History department rankings

[JustChill]

So, what do you guys think are the best overall history departments in the US? I'm not asking about any sub-fields, just general history rankings. I want to get a sense for what everyone thinks.

Rank the top 10.

Edited January 9, 2010 by rockchalk

[Caligula]

During the course of the application process, I have had several (too many) conversations with professors about the quality and reputations of the country's history departments. Based on the converations with various professors, I would say:

1. Berkeley

2. Yale

3. Chicago

4. Princeton

5. Harvard

6. Stanford

7. Michigan

8. Columbia

9. Wisconsin

10. Cornell

Of course, this is just based on personal conversations I have had, and is not objective in any way. I'm sure other people's rankings will differ!

[TMP]

Interestingly, it'll also depend on the approach the department is taking towards historical research and methodology. "Old-school" (Harvard and Yale) vs. innovative (Michigan and Indiana). I've heard both sides and how they perceived some of other schools.

[JustChill]

What about Penn or WUSTL?

[LifeIsGood]

I keep trying to find a way to contribute to this thread, and I keep bumping up against a wall: I seriously never even thought about general rankings. I was fixated on finding programs that were good fit for what I wanted to study, and then narrowing that list based on the ones that would have the best chance of landing me a TT job afterwards, and then narrowing that list even further by thinking about places that would also work for my family (husband who'll need to get a job, kids who will need good schools and friends they have something in common with, preferably close to family and current friends). Hence, just two schools.

That being said, my initial list was topped by: Yale, Harvard, Columbia, JHU, Princeton, UNC, and Rutgers.

[Caligula]

rockchalk,

I think those two would be included if we expanded the list to the top 15. Perhaps:

11. JHU

12. Northwestern

13. Penn

14. Brown

15. WUSTL

[JustChill]

Interesting, I mostly agree. I was looking at the recent USNWR rankings (based on department chairs' opinions) and it looks pretty close to what you guys think here. In terms of tenure track jobs at, say, top 50 universities, you guys think that a degree from the bottom section of the top 15 would be acceptable? Of course, I realize that there are countless factors in play, such as publications for instance, but we all know that degrees from certain schools open up more doors than others. The more I look at various history departments' faculties, the more difficult it is to say which schools beyond HYPS are common "breeding grounds" for top faculty positions.

[Dirt]

Interesting, I mostly agree. I was looking at the recent USNWR rankings (based on department chairs' opinions) and it looks pretty close to what you guys think here. In terms of tenure track jobs at, say, top 50 universities, you guys think that a degree from the bottom section of the top 15 would be acceptable? Of course, I realize that there are countless factors in play, such as publications for instance, but we all know that degrees from certain schools open up more doors than others. The more I look at various history departments' faculties, the more difficult it is to say which schools beyond HYPS are common "breeding grounds" for top faculty positions.

Rockchalk and others who take USNR seriously--look at their methodology:

"Questionnaires were sent to department heads and directors of graduate studies (or, alternatively, a senior faculty member who teaches graduate students) at schools that had granted a total of five or more doctorates in each discipline during the five-year period from 2001 through 2005, as indicated by the 2006 Survey of Earned Doctorates."

The response rate? 23 percent. I for one am glad that so many people realized what a sham this popularity contest is and refused to participate.

As for your question about a "bottom-top-15" degree being "acceptable" for a job at a "top 50" university: There's really no way to answer this. People from unranked programs find employment at top schools. People from top schools regularly fail to find academic employment at all.

Basically the idea of an "overall" ranking is a joke, unless you're only talking about something like financial aid (Yale has a lot of money to throw around, but so do some other places that might surprise you). Are there some places that have wide-ranging strengths, where you'd love to just hang out and talk with every other faculty member? Sure, but that's not necessarily going to help you in terms of an academic career. You're infinitely better off looking at your own subfield. If you're interested in Middle Eastern history, Johns Hopkins and Duke aren't even on the radar. Georgetown, on the other hand, is one of the best. I would say that medieval history is stronger at Notre Dame than at most of the programs named here. Indiana is tops for Eastern Europe and Central Asia. The list could go on and on. Know your field, find someplace that will be good for the work you want to do, and work your tail off to distinguish yourself there. That's a recipe for success.

Edited January 10, 2010 by Dirt

[Caligula]

Does the US News and World Report rank graduate programs? I thought this publication only ranked colleges and undergraduate programs for universities.

Edited January 10, 2010 by Caligula

[JustChill]

Rockchalk and others who take USNR seriously--look at their methodology:

"Questionnaires were sent to department heads and directors of graduate studies (or, alternatively, a senior faculty member who teaches graduate students) at schools that had granted a total of five or more doctorates in each discipline during the five-year period from 2001 through 2005, as indicated by the 2006 Survey of Earned Doctorates."

The response rate? 23 percent. I for one am glad that so many people realized what a sham this popularity contest is and refused to participate.

As for your question about a "bottom-top-15" degree being "acceptable" for a job at a "top 50" university: There's really no way to answer this. People from unranked programs find employment at top schools. People from top schools regularly fail to find academic employment at all.

Basically the idea of an "overall" ranking is a joke, unless you're only talking about something like financial aid (Yale has a lot of money to throw around, but so do some other places that might surprise you). Are there some places that have wide-ranging strengths, where you'd love to just hang out and talk with every other faculty member? Sure, but that's not necessarily going to help you in terms of an academic career. You're infinitely better off looking at your own subfield. If you're interested in Middle Eastern history, Johns Hopkins and Duke aren't even on the radar. Georgetown, on the other hand, is one of the best. I would say that medieval history is stronger at Notre Dame than at most of the programs named here. Indiana is tops for Eastern Europe and Central Asia. The list could go on and on. Know your field, find someplace that will be good for the work you want to do, and work your tail off to distinguish yourself there. That's a recipe for success.

I'll admit that I'm a sucker for such lists and ranking all too often. I don't know, you're probably right.

[jacib]

Does the US News and World Report rank graduate programs? I thought this publication only ranked colleges and undergraduate programs for universities.

Yes, for both social science/humanities and the hard sciences as well as other, generally more professional programs.

As for can you teach at X with a degree from Y... look at the websites! I did this when I was trying to find out good religion programs. You start noticing really weird patterns that you convince yourself are meaningful. But top programs often just aren't hired at other top schools for unknown reasons. I think almost everyone at the UChicago divinity school who studied non-Christian things was from Chicago, Harvard, Columbia, Toronto or Oxford, but no one from Duke or Emory or Santa Barbara or UVa, all of which have excellent programs. Something like either Emory or Vanderbilt got half their degrees from the other place. It's just weird. Of course, these sample sizes are tiny, but there are only like 15 top schools giving out PhD's in religion, it's amazing how their grads are distributed in such a non-random fashion. When you study something like the New Testament, where there is more training than any of the non-Christian fields I was looking at, there's more variation in where the grads end up, but it struck me how clustered the degrees often were.

[kfed2020]

Is it useful to think about the department's overall ranking?

Your interests are much more specific than the broad term "History," so it's probably best to think about this in terms of the school that'd best serve your work. If you do Af Am, for example, Rutgers is worth a close look. Legal historians like Princeton. Gender and sexuality, try WUSTL.

Tailor your search to your own needs. Rather than looking at the placement of overall departments, try looking up the students who've worked with your potential advisors and see where they've taken jobs. Look up dissertations, see what impresses you.

US News gives a general sense, maybe, but the harder task of finding a fit for yourself is, ultimately, up to you.

[MsScarlet]

Interesting, I mostly agree. I was looking at the recent USNWR rankings (based on department chairs' opinions) and it looks pretty close to what you guys think here. In terms of tenure track jobs at, say, top 50 universities, you guys think that a degree from the bottom section of the top 15 would be acceptable? Of course, I realize that there are countless factors in play, such as publications for instance, but we all know that degrees from certain schools open up more doors than others. The more I look at various history departments' faculties, the more difficult it is to say which schools beyond HYPS are common "breeding grounds" for top faculty positions.

I think it also really strongly depends on your field. What I research, for example, the big names (while come teach at places like Penn) for the most part did not attend those schools but went to a variety of non-ivy places, including state schools that were not Berkeley. I know a few really successful ones who went to UCLA and UVA in particular.

[natsteel]

It most certainly does come down to your own field. Though looking at the USNWR rankings may give you a general idea. They do have some subfield rankings, for example, colonial history, which is even more helpful. But, as a poster above said, keep in mind the methodology. The rankings are based on the opinions given by administrators at other programs. So it is based almost completely on outside perception. How much weight you want to give to the opinions of people outside the actual program they are "ranking" is up to you.

[jacib]

It most certainly does come down to your own field. Though looking at the USNWR rankings may give you a general idea. They do have some subfield rankings, for example, colonial history, which is even more helpful. But, as a poster above said, keep in mind the methodology. The rankings are based on the opinions given by administrators at other programs. So it is based almost completely on outside perception. How much weight you want to give to the opinions of people outside the actual program they are "ranking" is up to you.

A lot, because they are the people who are going to be actual hiring you.

[Noodles]

Overall rankings based on the USNWR methodology are important because programs looking to expand into another area may lack knowledge about what departments are strong in that subject. Only departments already strong in that area are likely to know the other departments in their field of study. It is a problem of asymmetric information. Harvard will always impress. Rutgers will only impress some of the people, some of the time.