I was recently invited to fill out a reputational survey for English Ph.D. programs for U.S. News & World Report.

I agreed to do it, but I kept thinking -- is this really how we're doing it, in 2020? 1/
It's not that I'm opposed to assessing and evaluating information about graduate programs publicly. But asking department chairs and DGSes which departments they *think* are the best Ph.D. programs in the country is a terrible way to do it. 2/
A better way would involve much more specific data:

--size of faculty
--number of graduate students completing Ph.D.s
--placement data on graduate students in full-time jobs, both in and out of the academy
--opportunities for graduate research;
--teaching opportunities 3/
--responsiveness to changes in the profession
--access to interdisciplinary training & research (i.e., Environmental Humanities, Digital Humanities, etc.)
--evidence of real career preparation for a diverse range of humanities careers
--a supportive learning environment 4/
It's possible that if we collected this much more granular (and useful) data, the Ivy League schools, UC schools, and places like Duke, UVA & Michigan, would still come out on top. But there might be some surprises too!

Either way, the data would be much more *useful*. /End
I should have added an additional criterion:

--Funding packages. What percentage of students in the program are fully funded? How many years of support are guaranteed? Are there ways to extend support? Is it enough to live on in the area given cost of living?
You can follow @Electrostani.
Tip: mention @twtextapp on a Twitter thread with the keyword “unroll” to get a link to it.

Latest Threads Unrolled:

By continuing to use the site, you are consenting to the use of cookies as explained in our Cookie Policy to improve your experience.