Best schools for a history major?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Michigan and Wisconsin have great history programs and you get the cross-disipline academic benefits as well as the big school/fun sports rah rah spirit benefits.

These are both great programs, but humanities and social science departments at R1 schools of this size generally focus their attention on their graduate students. As PP mentioned, you're better off at a smaller school and working closely with profs rather than with PhD students.

It depends on the kid. My husband was a history major at Mich. He had some world renowned profs that he got to know pretty well. 5 years later they wrote his recos for law school apps. Me? Never spoke to a prof there unless absolutely necessary.

Exactly correct. If the student is proactive, top rated departments are definitely an asset.

https://www.usnews.com/best-graduate-schools/top-humanities-schools/history-rankings

Michigan #2 in history, right behind Berkeley.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Small highly ranked universities

Yes. Where professors teach everything

Because they have to since they were unable to get employment with a National University. Not intended as a knock against teachers, but the real experts in each field are at National Universities, not at small schools.

Sometimes. Sometimes absolutely not. Employment in higher ed is much more random than you might think. And it doesn't take extraordinary depth and long years of research to teach a great intro course. It takes time, planning, effort, and the desire to connect with students. You don't need to be a top researcher or even a completed PhD to accomplish that.

- College prof

When you graduate with your PhD, there are usually only a small handful of tenure-track positions open up in your field at the time. The very top candidates are the ones who get those--just getting a professorship at all is extremely competitive. It's really more luck which openings happen to be there when you are on your job search. Most people do post-docs/visiting prof assignments before getting one. After you're on the tenure track, if you don't want to be moving all over the country repeatedly, rebuilding your lab, you 'bloom where you are planted' rather than seeking prestige.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Michigan and Wisconsin have great history programs and you get the cross-disipline academic benefits as well as the big school/fun sports rah rah spirit benefits.

These are both great programs, but humanities and social science departments at R1 schools of this size generally focus their attention on their graduate students. As PP mentioned, you're better off at a smaller school and working closely with profs rather than with PhD students.

It depends on the kid. My husband was a history major at Mich. He had some world renowned profs that he got to know pretty well. 5 years later they wrote his recos for law school apps. Me? Never spoke to a prof there unless absolutely necessary.

Exactly correct. If the student is proactive, top rated departments are definitely an asset.

https://www.usnews.com/best-graduate-schools/top-humanities-schools/history-rankings

Michigan #2 in history, right behind Berkeley.

The best for undergraduate will have significant research and writing projects, with faculty guidance. I would not rely on a graduate school ranking to give you insight into that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Small highly ranked universities

Yes. Where professors teach everything

Because they have to since they were unable to get employment with a National University. Not intended as a knock against teachers, but the real experts in each field are at National Universities, not at small schools.

I'm a prof at a R1 and I would love to teach at a good SLAC. Those jobs are hard to find.

[Anonymous]

Look at the feeder data - even if your kid doesn't go the PhD route, the data suggests strongly that these are high quality history undergrad departments. Adjusted for college size, the best programs (not surprisingly) are:
Vassar, Williams, Swarthmore, Yale and Reed

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Small highly ranked universities

Yes. Where professors teach everything

Because they have to since they were unable to get employment with a National University. Not intended as a knock against teachers, but the real experts in each field are at National Universities, not at small schools.

I'm a prof at a R1 and I would love to teach at a good SLAC. Those jobs are hard to find.

At which R1 university are you a prof ?

And how do you define "a good SLAC" ?

[Anonymous]

OP: Does your student have any type of career plan or target ? Law school ? History PhD ?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Small highly ranked universities

Yes. Where professors teach everything

Because they have to since they were unable to get employment with a National University. Not intended as a knock against teachers, but the real experts in each field are at National Universities, not at small schools.

Do you really need famous historians to teach undergrad classes? This fallacy that Chad & Susie need to be dealing with world-class historians/economists/psychologists on their way to a B.A. is causing a lot of people to spend money unnecessarily. You don’t need Nick Saban to teach you to throw a f’ing spiral. Grad school, great. But undergrad???

No, it is not necessary.

The problem at LACs (small schools) is the lack of professors in each department & the lack of breadth & depth of courses offered.

+100
Completely agree. Larger schools usually have far better, more in-depth history departments.

A strong history major is more about class discussions, research, writing, in-depth feedback than about breadth and depth of courses.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Small highly ranked universities

Yes. Where professors teach everything

Because they have to since they were unable to get employment with a National University. Not intended as a knock against teachers, but the real experts in each field are at National Universities, not at small schools.

I'm a prof at a R1 and I would love to teach at a good SLAC. Those jobs are hard to find.

At which R1 university are you a prof ?

And how do you define "a good SLAC" ?

I'm a professor. The implication here is that some schools are aspirational and some schools are not. The fact is that in many fields (not all) people who want to become professors don't have choices. They are lucky to receive even a single job offer, especially one that is tenure-track, and they have to focus on fitting in where they land and adjusting their professional expectations accordingly.

Moving around (again, in many fields) is extremely difficult at the assistant professor (before tenure) level and almost impossible at the associate (has tenure) or full (most senior) levels, unless you have superstar-level achievements in a specific sub-sub-sub-discipline for which there is an endowed professorship open. There simply are no jobs, because higher education as a field is both contracting and changing shape at the same time, and so quickly that the employment models have not kept up. Competition for any full-time position at all tends to be extreme.

The end result is that the vast majority of us teach where we earned tenure and cannot move. There are extraordinary researchers who have learned to be happy at small undergraduate colleges, born pedagogues who have made the best of large state universities, and every possible variation in between. But to assume that only "national universities" have good faculty (or that all of the faculty at "national universities" are good ones) is to simply not be apprised of the landscape of higher education.

BTW, this might all sound as if I personally am resentful. I am genuinely not. To me I have the best profession in the universe, and a pretty great actual job, too. But I cannot choose a new city, a different climate, or proximity to friends and family if I am to stay in this line of work. It is a major trade-off, and one that most of us make in order to pursue a career that we genuinely love.

More of us do a good job than you think. Be open to the institution that is truly the best fit for your child.

[Anonymous]

(P.S. I'm a professor but not the same one who posted as being at an R1.)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yale

Agree, but 3-5% acceptance rate isn't really realistic without any hooks.

Then op’s kid shouldn’t be studying history

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:MIT

Unironically MIT history and poly sci are extremely strong

History, poli sci, international affairs, etc. are often very strong at "tech" schools. A lot of people dismiss them without really investigating.
DP

Yep. Hopkins for one. And then they have SAIS for grad school.

Yeah Hopkins is also is a strong history program

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Small highly ranked universities

Yes. Where professors teach everything

Because they have to since they were unable to get employment with a National University. Not intended as a knock against teachers, but the real experts in each field are at National Universities, not at small schools.

Do you really need famous historians to teach undergrad classes? This fallacy that Chad & Susie need to be dealing with world-class historians/economists/psychologists on their way to a B.A. is causing a lot of people to spend money unnecessarily. You don’t need Nick Saban to teach you to throw a f’ing spiral. Grad school, great. But undergrad???

No, it is not necessary.

The problem at LACs (small schools) is the lack of professors in each department & the lack of breadth & depth of courses offered.

+100
Completely agree. Larger schools usually have far better, more in-depth history departments.

A strong history major is more about class discussions, research, writing, in-depth feedback than about breadth and depth of courses.

Not really. Limited options with respect to courses and teachers can affect a student's interest level and educational experience.

[Anonymous]

Ahh, it’s refreshing to hear about a young person planning to study history! So much hype for STEM, which is awesome…., but grateful for the liberal arts!

[Anonymous]

OP here. No idea on plan. Maybe law school, foreign service, sales, who knows.

He is a super charismatic kid. The type that makes connections where ever he goes. I have two other kids who are not like this. I'm not particularly worried about the history kid landing on his feet without a precise career path lined up.