<p>I am looking for colleges with a strong classical archeology program as well as a strong classic languages program, at the undergraduate level. I am not looking for Latin American archeology, or native American, specifically Mediterranean. </p>
<p>What are colleges known for such programs?
thanks.</p>
Chicago actually has a very poor classical archaeology program. It’s great for languages, definitely, but its material culture offerings are virtually nonexistent. </p>
<p>I also disagree with Hanna’s suggestion of Harvard. It has traditionally been strong, yes, but the Classics department currently has no archaeologist whatsoever. Granted, they’re doing a faculty search, but that could take ages. </p>
<p>The very best programs tend to be at large universities - Berkeley, Michigan, NYU, UCLA, UNC Chapel Hill, UT Austin, UVA.</p>
<p>Brown, Cornell, and Penn also have good programs, and as mentioned, Bryn Mawr does as well. Among less selective schools, Boston U and Cincinnati are the standouts. </p>
<p>Of course, there is any number of schools with at least two or three classical archaeologists on staff…exactly what are you looking for?</p>
<p>I want a school that puts a great focus on archeology, like for example, Bryn Mawr. I want a school with an in-depth, well known program that will prepare me for grad school work in the field. I would also like a school with more arch profs than just 1 or 2, and preferably, a school with field schools and the like. Is UC Berkeley strong in archeology? I know it’s good for classics, but I wasn’t sure. Thanks for the feedback!!</p>
<p>^
Berkeley is excellent for classical archaeology. Its graduate program is matched only by Penn’s in flexibility, resources, and distinguished alumni. Check out the faculty.</p>
<p>Berkeley is outstanding. I have seen evidence of their work all over Greece. However, you cannot major in archeology at the undergraduate level, just classics (ditto for paleontology, great research, but graduate only).</p>
<p>Thanks everyone!
Right now I am looking for undergrad, so I guess Berkeley would not be a good choice. I think I’m going to go with Bryn Mawr. I hope I’ll get in. Is Bryn Mawr “prestigious” enough for really good, even ivy, grad schools?</p>
<p>Below are links to some of Chicago’s recent activities and course offerings in archeology. Languages are not the school’s only related strength. It has had an excellent anthropology department for years (# 1 according to the NRC-95 rankings). Consider not only training in archeological theory and field methods but also your broader foundation in ancient languages, history and civilizations. Chicago offers the student:faculty ratio of a small liberal arts college but the more diverse resources of a major research university. The school has a time-tested approach to classroom instruction in the humanities and social sciences, focusing on close readings of primary source materials in small discussion classes.</p>
<p>^
Chicago’s devotion to Near Eastern archaeology is impressive. It’s been running digs there since the early 1900s (though sadly on a much smaller scale since the 1960s), and the OI is pretty awesome. For people interested in Turkey/Iraq/Egypt, it’s THE place to go. For classical…as I said earlier, its classical archaeology offerings are weak, and it hasn’t used a spade in Greece - to my knowledge - since the mid 1990s. </p>
<p>It’s still a good option, obviously, and it could definitely work for the OP. I myself attended a university that’s heavy on languages but not so much on archaeology (Duke) and was quite successful in graduate admissions. My point was more that Chicago isn’t really any better of an option than, say, Yale or Emory. </p>
<p>Class sizes needn’t be an issue; classics courses are extraordinarily tiny even at massive universities like Toronto. Even Berkeley graduates only one or two Greek/Latin majors a year.</p>
<p>
That surprised me, as I knew UNC had a classical archaeology major. Checking it out, it seems that Berkeley offers a classical archaeology track within its classical civilizations major, which is virtually the same thing (only perhaps better).</p>
Um…that’s like asking if studying IR at George Washington is good enough for Ivy schools, or if marine biology at Miami is good enough. Archaeology is a niche specialty at Bryn Mawr and quite strong.</p>
<p>When it comes to Anthropology, Archaeology and Classics, the University of Michigan is hard to beat, usually ranked among the top 3 nationally in those fields. </p>
<p>Given the relatively unpopular nature of those majors, classes tend to be quite small (under 20 students in most cases). We are talking about a 2:1 student to faculty ratio. Of course, intro classes will be large as they attract many non-concentrators, but most 200 level classes and virtually all 300 and 400 level courses will typically have between 10 and 20 students with the resources of a World class program.</p>
<p>When it comes to Anthropology, Archaeology and Classics, the University of Michigan is hard to beat, usually ranked among the top 3 nationally in those fields. </p>
<p>Given the relatively unpopular nature of those majors, classes tend to be quite small (under 20 students in most cases). We are talking about a 2:1 student to faculty ratio. </p>
<p>Of course, intro classes will be large as they attract many non-concentrators, but most 200 level classes and virtually all 300 and 400 level courses will typically have between 10 and 20 students with the resources of a World class program.</p>
<p>True, but keep in mind that you won’t be filling your schedule with nothing but Greek and Latin classes for 4 years. Archeology calls for breadth across the humanities, social and natural sciences. </p>
<p>Another related strength at Chicago (Berkeley and Michigan too) is in Linguistics (though I’m not sure about current relative strengths of these schools in various sub-specialties such as Historical Linguistics).</p>
<p>Aid money may be an issue for out-of-state applicants to many state universities these days. Chicago is not known for being consistently generous with aid either, for that matter (though they do grant some merit scholarships as well as need-based aid; this may be of interest if you are in the middle class donut hole, that is, barely too affluent for need-based aid.)</p>
<p>I agree that Bryn Mawr is a great choice. Prestige really should not be a concern. It’s a very respected school, with the advantage of consortium connections to Haverford, Swarthmore and Penn. Another LAC that is strong in anthro, one that you might overlook, is Beloit. Dunno about archeology there.</p>
<p>If you look at the academic pedigrees of the faculty at the other universities you will find that many of them earned at least one of their degrees at Bryn Mawr. The college has been hatching Classical and Near Eastern Archaeologists for well over a century. It has one of the top programs in the nation.</p>
<p>Has anyone mentioned U of Missouri at Columbia yet? </p>