<p>Hi!
So I've been lucky enough to get into JHU and Colgate, but I'm not sure which one to choose. I personally like JHU better, but I'm worried about being a liberal arts major at such a science-y school. So, do the liberal arts and humanities programs have strong reputations at JHU? I'm particularly interested in history, and archaeology/cultural anthropology</p>
<p>It’s really no contest. Hopkins has a top ten history department and it’s own archeology museum (and an active dig in Egypt that students can work on during intersession). I know less about the anthropology department but I heard it is good.</p>
<p>Colgate is a fine LAC with a pretty campus but rather remote. The student body at Colgate is far less diverse than Hopkin’s if that is a factor for you.</p>
<p>Hopkins is a hidden jewel for humanities majors.</p>
<p>Hopkins is extremely new to the field of anthropological archaeology. Their anthropology department was (and remains) focused on cultural anthropology, and archaeology was limited to the few courses offered each year by a couple of people in Near Eastern Studies or Classics who are not archaeologists by training (art historians, primarily). That has recently changed somewhat with the renovation of Gilman and the archaeological collection; several new faculty members were hired in archaeology, and an undergraduate major in the subject was implemented. It is a decent place for archaeology, but the program focuses almost exclusively on the Greco-Roman and Near Eastern worlds and would be of little value to someone interested in other fields; the other downside, of course, is that the new faculty members are very green and as of yet have little influence in their fields. As bonanza noted, the history program is highly regarded and leans very heavily toward US and European history. </p>
<p>Colgate has a small but decent anthropology program, but archaeology is fairly limited; if I recall correctly, it has a few New World people and a very distinguished Cypriot archaeologist. It has one of the stronger history departments among LACs and encourages students to dabble in other relevant departments (classics, LGBT and women’s studies, Middle Eastern studies, Africana studies, etc.).</p>
<p>Contrary to bonanza’s post, I never assume a LAC vs. university question is “no contest,” unless the two are very disparate academically. There are many very good departments of history and anthro/archaeology with outstanding professors that really don’t care two rusty nickels about some of the grad students in their departments, let alone the undergrads – this includes some of the Ivies and other top colleges. They’re ruthlessly competitive fields, and people who win the coveted prize of a university teaching job often have correspondingly large egos.</p>
<p>Things to think about:</p>
<p>(1) LAC or university? They provide very different things. I attended a small private university but have been very, very impressed by what LACs (including less selective ones) have to offer; the close relationships that develop as a result of a lack of graduate students and a small student body are very difficult if not impossible to emulate among universities, despite what some university proponents may say. On the other hand, universities offer much broader and deeper course offerings. </p>
<p>(2) Urban or rural? As an urban college, Hopkins provides easy access to dining, shopping, the arts, etc. The Baltimore Museum of Art is virtually on campus, and the excellent Walters Art Museum is about 15 minutes away. Hamilton is fairly rural, on the other hand, which is attractive to some and a massive turn-off to others. </p>
<p>(3) Do you plan to attend graduate school? If you plan to get a job or go into a professional field like law afterwards, academics will be much less important, and “fit” should be your overriding concern. If you are interested in graduate studies (a MA or PhD), it is much more important to examine academic offerings, particularly languages.</p>
<p>thanks for your quick and detailed responses!
I’m going to visit both the schools later in the month
@warblersrule - when you say that JHU focuses heavily on European/ US history, does that mean that there are no classes on, say, latin american history, or ancient societies?
i think im leaning towards JHU. I think that it is a stronger/ more respected school overall and i prefer the larger, more urban environment that it has better</p>
<p>
No, of course not. Any respectable history department is going to offer a wide range of classes. It’s simply the case that some fields like history or biology are so large and varied that no department can excel in all subfields, so they select research foci and focus on them. This is why you have Cornell and Michigan putting a lot of money into organismal biology, for example, whereas CMU and JHU funnel all of their money into molecular biology; similarly, you have schools like Ole Miss excelling in southern history, UT Austin excelling in Latin American history, Berkeley excelling in Asian/Pacific history, etc. It doesn’t mean you can’t take courses in evolutionary biology at JHU or African history at Ole Miss; there just aren’t as many courses and professors in those fields. </p>
<p>Put more simply, any of the top 50 or so universities would be perfectly fine for history; they simply have slightly different strengths. In any case, it’s irrelevant for this comparison; Hopkins is likely to have at least as many professors and courses in any given field as Colgate and likely a fair bit more.</p>