<p>Which is better for polisci/history??</p>
<p>First, I don’t believe in undergrad rankings; they mean next to nothing. Grad program rankings matter because they affect your job. Second, UR has a highly rated poll sci program, for what that’s worth. Third, I don’t think the question is meaningful in comparing the two schools and why you should pick one. Both schools obviously offer those majors and both are obviously going to be good at them because both are good schools. I suggest you focus on the things you like and dislike about each - size, location, feel, etc. - and not worry about some essentially meaningless rankings. It’s not like one is terrible and one fantastic. There is no real way to differentiate.</p>
<p>If you are interested in both as majors, you should know that double majors are common at UR. The Rochester Curriculum encourages this.</p>
<p>Rochester is much more generous with financial aid than NYU over all majors. Just in case that matters to you.</p>
<p>Just for fair and unbiased </p>
<p>NRC Survey Quality Score Political Science</p>
<h1>4 NYU</h1>
<h1>22 Rochester</h1>
<p>NRC Survey Quality Score History</p>
<h1>9 NYU</h1>
<h1>30 Rochester</h1>
<p>That said, for these two subject, I might just agree with the previous two posters about whether the rankings matter, but since you asked the question, I thought that you should at least know what the surveys say about the respective departments</p>
<p>That’s for grad programs. Meaningless. In undergrad programs, UR and NYU are ranked about the same, in the top tier. UR is typically higher in poli sci, but the differences aren’t meaningful. If you want to assign any value to undergrad rankings, it would be by tier.</p>
<p>why not try looking at the professors and their work? you can easily access our course description module thing to look for specific classes and professors, or just look at the faculty list on the department page. you can also think about other polisci related activities you hope to do at the school and see which offers most opportunities. my roommate is poli sci and she’s interning at one of the city offices during the year. it might be a little tougher to get into one in nyc, but there might be more offices looking for interns. </p>
<p>i don’t know much about history, but a few of the public health courses is taught by dr. brown who’s under the history department and he’s amazing.</p>
<p>the polisci major is only 8 classes i believe, so almost all the students do a double major. (v. neuro, 19, and even music has minimum 16)</p>
<p>good luck!</p>
<p>I always tell people to look at the department web pages and see how the program’s approach fits them. The other stuff is really way down the list. I tell kids to pick a school based on 3 things: is it where you want to go, do they have your program and what is the cost.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It’s a survey of faculty quality as evaluated by their peers. It is not the whole story, but meaningless is a rather strong characterization.</p>
<p>I agree with you, but unfortunately some folks think they are experts without 1. stating what the source was for their evaluation 2. considering that in the real world, if I was a Ivy League grad looking at 2 kids applying for a job or fellowship or whatever, (and I am) I would have enough sense to recognize that how those kids DID in their respective programs at either NYU or or UofR might make a lot more difference to me than some magazine’s evaluation that year of which school they went to. Every year rankings shift. In four years those tiers she cares so much about might look quite different.</p>
<p>OK, it’s not meaningless; it’s just not important. </p>
<p>There is evidence that the grad school you attend factors materially into your compensation, particularly because academic tracks last a long time. The evidence about schools generally is that they matter less than people think, notably that it’s the ability of the person. For example, kids who get into more highly ranked schools but attend lower ranked schools end up with the same earnings. </p>
<p>If the idea is that “better” faculty means better education, then I’d disagree vehemently. Better is usually a short-hand for well-known, not for teaching ability. </p>
<p>(There is a version of this argument in the law school forum; given the high SAT and LSAT rates of certain schools, they are actually “underweighted” in adjustments of grades. I’m not a huge fan of that argument because it assumes test scores are a substantial determinant of legal ability and thus the whole things sounds a little “propter hoc ergo propter.”)</p>