Phdoobiedoobiedoo

I got my MA at GWU in Art History. I wrote my thesis on American Art. It was suggested to me before I went that the faculty there are somewhat disinterested in the students and I would agree with this statement. The Americanist when I was there, Bjelajac, is a nice man, but his focus within the field is on Freemasonry and you will hear about that ad nauseum in his classes. To the point that you will get frustrated and want to throw his hugely overpriced (he assigns his own books and structures class in such a way that you have to buy them) books at him because you are so sick of hearing about it. He gave one of my classmates crap for not using his book as a reference in a paper on an unrelated topic. Several other professors there have done the same. The woman who taught 19th century Europe, Robinson, also nice, lectured from notes that were so old they were yellow. She may have retired since then/be planning on it soon, but don't expect recent theory or publications to be included. They advertised themselves as closely connected to the museums in the area, but I only knew a couple of people who worked there, one of whom was in museum studies not art history. Their MA is structured so that you have to take one seminar in each area. Jacks, the Renaissance professor, is notoriously difficult, pissy, etc. If you are an older student who isn't bothered by teachers who sometimes deliberately try to make you feel/look stupid, then you'd be fine. He didn't bother me much, I thought he was pretty childish, but the majority of the students there do not like him and with good reason. Everyone loves Barbara von Barghahn, she teaches Baroque Art, and she is lovely. I don't know who is teaching in the area that you want to work on, as there have been some retirements/new hires since I went there. If you are interested in teaching, I would recommend a PhD program. If I had a do-over I would have gone straight to a PhD program from undergrad and saved some money. The area is fantastic though, I absolutely loved it, and all the museums are free which is awesome. I don't know much about Iowa, other than they used to kick ass for African Art. I don't even know if that is still true. But Dorothy Johnson is there, and she is amazing. I would go there (or just about anywhere) just to work with her. If I were given a choice between the two, I would choose Iowa no question. I'm not a fan of small towns, and I would still go with Iowa for quality of faculty, resources, etc. (Does GW cover insurance? Because when I was there they didn't and it was hugely expensive.)

I am cheeky too, on a massive scale, and I would go. I don't think it gives you an unfair advantage, to me it says that you are so interested in the field that you came to a local conference to hear the latest research done there, in addition to showing how interested you are in the program itself. If I were on the committee, I might be impressed by that. And later on, when you are looking for a job, believe me if someone has an 'in' (which might equate to you as an unfair advantage) you bet your Aunt Schmoozy they're gonna use it. They'd be a fool not to. If you don't go, you don't, but I don't think it would hurt at all unless you showed up drunk or disrupted the proceedings by volunteering as tribute while someone is presenting, etc. If they haven't decided on you yet, it might work in your favor, you never know. Good luck to you either way!

I wouldn't assume that an older professor isn't planning on retiring just because they tell you they aren't planning on it. I specifically asked my POI, who was an older professor, if they had plans to retire because I wanted to work with someone actively teaching and someone who would be there for the entirety of my time at XXX University. This person assured me that they would in fact be there and weren't retiring and that I was smart to check first. I sent my app, won a University Fellowship, and went to this school. TWO WEEKS after classes started she retired. Said she'd still teach and didn't, said she'd still be available and wasn't. I couldn't afford to reapply that first semester to other schools, so was kind of stuck. So I had no classes in my area within the field and was just kind of reading and teaching myself, exactly what I didn't want. I could have stayed home and done that with a library card. The following year at a meeting with her (about my upcoming candidacy exams and diss topic) in mid-November she told me that she was joining the Peace Corps and was leaving the country for an Eastern European backwater for 27 months. It would have been very helpful to have had this information a bit earlier, like when the Peace Corps apps were due in Aug/Sept. Again, the middle of November was too late to apply elsewhere (couldn't come up with the money for the apps/retaking expired GRE that late in the year). I realize this is an unusual situation, but I would advise avoiding older professors like the plague, as in if the thought that they might be retirement age occurs to you, move on, or at least make sure there are others who teach the same period/topic in case the older POI bows out. There were other professors at my school who taught the same geographic field, but in a completely different century and weren't interested in/qualified to work on my area. My field is one that usually only has one specialist at any given school. So in order to get the degree I want I have to leave and go to another school and essentially start all over again. I don't think there is anything wrong with working with a new Assoc Prof. There are several in my dept who are fantastic teachers. actively publishing quality stuff on a regular basis, and have described as "so and so is going to be huge in the field". Also, I find that a younger professor is often more on top of the most recent scholarship. Again, my situation is pretty much a one-off, but you are right to do your homework, and that includes inquiring about a POI's plans for the future. Good luck!

I called UMass Amherst today because, disgusted. Spoke with the grad office and was told that they are still making decisions, getting replies to offers and making additional decisions accordingly. The woman with whom I spoke was very nice and said what boiled down to: don't assume a rejection, that other people have been calling too, and that she will be pestering them to make up their minds already and finalize decisions/offers. She seemed like she wasn't bullshitting. Make of that what you will.

Have you by any chance heard anything from UMass yet?

I'm not sure if you are speaking about what I said, but I suspect you might be in part, so: I do not suggest that anyone should care about what faculty think about your life outside of school. However, one should be aware that they may be less than accommodating if they are informed that you can't participate in something or are unable to do something they would like you to do. That's not negative or pretentious, that's reality. Unlike a 9-5, there are some things that go on in a dept that go well past that hour, and it can be hard to juggle expectations.The easiest part of graduate school is the work, it's dealing with the people that is difficult. If I didn't think people who have kids can kick ass in grad school, then I wouldn't be attending. Of course I think a parent can be successful in a doctoral program, I am. And there are several people in my department who have families and are the better students in their class. And if you don't have kids, I wouldn't be so quick to criticize when people who do offer suggestions or their impressions of the experience.

The University of New Mexico doesn't require the GRE. Don't know what your field is, but if it is Latin American or Native American, it's one of the best programs. They don't have a ton of money to throw around, but it's not a failing program by any stretch of the imagination. Their students have been awarded national fellowships for diss research, and their graduates have secured faculty/museum positions. I have a young child, and it's true that people are not particularly amused that you have other commitments, even if your presence at certain events has no impact whatsoever on your studies. I have taken Women's Studies classes where the professors were just, meh, bring your kid to the guest lecture, no big deal. Art History people not so much. I have met 2 Art History professors at my current PhD program (not UNM) who are very understanding/tolerant/actually want to see my kid, the rest are impatient and sometimes hostile if I can't t.a. a class at night or some such. (Granted these same people are kind of assholes in general...) I don't expect anyone to be interested in me being a mom or in being anywhere near my kid, this is a separate existence, but I can't go to as many conferences, can't attend certain events past a particular time of the evening, etc. and that's something that has to be factored in. And if my faculty don't like it, well that's too bad. I'm not the first parent to be there, I won't be the last. Grad school with kids is a whole different ball game, and I would suggest that you might benefit from speaking with people who have some. If you find a program that you are particularly interested in, I would contact the grad coordinator or dept secretary/admin and ask if there are any grad students there who are parents with whom you can correspond. Feel free to pm me if you have any questions that maybe I could answer.

If you do go to OSU's WGSS, I would recommend taking classes with Guisela Latorre if you can (if she isn't already your POI). She is incredibly awesome, I can't recommend her enough.

I was accepted at UCSB previously for a PhD (already had a Master's) with full funding and received a letter of several pages in the mail that went into extensive detail about the funding package. I accepted as this school was my first choice, and told my other offers 'no'. Shortly after, I called UCSB to ask a question, had a conversation with the department assistant who at the end of our talk, said 'by the way, you know you're not getting funding right?" I said, uh what? I have a letter here right in front of me that says I did. She said, I knew we shouldn't have let that professor write the letters, and I knew when you accepted the offer so quickly that you probably thought you were funded." Yeah lady, I thought I was funded because you told me I was. I tried to do the whole, well guess what, it's your mistake so now you need to go find me some money. They came back with some miniscule amount, and how welcome would I be in a department when things started off that way? The offer was too low for me to afford attending anyway. So I had no recourse of any kind, they didn't apologize, and I had to wait a year to reapply elsewhere.

This is the agreement made with the Council of Graduate Students, and the schools that signed it, as pertaining to a funded offer: http://www.cgsnet.org/ckfinder/userfiles/files/CGS_Resolution.pdf

Move. Immediately. You think you're stressed now, wait til there's a crack baby living there. You owe them nothing. Clearly they don't give a rat's ass about your comfort on any level. Tell them you can't be in the middle of this drama, that you wanted one roommate, not two. If you can afford it live alone, even if in a studio, it's better than having to deal with roommates.

Harvard acceptance up.

Given the chance I would NOT have opted for a terminal Master's program and thought, meh, I'll apply somewhere else for my PhD when I am done at this awesome place. In my opinion, if your ultimate goal is a PhD, then you want to apply to PhD programs and not bother with MA programs at all (no matter how attractive they may be). It will save you a lot of time, money, and aggravation. Plus, a lot of places are far more likely to fund doctoral students as opposed to someone pursuing a Master's. I wouldn't be too distracted by rankings either (although some would dispute this, sinply my opinion). A program should be right for you individually, rankings are great but they don't take into account the specificity of what YOU want to work on and/or what is most important to you in a program. My Master's program was at a private, expensive school, my undergrad was at a public, state school and was a much better experience, I learned a lot more, had far more individual attention, unparalleled support from faculty with whom I still keep in touch and who were very invested in me as their student. This might not work for everyone, but if I had a do-over, that's what I would do. I know people who are on the job market now who attended Ivies, and their chief complaint is that no one prepared them for anything outside of the classroom as far as gaining employment. This might not be true of all of them, but with several I know it is a concern. One colleague didn't get the tenure track position that someone who attended a non-Ivy secured. Something to consider.

Wow, Art History is classist and egregious. (What's the dynamite for?)

Depending on what your plans are for the future, George Washington University has a terminal masters, as well as a Masters in Museum Studies, and some of the faculty have the in with the DC museums. GW also offers an advanced degree in American Studies, so the departments are linked. However, be aware that the Americanist at GW, Bjelajac, has a specialty in Freemasonry in Amer Art, so if you have an aversion to hearing about that over and over again...but he's really nice, laid back, and will let you work on whatever you want.

Ok already with this bullshit. Hal, you're just getting the beat down on here huh? I don't find anything that you have said over the top bothersome or take it personally, people make comments not everyone is going to like, I don't internalize them because I don't feel that they apply to me. I am confident as f*&k. You are certainly not the first person on here to say something remotely unpopular as far as I can tell. You haven't resorted to name calling, which I have seen several times.You said what you thought, and when people vehemently disagreed you acted the man and said you were sorry. And I don't think you need to apologize to anyone. Again. You do you, and never mind everybody else. Say what you have to say, then drop the mic and walk away.

If you are engaged in a debate about whether or not you are poor, you're not. People who are legit poor don't talk about it; and if they were going to you certainly wouldn't find them on a graduate school forum.

My university recently interviewed for a new faculty member, with whom the students met apart from other faculty. One of these applicants had worked with, and listed as references, the top four names in their field. The applicant went on to state that these individuals had done absolutely nothing for them while they were a student, and that because of this she was invested in being very hands-on with her own future students because when she was a student of these specialists she had little to no clue what was going on. I prefer the younger (and by younger I mean less than say 50) scholars who haven't achieved a level of success and/or notoriety that somehow translates into less investment in students. As far as those willing to put themselves out there, from the old guard, you forgot Leo Steinberg. He got a lot of grief for The Sexuality of Christ. And I'm confused Hal, because based on your previous comments you sound very conscious of race and ethnic absences in Art History scholars and the field in general, but I don't see any non-white scholars on that list of dissenters. My area isn't contemporary art, but I can easily think of many American scholars of color who are challenging the canon, as well as challenging other established academics in the field, in a concerted effort to change the way we look at art history. Please be aware, I am not attacking you, I am just not familiar enough with your area, as opposed to earlier centuries, to comment other than to say it seems weird.

I lived in Durham a while back and it was fine. I moved there from Chapel Hill after having a huge problem with a random stalker. Chapel Hill is supposed to be the epitome of small town loveliness, and if Durham is bad, well I never had a problem there, but did have one in the 'nice' town. Anywhere can be a bad place, no matter how great it is supposed to be...I have never met anyone who was anything but incredibly impressed by Duke and Duke graduates. Not sure who talked sh*t about Duke as compared to Columbia or Princeton, but that seems like pretty catty, nasty comments to make. Seems like someone is begrudging you your acceptance. Only insecure people say things like that. Duke is a great school, Durham (when I was there at least) was perfectly fine, I've never heard anyone say otherwise until now, and to be accepted there is fantastic. I would suggest maybe emailing the department and asking for a current grad's contact info to speak with them about the area as someone requested above. Even then, the decision should be yours and your alone. I wouldn't put much stock in what other people say about what is a good school or not, what is a bad place or not. It's about a school that fits your needs and interests. If you listen too closely to everyone else's negativity you'll never go anywhere. (And if we all got to choose where to pick up and place our grad school of choice I imagine it wouldn't always be where the school is actually located. I would like to deposit a western school in Boston right now.)

This isn't application related, but just Art History humor. http://laurajavier.com/folio/art-history-is-actually-hilarious.php

I disagree with the assumption that all programs want critical thinkers. There may be programs that encourage intellectual dissent but there are also many that enthusiastically embrace the status quo and churn out mini-me's. This isn't a numbers game. The professors are people with likes, foibles, particular points of view and interests just like everyone else. These things influence their decisions. I also disagree with the assumption that people with money and good grades are utterly lacking in imagination, I don't think affluence and creativity are mutually exclusive. I don't think that economic challenges breed superior creativity either. People are individuals. While there are any number of reasons to speculate about why student x was admitted, but not student y, sometimes it just comes down to whether or not the professor liked you when you met (if you did meet), or the professor preferred what you wrote in your SOP and the tone you used as opposed to another prospective student. Obviously people who apply to grad school are generally qualified to do the work, so it boils down to whether or not the professor(s) want to work with you. I wouldn't discount personal interactions. I am in a PhD program, where certain professors absolutely want their students to spit back exactly what the professor teaches them and departure from that is not encouraged. I think most, but not all, professors would love to have a student who is innovative and original. But these are academics. They have their insecurities just like everyone else, oftentimes more so. Just because you don't see it, doesn't mean it isn't there. The last thing they want is a student who is smarter or more innovative than they are.Make no mistake, while the majority of admitted students are outstanding on one level or another, the fact is that departments get money from the university based on how many asses they put in the seats. That's how it works where I am, and I don't think it's outside the realm of possibility that that is how it works elsewhere. So while it is agonizing to try to figure out if what you wrote in your SOP, or what paper you submitted was on par with Dickens, sometimes it's just a crap shoot and your magnificence or shortcomings have absolutely nothing to do with it. Which is why you have to try to not take it personally if you aren't accepted. Even though that's not easy to do.

Ohio State has an East Asian Studies program that is supposed to be very good. They put quite a few resources behind their students that focus on Asia, generally speaking. You might want to suggest that she check it out...

I mean that many of the faculty dislike each other on another level and sometimes it effects the students (who gets what, who presents where. etc.). They are really good at faking though, so you wouldn't notice from an interview weekend. Three faculty left over the summer, one for a better school, two because they couldn't stand the negative atmosphere. So if anyone who applied there is bummed because they didn't get in, perhaps it's not so lamentable but rather akin to dodging a bullet. There are profs there who are absolutely wonderful, but they aren't the ones running the show.

If it makes anyone feel the slightest bit better, the faculty tension at OSU is of EPIC proportion.

Thanks, that's a relief. We now return to our regular spazzing out...