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.
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.
Anonymous wrote:Yale
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
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.
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.
Way too many UGs in these programs so the quality is all over the place
Anonymous wrote:OP: The study of history can be done at almost any school. The smaller the school, the fewer history professors and fewer courses & specialties offered.
I was a history major at an LAC of over 2,000 students, but under 2,500 students. The faculty was small and the courses offered were basic and not very exciting to me. I wish that I had attended a large university as I was interested in much more than just US history and I wanted courses taught by different professors who could offer different perspectives. The study of history is easy--just requires reading and analytical thinking. In order to experience a better education than my small school offered, I often bought and read additional text books on my own.
Truthfully, the study of history can be self-taught using standard textbooks and additional books of interest to the student.
My best advice: Go to the university with the largest history dept. that you find. Small schools are too limiting. Also, consider double majoring. History and economics/business or history & a foreign language. Surround yourself with the brightest, most intelligent peers and professors that you can. Find an environment that works for you. If you prefer a small school setting, then examine the courses offered in your intended major.
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.
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???
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.
Anonymous wrote: Not sure why people say SLACs. You’ll end up with same professors for more than one class
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:MIT
Unironically MIT history and poly sci are extremely strong