catsrgods

Hey guys! I've finally been accepted to a doctoral program!
 
CUNY accepted me this morning. Now I have some serious decisions to make.

I guess we will have to just disagree.  I can think of a handful of folks hired at solid national and regional museums in the past 5 years with the kind of limited experience I mentioned, most with PhDs or MAs from just a few schools. People I know personally. But you don't know any. We know different people. I have also never been in a situation where "art historian" curators have matted or framed work, put nail polish on stuff (which I think used to be a common way to identify 3-d works, one sees it in archeology, dec arts, and natural history contexts, maybe those curators mentioned by the other poster are from a different generation) or fabricated their own labels.  Or where labels aren't collaborative and reviewed by more than one department, not to mention been proofed by a copy editor. Typically, at mid-sized and up institutions, on-staff framers do framing, or perhaps preparators.  Labels are made by communications, preparators, or the design team.  And registrars are on hand to supervise the movement of art work so that climate and light levels are maintained.  All of the above jobs are important and rewarding, but they are not curatorial. Nor should they be, because curators are doing the kind of research and scholarship they are trained best to do.  Asking them to use the scary mat cutter would be like asking the preparator to write a catalogue essay.  Each might be able to do it but not to their best, or best for the institution.  Maybe we just have experience with museums of different size, programming, budget, and endowment.  You made the point that there are perhaps more museum jobs out there for the taking than academic, which I agree with (there are like a half-dozen open searches in my field right now). There are also a lot of different kinds of museums, which grad students and prospective grad students reading this thread have a bit more info about due to this discussion.

Well I didn't have a chip on my shoulder until you implied I would embarrass my employers because I didn't spring fully formed from the head of the John Harvard statue.... [ETA: No seriously, why is this continuously brought up? I've admitted to being poor as a valid and legitimate reason for not doing unfunded MAs and recommending to others not to carelessly take on debt, and suddenly everything is about a chip on my shoulder? This is only the third or fourth time someone has implied I'm bitter, angry, resentful, jealous, or have a "chip". I got into my first choice PhD with full funding. I don't have a chip right now. I DO resent the constant micro-aggressions that I am either 1.) Wrong to criticize a classist field  or 2.) All of my opinions are somehow directly tied to and only because of my personal circumstances and that I have no knowledge outside of myself or of the rest of the field, or that I'm somehow uncultured/unmannered. Politely speaking, get it together folks - I have plenty of well to do relatives, and have sufficient "which fork should I use" manners. This is really starting to be insulting by implicating I don't know how to handle myself.] 
 
...I think we need to clarify a few things because there's a few different points going on here. 1.) I can't speak for anyone else, but I haven't only worked at small museums. I've certainly worked at much larger institutions (medium sized, but with large endowments, has collections on loan to the Met, etc) who don't officially take interns because of same-said entitled small LAC kids hoping to boost their resumes and never actually do any work. Obviously this isn't the norm but I have worked there, and I got in because I could be vouched for as someone who would work my ass off. And while I never attended a gala in my time there, I did help organize and attended a high tea and lecture for their donors and the most embarrassing thing I did was spill some of my water on my plate of fresh maracons. 
 
2.) No one is making up the "small museums are great places to get experience" thing out of some sort of class based ideology. This is advice you'll find in virtually every single museum studies book that exists, based on years of experience and hundreds of people in the field. For someone wanting to get their feet wet, a small museum makes a lot of sense because it introduces you to a wide variety of departments because they have less people, so the work is less divisive. I.E. at a small museum, you might only have one person be both the registrar and the curator, or the educator is also the grant writer, whatever. Should you spend 10 years employed at a tiny museum if you want to work at The Getty? No. But a few months interning to gain a wide variety of skills you can apply to your medium sized institution internship, and then your flagship institution or application to the Getty as an employed assistant? Might be worth considering. You can go from small to large in the museum world. But you also have to actively be climbing the ladder. 
 
3.) People with no experience generally do not "deserve" jobs, they are usually just well connected. Let's be clear here: A curatorial job is not one you will do well without any prior experience. Suggesting that a Williams grad has "interesting methods to approach curatorial methods" means you know that they....have learned what curatorial methods are. And they should, if they go to Williams because Williams has local museums and programs. If you know nothing about curatorial practice, museum practice, etc, and get a curatorial job, I do not think I am being petty or resentful by thinking you are probably not really prepared for that job. Those aren't cute side skills you learn, those are major foundational parts of the job.
 
I think somehow you are insisting that all Ivy grads are "better trained" but also may not have experience...? Look, if an Ivy grad is experienced then of course they are better trained. But simply learning at a well respected institution doesn't train you to work in a museum as a curator. You can't simultaneously have zero museum experience and be better trained than someone who does have experience. 
 
Regardless, the thread is for someone looking to break into the field, so all the advice stands. It's best to get experience in order to prepare for what you want to do. 

When you say "work in a museum" what exactly do you want to do? Curate, Education (educational program development), Collections Management, Conservation, Prepator, Exhibit Design/Development, Administration, Development/Fundraising? Most of these have specific education points, especially conservation (you need a good number of science credits and experience to even get into a conservation program and then you need certified.) You rarely see someone in the development or administration silos who have museum backgrounds.
 
Education is a different matter. There are specific Museum Education programs (ie GWU) which are completely separate from the rest of the MSTD program and then there are all around MSTD programs that have an education track which are more integrated. Like m-ttl said, there are different ways of getting into museum education, however, I'm seeing more education job postings that require some museum background. My first director had an art education BA, museum sciences MA, and then education PhD because her first love is education, not administration (you're not going see many administrators with a MSTD degree these days, more business unfortunately.)

I hate to be a negative Nancy but there are *very* few museum jobs (except education, administration, and development) and those with years of experience and training are having trouble even getting entry level jobs (if they even find those, many are requiring at minimum 5 years experience now)

Last week was Spring Break guys.
 
Hang in there!

for realsssss

I meant to respond to this earlier...
 
UCLA was on spring break last week. Professors have been very busy the last two weeks with the flurry of activity that comes at the end of the quarter - making exams, finishing grading, finalizing their teaching plans for spring, etc. This week is the first week of spring classes, and that is a very hectic time as well. Professors are busy people. It doesn't help that major conferences like the SAA, ARCE, AAPA, etc. are right around the corner. 
 
As for your last question, I doubt many people have a clear first choice and decide right away. Choosing a graduate program is a very serious thing, and one should take one's time doing so, as annoying as it may be to others. Some people are still visiting their choices and deciding between them. Other students may be waiting to hear back from the waitlist of *their* top choices; it is often a domino effect. 

catsrgods, Congrats on the LACMA internship! I love LACMA, how exciting! I'll keep my fingers crossed for you on Cotsen. Good Luck!

I'm still waiting to hear from Vanderbilt but I've broken down and emailed them. It's March 24th and I want my life back! 

Hey guys, just a heads up that I will be withdrawing my name from the waitlist tomorrow or Monday. I really hope it bumps one of you up! 

I find this argument boring. You have your opinion. I have mine. 
Excuse me, my cat and I have crime to fight...

I find it highly ironic that you call me "stuck up" after reading this comment. Rather than debase my character and follow your self-absorbed, condescending, and generally myopic mentality, I will simply say this: you're entitled to your own opinion. In this particular subject, I am in fact an autodidact, and I'm willing to admit that, but I find your elitist generalizations quite ignorant. I'm assuming English is your second language, but given your self-proclaimed achievements, i'm still appalled by your lack of rhetoric.
 
http://www.yale.edu/anthro/anthropology/All_faculty.html
 
After clicking a few faces, note a general trend here, pal?
 
http://www.bu.edu/anthrop/people/faculty/
 
Oh, that trend is still apparent.....
 
http://www.sas.upenn.edu/anthropology/people/faculty
 
Not failing......
 
Prestige includes  as you stated so prosaically, "non elitest schools". Being that you are such the highly successful and erudite individual, you should pay more attention to details. I use the term prestige to refer to schools that are considered prestigious, including but not limited to the obvious: Chicago, Berkeley, Yale, Harvard, Boston University, Michigan, Brown, Cornell, Dartmouth, etc. (the list goes on). I never said that Ivy league schools are the only way to get a damn job. I said that, unfortunately, pedigree and prestige matter and that will never change. Therefore, the name of your institution does matter. Additionally, I even noted that your comments about publishing, work-ethic, research, are ALSO important, but only one side of the coin, but the more important side. If you peeked out from behind that self-ascribed ego for more than a second you might notice that. Frankly, I don't really care about your opinion. I would, however, suggest you refrain from being such a condescending and hypocritical elitist while simultaneously hiding behind a veil of anonymity, Mr. E-Tough Genius Guy.  

I absolutely feel your pain. I just want to get this over with and have some idea about my future (and be in a better position to set up my Plan B (wow smiley fail)). These past couple months have felt like they've gone on for ages and that distant horizon containing all my expectations is getting ever further away. The wanting comes in waves. 

"MaxiJaz: The farther you get out of undergrad and the more you have to show, the less your GPA matters. GPA is a proxy for merit because most undergrads don't have enough meaningful accomplishments in their fields to assess merit (and the programs also want some assurance that you'll be able to pass the coursework/quals hurdles)."
 
I hope the places I have applied to this round have your refreshing take on undergrad GPAs. I didn't do horrible for a single parent, ended up with a 3.2 overall at a decent university. But compared to some of the folks I know that ended up with 3.6 and above, I've become a little worried. I am currently in a Master's program where my GPA is 3.79 overall and 3.89 in my major, but PhD programs are competitive and as I send in these applications I keep hoping that my undergrad GPA won't mean as much as the other stuff I have done. Here's to hoping!

Near Eastern archaeology differs from many other fields of archaeology in being very, very language heavy. Akkadian, Sumerian, and the like aren't easy, and it's a huge waste of money and resources if people wash out. For that reason, many programs unofficially require at least a year of Akkadian. If that's the case, no quantity of conference presentations or whatnot will make up for a glaring academic deficiency like that -- they'd much rather admit someone who's already mastered the relevant languages and can move on to more interesting and relevant things. A master's program or some language coursework at a good seminary school are the typical ways of working around this.
 
French and German are also musts, colorless. What's your language background like?
 
 
And yes, it's a very competitive field. Only about a dozen schools offer Near Eastern archaeology at all, and only about half of those are actually good at it. With 1-2 students (tops) in the subfield admitted at each school each year, it's obviously an insanely competitive process. 

wait list; first alternate; top choice.

When it comes to phone calls my policy is: If it's important they'll leave a message. If it's admissions and you don't answer they should leave a message or email you. The only people who call and don't leave messages are telemarketers or awful corporations like mobile phone companies.

So, exceptional applicant here. I'm an advanced graduate student who participated in both a terminal MA and a MA/PhD sequential program. I dropped by to see if my school had notified acceptances yet (usually means showing them around and getting free lunch) and saw this thread. I have to admit, there's a lot of ego and what I perceive as naiive hubris going on in this thread. Seems to me that quite a few of you are overthinking things or can't see the forest for the trees. Even applicants with publications and MAs in hand are babies. No one believes or cares that you will revolutionize the canon or even produce innovative research at this stage, or even in your first year or so. What many programs care about is that you're a good fit with a foundation capable of development and that you won't waste their time or money. As an advanced undergraduate, or even a MA candidate, you're a big fish in a small pond and sometimes ego can get in the way of looking at the application process simply.
 
If you're asking, "who the hell does nodens think she is," here's some self-vetting. I was accepted to both MA and PhD programs on my first round of applications. In each case I received funding, including from my MA institution which is not generally in the habit of funding MA students. I was accepted to state schools, a private and an Ivy. When I applied to PhD programs I was accepted to my first choice immediately with no tuition, six years of funding and health insurance. I have also applied to several fellowships and received them. At this point I consider myself an exceptional applicant when it comes to graduate work.
 
The most successful approach I found to applications was to treat them seriously as applications to entry level jobs and think about them like apprenticeships. When you consider them this way, the process becomes intuitive and less complicated. This is essentially the post I wish I had found when I applied to graduate school for the first time. I haven't listed my points in order of importance.
 
1. Don't perform abysmally on the GRE. That being said, doing so-so won't kill you. You're an art historian so you had better score highest in verbal and writing. I was in the 16th percentile of the quant section. No one cared. As for GPAs try and do the best you can. People with higher GREs than me didn't get in and some did. These particular issues are worth having your letter writers address if possible.
 
2. Pick your very best writing sample. If possible have a professor at your current institution (or past) look over it with full knowledge that it's part of a graduate school application. When I applied to my MA my writing sample did not cover a topic that fell within the purview of my subfield but it was my absolute best writing. In my experience the writing sample holds more weight if you are applying to PhDs. 
 
3. Get at least one letter of recommendation from someone important. Not just any old professor but someone with a respected name and, if possible, acquaintances at your school of interest. I realize that this isn't always possible and involves a good deal of networking. This has been a crucial element of my success. You want big deal people to think you are a big deal and tell others about you. Networking seems to be the most underrated part of graduate education among my peers and I still don't understand it. Like pretty much every other career, art history is as much who you know as what you know. 
 
4. Write a statement of purpose that explains why you are a good fit for your POI, the department and last but not least, the entire SCHOOL as a whole. This means doing serious research. Don't just talk to POIs. Read their work and fully understand their methodologies and arguments. Find links to your own interests or writing. You don't just want to say, "we are both interested in X." You want to demonstrate that this person's research is essential to your own. Your next step is to research other members of the department regardless of whether they're in your subfield or not. What are their interests and methodologies? How can they be useful to you in your graduate career? For example, if you're a classicist with an interest in say, phenomenology, then it's worth seeing if faculty in other concentrations like modern/contemporary are working in that mode even if your main POI is not. If your POI is too, then all the better. Finally, you should be able to speak to how the school in general has resources for you. Do departments encourage interdisciplinary work? Is there a collaborative program that you could make use of? When I applied to my MA institution  I made a big deal out of an interdisciplinary seminar track that encouraged global perspectives. I didn't end up working on globalism or exchange but my knowledge of the school's projects in a broad context helped in getting me accepted.
 
5. For god's sake come in with confident reading ability in another language. Reading ability in two is even better. Even those of you who work on mostly english-language material. In my first round I had reading ability in 3 languages all in heavy rotation in scholarship in my subfield. When I applied for my PhD I had reading ability in 4. I can't tell you how many of my peers I saw stumble over language exams in their first and second years. Coming in prepared makes you desirable.
 
6. Really make sure your POI isn't retiring or going on sabbatical. Seems like a no-brainer but you'd be surprised.
 
And that's my basic advice. How to behave once you're in graduate school is another kettle of fish. I can tell you that "rebelling" or "resisting" advisors and department chairs is exceptionally foolish. Of course think for yourself and make your own decisions, it's your life. But in art history jobs are scarce. You want everyone in your department going to bat for you. You want their approval in matters of funding, research support and career placement. Don't come in with a big ass ego and make enemies. I've seen way too much of that too.

at this point, my perfect fit is any school that will take me. haha

I'm a ball of desperation.
If this doesn't work out for you, you are more than welcome in our grad school reject yurt community.

Hello All,
 
I am also an "alternate" for this year's round of admits. This is my first year applying to graduate schools and I am pleasantly surprised that I stand a chance at all! I do have a friend that was admitted to this program off of the wait list and I know quite a few other folks at UCs that also got into their programs via the wait list. There is hope! 
 
I am waiting to hear from other schools, but I think I was a little too bold in my applications. In other words: I applied at places I had, honestly, no business applying at. But that's ok, Fortune favors the bold, doesn't she?
 
LA is not my idle locale, but I am flattered that I will be considered in the event that someone turns their offer down. Let's hope they are all accepted to U Penn and decline their UCLA offers!

Ok.  I've just got to jump in here.  No matter what your financial position, I fervently believe that it's very dangerous to attend a PhD program that does not fund you.  The chances of getting a TT job are SO SLIM that you would have to be delusional to think that you're not going to be crushed by debt when you finish.  A word of unsolicited advice for those who make the decision to attend unfunded PhD programs (and really, for anyone in a humanities PhD program, whether funded or unfunded): work it, develop a possible career path outside of the academy, make contacts, develop a Plan B that is truly viable after you get your degree.  I am one of the lucky few to have scored a good TT job (meaning: light teaching load compared to some of my friends who teach a 4-4 course load, great benefits, good salary) and it took me three years after finishing to secure a position.  I had to hustle between grad school and job land and it was a very scary time.  I cannot imagine how much harder it would have been if I had to make debt payments.  I went to a very good, well-respected R-1 terminal art history PhD program that is serious about professionalizing its students (the importance of this cannot be overstated) AND funding them completely.  It's crazy enough to go to grad school in the humanities, but even more crazy to take on 100k+ of debt to do so.  Sorry to be so blunt and potentially offensive to those who are cool with going to into major debt, but let's not pretend that we are isolated from financial concerns; the life of the mind is great, but you also have to eat.   

My plan B is more realistic than my plan A. I told myself that this is the only year I'd apply to programs because I am not getting any younger and I really could be happy with plan B. I am trying to not be too discouraged already, I have only had one rejection and one wait list so far, but it is difficult to be high in spirit with so many unknowns. My plan right now, if I do not get in anywhere, is to complete an internship this summer and then travel for a couple months in the fall. I might even retake the GRE (or punch the GRE right in the face). Plan B isn't always the bad idea out of the two. I am pretty sure my plan B might be better than plan A, but sometimes we want the thing that isn't even the best idea. We are human and dumb like that. 

Hello All,
 
I am also an "alternate" for this year's round of admits. This is my first year applying to graduate schools and I am pleasantly surprised that I stand a chance at all! I do have a friend that was admitted to this program off of the wait list and I know quite a few other folks at UCs that also got into their programs via the wait list. There is hope! 
 
I am waiting to hear from other schools, but I think I was a little too bold in my applications. In other words: I applied at places I had, honestly, no business applying at. But that's ok, Fortune favors the bold, doesn't she?
 
LA is not my idle locale, but I am flattered that I will be considered in the event that someone turns their offer down. Let's hope they are all accepted to U Penn and decline their UCLA offers!