<p>Warblers, in Anthropology, Michigan is #1. It has 4 or 5 peers, but UNC (or Duke for that matter) are not counted among them. Arizona, Cal, Chicago, Harvard and perhaps Penn are Michigan’s peers in Anthopology.</p>
<p>As for Classics, individually, Duke and UNC are each roughly equal to Michigan. Together, they are, as you aptly point out, one of the more formidable one-two punches in the field. But as an undergrad, I don’t think you are likely to find a better setting than Michigan for the study of the Classics.</p>
First, I am not sure the citing of those links entirely helps your point. In one of the two new sets of NRC rankings, Duke does better in anthropology (1-3) than Michigan (5-16). For another, Duke (unlike most of its peers) has no single anthropology department; it has two, which both complicates and somewhat weakens it in rankings that often consider size an advantage.</p>
<p>Second, I am a master’s student in archaeology who just successfully went through the graduate admissions process yet again for PhD programs. I’ve either attended, applied to, and/or interviewed at nearly all of these schools, read many of the relevant faculty publications, attended conferences with these people, etc. Bluntly put, I have a lot more knowledge of these departments to draw on than overzealous school spirit and rankings. </p>
<p>It is both ignorant and ill-advised to lump all of the fields of anthropology together when comparing schools, as almost no school is universally strong in all four subfields – or even offers all four. </p>
<p>For example, Chicago is almost universally considered #1 in anthropology by people who don’t really know anything about the school, but it quite frankly sucks for biological anthropology, one of the core fields of anthropology. The few offerings it does have are offered by a single professor (“Courses in physical anthropology, mainly directed towards evolutionary anthropology and primatology, are offered by Russell Tuttle.”).</p>
<p>For another example, compare the biological anthropology faculty at Michigan and Duke. Michigan has 5 bioanth professors. Duke has 11 tenured bioanthropology faculty, well over 30 total bioanthropology scholars (including a NAS member), a primate center with the largest and most diverse collection of primates anywhere outside Madagascar, and one of the largest fossil hominid/primate collections anywhere (~50% of all such finds in the world end up at Duke, regardless of the excavation team).</p>
<p>As for archaeology, it’s somewhat more difficult more quantify, but Fulbrights serve as a reasonably good measure – 8 in archaeology at Michigan, 11 at UNC. For comparison - 4 at Berkeley, 6 at Arizona, 3 at Chicago, and 2 at Harvard.</p>
<p>Michigan has long been a powerhouse primarily in sociocultural anthropology, and it does admittedly have a large edge over UNC in that area. I am skeptical that the difference would be noticeable at the undergraduate level, but that is getting outside my area of expertise.</p>
<p>Michigan is a peer of Duke and UNC, there is no question about this. The one thing that Michigan has over BOTH schools is that IT HAS NO DEPARTMENTAL WEAKNESSES. When you’re 18 years old and never sure where your education will take you, it’s nice to know you can’t make a bad choice of major at Michigan.</p>
<p>Is money a factor at all? When you have so many solid schools, any vast disparities in tuition costs is probably going to be one of the deciding factors.</p>
<p>Warblers, I was referring to the R-ranking, not the S-ranking. According to the S-Ranking, Chicago’s Anthropology department is not even ranked among the top 20 nationally while UC-Irvine and UC-Davis are. According to the R-Rankings, Harvard is #1, Chicago and Michigan are tied at #2 while Cal and Arizona are tied at #4, UCLA is #5 and Penn is #6. Those are in line with most rankings I have seen of Anthropology departments. </p>
<p>Listen, I am no expert on Anthropology, and I know you are. I also know that you are even handed and fair. But I also know enough to say that Michigan is second to none when it comes to the field of Anthropoligy. That is not to say that I think Michigan is significantly better than Duke or UNC in Anthropology. But from what I have seen, it would seem that Michigan is slightly better. Obviously, should the OP be purely interested in Biological Anthropology, Duke is clearly the place to be. </p>
<p>Maybe I am approaching this from the wrong angle. To me, at the undergraduate level, the quality of the overall department is more important than the quality of the specific sub-division. For example, the University of Minnesota kills in Macroeconomic Theory. I mean KILLS! We are talking better than Stanford and as good as Harvard and Princeton. A student looking to get a PhD in Macroeconomics will probably consider Minnesota as seriously as she/he would consider any other top Economics program. But at the undergraduate level, nobody in his/her right mind would choose Minnesota over Stanford, unless money were a significant factor. At the undergraduate level, I doubt there would be any difference between Michigan and UNC for either the Classics or Anthropology.</p>