papelpicado

Oh hello, gradcafe! 
 
I've never posted anything, as far as I can remember, to this maelstrom of angst, nailbiting, and sniping, mostly because I'm not much of an angster, nailbiter (nvm I bite my nails like crazy) and I'm definitely not a sniper.
 
But I did want to contribute a narrative of my own graduate school journey to those of you out there you may find parallels or echoes with your own situation currently, if it be of any help to you.
 
I'm currently a MAPH student and I love it. Let me describe to you how I got here. 
 
I applied to five PhD programs last year, all Ivy League/University of California. Then something shocking happened: I got rejected from all of them. Except for a weird glimmer of hope that needled me and inspired resentment: an unfunded acceptance into the University of Chicago's MAPH program. 
 
Oh, where did I go wrong? I had an excellent GPA, had killed all of my art history classes in undergrad, and taught AP Art History to high schoolers for two years. I had attended an incredibly well ranked university, and graduated Magna Cum Laude. Surely I was ultimately qualified as anyone to be admitted? Well - no. I had been a printmaking/costume design major / art history minor in undergrad. I had no graduate degree. And no museum experience. None of these things are necessarily bars to being admitted to a PhD program, but combined with whatever the hell I wrote in my LOI, etc, it didn't cut it. So I went to visit Chicago for prospective student days.
 
I returned still skeptical of the program and what it would be for me. This is where the scary thing hit me: you cannot predict your own experience based on others'. So I thought, what the hell, I am not happy where I am, I might as well go. This is where you'll probably ask me about finances. I'm going to leave that discussion at this: I decided that the financial risk would be worth it. Obviously it's a huge risk. The amount of money that MAPH costs could buy you a nice parcel of land somewhere in Oregon and the supplies to build a yurt and maybe a goat or two. I thought about doing that. It was really appealing.
 
Something else sort of troubling happened when I was deciding whether or not to go to MAPH. I had wanted to specialize (like everyone and their mom) in modern and contemporary art. I found out during campus days that my POI was going to be on leave 2/3 quarters of the year. Between campus days and the start of the school year, the other modcon professor I was interested in working with also left. But I was also interested in Latin American art (precolumbian, colonial, modern, contemporary - the whole gamut) but had no background in it. There is a really wonderful Latin Americanist on the faculty, and I decided perhaps I could work with her, maybe. 

So I came to MAPH in September, skeptical and afraid. Most of the people in the program, it seemed, were there for English, Creative Writing, or Philosophy - about 1/9 of us are there for art history (or cultural policy). But I discovered something amazing - many people actually applied *directly to MAPH*, drawn by the program's reputation for sharpening writing and analytical thinking. At first I scoffed at them. Now I scoff at me. 
 
As soon as I started my art history coursework, I realized that I had made the right choice for me. For someone who loves art history and can be inspired academically by many different subfields, coming to the University of Chicago and having the ability to take courses with these amazing professors while a very supportive program works with you at every step of the way to help you make the most informed decisions about what to do with your life was about the best thing I could do, I believe.
 
Two-thirds of the way through MAPH, I have a much better idea of how to structure an argument, a much better idea of the different possibilities for careers in art history, and a much better understanding of how graduate school works. I have many friends in the PhD program who I love, and I can see from being in classes with them how unprepared I was to think at the level demanded by the University of Chicago. I'm working towards that level. 
I also learned - in case this wasn't common knowledge to many here - that having an MA is incredibly helpful if not required for getting into a PhD program. Obviously many people go straight in with a BA, but especially if your BA isn't in Art History it might be really difficult to get in. Whether this almost-necessity of a MA is a function of how qualified candidates actually are or is indicative of the larger over-credentialing and subsequent credential inflation in art history particularly is uncertain, but especially at the Ivy League level it seems to be a thing.
 
Applying to PhDs, i was convinced that I wanted to be either a professor or a museum curator. Mostly a professor. Now I'm much more conscious of the difficulties of the field (somehow hearing about the horrors of the job market from my successful professor was much more impactful than reading the horror stories on the Chronicle of Higher Ed.), as well as the possibilities that are open to people with Master's degrees. I'm also much more familiar with things like paper workshops, job talks, departmental politics and tenure negotiations than I was before. Ultimately, though I do not yet have a job lined up for after I graduate (I've been applying to various opportunities, many of which have actually been forwarded to me by people at the University of Chicago, not that I'm not doing my own independent hunting), I feel like I have already benefitted very much from my experience in MAPH. 
 
And just so you know - neither I, nor other users (as far as I know) are being paid by the program to promote it!!! (Swagato - PM me if you know differently - I'd love some cash right now ) We just believe in it so firmly that we feel compelled to testify. And as for the argument about the money, is it worth it, etc - so many people say that getting an education in the humanities is not an effective way to get a job. Do you really take those people seriously if you're applying for PhD programs in art history? No. If you know you can make it in the end, and think that whatever you're studying will not only launch you into a career in the field of your choice, but will also give you a sharper mind and develop skills in a way which you could not do on your own, then making the choice to follow that path seems like a just fine decision. It did to me, and I'm happy. As with anything, you get out of it what you put in to it.

So! If you've recently been accepted to MAPH, or if you are thinking about applying in the future, I hope this was helpful. If there are any other questions I can answer, I'd be glad to, just PM me. And if you're coming for campus days, I'll see you there and I'd be more than happy to talk to you! I love art history people. 
papelpicado
 
 
 
 

If you're really sincere about finding out more about Chicago or MAPH - please PM me, with any sort of question. I feel like this conversation has turned so negative (gradcafe at its true form) that this rehashing of points is really not productive. I really don't have anything else to say about the whole unfunded MA conversation which has happened so many times on the Art History / Humanities forums which people clearly feel quite strongly about in totally legitimate ways. 
 
If you're coming for visit days in April, let me know, I look forward to meeting you! 

In one word: no. For me, the most important aspect was the opportunity for intellectual growth that coming to the University of Chicago would give me. And if you think it sounds like I'm drinking the UofC's maroon Kool-Aid here, let me tell you: I was so deeply skeptical when I got here that it would be anything nearly as rigorous as they said it would be, that my socks were knocked off my feet by how incredibly smart everyone is here - and I don't just mean that they know things, but there is a whole different way of critical thinking that goes on here that is a mile deeper than anything I was exposed to even at an undergraduate institution ranked only a few spots below the UofC (not that those rankings mean a whole lot anyway). I'm absolutely certain that most "cheaper" options do not provide this. 
 
Naturally I'd rather that I didn't have to pay quite so much for it, but the idea that simply because you have to pay for it means that somehow it isn't worth it is deeply problematic. Just because you personally feel that it is not feasible for you, does not mean that it is not a solid option for others, and I hope that people reading this will be able to relate my narrative and subjective experience to their own, and weigh how well the two mesh when thinking about attending MAPH. 
 
These "cheaper" options are also great options especially if you want a traditionally strict art-historical training instead of a rigorous interdisciplinary intellectual atmosphere. If your work as a scholar focuses on more traditional ways of doing art history - like, for instance, pure iconography, formal analysis, and biographical interpretation - there might be better fits than the UofC. I would also say to anyone applying that knowing your methodology of choice is a good idea - I didn't when I applied! Find professors who work with your methodology. If you've done all this and you know methodologically who you would work well with, great, you might be more prepared to enter a PhD program than I was. But had I not done MAPH, I would never have known that I needed to know this. MAPH isn't just about expanding your background of coursework, it's about changing the way you think about scholarship and how you work as a scholar.
My advice to people who haven't applied yet: do include some MA programs in your portfolio, even if you think you are prepared for a PhD, because you may not be, and you may not know it. Do your own research on what program you think is the best fit for you. If you really want to become better at understanding and articulating and destabilizing complex arguments, MAPH is a great place. 

Personally, I do not know if I'm going on to do a PhD yet, because of the enormous time commitment and the complete possibility of doing several of the things I want to do with myself without one - doing research, writing books, working in a museum. Before MAPH, I was totally convinced, but now I'm aware of other options, I am content where I am for now I'll move on when I need to. Don't feel pressured (even internally) to jump in to a PhD just because it seems like the next logical step. 
 
Naturally, Swagato's points about the program are very valid. Thanks as always! 

IMHO, these are rather bizarre questions to ask *now* given your professed stance against the program. Perhaps these might have been issues to have clarified *prior* to mounting blanket offensives against a particular program? Anyway...
 
1. What you seem not to comprehend is that there is little distinction between MAPH and the regular PhD. In fact, aside from the one Core seminar course, students are able to take any graduate courses, anywhere in the division of the humanities. Thus, I routinely found myself in PhD seminars, mixed graduate/undergraduate courses, or introductory graduate/undergraduate lecture courses. So, as in any department, the number of "repeat" faculty members will vary from year to year. In my year, I had two faculty members with whom I took two courses each. 
 
2. How do you get to know any faculty member with whom you don't take classes? You talk to them. Just like in any graduate program.
 
3. What do you do with anyone who's on leave? You establish contact and build a relationship. If they're able to meet, you meet.
 
4. Yes, there are MAPH events of all stripes spread throughout the entire program duration. Career-advancement (academic/non-academic), panel talks, faculty talks, a weekly social hour allowing for mingling between students and faculty, etc.
 
5. You can obviously access the full resources of Chicago, since you are a graduate student. So, yes, you can access departmental resources. I don't know if you mean the kind of departmental meetings that set agenda or clarify matters for PhD students and the PhD program--if so, then no, since you are not a PhD student. 
 
6. The initial advisor is assigned just like it is in most PhD programs. After that, you choose your own. 
 
7. How on earth is it even remotely relevant to **the program** whether or not someone gets along with their preceptor? Isn't that wholly upon the individual to sort things out?
 
8. Yes, Preceptors are assigned based on research interests. It wouldn't really make sense not to do so.
 
9. Your faculty advisor directs your whole thesis from beginning to end. You can, obviously, approach anybody else--whether PhD student or faculty--for advice or whatever.
 
Once again you insist on comparing MAPH to programs explicitly dedicated to a particular approach, even though MAPH is designed to be different--it is designed to appeal to those with more interdisciplinary approaches. I don't really know how to state this any more bluntly. Furthermore, you're perfectly welcome to audit any language courses you wish--nothing restricts you from NOT pursuing language learning. It is true that the program is designed so that PhD applications are best completed the year after graduation, which is actually an advantage to my mind. Again, personal preferences will differ. Again, if the program isn't FOR YOU, that is no demerit of the program itself.
 
You may be perplexed as to why I am so stubborn in defending the program. It's because on the one hand, I experienced it (and you didn't), and so know first-hand what it does and what it doesn't. On the other hand, almost every one of your criticisms have to do with personal preferences rather than the program's merits or demerits. In fact, the only point you've made that counts as a demerit against the program itself is its unusual timeframe, which encourages PhD applications a year afterward. Everything else either stems from your lack of knowledge about the program (witness all these questions you ask *after* your criticisms), or from how you believe programs should work (necessarily funded, etc. etc.)

I did the MAPH program two years ago and made my decision today to accept an offer from my top choice. BEST DAY EVER until I came across this thread. I hesitated initially to respond, but I have to admit - especially on a day like today - without MAPH, I wouldn't have been accepted into a PhD program, let alone one of the best places to pursue research in my field. 
 
If you can't afford it, then that's that. I don't want to waste your time. It is a very expensive program. So was my undergrad. I'm sure at one point, for my parents, it felt like driving a luxury car off a cliff every year. BUT if it IS one of the few options you have, and you can afford it (or you handle the pressure of having student loans like a lot of people in my cohort did), u of c has a lot to offer, but ultimately with any program, it is up to you to make best of it. Generic advice I know, but really simply put, no one program does it all, and for me, knowing how much it cost, I was really determined from the beginning to get my money's worth. 
 
I went to an ivy league school for undergrad with a major in art history, senior thesis with a great professor, and scored 1590 on the GRE, so I was really disappointed the first time around. But looking back, there was no chance in hell I would have gotten in. I didn't have a developed research focus and wasn't well-read in terms of current literature in my field beyond readings from undergrad classes, and at the very least, I was off to a pretty good start after a year at U of C. The core class fall term was hella challenging, but I survived it and got an A, and most of the seminars I took, I was the only MAPH student which made me feel out of place to join in on the discussions, but I just had to get over that. I found what really helped me was being proactive in reaching out for advice and feedback from professors and students, and I plan on continuing that as a PhD student. In choosing my thesis advisor at U of C, I was really lucky to have been able to work one-on-one with a professor whom I respect very much, and she was incredibly supportive during the entire application cycle afterwards - both in encouraging me but also letting me know the areas I needed to improve on. Some of my peers had to push themselves a bit harder to find that. My preceptor was also the best human being in the world and a huge part of my support system even after I left the program. 
 
By the time I applied (a year after the MA), I had a better statement, three new letters, museum internships, improved proficiency in my second foreign language, and stronger drive to pursue a PhD. From my precept group, one friend applied right after MAPH and got into one of the most best programs for his field of study. It was different for others, and a lot of them simply realized they didn't want to be in academia and got jobs (working at a bank, teaching at a community college, joining an education dept at a museum, founded a curatorial collective etc). So, no it might not be a traditional art history program, but it worked for me. 

m-ttl, I don't really understand why you seem to have such a problem with people doing programs which work for them, to be completely frank. I'm sure you personally are an incredible, exceptional scholar - but for those of use who aren't aware how far we have to go to be at your level, a program like MAPH is also helpful. It's also helpful in building humility and the ability to see from others' points of view without necessarily agreeing with them. 

Also, it should be reiterated - neither Swagato nor I were art history majors in undergrad. I took a bunch of coursework, but of course most of the people who applied in my pool had more. And the stuff I "should have already learned" - I'm sorry, this just came off as VERY rude and condescending. Like many people in this world, my undergraduate concentration was not in art history - so why would I have taken a methods class if it wasn't required?
 
And considering the actual support which I have received from MAPH which I *know* I would not have received had I gone to the closest state school in California for a masters which would have qualified as "affordable," I do not feel at all like I was taken advantage of. 

In short, I don't understand your insistence on promulgating your negative views of a program with which you are not particularly familiar. I do not think that the MAPH model will become the norm, I understand your paranoia of paid programs undercutting the availability of less expensive programs, but honestly I don't think it's such a threat to the field or students as you seem to sense it will be.  
 
Anyway, thanks for contributing to the negative noise from a skeptical outsiders' point of view. It was ungrounded opinions like yours which made me almost NOT choose to go to MAPH, and to question my decision heavily even after arriving until it hit me that what I had done, indeed, was a good choice for me and that I was reaping the benefits. It was also what prompted me to want to shift the conversation towards a qualitative description of the program instead of a rehashing of the cons. Not everyone can be so incredibly prepared as you seem to be! It's up to each person to decide whether an individual grad program is worth the time and money they will invest in it. (I also would like to point out that one year of MAPH, including living expenses, would actually be CHEAPER than a two year MA program at many private institutions even where you only have to pay tuition for the first year, but are responsible for your living expenses for both years. And then that year after MAPH you can work in the world and actually make money!) I would really appreciate it if GradCafe could be a space of understanding, openness, and collegiality, rather than aggressive sniping, rainbow-pissing, and insinuations of inferiority. I had a feeling that I was opening myself up to this as soon as I posted - even though everyone knows, on GradCafe, haters gonna hate   And critical challenges do help you articulate your argument better   

 

In one word: no. For me, the most important aspect was the opportunity for intellectual growth that coming to the University of Chicago would give me. And if you think it sounds like I'm drinking the UofC's maroon Kool-Aid here, let me tell you: I was so deeply skeptical when I got here that it would be anything nearly as rigorous as they said it would be, that my socks were knocked off my feet by how incredibly smart everyone is here - and I don't just mean that they know things, but there is a whole different way of critical thinking that goes on here that is a mile deeper than anything I was exposed to even at an undergraduate institution ranked only a few spots below the UofC (not that those rankings mean a whole lot anyway). I'm absolutely certain that most "cheaper" options do not provide this. 
 
Naturally I'd rather that I didn't have to pay quite so much for it, but the idea that simply because you have to pay for it means that somehow it isn't worth it is deeply problematic. Just because you personally feel that it is not feasible for you, does not mean that it is not a solid option for others, and I hope that people reading this will be able to relate my narrative and subjective experience to their own, and weigh how well the two mesh when thinking about attending MAPH. 
 
These "cheaper" options are also great options especially if you want a traditionally strict art-historical training instead of a rigorous interdisciplinary intellectual atmosphere. If your work as a scholar focuses on more traditional ways of doing art history - like, for instance, pure iconography, formal analysis, and biographical interpretation - there might be better fits than the UofC. I would also say to anyone applying that knowing your methodology of choice is a good idea - I didn't when I applied! Find professors who work with your methodology. If you've done all this and you know methodologically who you would work well with, great, you might be more prepared to enter a PhD program than I was. But had I not done MAPH, I would never have known that I needed to know this. MAPH isn't just about expanding your background of coursework, it's about changing the way you think about scholarship and how you work as a scholar.
My advice to people who haven't applied yet: do include some MA programs in your portfolio, even if you think you are prepared for a PhD, because you may not be, and you may not know it. Do your own research on what program you think is the best fit for you. If you really want to become better at understanding and articulating and destabilizing complex arguments, MAPH is a great place. 

Personally, I do not know if I'm going on to do a PhD yet, because of the enormous time commitment and the complete possibility of doing several of the things I want to do with myself without one - doing research, writing books, working in a museum. Before MAPH, I was totally convinced, but now I'm aware of other options, I am content where I am for now I'll move on when I need to. Don't feel pressured (even internally) to jump in to a PhD just because it seems like the next logical step. 
 
Naturally, Swagato's points about the program are very valid. Thanks as always! 

m-ttl, I don't really understand why you seem to have such a problem with people doing programs which work for them, to be completely frank. I'm sure you personally are an incredible, exceptional scholar - but for those of use who aren't aware how far we have to go to be at your level, a program like MAPH is also helpful. It's also helpful in building humility and the ability to see from others' points of view without necessarily agreeing with them. 

Also, it should be reiterated - neither Swagato nor I were art history majors in undergrad. I took a bunch of coursework, but of course most of the people who applied in my pool had more. And the stuff I "should have already learned" - I'm sorry, this just came off as VERY rude and condescending. Like many people in this world, my undergraduate concentration was not in art history - so why would I have taken a methods class if it wasn't required?
 
And considering the actual support which I have received from MAPH which I *know* I would not have received had I gone to the closest state school in California for a masters which would have qualified as "affordable," I do not feel at all like I was taken advantage of. 

In short, I don't understand your insistence on promulgating your negative views of a program with which you are not particularly familiar. I do not think that the MAPH model will become the norm, I understand your paranoia of paid programs undercutting the availability of less expensive programs, but honestly I don't think it's such a threat to the field or students as you seem to sense it will be.  
 
Anyway, thanks for contributing to the negative noise from a skeptical outsiders' point of view. It was ungrounded opinions like yours which made me almost NOT choose to go to MAPH, and to question my decision heavily even after arriving until it hit me that what I had done, indeed, was a good choice for me and that I was reaping the benefits. It was also what prompted me to want to shift the conversation towards a qualitative description of the program instead of a rehashing of the cons. Not everyone can be so incredibly prepared as you seem to be! It's up to each person to decide whether an individual grad program is worth the time and money they will invest in it. (I also would like to point out that one year of MAPH, including living expenses, would actually be CHEAPER than a two year MA program at many private institutions even where you only have to pay tuition for the first year, but are responsible for your living expenses for both years. And then that year after MAPH you can work in the world and actually make money!) I would really appreciate it if GradCafe could be a space of understanding, openness, and collegiality, rather than aggressive sniping, rainbow-pissing, and insinuations of inferiority. I had a feeling that I was opening myself up to this as soon as I posted - even though everyone knows, on GradCafe, haters gonna hate   And critical challenges do help you articulate your argument better   

 

Since I believe this exchange isn't exactly proving productive, I'll include a final comment on this purely for future readers. Obviously, I remain in complete disagreement with m-ttl.
 
First, "special permission" = Ask the faculty member. It's that simple.
 
Second, I don't believe it's a program's responsibility to secure internships for its students. Those half a dozen internships are funded by the program itself. You're obviously free to pursue your own options (as should be the case).
 
Third, MAPH does come with a number of partial (and lately, apparently a few full) scholarships. I don't especially see anything objectionable in a non-funded MA. Clearly, it's aimed at those who believe the investment is worth it. Others are welcome to pursue other options. For me, despite the steep cost, it was a worthwhile investment because I realized I value a year spent at Chicago, working with Chicago's faculty in Film and Media Studies (and other faculty members of interest in other departments) was far more than the sticker price. I also realized, given the program's placement history to top-tier PhD programs, that it basically offered me the best possible platform for a future PhD application. And if, somehow, I discovered that a PhD was not up my alley, I'd still be left with an MA from Chicago--something that, as I mentioned earlier, did prove to unlock doors simply because of the name. It certainly helped tremendously when I remained in non-academic work for an intervening year. Coming from my BA, I saw quite clearly how far the right name goes. So yes, all of this combined outweighed MAPH's sticker price for me. YMMV, as may those of others. This is no reason for me to object to the program itself, nor does it seem logical to cite personal preferences as criteria for a program's merit or lack thereof.
 
Fourth, I'm a bit perplexed by your condescension ("You've seen, what, three schools?"). Granted, you may have experience with 13. The fact remains that I now have experience with one institution on the far lower end of things, and two on the far upper end. Now, you may be convinced that it's possible to experience what Chicago offers at other places. But that, as you yourself point out in criticizing me, is your "personal gut feeling" and no more. I am not sure how it may be possible to benefit from the presence of Tom Gunning, Robert Pippin, WJT Mitchell, Jim Lastra, Bill Brown, and many others *outside* of Chicago. Ultimately, it's a question of what -you- value and how much it's worth to you to have an opportunity to interact with certain people. Obviously, the fit of your own interests plays a significant role. If not for my interactions with some of the people at Chicago, I strongly doubt my current interests would be what they are. That, in turn, influences the possibilities of success in A. Admissions to PhD programs; B. Future publications; C. A whole host of other things that come with academic development. In short, no, I absolutely do not believe that Chicago's peculiarly interdisciplinary approach is common, and while I certainly think Yale's approach is unimpeachable, I also recognize individual differences where one program just works better than another. Chicago's history of tenure-track placement in Cinema and Media Studies speaks for itself. Do you seriously think--financial issues notwithstanding--it makes sense to pass up a chance to work at literally the top department in the field? If you do, that's your own "personal gut feeling" and your own perspective. It doesn't mean everybody shares it.
 
Fifth, why on earth would I want to take courses at a community college when I have an opportunity to do so at Chicago? Again, if it were financially unfeasible this would not be a concern. Such was not the case for me. It's quite inexplicable to me why you seem bent on translating personal financial circumstances into universal suggestions.
 
Methods courses are not the same everywhere. Some simply are better than others. In your response to the other person, you again show a bizarrely condescending attitude when you presume they "probably didn't ask professors...." Nobody needs to be told that applying "only to the Ivies" is a bad idea, for the simple reason that it's well-known that the best department aren't always at the Ivies. There are unfunded graduate programs of many stripes. I sincerely doubt that many would question the worth of an MA from Chicago, whether it be for further academic pursuits or otherwise. 
 
You have no experience with the program, as was clear from your lack of actual knowledge about the program. Yet you take it upon yourself to criticize my apparent lack of experience with multiple programs. You might think the program "takes advantage of students." I don't think the many graduates who are presently at leading programs across most fields in the humanities, or those who are well-settled into non-academic careers exactly because MAPH opened doors would agree with that sentiment. Funded MAs certainly exist. They also are not at Chicago (at least for the present). So, again, we return to the question of ***whether the individual deems it a worthwhile investment.***
 
You miss the point, yet again, when you reduce MAPH to "every graduate program." It is precisely the fact that MAPH adopts a *different* approach utilizing resources *not available* everywhere that sets it apart. 
 
In closing, I will reiterate that I find it absurd that you impose your personal ideals and preferences upon everyone and then to criticize them when they point this out. Yes, I get it. You find MAPH morally objectionable, regardless of its remarkable success with regard to its explicitly stated goals. I get that you, personally, would not pay, even for an MA at Chicago in Art History. For me, it was Film Studies, as that is my primary area of interest and Chicago unquestionably has the most powerful department in the nation. None of this gives you any ground to criticize ***the program itself*** as though it were somehow failing in its mission or were deceptive. All you have, in the end, is your own (lack of) experience and "personal gut feeling." You may have been well-served by your choices. I have by mine. Many others, graduates of MAPH, have been by theirs. 

m-ttl, I don't really understand why you seem to have such a problem with people doing programs which work for them, to be completely frank. I'm sure you personally are an incredible, exceptional scholar - but for those of use who aren't aware how far we have to go to be at your level, a program like MAPH is also helpful. It's also helpful in building humility and the ability to see from others' points of view without necessarily agreeing with them. 

Also, it should be reiterated - neither Swagato nor I were art history majors in undergrad. I took a bunch of coursework, but of course most of the people who applied in my pool had more. And the stuff I "should have already learned" - I'm sorry, this just came off as VERY rude and condescending. Like many people in this world, my undergraduate concentration was not in art history - so why would I have taken a methods class if it wasn't required?
 
And considering the actual support which I have received from MAPH which I *know* I would not have received had I gone to the closest state school in California for a masters which would have qualified as "affordable," I do not feel at all like I was taken advantage of. 

In short, I don't understand your insistence on promulgating your negative views of a program with which you are not particularly familiar. I do not think that the MAPH model will become the norm, I understand your paranoia of paid programs undercutting the availability of less expensive programs, but honestly I don't think it's such a threat to the field or students as you seem to sense it will be.  
 
Anyway, thanks for contributing to the negative noise from a skeptical outsiders' point of view. It was ungrounded opinions like yours which made me almost NOT choose to go to MAPH, and to question my decision heavily even after arriving until it hit me that what I had done, indeed, was a good choice for me and that I was reaping the benefits. It was also what prompted me to want to shift the conversation towards a qualitative description of the program instead of a rehashing of the cons. Not everyone can be so incredibly prepared as you seem to be! It's up to each person to decide whether an individual grad program is worth the time and money they will invest in it. (I also would like to point out that one year of MAPH, including living expenses, would actually be CHEAPER than a two year MA program at many private institutions even where you only have to pay tuition for the first year, but are responsible for your living expenses for both years. And then that year after MAPH you can work in the world and actually make money!) I would really appreciate it if GradCafe could be a space of understanding, openness, and collegiality, rather than aggressive sniping, rainbow-pissing, and insinuations of inferiority. I had a feeling that I was opening myself up to this as soon as I posted - even though everyone knows, on GradCafe, haters gonna hate   And critical challenges do help you articulate your argument better   

 

If it helps anyone, I have been told many times by professors from the US and advisors of a different nature that having an MA makes it much easier to be considered for admission at a PhD program. This is so to the extent that even though I already have one, the Fulbright Commission wanted me to apply to MAs in order to strengthen my profile for future PhD applications. Nevertheless, after 7 years of undergrad coursework and a year of grad school, I think I'm ready.

That the MA will be from Chicago. 
 
(This telegraphs a bunch of other things, obviously. You'd get to work with literally some of the top scholars in the field, at one of the most intensive and well-reputed departments in the field, be immersed in Chicago's almost-uniquely interdisciplinary yet cutting-edge humanities division, and just generally soak up things that are, frankly, unavailable at most of the other, cheaper, options.)
 
This is also why I've advocated for MAPH so strongly. Obviously it depends on financial circumstances. But if financially feasible? I'd always recommend Chicago, Williams, and the like over other options. It's more or less a given that earning your MA at a top department *does* matter. It's no guarantee, but it never hurts. 

Sure you can take seminar courses. I was in two during my time there.
 
The program is not at all unclear (and it's this easy misconception that actually necessitates the "defences" you mention). The program is explicitly designed to be so flexible as to accommodate a wide range of interests (bear in mind that it is something humanists of all stripes are considered for either via direct application or as a redirect from the PhD application), while also allowing for very focused development. This means, in other words, that someone with interdisciplinary interests is likely to benefit tremendously--more, probably, than at a 'conventional' MA--whether in Art History, Film Studies, Philosophy, etc. 
 
It's also an excellent sieve of sorts. I know several who, after experiencing the reality of graduate work and learning more about academic life (something the program specifically makes an effort to illuminate through events, etc.), chose not to proceed into a PhD. These people ended up with excellent preparation for an entry into industry, though. Of people in my graduating year, one is at the Field Museum, several are at major publishing houses (academic and non-academic), etc. I don't think they found the program unhelpful on the job market due to its unusual structure and design.
 
Re: internships. The program actually funds about half a dozen paid internships after completion. It's a competitive process. In addition, two positions for program mentors are available for the subsequent year. There's a rather thorough grooming process toward the end of the year for transitioning to the next step whether academic or otherwise. 
 
I did not go to a "great" undergraduate college (and this is another type of individual that MAPH offers tremendous benefits to). I had never taken an Art History course before. The entire culture of academia, its expectations, its norms, everything was completely new to me. I'll let the fact that MAPH was able to help me become competitive enough for subsequent PhD applications success stand for itself--quite aside from the obvious (that it opened several doors). 
 
The program is explicitly designed for those unsure or unprepared to proceed to PhD work. That's kind of the whole point, so it's very surprising to read that given your history of skepticism about the program. I guess I had assumed you'd at least done some fact-finding about MAPH before building your critique of it. It is exactly the case that MAPH exists to help such individuals either develop the foundations necessary toward future PhD applications and an academic career, OR move into industry based on their interests. That's the flexibility which, at least as far as I know, few or no other MA programs offer. 
 
And yes, of course it rests on the foundation of Chicago's academic rigor. The only thing I can say about that is that I have yet to experience anything that trumps Chicago's intellectual climate. It's just something special. 

m-ttl, I don't really understand why you seem to have such a problem with people doing programs which work for them, to be completely frank. I'm sure you personally are an incredible, exceptional scholar - but for those of use who aren't aware how far we have to go to be at your level, a program like MAPH is also helpful. It's also helpful in building humility and the ability to see from others' points of view without necessarily agreeing with them. 

Also, it should be reiterated - neither Swagato nor I were art history majors in undergrad. I took a bunch of coursework, but of course most of the people who applied in my pool had more. And the stuff I "should have already learned" - I'm sorry, this just came off as VERY rude and condescending. Like many people in this world, my undergraduate concentration was not in art history - so why would I have taken a methods class if it wasn't required?
 
And considering the actual support which I have received from MAPH which I *know* I would not have received had I gone to the closest state school in California for a masters which would have qualified as "affordable," I do not feel at all like I was taken advantage of. 

In short, I don't understand your insistence on promulgating your negative views of a program with which you are not particularly familiar. I do not think that the MAPH model will become the norm, I understand your paranoia of paid programs undercutting the availability of less expensive programs, but honestly I don't think it's such a threat to the field or students as you seem to sense it will be.  
 
Anyway, thanks for contributing to the negative noise from a skeptical outsiders' point of view. It was ungrounded opinions like yours which made me almost NOT choose to go to MAPH, and to question my decision heavily even after arriving until it hit me that what I had done, indeed, was a good choice for me and that I was reaping the benefits. It was also what prompted me to want to shift the conversation towards a qualitative description of the program instead of a rehashing of the cons. Not everyone can be so incredibly prepared as you seem to be! It's up to each person to decide whether an individual grad program is worth the time and money they will invest in it. (I also would like to point out that one year of MAPH, including living expenses, would actually be CHEAPER than a two year MA program at many private institutions even where you only have to pay tuition for the first year, but are responsible for your living expenses for both years. And then that year after MAPH you can work in the world and actually make money!) I would really appreciate it if GradCafe could be a space of understanding, openness, and collegiality, rather than aggressive sniping, rainbow-pissing, and insinuations of inferiority. I had a feeling that I was opening myself up to this as soon as I posted - even though everyone knows, on GradCafe, haters gonna hate   And critical challenges do help you articulate your argument better   

 

I'm not sure why when I clearly state multiple times that it is how I feel about myself and my own finances, not about other people, I must be corrected. I'm sorry, but I would have well over $132,000 in debt with my proposed situation. That's debt I would never escape. Far be it from me to be a raincloud, but if I strike out this year with no funding anywhere, then so be it. But I'm not going to apply to unfunded programs next year. I don't want to be a Professor, so the name brand matters a little less to me. 
 
I'm also not sure what you mean by not having any idea what grad school is. 
 
But regardless, that's great for other people. But I refuse to do that to myself, where I must continue to fund myself solely on debt. It sucks. It is an awful feeling. I've already been doing it for four years, and I really don't want to continue.