My last post tried to interpret the RAE data in a reasonable way, taking due account of a department's quality and depth. The results were:
Table 10. Top 20 UK History Departments
| RANK | DEPARTMENT |
|---|---|
| 1 | Oxford |
| 2 | Cambridge |
| 3 | Edinburgh |
| 4 | UCL |
| 5 | LSE |
| 6 | University of Warwick |
| 7 | University of Glasgow |
| 8 | St. Andrews |
| 9 | Birkbeck College (University of London) |
| 10 | University of Exeter |
| 11 | University of Manchester |
| 11 | University of Sheffield |
| 13 | University of Birmingham |
| 14 | University of York |
| 15 | Queen Mary (University of London) |
| 16 | University of Leeds |
| 17 | University of Liverpool |
| 18 | Royal Holloway (University of London) |
| 19 | University of Leicester |
| 20 | SOAS |
[Yes, there is a tie for number 11. The caveat about not taking the rankings too literally still applies].
Because the ranking is not really as fine-grained as it appears in an ordinal list, I also divided the departments into 'tiers' based on the raw data. They clustered in the following way:
ELITE HISTORY DEPARTMENTS ('World-Leading')
Oxford, Cambridge
OUTSTANDING HISTORY DEPARTMENTS ('Internationally Excellent')
Edinburgh, University College London (UCL), London School of Economics (LSE), Imperial College London*
VERY GOOD HISTORY DEPARTMENTS ('Recognized Internationally')
Warwick, Glasgow, St. Andrews, Birkbeck College (University of London)
GOOD HISTORY DEPARTMENTS ('Recognized Nationally')
Exeter, Manchester, Sheffield, Birmingham, York, Kent*, Essex*, Liverpool*
FIFTH TIER
Queen Mary (University of London), Leeds, Royal Holloway (University of London), Leicester, SOAS, Southampton*
[The departments with asterisks by their name were the handful of departments that were of high-quality but were sufficiently small to bias their ranking. So I've tried to mitigate that by placing them appropriately].
For an analysis of RAE data (with respect to philosophy departments), see Brian Weatherson's helpful discussion here. I haven't followed his method exactly, but if I had, the results would be little different from what I came up with in Tables 7 or 8. I think my assessment emphasizes size (and depth) more than his does, but that's simply a personal preference.
-----------
It goes without saying that this list should not necessarily be one's overriding conern when deciding where to go (I know it won't be for me). There are other critical factors (e.g. your relationship with your advisor, the amount of funding you receive, the quality of life, etc.) that are not accounted for in the Research Assessment Exercise (RAE). In addition, there might be a few faculty members who are world-leading in a specific area (Chinese history, say) but who do not belong to a department commensurate with their status in that field. One must decide if it makes sense to join them.
In the end, it's better not to become too obsessed with the numbers and rankings game (perhaps I already have). I saw this while I was a prospective philosophy graduate student. Everyone was always talking about the Philosophical Gourmet Report Rankings, and I even heard some students anguishing over whether they should attend university X which was ranked 7 over university Y which was ranked 6. This is silly. It ought to be a holistic process, and a set of rankings should be but one evaluative factor. This seems obvious, but it's surprising how often it's neglected in practice.
My assessment has simply been a way to provide myself with a general—but confident—understanding of how the various UK departments compare with one another, before I decide where to pursue my PhD. For, after all, I've never been a full-time student in a UK university, and I'm much more familiar with American institutions and departments.
Drop me a line if you have questions or comment below!