seven year degree while the latter had to teach all of those years. The former got to spend two years researching in the field, whereas the latter was lucky to string together two summers of research. The former got department money to attend conferences and the latter didn't. The former went to a program that could afford to host a plethora of workshops, speakers, and reading groups, and the latter was lucky is once a year someone interesting came and give a talk. To the extent institutional rank maps onto institutional resources and support, then it absolutely makes a difference to the type of scholar the program produces and the quality of their dissertation. Maybe not in every case, but in most cases. And it doesn't make any sense to have this discussion with current or prospective graduate students in ways that attend to those exceptional experiences. 

 

While you are not wrong in terms of big picture, you are speaking in generalizations that do not always hold up.  Tulane for the five years of funding only requires "service" for years 2 and 3, which ammounts to T.A.ing twice (in my case this did not include tedious work grading but was done purely for pedagogical purposes) and teaching two course as the instructor of record.  Year 1 is pure fellowship, as are the two years after you become ABD.  As a rich private school, Tulane also has a lot of travel funding.  We also bring in a decent amount of big name speakers.  I can name at least one top 20 (Just barely out of the top 10) public school where the students are stuck ta-ing for most of their graduate career.  You do say to disregard the rankings' face value then proceed to immediately re-enforce the discourse the rankings create.  Moreover, as someone (and plenty before this person) else said, correlation is not the same as causation. 

 

Most of the people at Tulane do most of their research outside of the bounds of the region (although not everyone as regional history is a strong suit).  I can't speak for every programs' "actual quality" but neither can you, and you are generalizing beyond your knowledge base based on a highly problematic list that ultimately re-enforces your own position and claims to superior education.  So much of the rankings is based on poles of people's perceptions, that the idea that they ultimately speak to what type of funding you get or some sort of objective quality is outrageous.  I would say there probably is often a disconnect in resources to those at well-endowed private schools compared to many state schools.  This is something I can speak to, having talked to a number of people at both types of universities and the types of funding packages I received from state institutions.

 

What is obnoxious and worth pointing out in both your and N. E. Nat's comments (and Nat I understand where you are coming from, and as far as a distant internet persona, I genuinely like you), is the way you generalize other programs based on limited source base, then act as if you are coming down on high to tell the commoners to face the facts.  I know you don't mean it that way, but that is certainly how I read it and it can be read.  Most people are where they are because it's the best place they go into with funding or had a better opportunity for some reason at a lower ranked program.  I took my name off a higher ranked waitlist, because Tulane put together just such a package as you refer to as being unique to a top 10 school.  Also, you are telling this to people who are living with the "adversity" that you speak of.  I assure you everybody is aware of what you are saying, but the truth is some of us started off much further down and while not impossible, it is very difficult to get into a top program from a very unknown state school in a state not known for quality public education.  Therefore, those of us in such situations have to take the certainly riskier route through lower ranked PhD programs, to try and claw for jobs at very poorly regarded branch schools or at a liberal arts college (which is my dream job, btw).  The result is that you come off sounding like an imperialist trying to tell the Africans how to build a railroad, without supplying any of the means to actually build said metaphorical railroad.  While some of your argument is right in a pure dollars and cents way, your ultimate point is that someone like me should probably have just not attended grad school, which is not only unpopular, but it's an argument made completely out of context of an individual's work and worth.  It also lumps every PhD program from some arbitrary range of the list into some sort of identical mold.  You can also make your points in such a way that come off better.  The "let me tell you the hard truth of your position" approach comes off as highly paternalistic.

Edited March 13, 2013 by Riotbeard

[SLF0001]

While you are not wrong in terms of big picture, you are speaking in generalizations that do not always hold up.  Tulane for the five years of funding only requires "service" for years 2 and 3, which ammounts to T.A.ing twice (in my case this did not include tedious work grading but was done purely for pedagogical purposes) and teaching two course as the instructor of record.  Year 1 is pure fellowship, as are the two years after you become ABD.  As a rich private school, Tulane also has a lot of travel funding.  We also bring in a decent amount of big name speakers.  I can name at least one top 20 (Just barely out of the top 10) public school where the students are stuck ta-ing for most of their graduate career.  You do say to disregard the rankings' face value then proceed to immediately re-enforce the discourse the rankings create.  Moreover, as someone (and plenty before this person) else said, correlation is not the same as causation. 

 

Most of the people at Tulane do most of their research outside of the bounds of the region (although not everyone as regional history is a strong suit).  I can't speak for every programs' "actual quality" but neither can you, and you are generalizing beyond your knowledge base based on a highly problematic list that ultimately re-enforces your own position and claims to superior education.  So much of the rankings is based on poles of people's perceptions, that the idea that they ultimately speak to what type of funding you get or some sort of objective quality is outrageous.  I would say there probably is often a disconnect in resources to those at well-endowed private schools compared to many state schools.  This is something I can speak to, having talked to a number of people at both types of universities and the types of funding packages I received from state institutions.

 

What is obnoxious and worth pointing out in both your and N. E. Nat's comments (and Nat I understand where you are coming from, and as far as a distant internet persona, I genuinely like you), is the way you generalize other programs based on limited source base, then act as if you are coming down on high to tell the commoners to face the facts.  I know you don't mean it that way, but that is certainly how I read it and it can be read.  Most people are where they are because it's the best place they go into with funding or had a better opportunity for some reason at a lower ranked program.  I took my name off a higher ranked waitlist, because Tulane put together just such a package as you refer to as being unique to a top 10 school.  Also, you are telling this to people who are living with the "adversity" that you speak of.  I assure you everybody is aware of what you are saying, but the truth is some of us started off much further down and while not impossible, it is very difficult to get into a top program from a very unknown state school in a state not known for quality public education.  Therefore, those of us in such situations have to take the certainly riskier route through lower ranked PhD programs, to try and claw for jobs at very poorly regarded branch schools or at a liberal arts college (which is my dream job, btw).  The result is that you come off sounding like an imperialist trying to tell the Africans how to build a railroad, without supplying any of the means to actually build said metaphorical railroad.  While some of your argument is right in a pure dollars and cents way, your ultimate point is that someone like me should probably have just not attended grad school, which is not only unpopular, but it's an argument made completely out of context of an individual's work and worth.  It also lumps every PhD program from some arbitrary range of the list into some sort of identical mold.  You can also make your points in such a way that come off better.  The "let me tell you the hard truth of your position" approach comes off as highly paternalistic.

 

...drops the mic... walks away.

[Riotbeard]

AHA's take: http://blog.historians.org/news/1989/is-there-any-value-in-us-news-rankings-of-history-grad-programs

Interesting, and somewhat hopeful while being realistic.  Certainly doesn't re-enforce the ultra fatalistic perception of lower ranked programs that some people have.

[Riotbeard]

...drops the mic... walks away.

Haha, thanks.

[ChibaCityBlues]

While you are not wrong in terms of big picture, you are speaking in generalizations that do not always hold up.  Tulane for the five years of funding only requires "service" for years 2 and 3, which ammounts to T.A.ing twice (in my case this did not include tedious work grading but was done purely for pedagogical purposes) and teaching two course as the instructor of record.  Year 1 is pure fellowship, as are the two years after you become ABD.  As a rich private school, Tulane also has a lot of travel funding.  We also bring in a decent amount of big name speakers.  I can name at least one top 20 (Just barely out of the top 10) public school where the students are stuck ta-ing for most of their graduate career.  You do say to disregard the rankings' face value then proceed to immediately re-enforce the discourse the rankings create.  Moreover, as someone (and plenty before this person) else said, correlation is not the same as causation. 

 

Most of the people at Tulane do most of their research outside of the bounds of the region (although not everyone as regional history is a strong suit).  I can't speak for every programs' "actual quality" but neither can you, and you are generalizing beyond your knowledge base based on a highly problematic list that ultimately re-enforces your own position and claims to superior education.  So much of the rankings is based on poles of people's perceptions, that the idea that they ultimately speak to what type of funding you get or some sort of objective quality is outrageous.  I would say there probably is often a disconnect in resources to those at well-endowed private schools compared to many state schools.  This is something I can speak to, having talked to a number of people at both types of universities and the types of funding packages I received from state institutions.

 

What is obnoxious and worth pointing out in both your and N. E. Nat's comments (and Nat I understand where you are coming from, and as far as a distant internet persona, I genuinely like you), is the way you generalize other programs based on limited source base, then act as if you are coming down on high to tell the commoners to face the facts.  I know you don't mean it that way, but that is certainly how I read it and it can be read.  Most people are where they are because it's the best place they go into with funding or had a better opportunity for some reason at a lower ranked program.  I took my name off a higher ranked waitlist, because Tulane put together just such a package as you refer to as being unique to a top 10 school.  Also, you are telling this to people who are living with the "adversity" that you speak of.  I assure you everybody is aware of what you are saying, but the truth is some of us started off much further down and while not impossible, it is very difficult to get into a top program from a very unknown state school in a state not known for quality public education.  Therefore, those of us in such situations have to take the certainly riskier route through lower ranked PhD programs, to try and claw for jobs at very poorly regarded branch schools or at a liberal arts college (which is my dream job, btw).  The result is that you come off sounding like an imperialist trying to tell the Africans how to build a railroad, without supplying any of the means to actually build said metaphorical railroad.  While some of your argument is right in a pure dollars and cents way, your ultimate point is that someone like me should probably have just not attended grad school, which is not only unpopular, but it's an argument made completely out of context of an individual's work and worth.  It also lumps every PhD program from some arbitrary range of the list into some sort of identical mold.  You can also make your points in such a way that come off better.  The "let me tell you the hard truth of your position" approach comes off as highly paternalistic.

 

 

The only thing I argued in my post was that the rank of a program matters, not because 2 is greater than 65, but because of what those ranks tend to represent in terms of the relative social position of a program’s faculty vis-à-vis the academy and the amount of resources the program has at its disposal relieve faculty and graduate students from teaching responsibilities so that they can dedicate their time to their work. I even tried to be a bit nuanced about it with statements like “To the extent institutional rank maps onto institutional resources and support,” which if you read it properly clearly acknowledges the existence of programs like Tulane, where apparently institutional rank does not map onto institutional resources and support.

 

That fact of the matter is that I was specifically talking about “the graduate admissions process and the current state of the academic job market” and the need to have those discussions in terms of broad trends rather than exceptions. I was not casting any dispersion about programs in general or individuals specifically. There are any number of reasons why you could have read into my post the argument “that someone like me should probably have just not attended grad school,” but none of them came from the actual content of the post.

 

So just to be specific for a bit, let’s look at Tulane’s statistics. According to the website there are 40 graduate students in the program. Assuming the time to completion is between 6 and 7 years, which is often the case for programs that offer five years of funding, that’s an average cohort size of about 6 students. According to the department’s site, 2 students got TT jobs in 2007, 4 in 2008, and 2 in 2009, for a very rough average of 3 per cohort. So, it seems to me there are two versions of the Tulane story. A) Don’t worry about the ranking because we have examples of students getting TT jobs, or B ) 50% of our graduate students don’t get TT jobs. The entire point of my post was that in terms of discussions about admission and the job market, story A is disingenuous and, I would argue, unethical to promote (despite the very true and real success stories of those students). The only story that we should be talking about is story B.

 

To the extent there is a problem, it isn’t with you. Like I said in my post, the difference between the student in Program 2 and the one in Program 65 isn’t that the former is smarter than the latter. The problem is with Tulane. A program that can only point to a 50% success rate in attaining for its students the type of job they spend six to seven years training for probably shouldn’t have a doctoral program. This is a problem shared by most programs, all the way up into the top ten. The move on the part of programs to relying on under paid and over worked adjunct and part-time faculty is in part facilitated by the over production of PhDs. In order to inflate their own desired sense of prestige, programs invite too many perfectly adequate and entirely sincere students into their doctoral programs, to feed off their hope and dreams in order to harvest cheap labor and maybe a bump of one or two notches on some ranking.

Edited March 13, 2013 by ChibaCityBlues

[Riotbeard]

To be fair, I did not say everybody gets jobs, and Tulane 2007-2009 hardly had a PhD program because of post-Katrina problems, so I would say it would be to better analyze their results before the storm...  I am not bringing this up for a pity part, it is just simple facts.  From my perspective 50% is not bad though, even if those were peak years for the program.  It's roughly on par then with the humanities academic job market, and implies yes you can do it.  It is harder (nobody is denying that).  I would also suggest reading the article posted by Simple Twist of Fate, that shows you are putting far too much faith in the methodology of the list.  The problem with nuanced statements such as you point out “To the extent institutional rank maps onto institutional resources and support,” is you don't actually know the extent that it does, but much like the AHA article points out the list maps out perception of a relatively small sample of people who admit that they often honestly don't know. 

 

I also said that i don't dispute your larger point, but much more so, the way you expressed it.  Is there an overproduction of PhDs?  Yes.  Does that mean Tulane should not exist?  No.  At 6 roughly 6 admits a years in catogories where tulane has notable specialties, this hardly seems to be some impersonal factory of PhDs.  As far as a labor based argument for PhD programs, there are a number of place outside of the top 10 or 20 that do not exist primarily to exploit graduate labor, and there are some elite schools that do rely much more heavily on graduate labor than simple ranking based dichotomies would imply. It's also worth noting that the conversation you entered into was not about macro-problems in higher education, but about realistic prospects of people in lower ranked PhD programs getting a job, so if you are comments were taken within this context, you should not be surprised.  You are also reducing real people to numbers, something I think we can all agree is problematic, and stating cut and dry outcomes, that the numbers you tout by no means completely support.

[playingivory]

What exactly were the skills he thought made the difference?

 

He didn't say entirely and I wasn't willing to push that one. He noted that most students aren't able to secure tenure track positions until their disseration is finalised, so sometimes it takes an extra 1-3 years so post-doc work is becoming more common, and that upon reviewing the dissertations of students coming from the smaller institutions they weren't producing high enough caliber work to merit a TT position at his university. Also that students coming from lesser known institutions that he interviewed he was not impressed with either. I asked what he felt set students at his institution gained to make them more lucrative in the job market and his answer was simply that they train students for TT positions and their students find work. It didn't seem worthwhile to press it further, mostly because I'm not sure how true I believe that to be and certainly I feel it is not the hard and fast rule.

 

After thinking more about it, the only other observation I have on his comment would be that this particular school places emphasis on creating well-rounded students: they require two sub-fields in history and one outside of history in order to progress toward candidacy. Perhaps that has something to do with it, or maybe I'm totally off-base. A person could drive themself crazy over analysing it all

[Wicked_Problem]

After months of reading posts about people's insecurities in the face of the application process, this thread has really gotten meaty once those insecurities have shifted onto placement issues. I appreciate this level of discourse. I also appreciate the generally civil tone of the discourse and the fact that most if not all of those posting have considered their positions and arguments thoroughly. Basically: Bravo!

[TMP]

You must have been talking about Michigan.  Yes, their exams are a bit more rigorous and more  time-consuming-4 to 5 different fields (some related).  It is true that "employers" want broadly trained PhDs and that's why my program does well placing people in teaching positions.  We have to do 3 different fields and do have multiple opportunities to teach courses of our own in those fields once we pass candidacy.  Yes, my program's graduate culture is gearing more towards teaching positions at teaching-focused colleges and LACs.

 

As for rigor, it is possible that the standards for a well-done dissertation differ from one program to another, from one adviser to another.  There are times that one just needs to get the dissertation done in order to get out before there is no source of funding left.  

 

Also, mind you, Michigan aims to place people in R1s, not teaching colleges.  So it's not surprising that its research standards are geared towards R1 positions (which are far and few anyway).  Michigan doesn't train people to be teachers- I have known Michigan PhDs who complained that they didn't learn how to teach until they had their own courses further down the road or on their first job as professors.  Or their advisers, those who care enough, taught them how to teach.

 

This is why I do agree with AHA's take- programs have their own strengths and it's better to judge by those.  

 

Also, I do strongly believe that one should be considered about the rankings within the subfield.  In my particular subfield, people generally can identify 2-4 solid programs and then the rest are based on the adviser.  Given the choices that I had, neither (potential) adviser had a track record for placement in this particular subfield.  But colleagues ranked them equally and told me to pick the one who I felt most comfortable with.

 

The best way to find out is go to a major conference within that subfield and chat around.  Or look at the program book and see who's doing good work and where they're working (and where they're getting their PhDs from).  That's my cheat sheet.

[playingivory]

TMP: you were referring to my post? It actually wasn't about Michigan- although that's where I go currently.

 

I also re-read my last post. Yuck! Sorry folks, I wrote it really quickly as I was going into a rehearsal and clearly didn't proofread at all. Hope you all followed my jumbled brain.

[TMP]

Yes, my apologies.  But the prof's attitude that you referred to sounded a lot like the inner workings at Michigan, which I'm familiar with.

[playingivory]

No worries. It makes perfect sense to me why you'd have connected them...the attitude was very UM.

[vtstevie]

As painful is to admit as someone who did not get into a top 20 school, any perusal of history department websites, even of smaller liberal arts colleges, will show the majority of professors have PHDs from the "usual suspects" (Berkeley, Harvard, Yale, Stanford, etc) with one or two having degrees from more specialized schools. So, as much as I agree with riotbeard, it's worth saying again that anyone like myself who is considering going into a program for 5-7 years that doesn't have name recognition, superior funds and an amazing placement record across the department, think long and hard about what you are doing; you're going to have to be THE BEST in order to get a job anywhere after.

 

(this post partially just for my own benefit since this was a painful thread to read and I'm trying to come to grips with my future )

[CrazyCatLady80]

Based on everything that I have heard, Temple is a really good program. I don't know what their job placement rate is exactly, but it has been recommended to me by several people and def one I am considering for my applications. You should not feel ashamed about Temple one bit. 

[Wicked_Problem]

Given that your field is Revolution/Early Republic US and you've been accepted to Temple with immediate access to all sort of archives relevant to your work, it seems to me that your future is not as constrained as you might be feeling it is after reading this thread. For God's sake if this is your calling, can you really walk away from it?

[CrazyCatLady80]

Do you know if you can defer your Temple acceptance till next year? That way you can apply again, but still keep Temple in your back pocket. I have no clue how this works, but I believe someone on here did that.

[vtstevie]

Oh, I am by no means disappointed or ashamed by my Temple acceptance whatsoever, please don't mistake my meaning (though rereading my post I can see how that may have come across a bit). I just think that there is a lot of merit to what ChibaCity and New England Nat are saying and, as with virtually every aspect of this process, it's incredibly important to know and really understand the realities of the field. Temple is an excellent program overall, but does not have the same placement rate as Columbia or Chicago, and that has so much to do with facts that are represented (whatever else the system's faults) in the rankings we're talking about here. And you're right wicked_problem, this is my calling and I am in no way going to walk away from it. It's just really hard to realize that folks from U of Michigan will have a leg up on the rest of us, basically before we even step foot on campus. All the more reason to truly excel, right?

 

As far as deferring goes, I don't know a whole lot about that process. My (very basic) understanding is that deferment differs from program to program and even year to year. I've already put two years between my MA and PHD though and I'm ready to get back into the swing of things.

 

When would you say is a good time to ask about funding? I know it's only mid-March, but I'm anxious to start truly planning my move and I'd like to know if it will happen or not. I still have not gotten any official notification from the school (just an unofficial e-mail from the DGS and a tuition deposit form from the department administrator via e-mail). I e-mailed the DGS right after his acceptance e-mail wondering if I would get funding information with my official acceptance letter and never heard back (this was over two weeks ago) - has enough time passed to ask him again? Or would it be better to wait. I'm pretty sure the answer is the latter, but I'm hoping to be convinced otherwise!

[Simple Twist of Fate]

vtstevie, in an effort to avoid derailing this thread, I've sent you a PM.

[Andean Pat]

Rankings are very North American, and I do mean to be offensive. I do not understand why you like them so much, but I see the usefulness when applying for admission. I admit I did look at them for the reasons New England Nat: I intend to work in the academia and thus rankings and prestige ARE important. Besides, I could not afford applying for the schools I wanted and thus I selected some of them. One of the deciding factors was ranking (but not the only one nor the most important).I wanted to be admitted to a top-10 school and instead I got an offer from a less ranked one but very good departmental fit and overall excellent program (at least in my subfield and according to my expectations). 

 

On the other hand, my undergrad school is very well ranked among Latin American universities (it's top-20) but I don't think that in my field this is accurate, especially not now (there have been many changes in the last four years). I had the chance to attend school with an excellent course of studies with lots of electives (that's uncommon here) and MANY professors who were about to retire and composed a generation of brilliant historians. I may feel top-20, but I think it was chance hehehe.

 

So, do have a look at rankings, but I wouldn't rely only on them. I am proud of my being admitted to this school, but I do not punish myself for not getting in another one (easier said than done, though ) 

[czesc]

Rankings are very North American

 

Not sure about that. The UK newspapers go all-out ranking in their "leagues tables". Germany is increasingly concerned with this kind of thing. There are plenty of Asian rankings systems, too. Call it another unfortunate American cultural export or symptom of runamok globalization, but it's slowly making headway in the rest of the world, for sure.

Edited March 19, 2013 by czesc

[Andean Pat]

Yes, but do they pay that much of attention? I don't know. 

 

By the way, there is a HUGE mistake in my post!!!! I meant to say "they are very North American and I DO NOT mean to be offensive"

 

Please, forgive my typos!!!!!!!

[czesc]

Don't worry, I actually supplied the "not" when I was reading your post and assumed that was what you meant anyway. You don't seem to be the kind of person who would deliberately offend anyone! 

[CrazyCatLady80]

Have you contacted the POIs at the other schools to find out why you didn't get in? Maybe their suggestions might give you a better idea if you should go ahead and go to Temple or apply again. 

[TMP]

vtstevie, I would think very hard about "deferring in order to apply to other programs to see if I can get in anywhere 'better'" because that will backfire.  Academia is a small, small world and professors will get a wind of what you're doing- whether at Temple or elsewhere.  You're much better off asking Temple about your funding now so you can make a decision of whether or not to accept the offer or not.   But if Temple does offer you a nice package, that's your "now or never' moment.  Once you turn that down, it'll be quite difficult to convince Temple to re-admit you with solid funding.  If Temple doesn't offer funding or a poor package, you can decline and re-apply.

 

If, at the end of the day, you choose not to go, you are certainly more than welcome to e-mail other POIs for feedback.

 

Remember, the PhD admissions process has no exact science and it's like playing the Russian roulette.  Weigh your decision carefully.