<p>Yes, absolutely, you should consider LACs.
As PRJ points out, for per capita production of PhDs in history, 8 of the 10 top schools are LACs. The other 2 (Yale and Chicago) have the small average class sizes typical of LACs.</p>
<p>History departments don’t need expensive laboratories or big federal grants for ambitious experimental studies. So, some of the advantages of universities in the natural sciences don’t come into play for a history department. Some very distinguished professors of history and related fields (like Classics) have taught at LACs. Examples: Henry Steele Commager (Amherst) and Daniel Boorstin (Swarthmore).</p>
<p>By the way, the children of college professors choose to attend LACs at a much higher rate than the children of other parents. ([Where</a> Professors Send Their Children to College - CBS MoneyWatch.com](<a href=“MoneyWatch: Financial news, world finance and market news, your money, product recalls updated daily - CBS News”>MoneyWatch: Financial news, world finance and market news, your money, product recalls updated daily - CBS News))</p>
<p>An advantage of larger schools is their greater breadth and depth of coverage across many historic periods and places. However, for an undergrad, this isn’t too important unless you have interests in some fairly arcane areas. Any good LAC should have enough history and related courses to keep you busy for 4 years. </p>
<p>More significantly, a major research university with a huge library system has an advantage in attracting distinguished historians. For this reason, my first choice probably would be a selective research university with a good history department and strong undergraduate focus (i.e. many small discussion-based classes). My second choice would be a LAC. However, if you happen to have a strong personal preference for LACs, there is no reason not to put them at the top of your list.</p>