poliscar

Ah! I stand corrected

Uh, in English Anne McClintock, Rob Nixon, and Caroline Levine have all left recently. The university faculty recently voted unanimously in a vote of non-confidence in the Board of Regents and the UW president, because tenure is being completely undermined. It's not rocket science; anyone who thinks that other faculty there (including those in Art History) aren't looking for a way out is pretty naive. And I'm not saying anything harsh about the program, really. It should be a great program; they have an excellent faculty and good funding.That being said, the political situation in Wisconsin should be enough to terrify any prospective grad student, regardless of how stellar a program is. Scott Walker & his cronies are actively undermining public education, and without drastic changes they'll absolutely gut the U Wisconsin system.

Don't do Wisconsin—they're absolutely bleeding faculty in the humanities. The English department has lost three of its most prominent faculty members—including the department chair—in just around a year. You'd best believe that the Art History faculty are planning their own exits.

Skim it, learn character names, plot-lines, details regarding meter & poetics, etc. You don't need to read in detail to succeed on the Lit GRE; the identification questions are generally quite shallow. That being said, I am a little puzzled as to why you're applying to English programs. Whether you feel the material is worthwhile or not, all of the programs you seem to be interested in will also require you take to graduate coursework in pre-modern lit. Princeton, for example, only allows you to opt out of a single period from Medieval - Modern lit. Likewise, the program at Berkeley has all PhD students take a graduate course on Shakespeare. If the cursory knowledge required by the GRE is potentially a deal-breaker for you, are you going to be ok with working with the material at a more advanced level? I also have to say that I think you're doing yourself a disfavour by avoiding Shakespeare/Milton/etc. To play the devil's advocate, I'd point out that Homi Bhabha has written on Milton. In the same vein, you'd be hard-pressed to avoid The Tempest in Postcolonial & Critical Race studies. There's also a lot of imporant recent scholarship that continues to draw on this work—Feisel Mohamed's Milton and the Post-Secular Present, for example, or Fred Moten's reading of Shakespeare's sonnets in In the Break. Whether you enjoy it or not is really beside the point, because you're going to have a hard time getting away from it, even if it isn't your primary research focus.

I know of a few successful & happy Canadians at Berkeley!

Have you thought about Northwestern at all? Laurie Shannon is stellar, and Kasey Evans' work would go nicely with your interest in Race & Ethnicity. Northwestern English is also one of the best places for Critical Race Theory in general, so you'd have a broader context there for your work.

In terms of Canadian schools, McGill's East Asian Studies department could be a good fit. Yuriko Furuhata does super stellar work on Japanese film and media.

ExponentialDecay is right, for sure. Speaking more broadly as well, I'd argue that Cultural Studies—as a field/approach/paradigm—is pretty deeply rooted in work done in the 80s-90s, specifically around Birmingham (Stuart Hall, Paul Gilroy, Angela McRobbie, etc) & the general "Cultural Turn". This is still very important work, but it doesn't have the same status as an ascendant paradigm (insert Raymond Williams emergent/dominant/residual joke here). The methods have been absorbed by various other fields, but Cultural Studies hasn't really come to constitute its own discipline. There was a point in time during which new departments & programs were emerging in the area, and hires were being made, but that's pretty far in the past now. Between new scholarly developments (German Media Theory & Media Archaeologies , reactions against Cultural Marxism, Latour & networks, "post-critical" reading practices, etc) and the subsumption of Cultural Studies by other disciplines, it has lost a fair amount of its initial impact. To be a little more blunt, when someone tells me their primary interest/field is Cultural Studies, my initial thought is somewhere along the lines of "how quaint." Now don't get me wrong, I really like some work that could be considered Cultural Studies (though I also have some theoretical/political bones to pick with a lot of it), but in general it doesn't exactly signify "cutting-edge" or "exciting" or even particularly relevant anymore. You can see that reflected in job postings, publications & journal issues, etc. Some of this comes down to fashion and trends, some of it to economic and political contractions, and a lot to legitimate academic debate and change. However you want to understand it though, it no longer signifies the way it might have in the past, so I'd be wary about hitching my cart.

No problem, also Berkeley requires all students to have an out-of-department committee member, so you could pull people from Cog Sci and Phil. I believe a recent PhD student worked with John Searle, for example.

Look at Joshua Gang at Berkeley—probably could also be a good place for you.

Don't do it. Or I should say, be super, super wary of "Cultural Studies" programs. If you can get into a top-notch interdisciplinary program like Berkeley/Stanford, or Brown's Modern Culture and Media, you'll be in good hands. However, you'll put yourself at a significant disadvantage otherwise. Cultural Studies is not something departments hire for, it's not a flourishing field, and it won't provide you with the disciplinary grounding required for employment. You would be much better off finding English/Literature programs where you would be able to do the work you want to do. That, or look at Media Studies, Art History, Film, etc. Really, really research programs and faculty, and you will likely be better off than if you were to attach yourself to as nebulous a field as Cultural Studies.

Yes! Also Kara Keeling at USC is also someone I should have mentioned.

Basically, MA programs are not given much weight in the US. Funding goes towards PhD programs, and often MA programs exist specifically to fund PhD programs. If you are interested at all in becoming an academic, you would be in a much better place to apply to funded PhD programs. In regards to concentration, you're more or less expected to go into all graduate programs, MA or PhD, with some sort of focus. That being said, your listed interests seem specific enough that you could formulate them as an area of research—say, "Transatlantic Black Modernism & Film" or something along those lines. They aren't expecting you to know what you'd want to write a thesis or dissertation on, and you'll have to take courses in various areas in all programs, but they want to know that you have some sort of idea about your potential location as a scholar. You mention that Columbia has a number of scholars with whom you're interested in working—take those scholars, figure out exactly what interests you about them, and find a way of synthesizing those interests into a sort of profile. You're interested in Négritude and film, for example; can you tie those two together? Do you want to look at their intersections? Likewise, does your interest in New Wave cinema tie to your American interests? Would you frame what you want to do as a comparative project situated between Anglophone and Francophone contexts? You can be interested in "a lot," as you say, and still find a way to connect a lot of it together. You should talk to a few of your professors, and ask them whether they feel like you should apply directly to PhD programs. Having taken some graduate coursework, you seem like you would be prepared. The publication in The New Inquiry also bodes well, since they tend to publish a fair amount of work by significant young scholars & academics. One thing I would consider, however, is where you stand in terms of language proficiency. If you want to work on Négritude and New Wave cinema, do you have the necessary French? All of that being said, you should also check out some other departments/scholars. In absolutely no case will Columbia be a safe bet. Maybe consider looking at Donna Jones (Berkeley), Fred Moten (UC Riverside), Daphne Brooks (Yale), Tavia Nyong'o and Malik Gaines (NYU), Glenda Carpio (Harvard), and Alexander Weheliye (Northwestern). Also look carefully at the citations in work you are inspired by; who is most often referenced? Would you want to work with any of those people?

Do not retake it. And ignore the poster suggesting that qualifying exams are related to the GRE. They are not related at all, in any way, shape, and form. The Subject Test is an arbitrary, standardized test, designed to make money for the ETS. Qualifying exams are purposeful, carefully designed examinations of material vital to your field. They involve consultation with your advisor and other faculty members, and require actual critical thinking & knowledge. The conflation of the two is one of the most misleading things I have ever encountered here.

Haven't applied, but I've considered it. Also have looked at a lot of grads of the program to try to get a feel for the work being done in it. If I recall correctly there was a poster here who ended up at MTL 1-2 years ago? There might be something to dig up in older threads. That being said, I think they accept like 2-3 people a year, so there will be less information available than other cases.

A bunch of places/people come to mind immediately for me. Duke could be a good fit, with Ranjana Khanna, but also someone like Nancy Armstrong. The same goes for Brown—Leela Gandhi is there, alongside a number of great Victorianists and Romanticists. UPenn has Jed Esty, as well as Ania Loomba; Berkeley has a ton of brilliant people, including recent hires such as Poloumi Saha and Joseph Lavery; Columbia is stellar, with Gauri Viswanathan, Spivak, Joseph Slaughter, Sharon Marcus, etc; Princeton has Simon Gikandi, Zahid Chaudhary—both of whom have worked on 19th century colonialism—as well as a ton of other stellar scholars (Esther Schor, Jeff Nunokawa, Rob Nixon...). Realistically, there are tons of schools with what you're looking for. I could dig deeper too and probably find suitable people at Rutgers, UCLA, Northwestern, and potentially UVa if Ian Baucom is taking grad students.

I think you really have to go in with a strong idea of the disciplinary intersections of what you want to do. Since work done in the program is so varied, this comes down to being able to articulate why Stanford is the best place for you in terms of advancing your research interests. So, for example, are there scholars in German/Anthropology/Theatre (just randomly selected fields) whose work you are interested in, and with whom you think you could successfully design a project? Would you be unable to do so in a Comparative Literature program, or in a department devoted to another specific field? Likewise, where does literature fit in your research? Are you interested in "non-traditional" approaches to literature, or approaches that aren't necessarily supported in "pure" literature departments? Furthermore, since you have to take eight (out of 16) courses in non-literature departments, where would you foresee yourself taking those courses? More or less, I think it's a matter of demonstrating that what you want to do as a scholar requires, or would deeply benefit, from the framework of the program. So in some ways it's a "very specific" type of candidate, but at the same time you could propose almost anything, provided that you outline a coherent and compelling case for its relevance to the program...

To be super blunt—do you want to be a teacher, or an academic? If you're more interested in teaching, you're probably best off not doing a PhD. This isn't because teaching isn't vital and valuable, but because that is not what a program like Northwestern is looking for in terms of applicants. Saying that you want to "share your love for literature in a classroom" is not going to get you anywhere, even if it's a noble sentiment. Schools (at least those in the same league as Northwestern) are looking for applicants who are serious about becoming academics, and are able to communicate that to the committee. They don't want you to have a project planned out (because that will change) but you should have a decent idea of your field/subfield, and be able to situate yourself in relation to relevant scholarship. No matter how much you love literature, that love is not indicative of your aptitude for research and academic work. The same goes for a love of teaching—it may be important, but it is not a significant factor in how a committee will view you. Obviously you don't want to say you hate teaching, but focusing on it as a career motive can be damaging, since it draws away from questions of field, methodology, and scholarly aptitude. A second thing to note, would that "intense research" doesn't end when you finish a doctorate. Even if you find yourself at a teaching intensive LAC, a book contract—and eventual book—is par for the course in terms of tenure. If you think you are more interested in teaching than you are in doing research, you should reconsider doing a PhD in English. At the most basic level, it's an academic field, and scholarship is the central source of employment and advancement.

I honestly don't think this is a very answerable question, at least at a departmental level. However, to start I would say that "Theory" has probably had more of an influence on Art History than History, so it would be rare to find an Art History graduate program that doesn't incorporate it at some level. All of the Ivies, for example, have some deeply theoretical faculty members, though it depends on sub-discipline. In some cases Medievalists, for example, tend to be a bit more "traditional"—though good theoretical work is happening in the field. All in all, I would hazard to say that of the most significant or leading schools in the field, there aren't any with departments I would identify as "anti-theory" or "theory-light." It would really just depend on your subfield and advisor. Since Art History programs are generally much smaller than History programs, you might—for example—find one with a deeply theoretical Early Modernist (or two), but more traditional or object-based 19th century scholars (not to isolate theory & object). There are also specific disciplinary questions to be aware of, that don't cleave easily into Theory/non-Theory. What is sometimes called the Social History of Art, for instance, tends to stem from a Marxist line of enquiry. In that case, you're looking at a break from earlier Formalist or Connoisseurship based approaches, in favour of the situation of objects in a broader social field. This might seem like a less theoretical approach, i.e. with more emphasis on archival research, historical contextualization, etc, but it is also often deeply theoretical—if less flashily so. TJ Clark (renowned Modernist, Social Historian of Art) tends to draw significantly from Debord, Benjamin, Foucault, and Marx—alongside a pretty heavy use of archival/primary material. Another point of contention might be the split between "Visual Culture" and "Art History," wherein very theoretical Art Historians often can be the most opposed to equally theoretical work in Visual Culture/Studies. Maybe an easy way of putting it—and this is still a simplification—is that things are divided across a number of variables. So you can have a theoretical formalist, or a non-theoretical (but also not necessarily historicist) formalist. Likewise, there are theoretical socio-historical scholars, and more anti-theoretical socio-historical scholars. And this also doesn't get into theoretical/methodological splits; a "theoretical" scholar might be very intently engaged with psychoanalysis but completely hostile to historical materialist approaches, etc. Based on this, I have trouble thinking of any department where there is a broad enough consensus for me to make statements about a program's antipathy or interest in theory. If you have a specific subfield, or you're interested in Art History programs, the best thing you can do is work from the ground up, and look at individual scholars, and department colloquia, syllabi, dissertations, etc. This should give you a good idea of where the department stands for you. Sorry for the evasive non-answer—hope this was marginally helpful.

German is pretty vital, because it's foundational for the discipline. That being said, do you have a specific geographic or national interest outside of English speaking countries? If so, that will influence your language requirements pretty significantly... It might turn out that you'd be best off with German and Russian, for example, or with French and Italian.

I agree with Betsy that one of the best ways to go about evaluating a scholar's methodology is simply reading their work. However, that's not always the best or most efficient way of putting together a larger picture. I tend to draw on a mixture of sources to get a feel for where a scholar is situated. For example, I'll generally look at where they publish in terms of journals, who their supervisor was, what their students have done, the sources they repeatedly use, the texts they put on syllabuses, etc. I find doing this helps me locate them in relation to other scholars/genealogies of scholarship. One thing I am wary of, however, is pigeonholing scholars via labels. I guess this is where I disagree with betsy303, because I find a lot of these terms to be far too slippery. Realistically, a "social art historian" being "anti-theory" doesn't make sense to me. I mean, I understand the "social history of art" as a deeply theoretical methodology via. Arnold Hauser & T.J. Clark, but also in relation to the Vienna School, Warburg, the Frankfurt School, and Meyer Schapiro. Use of "historical context" doesn't preclude "theory" at all, and "theory" is most often historical. If you have read Freud you know that psychoanalysis has its own models of history and the social, likewise with someone like Foucault. I think relying on a split between the two as a methodological distinction is naive at best.

Stanford is pretty good right now for Byzantine & Medieval work, as well as broader American Art History, but yeah, it's pretty iffy otherwise.

Christie's generally isn't very reputable, especially in academic contexts, because the commercial focus of its programs is considered to supersede academic rigour. While there are some decent faculty members there, this is more less true; they prepare you for the art market, not for other prospects. I'm not really sure how to answer your other questions though. An MA from UCL, SOAS, or the Courtauld is completely on par—if not superior—to comparable American programs. If you were to apply to American programs with a degree from one of these schools, they would probably be somewhat confused, and you would have to explain your reasoning quite carefully. I'd say it would be somewhat akin to applying for a job that you're overqualified for. The funny flip-side to this is that a degree from Christies might be more appropriate, based on your goals. Because it is more commercially focused, you could argue in your applications to American programs that you're looking for a more academic or scholarly program, after completing Christies' more market-centric degree. It seems like a more logical step than completing two similar MAs. I do wonder how much you know about American programs though. There are not many terminal MA programs, especially at top schools, and they're generally seen as profit centres for the more prestigious PhD stream. What do you hope to gain from a second masters, and why do you want to do it in the US? I'm having trouble extrapolating here towards some larger logic, because your goals seem somewhat confusing and contradictory to me without more context.

I don't think that's what anonymousbequest is saying at all. There is nothing undesirable about the job in question. What has changed is that a job that might have gone to a University of Kansas PhD at some point has now been given to a Harvard graduate, which means that the job pool is getting more and more competitive. Moreover, the examples you list are completely outdated; Elizabeth Broun received her doctorate in 1979. The job market has radically changed over the eight-year period since the financial bubble & recession, so reaching back 37 years is completely ludicrous. It's like me claiming that a PhD from the Catholic University of America will give me a chance to be the next Marjorie Perloff. In regards to Ivy League Schools, your sarcasm gets it completely wrong. I do not have an undergraduate degree from an Ivy League, or from an elite LAC. I received a very good education at a public school, but I will never be buoyed by the name of that institution. Because of this I've been forced to think & act very pragmatically. Every professor I spoke with told me to aim as high as possible when applying to graduate programs. This wasn't because they're myopic elitists, it's because they know the realities of the current job market at the moment, either through departmental hiring or through their own job searches. When it comes to applying for jobs, I will be happy with any tenure-track position, because as the number of candidates for these positions rapidly grows, actual TT openings are being cut left and right. I am sure some people are ok with working as adjuncts, or have the independent resources to do a PhD without needing it to lead to some form of stable employment. I am not one of those people, which is why I pay such close attention to the job market, candidate placement, and the shift towards adjunct labour. There is nothing elitist about this; if anything, I am more aware of the reality at hand because I come from a working-class background, and therefore need to think very hard about any academic decision I make. As a last note, those of us in this thread who are being more critical are not doing so out of malice. This has been said over and over. It is one thing to be critical of the cultural capital involved in the field in question, and quite another to be oblivious to it. There are programs I did not apply to, not because of any perceived scholarly inferiority, but because I couldn't justify it based on their placement records. No matter how much I agitate or protest, I don't have the ability to change the material conditions of academia. My political beliefs are more or less full fucking Communist, but I will be able to do more good (assuming academia has any political power) working from a position of employment, than I will if I'm precariously employed, or unemployed. I would rather push for that than live in some sort of fantasy land where good jobs are plentiful and the discipline is without hierarchy. Sorry if that rubs you the wrong way.

Or you have Columbia (Crary), Princeton (McCauley, Alsdorf, etc), Berkeley (Davis), Harvard (Lajer-Burcharth), etc... David Solkin at the Courtauld as well. I could probably go through other top schools and find suitble people . They've all worked on/supervised dissertations on British art, whether they're explicitly specialists or not. Moreover, you'd be able to put together a dissertation committee that makes sense (with Lit folk, Historians, etc). Your supervisor is there to ask good questions, help you push independent thought forward, not to be an absolute expert in what you're writing about. If anything, that can be overwhelming. The other thing is that, regardless of your geographical speciality, the chronological period is going to be what's important. Job postings are always 19th century before they're British/French/German, so you'll be competing against candidates in those fields.