<p>So at the moment I'm definitely leaning towards Stanford, however I'm not sure how strong their humanities departments are in comparison to northeast LACs? I mean, I've heard alot touting Stanford's science and engineering departments, but little about the arts! I'm thinking of majoring in International Relations/history. Thanks for any help!</p>
<p>the NRC rankings of graduate school Humanities and Social Sciences departments</p>
<p>CLASSICS</p>
<p>1—Stanford
2—Harvard
3—Columbia
4—Princeton
5—Duke
6—Penn
7—Berkeley
8—Berkeley (different department)
9—Columbia (different department)
10–U. of Michigan</p>
<p>COMPARATIVE LITERATURE</p>
<p>1—Princeton
2—Harvard
3—Stanford
4—Berkeley
5—U. of Maryland
6—Duke
7—Yale
8—Brown
9—Penn
10—NYU</p>
<p>ENGLISH</p>
<p>1—Harvard
2—Princeton
3—Stanford
4—Columbia
5—Yale
6—U. of Michigan
7—Vanderbilt
8—Cornell
9—Penn
10–U. of Wisconsin</p>
<p>FRENCH</p>
<p>1—Duke
2—Princeton
3—Yale
4—Penn
5—Vanderbilt
6—Harvard
7—U. of Wisconsin
8—Stanford
9—U. of Michigan
10–U. of Connecticut</p>
<p>HISTORY</p>
<p>1—Princeton
2—Harvard
3—Princeton (different department)
4—JHU
5—U. of Chicago
6—Columbia
7—Harvard (different department)
8—Penn
9—Stanford
10–Berkeley</p>
<p>PHILOSOPHY</p>
<p>1—Princeton
2—Rutgers
3—U. of Michigan
4—Berkeley
5—NYU
6—U. of Chicago
7—MIT
8—Stanford
9—Columbia
10–Brown</p>
<p>SPANISH</p>
<p>1—Yale
2—Brown
3—Penn State
4—NYU
5—UC Davis
6—UVA
7—Berkeley
8—Stanford
9—U. of Pittsburgh
10–Purdue</p>
<p>ECONOMICS</p>
<p>1—Harvard
2—MIT
3—U. of Chicago
4—Princeton
5—Berkeley
6—Harvard (different department)
7—Stanford
8—Cal Tech
9—Yale
10–NYU</p>
<p>POLITICAL SCIENCE</p>
<p>1—Harvard
2—Stanford
3—Berkeley
4—U. of Michigan
5—Columbia
6—NYU
7—Yale
8—Duke
9—Princeton
10–UC San Diego</p>
<p>PSYCHOLOGY</p>
<p>1—Princeton
2—Harvard
3—Stanford
4—U. of Wisconsin
5—Yale
6—U. of Rochester
7—U. of Michigan
8—Brown
9—Columbia
10–UCLA</p>
<p>International relations is not usually described as a humanity, but that is picking nits.</p>
<p>The IR/poli sci intellectual environment at Stanford is influenced by the presence of the Hoover Institute. It is free market/conservative in its orientation; faculty from there often serve in Republican administrations (Condi Rice) and Republicans sometimes land at Hoover after their tenure in govt (Ed Meese). Not everyone at Stanford IR is a Hooverian, but to say it has no influence is naive.</p>
<p>Depending on your political predisposition, the orientation of the Hoover Institute may either be a plus or a minus.</p>
<p>That’s a valid point, UT, but I think the Hoover Institute serves mainly as something of a counterweight to the overwhelmingly liberal orientation of the student body and the vast majority of Stanford faculty. IMO it’s one of the good things about poli sci at Stanford, because it fosters more vigorous debate about many issues than we would otherwise have on such a liberal campus, and debating issues is good. 
Some conservative students–plainly in the minority here-- think there should be more debate than there is, but at least there is some going on.</p>
<p>Also, to the OP: the humanities here are excellent in my experience thus far. I think boosters of the Ivies and some small liberal arts colleges like to depict Stanford as focused on science and engineering at the expense of the humanities, but that’s really not an accurate assessment. Stanford is across-the-board superb in academics, and working on bringing the fine arts into alignment with the rest of its offerings.</p>
<p>I agree with zenkoan.</p>
<p>I’m an engineer but a lot of the closest people to me here are IR and history majors. </p>
<p>The IR program here is very strong and not just because of Hoover. There’s the Center for Democracy, Development and the Rule of Law, there’s the Center for International Security and Cooperation which is in the Freeman Spogli Institue which houses lots of amazing programs at Stanford. Our IR program is really top notch. Just ask around. </p>
<p>As for History there are lots of great people on the faculty. There’s also the Martin Luther King, Jr., Research and Education Institute led by Clayborne Carson which is baller as well as lots of other professors and programs. </p>
<p>A quick look at the degrees conferred last year shows how the humanities at Stanford are a very big part of campus. More BAs were conferred than BS’s and for example the IR department graduates over 100 students with BAs (the third largest after econ and hum bio) and history graduated over 60 students with BA’s (<a href=“http://facultysenate.stanford.edu/2010_2011/reports/SenD6383_deg_conf_0910.pdf[/url]”>http://facultysenate.stanford.edu/2010_2011/reports/SenD6383_deg_conf_0910.pdf</a>)</p>
<p>Basically one of the main reasons I thought my stanford experience was so amazing was precisely because of our top humanities and IR/PoliSci departments which really helped create a really unique and amazing culture here. Engineers are not just friends with other engineers, they have lots of friends in all kinds of different majors and everyone here is quite frankly baller.</p>
<p>Stanford’s rated top 5 in the world for humanities:</p>
<p>[Top</a> Universities for Arts & Humanities 2010-2011](<a href=“http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/world-university-rankings/2010-2011/arts-and-humanities.html]Top”>Subject Ranking 2010-11: Arts & Humanities | Times Higher Education (THE))</p>
<p>The above rankings of disciplines aren’t quite the NRC rankings, which state the ranks as ranges (the ones above are tailored by phds.org using data from the NRC rankings). You can see the real rankings here:</p>
<p>[NRC</a> Rankings Overview: Classics - Faculty - The Chronicle of Higher Education](<a href=“http://chronicle.com/article/NRC-Rankings-Overview-/124716/]NRC”>http://chronicle.com/article/NRC-Rankings-Overview-/124716/)</p>
<p>Finally, the IR program at Stanford is not really influenced by the Hoover Institution (which is technically independent). It’s much more influenced by the Freeman Spogli Institute, which is what IR and polisci are housed with (in Encina Hall). But you don’t have to worry about Hoover “influencing” the IR/polisci program, since IR is very large–one of the top 3 most popular majors–and there’s a pretty strong diversity of faculty.</p>
<p>Clearly, Stanford has outstanding departments in the humanities. A recent article in the Stanford Daily caught my attention, however. At a recent faculty senate meeting, comments made by an associate dean suggested that the “culture” at Stanford promotes a general disinterest in the humanities, and that they are perceived as “fuzzy” and not serious. Given the prominent place of science and engineering disciplines at Stanford, is this a common perception?</p>
<p>[Faculty</a> Senate addresses humanities, hears from Trustees | Stanford Daily](<a href=“http://www.stanforddaily.com/2011/03/04/faculty-senate-addresses-humanities-hears-from-trustees/]Faculty”>Faculty Senate addresses humanities, hears from Trustees)</p>
<p>I don’t think it’s right to say that the entire “culture” is like that (which is what the dean in that article is implying by not offering any words to qualify the statement). I know what they’re saying–some “techies” do judge “fuzzies”–but that idea occurs more among those who are in STEM fields, not among social sciences or (obviously) humanities students. Since social sciences/humanities students make up more than half the student body, it’s not right to say that the entire culture is that way. Just a subset of the STEM culture.</p>
<p>
Oh yes very. Above poster is missing the point.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I understand what the point is, thanks, but I’ve been here long enough to know where it’s coming from. Again, it’s only the “culture” if the entire student body is composed of STEM students. Those who aren’t in STEM fields (more than half the student body) don’t think that. Therefore, it’s inaccurate to imply that the entire culture is that way.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The IR dept has heavy hitter profs you’ll have regular/easy access to as an undergrad including fmr. Secretaries of State and Defense 
Definitely top notch and respected.</p>
<p>At Stanford the emphasis is not on the difference between science and the humanities but how they can enhance each other, so you’ll see a lot of collab and interdisciplinary areas of focus (take “Liberation Technology” in Stanford CDDRL).</p>
<p>Re: Hoover
Despite the common perception of Hoover as a “conservative” institution, a number of senior fellows @ Hoover are Democrats (William J. Perry, Larry Diamond). A lot of policy research involved at Hoover is data-driven and politics-agnostic.</p>
<p>Reed College has pretty much the best humanities program in the country.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>ha!..</p>
<p>
The other majors (economics, psychology, political science, etc.) don’t think that humanities are useless, but they often won’t want to major in them due to the job market. That’s a big point Satz was trying to make. Even the humanities majors are greatly concerned about this. </p>
<p>Many students are concerned not that the humanities are a waste of time, but that they don’t lead to lucrative careers. Furthermore, though only a few STEM students have an inherent belief that the humanities are worthless, the idea that the humanities are not as respected is held throughout the student body. This often leads to a form of inferiority complex among those in the humanities, with the non-stem, non-humanities people straddling somewhere in the middle of this divide. </p>
<p>So, Stanford’s major hierarchy, in addition to the desire by most for a financially lucrative career, is the “culture” I think Satz was referring to. Some embrace being the underclass in this culture, many do not.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Lol I was exaggerating out of love for my school, but they do have one of the best: [REED</a> COLLEGE PHD PRODUCTIVITY](<a href=“http://web.reed.edu/ir/phd.html]REED”>Doctoral Degree Productivity - Institutional Research - Reed College)</p>
<p>It takes the place of English class your freshman year, and Reed’s “graduate program,” (it’s basically a bunch of kids who don’t want to stop studying :P) is only for Humanities.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I know what the big point Satz was trying to make, but if you read closely what I was saying, Satz was making the point poorly and implying the entire “culture” was that way, which I know is far from true.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>No, it’s not. It’s well-acknowledged, not “held,” by the student body that many techies don’t respect the humanities as much.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Uh, that’s really false… every humanities person I know doesn’t care that much to have an “inferiority complex.”</p>
<p>Sounds like what you’re saying is what you personally believe, and you’re among that group of people who look down on humanities majors. :rolleyes:</p>
<p>Anyway, this is immaterial, because the OP is interested in the social sciences.</p>
<p>
That’s cause the entire culture is that way! No matter what major you are, you somehow fit into this notion a few have that STEM fields are far superior to others. For instance, one of my friends was literally laughed by a math major when he said he was majoring in history. He tells this story to other friends, some of whom are majoring in history, others in English, and others in engineering, and they all get this notion that there is some hierarchy in play here. The only difference is what side of it they are all on. </p>
<p>On a side note, I took a class with Satz. She was very careful in class to make sure her logic was sound. I am positive that she would choose her words very carefully when presenting to the faculty senate. </p>
<p>
Whatever words you want to use, you pretty much just supported what I am arguing. </p>
<p>
When someone literally laughs at you because of your major, you don’t think that leads to any feeling of inferiority? Now I never claimed that every (or even most) humanities majors feel this way, but I’m sure there are many who do to some varying degree. I just don’t see how you can argue with that. </p>
<p>And maybe those humanities people you know just don’t care to share their feelings with you. In our society, inferiority complexes are not something to be proud of. </p>
<p>
As someone who straddles the line and takes about 3/5 techy classes to 2/5 humanities (avoiding social sciences in the process haha), I can say that at some times or another I have felt feelings of both sides. When I heard of the story of the guy laughing at the history major, I felt somewhat reassured because I was majoring in engineering (and no one had laughed at me). But when I tell fellow engineers that I’m taking a humanities class and the first conclusion they almost always jump to is that I’m doing it for my humanities GER, I often have second thoughts about telling them I’m doing it out of sheer interest. Not that I’m embarrassed really, but sometimes I’d rather not point out such differences. Or another case is when I told someone my classes for this quarter, with zero techy classes, he said (not knowing anything about my parents), “woah won’t your parents freak out?”</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>No, I didn’t. To “hold” something means to “believe.” There is a difference between believing an idea and being aware that others hold that belief. I would say that the culture at Stanford is well aware of the techy-fuzzy divide. But that is not the same as them all holding that the fuzzy path is, in the words of Satz, not “serious.” I hope you see this distinction.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Just because someone chooses words carefully in class doesn’t mean they always choose their words carefully. Or it could be that the report on the Senate meeting just simplified the way Satz presented it, when she did acknowledge the nuances.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Well I wasn’t aware that that’s ever happened–in my four years here, I’ve never seen anyone *laugh *at someone else for their major.</p>
<p>I understand what you’re saying, Senior0991, since my class choices are also pretty evenly divided among techy/fuzzy, but my original point was that Satz seemed to oversimplify the issue, probably to prove her point about the humanities (after all, that’s what she was presenting on).</p>
<p>
Yes I am well aware of this. My original quote was “the idea that the humanities are not as respected is held throughout the student body.” I guess I should have made it clear that “respected” means not as respected among the student body. In other words one is more likely to get laughed at for being an art major than a compsci major. Everyone should “hold” that belief (that one is more likely to be laughed at…). </p>
<p>
Though the former is possible, it is not probable. Satz’s job (among other things) is to have first-rate argumentative skills, and I see little reason why she would take a lecture significantly more seriously than a presentation to the faculty senate. </p>
<p>I think the article did oversimplify her argument, even if her argument was already oversimplified. But to me the core of the issue got across: that STEM people who criticize the humanities are not the only problem. It is something far grander than that. </p>
<p>
In my two years here, I’ve seen it once and heard a story of another. God knows how many other times the person is respectable enough to at least suppress their laughter. It’s more than just humanities too. I’ve heard EE’s call the ME major here a “joke”. And they were dead serious in their convictions. There’s just so much ego in some of the STEM fields (mainly CS, EE, physics, and math from my experiences). It’s really disgusting.</p>