Rankings for History Program in the USA

[kindkw123]

Are there any general rankings for history grad programs that are newer than the US News list from 2013?

 

Thanks!

[AP]

Yes, just google world university rankings by program 2017 or 2016. QS and THE should have the option to filter by country.

[kindkw123]

Thanks! I really did google before posting, but I just couldn't find anything. Could you share a link please?

[AP]

I just googled "world university rankings by subject" and these are the first two results. It's weird you didn't find anything.

QS World University Rankings by Subject 2016 | Top Universities

https://www.topuniversities.com/subject-rankings/2016

1.  

Discover the world's top universities in 42 individual subjects, with the QS World University Rankingsby Subject 2016.

 

World University Rankings by Subject | Times Higher Education

https://www.timeshighereducation.com/world-university-rankings/by-subject

1.  
2.  

World University Rankings 2016-2017 by subject: results announced. Eight subject rankings reveal elite group of 14 US and European universities thriving ...

 

Also, these are not rankings of PhD programs, which is what you initially ask, but they may serve your purposes. 

[psstein]

PhDs.org is a pretty good resource.

There's only one ranking that really matters, IMO, and that's placement.

[nhhistorynut]

21 hours ago, psstein said:

PhDs.org is a pretty good resource.

There's only one ranking that really matters, IMO, and that's placement.

This was my first time seeing this site, and I have to say, it has a lot of great data. It is sort of surprising, almost, when you sort by outcomes and see what schools have better records of placement. I was surprised to see Tufts at the top, and Harvard actually a little ways down on the list. I actually feel pretty good about the school I applied/was accepted to, as about 60% have placements set up at graduation, and another 10% are in negotiations. Of those, about 75% of the jobs are in education as either post docs or teachers. With the job market as it is, a 50% chance of finding work at a college or university right after graduating sounds pretty good to me...

[Calgacus]

11 hours ago, nhhistorynut said:

This was my first time seeing this site, and I have to say, it has a lot of great data. It is sort of surprising, almost, when you sort by outcomes and see what schools have better records of placement. I was surprised to see Tufts at the top, and Harvard actually a little ways down on the list. I actually feel pretty good about the school I applied/was accepted to, as about 60% have placements set up at graduation, and another 10% are in negotiations. Of those, about 75% of the jobs are in education as either post docs or teachers. With the job market as it is, a 50% chance of finding work at a college or university right after graduating sounds pretty good to me...

I just want to point out that I think that site does not stipulate as to whether placements are full time or not. Therefore, there's no way to know what percentage of those placements listed as "teaching" are full-time tenure track jobs vs. part-time adjunct work. Placement stats are absolutely important, but just be aware of what they're actually telling you (or not). For those of you going to recruitment events, the Graduate Directors will have a whole pitch where they talk up their placement record. Be sure to ask them about how many of those placements were full-time tenure track jobs (if that's what you're interested in having). They absolutely have those numbers, or they should, but some departments may be less forthcoming about the distinction. All "teaching" jobs are not alike.

[Neist]

On 2/21/2017 at 1:33 PM, psstein said:

PhDs.org is a pretty good resource.

There's only one ranking that really matters, IMO, and that's placement.

 

I also study the history of science, and there aren't a lot of great schools with incredible history of science placement, unfortunately!  There just isn't a lot of jobs out there.

Something that is worth clarifying in this thread is that placement will probably heavily depend on what one studies. A 19th or 20th century Americanist is going to have quite a bit more difficult time than someone who studies disability in ethnic minorities.

[psstein]

On 2/23/2017 at 11:35 AM, Neist said:

I also study the history of science, and there aren't a lot of great schools with incredible history of science placement, unfortunately!  There just isn't a lot of jobs out there.

Something that is worth clarifying in this thread is that placement will probably heavily depend on what one studies. A 19th or 20th century Americanist is going to have quite a bit more difficult time than someone who studies disability in ethnic minorities.

That's unfortunately true. My undergrad advisor essentially told me to do something that crosses over between early modern history and history of science. He said he was hired as an early modern Britainist, though his PhD is technically from Princeton in HoS.

[nevermind]

On 2/25/2017 at 8:32 AM, psstein said:

That's unfortunately true. My undergrad advisor essentially told me to do something that crosses over between early modern history and history of science. He said he was hired as an early modern Britainist, though his PhD is technically from Princeton in HoS.

 

That's essentially what I'm doing...I do HoS (and science studies) but also am doing (basically) the same requirements as Middle Eastern history. Jack of all trades, master of none (Yet).  

[Sigaba]

On 2/23/2017 at 8:35 AM, Neist said:

A 19th or 20th century Americanist is going to have quite a bit more difficult time than someone who studies disability in ethnic minorities.

This dynamic could change very quickly given the political climate. One of the (many) lessons of the 2016 presidential election is that the identify politics of the American political right have a different momentum (and greater power) than the identify politics of the American political left and center.

The ongoing challenge is how does one integrate the advances of the past sixty years or so into the "traditional" approach to American history (top down narratives centering around institutions and "great" individuals)? Will the political pressure for a return to "traditional" execeptionalist narratives impact public universities sooner/more than private institutions Are academic historians, especially Americanists, too specialized to make the pivot in time to redeem the profession?

[lelepat]

On 3/11/2017 at 6:53 PM, Sigaba said:

This dynamic could change very quickly given the political climate. One of the (many) lessons of the 2016 presidential election is that the identify politics of the American political right have a different momentum (and greater power) than the identify politics of the American political left and center.

The ongoing challenge is how does one integrate the advances of the past sixty years or so into the "traditional" approach to American history (top down narratives centering around institutions and "great" individuals)? Will the political pressure for a return to "traditional" execeptionalist narratives impact public universities sooner/more than private institutions Are academic historians, especially Americanists, too specialized to make the pivot in time to redeem the profession?

I am a history and political science double major and I have some firsthand experience. I think that some of the political scientists are writing what the "traditional" Americanists are interested to do. In my school, history professors focus on the social and cultural aspects while polisci scholars study political and economic history. I doubt if there will be any changes in the near future.