<p>There are only so many “top” schools in the USA. Of course there is likely to be a .67 agreement. In fact, this would be low. It also continues the fallacious thinking that there is a strong relationship between the graduate experience and undergrad. Grad school is extremely focused and more like a job. Undergrad is very different. The whole thing is complete BS. For the OP, the bottom line continues to be to forget about “rankings” and focus on acadenically comapatible schools and then narrow it down by factors important to him, including looking at their actual offerings in history.</p>
<p>“There are only so many “top” schools in the USA. Of course there is likely to be a .67 agreement. In fact, this would be low.”</p>
<p>9 of Gourman’s top 10 (and 18 of his top 20) History departments in 1988 were ranked among the top 10 (and top 20) by the USNWR in 2009. All 9 of his top 10 (and 17 of his 18 top 20) were ranked within 4 spots of the USNWR ranking. No matter how you slice it, the accuracy is impressive.</p>
<p>At any rate, I think it is important not to mix quality of department with quality of education. One can receive an excellent education virtually anywhere (assuming the faculty and academic offerings are respectable). All one needs to do is look at the profiles of faculty at any top program and it is clear that many of them completed their undergraduate studies at less than stellar universities. But it is clear what constitutes a top department and what does not. Ranking deparmtents is far from a science to be sure, but a History department such as Chicago’s or Columbia’s is going to be significantly better than the History department such as WUSTL or MIT’s (which ironically has a pretty solid department contrary to popular belief). Again, one can receive an equally good education at any of those four departments, but there is a clear difference in the quality of the departments.</p>
<p>[MIT</a> History](<a href=“MIT History – History at MIT brings together outstanding scholarship, teaching, and public engagement.”>MIT History – History at MIT brings together outstanding scholarship, teaching, and public engagement.)</p>
<p>The latest NRC does not rank. They only give a range between 5th and 95th percentile, much like SATs are reported in common data sets. The also report this using two different methodologies, a survey methodology and a regression method, for each program ranking. Sometimes the two methods correlate well, sometimes they don’t. They effectively concluded you can’t rank academic programs in order like a football poll (they even used that analogy) and they just presented the data. </p>
<p>The list above is just the 5th percentile rank score for those schools out of all of its ranks for just the regression method, ignoring the other 95% of scores. For these two ranking methods in the history program rankings, scores correlation of about 0.84. The NRC also noted that the larger the program, the better the schools did in the ranking, take that for what its worth regarding survey results.</p>
<p>If you must have a rank, you could average the 5th and 95th percentile to try to get the mean score, and, perhaps, then average those results for the two methodologies. This is not something recommend by the NRC, but you would end up with the following top 100, in order. Also remember, this is specifically PhD program results, taking into account things like time for program completion for a PhD student, health insurance for grad students, GRE scores…things that have zero impact on undergrads.</p>
<p>PRINCETON UNIVERSITY
JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY
HARVARD UNIVERSITY
PRINCETON UNIVERSITY
UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA
UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO
STANFORD UNIVERSITY
COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY IN THE CITY OF NEW YORK
HARVARD UNIVERSITY
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA-BERKELEY
NEW YORK UNIVERSITY
YALE UNIVERSITY
UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA AT CHAPEL HILL
YALE UNIVERSITY
RUTGERS THE STATE UNIVERSITY OF NEW JERSEY NEW BRUNSWICK CAMPUS
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA-LOS ANGELES
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA-SANTA BARBARA
UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN-ANN ARBOR
UNIVERSITY OF NOTRE DAME
BRANDEIS UNIVERSITY
YALE UNIVERSITY
BROWN UNIVERSITY
DUKE UNIVERSITY
NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY
PENN STATE UNIVERSITY
UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA-TWIN CITIES
ARIZONA STATE UNIVERSITY
CORNELL UNIVERSITY
TUFTS UNIVERSITY
UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA
UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN-MADISON
VANDERBILT UNIVERSITY
OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY MAIN CAMPUS
UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS AT URBANA-CHAMPAIGN
UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON
UNIVERSITY OF ROCHESTER
RICE UNIVERSITY
INDIANA UNIVERSITY AT BLOOMINGTON
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH CAROLINA COLUMBIA
EMORY UNIVERSITY
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA-SAN DIEGO
UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY
MIAMI UNIVERSITY
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA-DAVIS
JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY
NORTHEASTERN UNIVERSITY
CARNEGIE MELLON UNIVERSITY
UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA
LOYOLA UNIVERSITY CHICAGO
STATE UNIVERSITY OF NEW YORK AT BINGHAMTON
UNIVERSITY OF GEORGIA
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA-IRVINE
GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY
PURDUE UNIVERSITY MAIN CAMPUS
UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT AUSTIN
INDIANA UNIVERSITY AT BLOOMINGTON
UNIVERSITY OF OREGON
HOWARD UNIVERSITY
MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY
UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS AMHERST
UNIVERSITY OF IOWA
BOSTON COLLEGE
UNIVERSITY OF OKLAHOMA NORMAN CAMPUS
WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY IN ST. LOUIS
UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH PITTSBURGH CAMPUS
UNIVERSITY OF KANSAS
HARVARD UNIVERSITY
UNIVERSITY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
UNIVERSITY OF MIAMI
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
BRANDEIS UNIVERSITY
UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO AT BOULDER
COLLEGE OF WILLIAM AND MARY
CITY UNIVERSITY OF NEW YORK GRAD. CENTER
UNIVERSITY OF TENNESSEE
UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT DALLAS
UNIVERSITY OF ARKANSAS MAIN CAMPUS
CLARK UNIVERSITY
UNIVERSITY OF DELAWARE
UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN-MADISON
UNIVERSITY OF NEW MEXICO MAIN CAMPUS
STATE UNIVERSITY OF NEW YORK AT BUFFALO
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA-RIVERSIDE
UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND COLLEGE PARK
SYRACUSE UNIVERSITY MAIN CAMPUS
CASE WESTERN RESERVE UNIVERSITY
SOUTHERN ILLINOIS UNIVERSITY CARBONDALE
UNIVERSITY OF OKLAHOMA NORMAN CAMPUS
UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA-TWIN CITIES
STATE UNIVERSITY OF NEW YORK AT STONY BROOK
UNIVERSITY OF MISSISSIPPI
TULANE UNIVERSITY
UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS AT CHICAGO
GEORGE WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY
UNIVERSITY OF CONNECTICUT
NORTHERN ILLINOIS UNIVERSITY
TEXAS A & M UNIVERSITY
SOUTHERN METHODIST UNIVERSITY
WASHINGTON STATE UNIVERSITY
UNIVERSITY OF MISSOURI - COLUMBIA</p>
<p>wgmcp, you listed schools according to their “S Rankings”, not their “R Rankings”. The NCR History “R Rankings” are as follows (the top 20):</p>
<p>Columbia University: 1-7
University of California-Berkeley: 1-7</p>
<p>Johns Hopkins University: 1-8</p>
<p>Stanford University: 2-10</p>
<p>Harvard University: 2-12
Princeton University: 2-12
University of California-Los Angeles: 2-12</p>
<p>University of Chicago: 2-13</p>
<p>University of Pennsylvania: 5-15
Yale University: 5-15</p>
<p>University of Michigan-Ann Arbor: 6-16</p>
<p>New York University: 8-17</p>
<p>University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill: 9-17</p>
<p>Rutgers University: 12-19</p>
<p>Ohio State University: 15-27</p>
<p>University of Minnesota-Twin Cities: 15-29</p>
<p>Duke University: 16-29</p>
<p>Northwestern University: 16-30</p>
<p>Indiana University-Bloomington: 17-33</p>
<p>Cornell University: 18-33</p>
<p>No, I listed them by neither. I did my own calculation of the average of the means of S & R combined. Again, the NRC doesn’t rank them at all, it lists, separately, the 5 and 95 percentile ranges. So there are actually four composite numbers listed: 5th percentile S, 95th percentile S, 5th percentile R, 95th percentile R. It is not appropriate to rank them by any of those separately. You can extrapolate from them, as I did, but that isn’t endorsed by the NRC.</p>
<p>Wow, this has entered the Twilight Zone. You guys are addicted to rankings. Your statement about Columbia vs. WUSTL might be true for a grad student, it is meaningless for an undergrad. You will never believe that. No problem.</p>
<p>Tulane has the best undergraduate history program.</p>
<p>“You guys are addicted to rankings.” </p>
<p>Not really fallenchemist, but rankings should at least be considered.</p>
<p>“Your statement about Columbia vs. WUSTL might be true for a grad student, it is meaningless for an undergrad.” </p>
<p>I am not sure I concur. I think Columbia undergrads have access to far superior historical documents, more informed faculty and a broader and deeper range of courses to choose from.</p>
<p>“You will never believe that. No problem.”</p>
<p>Read posts #8, #25 and #42. I made it clear that rankings only tell part of the story and that undergrads can pretty much go to any good university and receive an excellent education in History.</p>
<p>It is hard not to find a major university that doesn’t have a good history department particularly in American and European history.</p>
<p>
Yes, because the vast majority of undergrad history majors do such deep research that require these resources. That kind of thing is far more pertinent to a grad program.</p>
<p>fallenchemist, a History major intent on going to Law school or becoming a high school teacher may not care about research, but a History major intent on going to a PhD in History may actually like to have access to such resources.</p>
<p>And don’t you think that some History majors, regardless of their graduate aspirations, would actually like to have a broader and deeper course selection or more informed faculty?</p>
<p>Well, I think the faculty at WUSTL or Columbia are far more than adequate for any undergrad, and as far as deeper course selections, sure. That cannot be a bad thing, but it is impossible to even take the majority of history courses offered at either school, I suspect. It certainly isn’t enough of a factor to change a decision compared to the innumerable other factors that would go into which school fit better overall, IMO. As I stated earlier, if an 18 year old is so certain of a particular area of history they want to study, then the decision becomes easier by looking at the faculty and offerings. Heck, the best person might be at Montana State in that case. That is far more like a grad school decision than an undergrad, and would be very unusual. Excepting that, there is tremendous variety at either school, and many many others. Given the number of other courses outside of history they will take and the historical facts regarding changing of majors, I simply think it is a poor way to choose a school, and that thinking that one can rank undergrad departments such as history causes more harm than good. But as you know, I think that about college rankings in general. JMHO.</p>
<p>I am not sure I agree entirely fallenchemist. I agree that for a person looking for an excellent undergraduate education in the Humanities and a very solid foundation in History, Columbia and WUSTL are equally handsome options. </p>
<p>However, for students who are very keen on History and really want as many academic options as possible, a History department such as Columbia’s offers a good dealmore than WUSTL. There is a depth and breadth of academic offerings availlable at a large elite department that simply isn’t as pronounced at most universities.</p>
<p>It really depends on the student and her/his academic goals.</p>
<p>Well, I counted 243 history offerings at WUSTL in their 2010-2011 course catalog. I am sure I miscounted a few as I scrolled down, but + or - 5, let’s say. Doing the same for Columbia I get 181.
Hmmmmmm.</p>
<p>fallenchemist, I find it hard to believe that WUSTL, with its 35 History professor (Columbia has over 100), offers over 200 courses of History in one academic year. Like Columbia, Michigan also has over 100 History professors, and ever since I can remember, the department offers roughly 200 courses to undergraduate students. Can you provide us with the link? I would be very surprised if WUSTL offered more than 100 History courses to undergrads.</p>
<p>
Subjective.</p>
<p>Sure, here is the link for the WUSTL undergraduate catalog. I confirmed that the grad courses start at 5000, so these are all considered undergrad. [History</a> | Washington University in St. Louis](<a href=“http://bulletin.wustl.edu/artsci/history/#courses]History”>http://bulletin.wustl.edu/artsci/history/#courses) Have fun! BTW, I am not claiming these are offered every year, I am sure they are not. But neither are Columbia’s courses. Quite a few had the notation “not offered 2010-2011” in the Columbia catalog. WUSTL didn’t specify, but I would feel fairly confident most are offered at least every other year.</p>
<p>As a history graduate student, I’ll weigh in with my $0.02. </p>
<p>Like most applicants, you are going about the process completely backwards. As others have already mentioned, good history programs are a dime a dozen. Even many of the (former) “fourth-tier” schools have perfectly adequate programs in the common areas of history (US, Southern, African-American, Latin American, etc.). </p>
<ol>
<li><p>Decide what you want in a college. A few examples:
[ul][<em>]Public or private?
[</em>]What region/area of the US?
[<em>]Rural, suburban, or urban?
[</em>]Small or big?
[<em>]What can you afford?
[</em>]What can you get into?
[<em>]Greek life or no Greek life?
[</em>]Does the campus need to be disability or LGBT friendly?[/ul]</p></li>
<li><p>Consider what you want to do and where you want to go after graduation.
[ul][<em>]If you are interested in graduate studies in international history, languages will be extremely important. If you plan to study a somewhat rare field (say, Turkish history), you may be expected to know that language. If you suspect you’ll need to know a language other than the common ones (Arabic, Chinese, French, German, Japanese, Russian, Spanish), be sure to factor that into your college search.
[</em>]If you are interested in teaching afterwards, be sure to select schools that offer secondary teaching certification in history - not all of them do!
[li]If you are interested in curatorial or museum studies, it would be worthwhile to consider colleges that offer courses in museology/museum studies.[/ul]</p></li>[/li]<li><p>Based on those criteria, draw up a list of about 30 or so colleges that seem to fit. Visit some of them if you can. Books like the Fiske Guide and Insider’s Guide are invaluable at this stage of the process.</p></li>
<li><p>If you want to narrow your list still further based on history, don’t rely on rankings. Do your own research.
[ul][<em>]How big are courses?
[</em>]How many courses are typically available?
[<em>]Are courses taught by tenured faculty or adjuncts/visiting faculty?
[</em>]How many students major in history?
[<em>]Is there a history group or undergraduate honor society?
[</em>]What research fellowships are available specifically for undergraduate history majors?[/ul]</p></li>
</ol>
<p>Extremely well put, warbler.</p>
<p>Which posters have a history undergrad degree? History MA /Phd? Who teaches college history? Who has a Phd and/or teaches, any field?<br>
I believe we are confusing “perfect world” with reality.</p>
<p>“Columbia undergrads have access to far superior historical documents, more informed faculty and a broader and deeper range of courses to choose from.” </p>
<p>Reality: depending on specific interests/needs, it is typical, even for faculty, to scan a multi-college library catalog and go order interlibrary loan. Superior historical documents are often locked away. Superior books can be obtained in many ways.<br>
Reality: “More informed faculty” (subjective) does not equate to easily accessed faculty. It does not even mean they influence folks teaching your classes. The very best profs at the Top U tend have those reps because they focus on their own research, often negotiating contracts limiting teaching duties. Many contract to only work with grad students. So, their influence on OP would be-?</p>
<p>“don’t you think that some History majors…would actually like to have a broader and deeper course selection or more informed faculty?” </p>
<p>Reality: one only takes 10-12 classes in a major, a percentage of which are intro or 100-or 200-level. Many deeper courses are restricted to upperclassmen. In intro classes at megasize U’s, a prof often lectures, then leaves the rest (study groups, grading, etc) to TA’s. The benefit?</p>