dr. t

If you do go to the professor in charge, go to them saying that you have a heavy workload and are getting too many students. Let them figure out why. Otherwise, it won't go well.

IMO the exact opposite is true, which is why the SoP is so telling.

Hah. If someone's that politically inept, any Ivy/top10 program is going to eat them.

I tell this story often, but when I was reaching out, I was worried that my AW score (4.5) was low enough to merit a retake. The DGS paused for a second to think and then asked, "is that the one that's out of 6?"

Because an MTS suggests that you've been given training for a specific academic track, and an MDiv does not. But I would question how that student knew the degree name was a problem. Yes, both programs are flexible, but some are more flexible than others. It will depend on where the classes you want to take are located. I'm a medievalist with an MTS in the History of Christianity, and I spent almost all of my time down at the Yard. I think I took maybe 1 course at HDS proper per semester, if that. That kind of focus is much harder with the MDiv. There are definitely some socio-intellectual differences between the cohorts. Generally, MTS students are more interested in precision of thought and theoretical coherence, while MDivs had a greater interest in affect and feeling. That's not to say that either approach is wrong, or that one is better than the other, but they don't talk to each other super well. The number of times I was told with a frustrated sigh, "Ugh, you're such an MTS..." Finally, the thing to remember about spending time at Harvard is that the courses you take are not the point of the experience. Rather, it's the relationships you create with your professors, and, more importantly, with your peers. The your degree program and the classes you select determine in large part the type of social network you will build, and an MDiv network will have different utility than an MTS one.

This is every checkpoint of grad school:

The MAPSS is very different from the MAPH both in terms of environment and student outcomes. There's usually at least half tuition covered, and they have a solid placement rate both within Chicago and elsewhere. I've known many very nice MAPSS alums, including at least two in my current program. Of course, Chicago in general tends to breed a certain type of... how to put this nicely?... aggressive student, but those who did their undergraduates there are usually the worst offenders.

To be fair, you're also not responsible for paying that debt yet...

Withdrawing from the discussion by depicting it as irresolvable seems to be a form of surrender to me. That's usually the purpose of these forums, so that sort of reaction doesn't seem very out of line. And I've re-read your initial post after seeing this; it still looks like you're seeking advice. You got a discussion, it's just not the one you wanted. What conclusions do you draw from that?

Sure, but that's the reason you try harder, not surrender. Reading back through this thread, I'm even less sure of what you wanted from it than when we started.

I don't think you'll have much problems getting into a British MA because they exist to extract dollars from Americans. It's unlikely you'll get any financial support, however, because they exist to extract dollars from Americans

Do you think that's because you're very clear and everyone else is dumb, or that you really need to work on articulating what you're thinking to your audience? If we're having the same basic reactions as people you've explained your ideas to in person... This is fairly polite. You don't. You evaluate why they think that this thing that isn't your concern is your concern. By giving heavy credence to that rebuttal. If it's clear to you but not to them, it's your responsibility to bridge that gap. Profound? Certainly not. Relevance, however, is your burden to shoulder.

I believe this is what children these days refer to as a "sick burn".

It is unclear to me, as it was to @Sigaba, how this is an unusual approach. Indeed, the idea of "book as cultural artifact" is the foundation of Eisenstein's work in the late 1970s, and thus the entire field of the history of the book. Ann Blair and Jeffery Hamburger are more recent contributors to the discussion, one which has not only divested the book from its author but also made the case that the object is itself a historical agent.

One of the pieces of advice I received as I look ahead to the job market is to pay attention to the ways people who know my work describe it, and compare those descriptions of my work to how I conceive of it. You'll often find these differ substantially, even for people who have read multiple chapters of your dissertation. Exploring those differences is a very useful exercise.

Can you give a concrete example? You say 'method/perspective', but it sounds like the pushback you're getting is over the "so what". The broader problem is that no matter how confident you are in your own outlook, if the general reaction to what you're attempting is negative, you're going to have substantial problems on the job market where no one will wait around for the explanation. Plus, it sounds to me like the people you're talking to don't find your explanations satisfactory in any case. I should note that this can be more of a problem of framing and phrasing than of approach - it took me a solid hour of describing what I wanted to do for my dissertation to my adviser to have her go "ah, yes, that will go somewhere." When you strike on a description that resonates with others, it's important to remember and use it elsewhere.

Wrong question. As others have already suggested, the difficulty of such exams is highly variable even within the same institution. But language requirements don't exist to check a box; unlike your undergraduate, nothing in a doctoral program exists just to check a box. The question you need to ask is: will a year of German be enough to allow you access to the secondary scholarship you need in order to write an excellent dissertation?

So has HoS in general. That's why Truitt is so interesting!

You've read Truitt already, right?

That would seem to be a matter of scale rather than a qualitative difference. But the financial impact that tanked the academic market certainly impacted the museum and other institutional markets in equal degree. I would also note that your opinion on the intercompatibility of museum and PhD are not universal in this thread. Your enjoyment of graduate school is not the sum of the experience you have related here. You have also talked about graduate school "not being so serious" for you, and a lack of concern with finding a job which suggests you had a relatively easy time doing so. I have also enjoyed graduate school. That doesn't mean I'm willing to recommend the experience. Well, not yet anyway.

Is there specific data about art history? I've never seen it. Do you have some reason to believe that art history is exempt from trends common across the humanities? Do you think museums are somehow much more meritocratic than the professoriat? Why? Which is, of course, why your initial response to @Bronte1985 was to belittle their advice while implying they were a grumpy washed-up crybaby who couldn't hack it (Regardless of the outcome (I can guess...) ). Right. Strangely, I never said that.

Anecdotes aren't data. I don't have the statistics for art history specifically; few national organizations have dedicated the resources to exploring the scope of the problem. But a 2015 study of history placements surveyed 4,538 TT positions across all US universities. The study created a social network based on where universities placed their students, and then ranked the universities by network centrality. This ensured that a high-ranked program would either be one which placed a lot of students or placed a few students very well. (Link to study) The study concluded that a disproportionate number of jobs go to a few programs - 50% of professors come from 12 schools. 1233 (27%) TT positions are held by graduates of the top 5 programs (Harvard, Yale, UCBerk, Princeton, Stanford). 2856 (63%) TT positions are held by graduates of the top 20 programs. 894 (20%) of TT positions are held by graduates outside of the top 50 programs. The study finds the same trends for TT jobs in Computer Science and Business. And the study was conducted on data largely unaffected by more recent hiring trends. Job postings in history have cratered catastrophically and show no signs of recovery. I am happy that you enjoyed graduate school. When dispensing advice to a public forum, however, it is wise to examine whether or not your experiences are normative.

It's unwise to confuse possibility with probability. I understand that @Bronte1985's advice is disconcerting, but it's an accurate description of the academic job market across the humanities. Jobs, even relatively minor ones, go to graduates of elite programs (not actually equivalent to Ivies), with a couple scraps left for the rest. WHEN did they get their job? Are they recent graduates? Pre or post 2008? What jobs did they hold in between?

Agreed. There are two basic types of PhD program: those with a 5-7% acceptance rate, and those you shouldn't go to. UCL and KCL will probably be happy to take your money, but getting a funded offer from them will actually be harder than getting into Harvard. NYU is just as competitive as an Ivy, and neither BU nor BC are very good options either in terms of funding or job placements.

Unlikely. PhD coursework isn't really about the credits; it's about forming you as a scholar, and any department worth attending will think that their training program is necessary.