<p>
</p>
<p>You really don’t get it, do you? Look, I’m not going to knock Vanderbilt; it’s a fine school with many talented and accomplished scholars on its faculty, though I would say its faculties as a whole are not as strong as Michigan’s, and most academics would agree. But as for the more general question, yes, I absolutely think it matters. I think one learns history better—and more importantly, perhaps, one acquires a finer appreciation for both the possibilities and limitations of historical scholarship and the range of possible pitfalls with arguments presented as based on historical “fact”—if one spends some time with people actually doing historical research and scholarship at the highest level. And that finer understanding and appreciation of history is an asset whether one works in the law, in government, or wherever. Same with anthropology. Same with any discipline in the humanities or social sciences. </p>
<p>There’s a reason top students from time immemorial have sought out academic quality, understood always to be predicated largely on the quality of an institution’s faculty. It’s why Plato sought out Socrates and studied at his feet. It’s why Aristotle in turn sought out Plato and studied at his feet. I fear US News and some on CC are bent on turning that relationship upside down, defining academic excellence by the SAT scores of the students and the lavishness of the expenditures while pooh-poohing the relevance of any discussion of faculty excellence to an overall evaluation of what an academic institution has to offer. Call me old-fashioned, but I think the faculty still matter, and as I said, I want my D to study with the top people in their respective fields.</p>