Share this with your social networks Share Print this page Print Contact us Contact

Ranking of Comparative Literature Graduate Schools

Find An Online Program Now

The rankings below have been generated using the priorities you set. You can change your priorities or get rankings for a different field.

About the rankings »

The box plots in the "Rank" column show the uncertainty in each program's ranking. Learn more.
Hover over table headers to see more details.
Data sources and weights for each item are listed at the bottom of the page.
Better values are shown in green. Worse values are shown in red.
Learn more about the ranking algorithm.

« Previous 1 2 Next »

Your Ranking of Comparative Literature PhD Programs

Programs 1–30

Rank	Program	Regres Quality	Survey Quality	Student Outcomes	Jobs at Grad	Diversity	Students	Faculty	Student / Faculty
1-9	University of Maryland-College Park Comparative Literature	1-3	2-12	34-43	69%*	1-1	20	19	1.1
1-10	Brown University Comparative Literature	7-42	1-15	1-39	100%*	18-34	21	40	0.5
1-9	Harvard University Comparative Literature	2-9	6-17	1-21	73%	9-24	51	42	1.2
1-10	Stanford University Comparative Literature	2-9	1-13	1-25	84%	18-32	21	26	0.8
1-10	Princeton University Comparative Literature	1-20	1-7	1-20	65%	17-32	27	40	0.7
1-10	University of California-Berkeley Comparative Literature	2-13	1-9	8-30	64%	25-41	68	34	2.0
1-12	Purdue University-Main Campus Comparative Literature	3-43	1-11	5-24	73%	2-7	28	48	0.6
3-11	Duke University Literature	4-16	5-15	6-23	69%	3-12	49	36	1.4
2-11	New York University Comparative Literature	2-23	3-15	5-31	74%	3-11	60	29	2.1
5-13	University of Michigan-Ann Arbor Comparative Literature	6-23	14-26	7-24	59%	5-17	34	90	0.4
9-19	Emory University Comparative Literature	10-30	6-18	5-21	87%	24-40	37	23	1.6
7-22	Indiana University-Bloomington Comparative Literature	11-41	8-29	3-42	57%	6-19	28	72	0.4
10-22	University of Pennsylvania Comparative Literature and Literary Theory	5-21	3-16	10-32	62%	8-21	30	30	1.0
9-21	Yale University Comparative Literature	5-24	2-13	3-24	59%	33-43	26	29	0.9
11-22	Pennsylvania State University-Main Campus Comparative Literature	15-38	8-19	3-17	65%	20-37	28	51	0.5
Rank	Program	Regres Quality	Survey Quality	Student Outcomes	Jobs at Grad	Diversity	Students	Faculty	Student / Faculty
11-22	University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill Comparative Literature	12-35	17-33	21-38	72%	25-40	43	51	0.8
11-24	University of Chicago Comparative Literature	6-23	5-17	24-38	50%	44-45	43	52	0.8
11-26	Northwestern University Comparative Literary Studies	7-30	15-32	2-21	69%*	29-43	17	37	0.5
12-26	The University of Texas at Austin Comparative Literature	9-35	19-39	2-31	61%	26-43	47	57	0.8
14-30	Johns Hopkins University Humanities	9-39	5-17	3-24	69%*	28-43	23	14	1.6
15-29	University of California-Santa Cruz Literature	6-32	29-44	22-38	69%*	20-37	64	48	1.3
15-29	University of Washington-Seattle Campus Comparative Literature	26-43	22-40	11-31	71%	27-41	46	65	0.7
16-31	University of California-Los Angeles Comparative Literature	11-35	18-36	6-32	70%	18-33	52	23	2.3
16-30	University of California-San Diego Literature	15-41	40-46	40-44	89%	3-13	84	48	1.8
18-34	Cornell University Comparative Literature	5-22	21-39	5-28	64%	11-25	26	27	1.0
19-34	University of California-Davis Comparative Literature	12-39	14-26	1-14	50%	9-24	21	27	0.8
21-34	SUNY at Binghamton Comparative Literature	14-37	22-40	35-42	57%	7-19	78	40	1.9
20-34	Stony Brook University Comparative Literary and Cultural Studies	28-43	18-34	7-27	59%	5-18	36	37	1.0
22-37	University of Oregon Comparative Literature	15-42	12-30	14-41	50%	16-34	28	30	0.9
21-36	Washington University in St Louis Comparative Literature	11-38	19-39	2-31	62%	13-29	24	29	0.8

« Previous 1 2 Next »

Item Descriptions

Rank: A range indicating how this program ranked in 500 simulated rankings based on your priorities. Programs are sorted by their median rank. Learn more.
NRC regression-based quality measure (Regres Quality): The NRC's measurements of overall program quality are based on 20 key variables (19 in the humanities) such as GRE scores, student support and faculty publications. To calculate the regression-based quality measure, the relative importance, or weight, of a variable was set by the extent that it correlated with programs viewed most favorably by evaluators in each field. Learn more. Your weight = 3. Larger values are better. (Source: NRC, 2010)
NRC survey-based quality measure (Survey Quality): The NRC's measurements of overall program quality are based on 20 key variables (19 in the humanities) such as GRE scores, student support and faculty publications. To calculate the survey-based quality measure, evaluators in each field identified the variables that they considered to be the most important indicators of program quality. Learn more. Your weight = 5. Larger values are better. (Source: NRC, 2010)
Student support and outcomes (Student Outcomes): This variable is a composite of other measures of student support and outcomes, including 6-year or 8-year graduation rates (for non-humanities programs and humanities programs, respectively), time to degree, job placement within academia, percentage of first-year students with full financial support, and whether a program collects data about the employment outcomes of its graduates. The relative importance of these variables was determined by the direct assessments of some 50 faculty in each field. Your weight = 2. Larger values are better. (Source: NRC, 2010)
Placement Rate (Jobs at Grad): This variable shows the percentage of students with definite plans at graduation (either a job or a postdoctoral position), based on data from the student questionnaire. Your weight = 2. Larger values are better. (Source: SED, 2000–2004)
Diversity in the academic environment (Diversity): This variable shows a composite measure of diversity generated by the National Research Council. It includes data on percent of faculty and students from underrepresented minorities, percent of female faculty and students, and percent of international faculty and students. The relative importance of these variables was determined by the direct assessments of some 50 faculty in each field. Your weight = 1. Larger values are better. (Source: NRC, 2010)
Total students (Students): This variable shows the total number of doctoral students enrolled in the program in fall 2005 as reported in the program questionnaire. Your weight = 2. Larger values are better. (Source: NRC, 2010)
Total Faculty (Faculty): This variable reports the total number of faculty participating in the program. Your weight = 2. Larger values are better. (Source: NRC, 2010)
Grad Student / Faculty Ratio (Student / Faculty): This variable shows the number of graduate students per faculty member in the program. Your weight = -1. Smaller values are better. (Source: NRC, 2010)

Data Sources

Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System: IPEDS is an annual, comprehensive set of surveys of all colleges and universities in the United States. The surveys are conducted by the National Center for Education Statistics. Learn more
National Research Council: The National Research Council conducts periodic assessments of doctoral programs in the United States. Our data comes from the most recent assessment in 2010. Learn more
Survey of Earned Doctorates: The NSF/NIH/NEH/USED/USDA/NASA Survey of Earned Doctorates is an annual survey of all new recipients of doctorates from US universities at graduation. The average of the response rates for the 2000–2004 surveys was 92%. Learn more
Survey of Graduate Students and Postdoctorates in Science and Engineering: The Survey is an annual assessment of the number and characteristics of graduate students and postdoctoral researchers in science, engineering, and health-related fields It is conducted by the National Science Foundation. Learn more

* Value is missing. The value shown is based on the average for other programs in the same field. Learn more.

The graduate school rankings on PhDs.org have been made possible by grants from The Alfred P. Sloan Foundation and The Burroughs Wellcome Fund.
The National Postdoctoral Association and The Center for Science and the Media have served as the project's fiscal sponsors.