Lamantin

Questions that cannot be reasonably answered by the department's or the graduate school's website, including their FAQ sections, could be appropriate to direct to the DGS or, better yet, the department secretary. The questions you put in parentheses seem like the information typically found on the website and FAQ section. I imagine that if a department does respond, it will simply direct you to the department website. Questions about your fit with a potential adviser are best directed to that individual, and there are several places you can look to see how to write such a letter.
 
Now, for the meat of your question: I think it's inappropriate to direct those kinds of questions to schools or departments. They can't reasonably know because it's relative. You'll be judged in comparison to other applicants, and they haven't reviewed those applications. That doesn't mean you can't have an idea of what school you'd be competitive for based on previous years' statistics, and you should have a good sense of that based on conversations with your professors, but it won't spell your fate. Each department looks at applications holistically. That means that no one number or item will determine whether the department accepts you or not. You can overcome a low GPA by having outstanding letters of recommendation (no, don't provide extra letters. Do exactly as the application asks), a concise and focused statement of purpose, and well researched and well written writing sample (preferably one in the field you'd like to study, but no matter what, it should be your strongest) and a good verbal GRE score. These are all things you should strive for regardless of your GPA. A high GPA certainly won't be your trump for getting into grad school. As a side note, not all departments conduct interviews. Those that do will contact you to schedule one, not the other way around. 
 
More than that, I think those questions betray a lack of confidence on your part. Be sure to not be apologetic about your GPA; if needed, explain the circumstances, but you're there to research, and that should be the focus of your conversations. Frankly, I would surprised if any department sent a detailed response to your line of questioning. Walk it off, and focus on putting together an excellent application. 

I'd recommend doing three things before waiting for a response:
 
1. Copy your topic title without the question mark.
2. Paste it into your Google search bar.
3. Hit enter.
 
Edit: I did these three steps (since I feel bad just scolding people on here--it's not like I have 500+ posts). These are the first 5 schools that came up:
 
1. UChicago
2. Boston U
3. Penn
4. Columbia
5. Harvard

Actually grading in an MS in engineering is very similar to liberal arts or any other field. Just because a field is more focused on writing an arts than math doesn't mean professors magically give As to everyone. I'm in bioinformatics which is in the engineering department at my school and the coursework overlaps with engineering courses a lot. As or at least As and Bs are expected just like any other field.

Well I do not mean to be offensive but M.S. in Engineering grading is not like that of a Masters say in accounting or some type of liberal arts degree. The university that I am attending is in the top 50 in the nation. 

I am not being taken seriously on this forum.  I have brought shame to my family and the Manga/Anime Universe.  I did not deserve that Otaku themed bat mitzvah.  

Idk I mean I think the brand name school thing is over.  go to u of phoenix and save your money. 

Your rude attitude is completely unnecessary and insulting. I'm not stupid as you'd like to think. I know precisely what curation entails. I keep trying to point out to YOU however that this thread was intended to address exploring a range of possibilities and understanding how other jobs work so you know how to best consult someone else. You've done nothing this whole time but denigrate me and my intellect and follow it up with the idea that I don't know what I'm talking about when multiple people have pointed out getting experience in smaller places can be GREAT for getting a feel for the field. My expertise in museums comes from the fact that museum studies IS my degree.

You have repeatedly shown us why art history is perceived as elitist: apparently I can't POSSIBLY know anything about what I study because my PhD isn't in hand, I'm a potential embarassment because I'm not wealthy, I should expect other people to teach me how to write labels (not professors, but co-workers!), suggesting to learn other skills in case you aren't in the most elite bastion of museums is indicative that I don't understand how they work, and to top it all off my degree is "tedious", boring, and actually knowing how museums run, work, what their goals are, what my goals should be, etc means I am just ignorant of what "real" (read: what you DEEM worthy) curation is about. Using my example about STUDENTS failing to frame properly as indicative that I think all curators should frame things and so on. You've made wild leaps of assumptions about where I have worked and where Borden has worked and place yourself at the top. You've blatantly and intentionally twisted my meaning and words to make yourself right at every step "layouts and object placement as prep for an EXHIBITION BEING CURATED". And I'm tired of it. You're making things up to call me an idiot when I've done nothing here but suggest that learning about things besides curation can be helpful for figuring out what it is you DO want to know how to do. I never said "be able to do conservation" I said "know what conservators do."

I don't know why you think I pissed in your cereal but give it a rest already. If I didn't have extensive curatorial experience I wouldn't have been accepted, end of story. Honestly I was willing to let this die in peace but I am sick and tired of the backhanded insults. I don't get what your real issue is here because otherwise we might agree. Instead you've just taken your time to pick apart things I didn't actually say and insult me with them.

TakeruK's summary on this is very well written. Just adding that this would not be against policies at my current school, although it would have been at my past school (not reporting). 
 
It's well possible the graduate student came from a school with no reporting policy, and doesn't realize that's the policy at the current school? 
 
Perhaps instead of reporting them, you should give him/her a heads up?
 
Also, how does this effect you? Are you in the class? Did someone report it to you, and you feel like you should now do something about it?
 
With the description of "creepy train-wreck", it personally comes across to me like you're nosing into someone else's personal life. This isn't an obvious case of a TA taking advantage of a student in their class for grades/perks, what with it being an existing relationship and them living together. You assume they met in a previous class, but they could have just as easily met through mutual friends, through a hobby, or out around town. 

It's definitely NOT a firable offense everywhere. It's definitely OK at my school. It's OK at every other school I've been to. There is also no rule against professor-student relationships either.
 
At my school, the policy is that the TA is suggested (not required, I think) to inform the professor of the course about the potential conflict of interest due to the personal relationship. The TA and professor (and if necessary, the department) will then figure out how to preserve academic integrity. Usually, for large classes, this means that the TA will never mark an assignment of an undergrad that they are involved with. For small classes (with only 1 TA) this might mean the professor grades the undergrad-in-question's assignment, or the department will switch the TA to a different course.
 
In my opinion, I think the TA only needs to inform the professor that a personal relationship exists. The TA should not be forced to reveal which undergrad it is unless it is necessary to preserve academic integrity (as in above paragraph). 
 
I do not think the school or program has any right to prevent professors, graduate students, and undergraduate students from dating each other (also undergrad are also TAs in many places). The only right the school has is to prevent instances where a TA/prof unfairly grades a student because of a personal relationship. In the best case, the TA would never grade their SO's work, but if that is unavoidable, the school has not right to assume that because the personal relationship exists, that there will be something inappropriate happening. The school would have to prove that the TA is guilty of doing something wrong!
 
To answer the OP's questions:
 
1. Is it common? I would not say it's common in the sense that most graduate students will have a relationship with an undergrad. However, I think it is not rare at all. I think most graduate students will know of at least one graduate-undergraduate relationship. I know of at least 4 (including professor-student ones).
 
2. What kind of trouble can a grad student get into if it's not reported? Depends on the school's policy for not following their policy! But do you know for a fact that this isn't already reported privately? (Not questioning you, just clarifying). I think by default, the TA can really only get in trouble if the school can prove misconduct. I don't know what kind of penalties exist for something like not reporting a relationship (I don't think it should be high). 
 
3. Does this stuff ever get caught? I don't know how to answer this because I don't know of any of these kind of relationships that were not "kosher" (i.e. they were all reported when necessary and/or did not require reporting).
 
Finally, to everyone -- If you think it's creepy, then that's your own personal view. You don't have a right to judge them (even though as humans we tend to judge anyways). I'd advise to stay out of other people's personal lives (unless they are sharing all this with you). The only exception is if you know for a fact that academic dishonesty is occurring, then you should talk to someone!

Wow, I can't think of a college in the US that wouldn't consider this a firable offense. Even the most relaxed policies draw the line when you're talking about a situation where a TA is living with the person whose work she or he is evaluating.  And a 20 year age gap! I think it matters. It matters because this person is creepy as hell!
 
Then again, I think Patty Hearst was living with her TA, Steve Weed, when she was kidnapped by the Symbionese Liberation Army.. Then again, there wasn't a 20-year-age gap there.

To give another perspective, I have seen quite a few Art History and Fine Art students from different schools who have got only As and A-s and when I talk to them, I find them very average in their understanding of their subjects - which means that their grades are highly inflated. And this includes the crop from the Ivies.
 
To Francophile1, a letter grade has different meanings in different departments and also in different schools. So, you need to talk to your Advisor or Graduate Co-ordinator about it to get a perspective on this. Normally, B should not be too bad if you're making a GPA above 3.7.

Microfilm is intimately related to grad school. All those old periodicals, books, and rare materials you need for your thesis? They're on Microfilm (or worse, microfiche). One project for an archival research methods course had us go through microfilms page by page and write evaluations on our findings. I actually like microfilm because it forces you to really deal with the material, to see what is where and how it's arranged, rather than miss what might be important by using other search methods. At least at my university, microfilm also comes with free printing, which saves me lots of money. 
 
Embrace the microfilm. 

Because as I have repeatedly stated, I have been informed by a wide variety of professionals the pitfalls of paying for an MA completely.  (Also come on, UChi isn't even an Ivy school. Let's not kid ourselves here.)
 
Because as I am pointing out, and as Borden pointed out, your cases of financial feasibility are the outliers, and recommending the program BROADLY from the start when there are other, more feasible options available IS you expecting the vast majority of people to be able to do what you did. 
 
My lack of experience is going to put me in $0 more debt. I am criticizing any option which is presented above the free or considerably cheaper and equally good options to potential upcoming applicants. I've never been the only one:
 
 
 
 
      From the English forums:
 
 
 
 
  http://theprofessori...ant-guest-post/ I'll point out that it's unnecessary to act as if my advice is completely individualized simply because I vehemently rejected the MAPH as irresponsible for me financially when swagato tried to pitch it to me. All it takes is a quick search of this forum "MAPH" to run across dozens of other similar comments to mine.   Since the people having "moral objections" in my circles have been tenured professors with PhDs, I see nothing wrong with listening. Look if you're rolling in cash, literally nothing is stopping you but your pride. Everyone knows people with money have more options -- the advice of this forum tends to be for the median student who probably already has prior debt to consider and based on the BROADER accepted ideas about humanities funding.    As for the purpose of the thread, since the questions I did raise: are you prepared for the language requirements? do you do internships while taking coursework (apparently only after?) went unanswered...    My initial misunderstanding -- teaching is not tutoring, and I assumed you applied straight out of the gate -- is my own error.  (My own major was museum studies which meant my methods course was directly in art history. I've also taken museology methods based courses.)  

My undergraduate major is not in art history either... 
 
I still took a methods class because I was required to, and because I knew I wanted to go to grad school. If you have to apply during fall and winter, you still would have had plenty of time to take a methods class in the spring. I am sensing you probably didn't ask professors what would prepare you for the very thing you wanted to do. They probably could have told you why applying only to the Ivies was a bad gamble even for a perfect applicant.
 
I have no desire to rainbow-piss here. What I AM saying is that right now, today, at my university there was a rather large conference on-going wherein one of my professors live-tweeted and other uni-profs and guest speakers in academia criticized this very same model for all the reasons I've outlined. When an entire conference of professionals meets to say: "Hey this is really bad for our field, how can we stop this and/or fix it?" I am inclined to believe them that it is a problem. (They discussed: The danger of unfunded grad programs, the risky behavior in taking more students than can be funded, the need to downsize classes and fund more, the future of PhDs, the future of an influx of MAs and PhDs, balancing this, and emphasized strongly not to profit from students.) A wide variety of professionals don't simply talk because they're "paranoid". All my advisors didn't just up and decide "Paying money = bad." for no reason. 
 
I don't "hate" you. I think the program takes advantage of students and is risky in an undesirable way. Also given that funded and stipend-ed offers in the MA world do exist, I don't think MAPH is necessarily cheaper by any means. Everyone here is a person of hubris, we just try not to be victims of ourselves. 
 
Your qualitative pros are basically that they taught you things and you became a better scholar. Bluntly put: every graduate program should do that. Why choose MAPH over something else?

I also went to a large state school (as well as a smaller LAC) so the idea that a student would pay more to relearn things they should have already learned, could have studied in their own time, or are standard for learning at the graduate level is disconcerting to me. Art History Research methods is a required course at my school, and a minimum of two internships to graduate. 
 
I understand after the fact that the fact that getting the offer I did directly following my BA is almost unheard of (especially coming from a school which doesn't even make the top 100), but I think it's still fair to reject the commodification of the humanities degree because it takes advantage of people. I see absolutely zero difference between this scenario, and the for-profit BFA school problem. Students are warned away from going to for-profit art schools because the program cares about making money first, and everything else second. You may have great teachers and learn a lot at a for-profit art school, and you may even have a successful career afterwards, but you are still being used as a cash flow. The same seems to apply here: your desire to learn and better yourself as an applicant shouldn't be predicated on your ability to pay them for graduate studies. It's taking advantage of you, and as of right now, none of us can really determine the win/loss ratio happening right now. 
 
There are plenty of other MA programs available whose reputations don't center around being cash cows. Supporting these generalized cash funds as "good educational options" isn't just potentially mildly risky to the individual, it opens up space for the acceptance of this in the field, and the lowering of value placed on the students rather than the income they can bring in. 
 
I wish you all the absolute best, but I can't see supporting this program as a kindness to the future health of the field and have had various professors vehemently state much of the same - it's not good for us, or anyone. I think it would be wiser to choose a less expensive, or partially supported MA that may be less name brand than to encourage people to fork over money for a generalized MA and a maybe success. Applicants deserve to not be treated like income. 
 
 

 
 
The website states you need special permission to enroll in seminar courses. 
 
My critiques are:
 
1. A mere six internships isn't much - especially if your cohort is larger than say, ten. I say that as someone as (like I said) required to do two for my BA. I've done at least four. You should easily, especially in Chicago, be able to do far more than a single internship. 
 
2. That the program is explicitly for people unsure or unprepared and then wants to profit off of that is exactly why I object. Exploring your options should be free. Why pay money to prepare for uncertainty? If you want to obtain a PhD go to an Academic MA. If you don't, find one equally suitable (e.g. Museum Studies) which is more practically oriented. Both will have academic and/or professional aspects. I've never heard of a program that didn't at least touch upon both. 
 
3. Of course you have yet to see anything trump Chicago. You've been to what, three schools? Are we supposed to use a non-quantitative barometer here of your personal gut feeling for an important, educational and financial decision? You could (and many do) get equally great instruction and rigor elsewhere. 
 
4. While you may have had zero experience in art history (??? Why not take a few community college courses to at least test the waters??), the OP has a minor in it, and claims they went to a great school. So why pay so much money to attend MAPH? Other rejections aside, if they had truly believed they wanted to be a PhD a year ago, why not spend a year gaining experience and then reapply to full or partially funded MAs? If they thought they knew what they wanted then, why attend a program for people with zero prior experience, or no solid idea of what they want?
Plenty of people change their mind after an MA no matter what, but wouldn't it be ideal to make sure that choice cost you very little?

Congratulations, brazilianbuddy! That's certainly wonderful news. 
 
My one word of caution is that funding is a bit tenuous at Wisconsin. I say this as someone who was admitted to the MA program and offered funding, but ultimately went elsewhere. So be sure to be upfront with the department and your POI in particular about whatever concerns and hesitations you may have about funding. This isn't to detract from your acceptance, but to simply pass on the situation from last year's cycle. As an aside, it's highly doubtful that the Graduate School would turn down the recommendation of the department. 
 
Do you have a sense of with whom you'd like to study?

Just wanted to report that I am super excited for having received my first news... and a great one.
 
I received this email earlier today:
"Your application for admission to the Art History Graduate Program at the University of Wisconsin-Madison has been favorably reviewed by the Admissions Committee.  We have forwarded a recommendation to the Graduate School that you be accepted into the M.A. program."
 
Now I hope that the Graduate School will not go against the department's recommendation! I will not "fully" celebrate just yet.
 
After striking out last year, it certainly feels very good to receive such great news this early in the game.
 
I wish you all the same sort of news!

How important is math to art history? I wouldn't retake the GRE for a math score, though there's certainly room for improvement on the verbal score. Keep in mind that  the GRE won't get you in anywhere, it will only keep you out, but at scores likely much lower than this. 

I suggest concentrating on the more important aspects of of your application (e.g., statement, writing sample).

Don't discredit programs that have both MAs and PhDs. In some cases, as it is in my program, entrance into the PhD is often a formality upon completing the MA. These MAs can come with funding, too. But make sure that the MA feeds into the PhD (this may require reading between the lines), unlike programs such as Rutgers and UPenn, which distinctly separate the two degrees and offer absolutely no funding for the MA. 

UW Madison and UNC-Chapel Hill are good programs that would fit the bill, which I note only because I see it in your list. 

NYU IFA for the Masters, on the other hand, has a certain reputation for being a cashcow. I don't know if this is still the case, but it was the word in the last cycle. 

Questions that cannot be reasonably answered by the department's or the graduate school's website, including their FAQ sections, could be appropriate to direct to the DGS or, better yet, the department secretary. The questions you put in parentheses seem like the information typically found on the website and FAQ section. I imagine that if a department does respond, it will simply direct you to the department website. Questions about your fit with a potential adviser are best directed to that individual, and there are several places you can look to see how to write such a letter.
 
Now, for the meat of your question: I think it's inappropriate to direct those kinds of questions to schools or departments. They can't reasonably know because it's relative. You'll be judged in comparison to other applicants, and they haven't reviewed those applications. That doesn't mean you can't have an idea of what school you'd be competitive for based on previous years' statistics, and you should have a good sense of that based on conversations with your professors, but it won't spell your fate. Each department looks at applications holistically. That means that no one number or item will determine whether the department accepts you or not. You can overcome a low GPA by having outstanding letters of recommendation (no, don't provide extra letters. Do exactly as the application asks), a concise and focused statement of purpose, and well researched and well written writing sample (preferably one in the field you'd like to study, but no matter what, it should be your strongest) and a good verbal GRE score. These are all things you should strive for regardless of your GPA. A high GPA certainly won't be your trump for getting into grad school. As a side note, not all departments conduct interviews. Those that do will contact you to schedule one, not the other way around. 
 
More than that, I think those questions betray a lack of confidence on your part. Be sure to not be apologetic about your GPA; if needed, explain the circumstances, but you're there to research, and that should be the focus of your conversations. Frankly, I would surprised if any department sent a detailed response to your line of questioning. Walk it off, and focus on putting together an excellent application. 

Questions that cannot be reasonably answered by the department's or the graduate school's website, including their FAQ sections, could be appropriate to direct to the DGS or, better yet, the department secretary. The questions you put in parentheses seem like the information typically found on the website and FAQ section. I imagine that if a department does respond, it will simply direct you to the department website. Questions about your fit with a potential adviser are best directed to that individual, and there are several places you can look to see how to write such a letter.
 
Now, for the meat of your question: I think it's inappropriate to direct those kinds of questions to schools or departments. They can't reasonably know because it's relative. You'll be judged in comparison to other applicants, and they haven't reviewed those applications. That doesn't mean you can't have an idea of what school you'd be competitive for based on previous years' statistics, and you should have a good sense of that based on conversations with your professors, but it won't spell your fate. Each department looks at applications holistically. That means that no one number or item will determine whether the department accepts you or not. You can overcome a low GPA by having outstanding letters of recommendation (no, don't provide extra letters. Do exactly as the application asks), a concise and focused statement of purpose, and well researched and well written writing sample (preferably one in the field you'd like to study, but no matter what, it should be your strongest) and a good verbal GRE score. These are all things you should strive for regardless of your GPA. A high GPA certainly won't be your trump for getting into grad school. As a side note, not all departments conduct interviews. Those that do will contact you to schedule one, not the other way around. 
 
More than that, I think those questions betray a lack of confidence on your part. Be sure to not be apologetic about your GPA; if needed, explain the circumstances, but you're there to research, and that should be the focus of your conversations. Frankly, I would surprised if any department sent a detailed response to your line of questioning. Walk it off, and focus on putting together an excellent application. 

Questions that cannot be reasonably answered by the department's or the graduate school's website, including their FAQ sections, could be appropriate to direct to the DGS or, better yet, the department secretary. The questions you put in parentheses seem like the information typically found on the website and FAQ section. I imagine that if a department does respond, it will simply direct you to the department website. Questions about your fit with a potential adviser are best directed to that individual, and there are several places you can look to see how to write such a letter.
 
Now, for the meat of your question: I think it's inappropriate to direct those kinds of questions to schools or departments. They can't reasonably know because it's relative. You'll be judged in comparison to other applicants, and they haven't reviewed those applications. That doesn't mean you can't have an idea of what school you'd be competitive for based on previous years' statistics, and you should have a good sense of that based on conversations with your professors, but it won't spell your fate. Each department looks at applications holistically. That means that no one number or item will determine whether the department accepts you or not. You can overcome a low GPA by having outstanding letters of recommendation (no, don't provide extra letters. Do exactly as the application asks), a concise and focused statement of purpose, and well researched and well written writing sample (preferably one in the field you'd like to study, but no matter what, it should be your strongest) and a good verbal GRE score. These are all things you should strive for regardless of your GPA. A high GPA certainly won't be your trump for getting into grad school. As a side note, not all departments conduct interviews. Those that do will contact you to schedule one, not the other way around. 
 
More than that, I think those questions betray a lack of confidence on your part. Be sure to not be apologetic about your GPA; if needed, explain the circumstances, but you're there to research, and that should be the focus of your conversations. Frankly, I would surprised if any department sent a detailed response to your line of questioning. Walk it off, and focus on putting together an excellent application. 

Questions that cannot be reasonably answered by the department's or the graduate school's website, including their FAQ sections, could be appropriate to direct to the DGS or, better yet, the department secretary. The questions you put in parentheses seem like the information typically found on the website and FAQ section. I imagine that if a department does respond, it will simply direct you to the department website. Questions about your fit with a potential adviser are best directed to that individual, and there are several places you can look to see how to write such a letter.
 
Now, for the meat of your question: I think it's inappropriate to direct those kinds of questions to schools or departments. They can't reasonably know because it's relative. You'll be judged in comparison to other applicants, and they haven't reviewed those applications. That doesn't mean you can't have an idea of what school you'd be competitive for based on previous years' statistics, and you should have a good sense of that based on conversations with your professors, but it won't spell your fate. Each department looks at applications holistically. That means that no one number or item will determine whether the department accepts you or not. You can overcome a low GPA by having outstanding letters of recommendation (no, don't provide extra letters. Do exactly as the application asks), a concise and focused statement of purpose, and well researched and well written writing sample (preferably one in the field you'd like to study, but no matter what, it should be your strongest) and a good verbal GRE score. These are all things you should strive for regardless of your GPA. A high GPA certainly won't be your trump for getting into grad school. As a side note, not all departments conduct interviews. Those that do will contact you to schedule one, not the other way around. 
 
More than that, I think those questions betray a lack of confidence on your part. Be sure to not be apologetic about your GPA; if needed, explain the circumstances, but you're there to research, and that should be the focus of your conversations. Frankly, I would surprised if any department sent a detailed response to your line of questioning. Walk it off, and focus on putting together an excellent application. 

Let's say in the course of rallying yourself for PhD applications, you've stumbled across the abysmal job prospects, lack of stability, and geographic immobility of the professor life (read: likely adjunct). You've internalized this. You understand it's a gamble. But, in the back of your mind, you've started thinking about what opportunities the MA can bring you, and whether it might be a more employable degree. 
 
What would you say are the career options for someone with an MA in the field?

The advice is equivocal at best. Could you tell us which Ivy, which specialization? 5 year package? Stipend per year? How much teaching? Did you negotiate a better deal because you were admitted to a few programs? Please give us insight that we can use. Thank you.