betsy303

I'm not by any means saying the top 10 programs are bad. I'm advocating for people to be more open minded and think hard and long about a program being a good fit and prioritizing this "good fit" idea higher than rating.

Do the MA if you don't have at least broader sense of what your research interests are. This top 5, 10, prestige game is utterly atrocious. I couldn't go to a top 5, and potentially a 10, simply because those programs do not have specialists in my area. The 2 that did - one prof is no longer accepting students and one won't for another 5-7 years. Hence, you can't always put your life on hold, take out debt, etc for something that may or may not happen. Applying to programs with faculty who could create interesting multidisciplinary thesis committee should be the top priority.

Feel free to PM me. I have strong feelings about it. At the end of the day, if your goal is to work at a bigger tier museum or 4 year college institution, your chances of success are higher at a top 20-ish institution. Though, I have seen many cases (advisor/program specific) where this doesn't play out. I think something also to note is the cost of attendance. This will still get you networked. If you are forking over 100K+ living expenses and tuition for a MA, you may be better off setting aside a 10-20k cushion to fund your own conference presentations, research, etc. Again, a lot of programs that don't make the top 10 (especially in the 20 group) are not up there due to funding issues. Also, many "lesser prestige" programs may have other departments that are fairly top notch. My program is probably at around 15-20 (albeit it hasn't been re-evalauted since a lot of new hires and books came out), but my institution does have a top 5 English and history department (both disciplines are super related to my research).

Oh God. This person hasn't even chosen an ivy yet and already has the "ivy attitude." :/

I think this is far too complicated. Most of the time (sorry to bring up personal antidotes), but many folks who have easy times landing spots in 10 ten programs are generally the types who were fortunate enough to have the funds, test well, etc, and get into the same top 10 places to receive a BA. While I think before 2000, there was far more of an emphasis placed on going to an ivy, Berkeley, etc, I think its beginning to change. I sat in on a variety of hiring committees- the ones from the ivies and "wannabe ivies" were the least successful candidate by far. Again, as mentioned before, I think the primary benefit of going to an ivy is probably the funding situation (for going to conferences, etc). However, if you are qualified, you can get a very nice deal with a 10-30 school with funding, benefits, and the whole shebang. Most job committees have members from a variety of departments, so thats something else to consider too. If you come from a program that lacks funding, etc, perhaps it better makes you able to cope with the funding realities down the road (Gee, I'm not getting a full reimbursement for every conference I go too?).

I would say to make sure (a) the professor is actually accepting students and (b) your methodology pairs up. I feel as though I applied to work with some solid social art historians when in face I'm more interested in contemporary art via formalism and theory. Also, I applied to work with some professors who were in their late 60s and early 70s. That probably wasn't a good idea.... Also, I would add that the second time around I was far less "ranking concerned." I tried to be more open minded about a faculty advisor and program that was good for me rather than a top 1-10 program. Hence, I focused primarily on what many would deem top 10-25 schools that would make a solid dissertation committee. Also, I looked towards departments with mixes of already "Established" and en route too becoming "established" profs. I am sure many will disagree with me here and thats fine. At the end of the day, I ended up with an excellent funding package at a 10-20 school, a supportive and challenging advisor, and with a university that has super eminent faculty members in every single field (I love being able to work with historians, experts in literature, geographers, etc). In addition then for looking at the other departments that may be art history related, I also looked for inter-disciplinary groups/clusters/etc that would match my needs.

Sorry, I hate to be the one to say it. Regardless what people say, I think you can still present at conferences and publish things (granted, financially it might be a bit more difficult). But, if you still get your name out there and network remember the sky is the limit!

Sure! At my program, I met a student who had come from (or was going to) visit Bryn Mawr for their perspective admitted students day. I came across another one of those folks as well...eeks!

Hey, really sorry Schwartz! But, I think Bryn Mawr already sent out their admittances :/. Remember that you can always present your work at a conference and meet up with folks though!

Let's take it this way - say you study British painting. The top 10 program with the British painting specialist is Yale. He is not taking students at the moment. Hence, you have Wisconsin, Washington, USC, etc. Also, you could have an advisor who is top notch, super well known in the field but may not be at the most top notch or well known program. Part of the game.

Most of the time people end up at a 10-20 school instead of a 1-10 because they got letters of recc from the "Wrong folks." Also, these "top programs" are pretty arbitrary. Top 10 programs for someone interest in lets say 19th century British or French painting may look very different from someone interested in contemporary art and critical theory. Not every top 10 school has a scholar in every field of study. Moreover, many may not be taking students for quite some time too. From my experiences, at least, many of the smaller colleges seem to be catching on. I have to say from my recent conference visits the folks from the top 10 actually had by far the worst papers. This is one conference (a big one still). I would stick with the idea of working with an advisor who you work well with. Whether you are lucky enough to have a well funded program or have to fund yourself, then do go present your research and get it published!

Not No, completley valid. But, with a big but everyone comes into graduate school with a different situate. Shelve out money for a MA to get a stipend with 5-7k more of funding a year? I'm not sure if thats wroth the trade off. Many people go into programs with previous experiences, contacts, and net egg funds. There is no one size that fits all. Again, coming to a good, but not well-funded program, I can confidently tell you that we have successfully completed MANY tenure track job searches. Also, comparing a program like Illinois, Minnesota, Bryn Mawyr, etc to an ivy is really like comparing apples to oranges. Clearly, more art historians will have a PhD from Columbia or Yale than these smaller programs. Try comparing a program that currently houses 100 students as opposed to 30. They have the most fellows simply because they have money and size. Oh, and yes job offers have happened at conferences my experience. My good friend got one right after his/her presentation at CAA at a top notch liberal arts college. He/she recently go tenured there as well and went to a program that at best was 30-40.

This is brilliant!

Many people get fellowships. Also, you can always save up some cash in your pocket and finance your trips to conferences. You can meet plenty of folks at these. I got several job offers from a smaller conference as well.

Other words middle ages and 20th century is where Northwestern is headed...

I think people should remember that folks at all departments have opportunity to present their research at conferences, symposia, etc. As long as you are active in the field outside of your department and meet folks, I think one ends up fine.

I tend to see visual studies programs as (a) more inclusive of other visual mediums such as film and (b) more theoretically grounded. Many "traditional" art history departments do use a variety of visual mediums and generally have at least a few faculty members who work with critical theory. Hence, I would apply to the programs with a faculty member (preferably faculty members) who you want to work with. I wouldn't worry as much about it being an art history verses a visual studies program.

What would be your area of study? Historically, people seem to go there for 19th century and Middle Ages/ early modern. The 19th century folks seem to on the corner of retirement. They are also super driven by social art history (not particularly theoretically driven). They hired some new folks as well as Zorach, which should be interesting. Huey Copland would be an interesting person to work with if you study contemporary.

I'll leave this here for y'all. https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2016/01/06/new-book-reveals-how-elite-phd-admissions-committees-review-candidates?utm_source=Inside+Higher+Ed&utm_campaign=0c8bf0f96a-DNU20160106&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_1fcbc04421-0c8bf0f96a-197798121

I would say this list is relatively reasonable. https://web.archive.org/web/20120516074401/http://arthistorynewsletter.com/blog/?p=5204 However, as the astute poster above remarked, I would probably change the 10-20 grouping a tad. Places like UW-Madison, Michigan and Stanford, also have some fairly top notch history and English departments, PACKED with eminent scholars. For that reason (along with some newbies at some of those places), I'd place them above a place like Santa Barbara (so sad what is going on with the UC funding situation). Granted, this assumes they are willing to take on new students, participate in advising committees, etc. CUNY and Stanford also have some rockstars in 20th century. I wish there was something divided into sub-specialities-- i.e 20th century, places dealing with visual culture/visual studies, middle ages, etc.

Everyone has a different experience and one professor shouldn't really be the make it or break it point for your program. Now, what really should be the make it or break it point is if you can get your hands on a job placement sheet somewhere.... Something I would also shift towards is checking with the department to examine if there are some current graduate students you can correspond with. That could be more telling of the departmental ethos as well. I will say, I was "courted" by folks at at several reputable institutions. It really helped with my sanity during the process, knowing I had some advocates for me (who also happened to be the "rock stars" in the department). One institution in particular, they sent me some internal grant I should apply for and low and behold -- it translated into a big time fellowship package that put anything else I was offered to shame.

I'm going to echo what has been said here. The job market that requires PhDs in the art historical is fierce. More so than the name of your institution, is the word of your advisor. He/She will be the one who helps you find a job in your area and provide you with support throughout the program. If he/she can't support you now, why would he/she be able to support you during the program or when you look for a job? A famous advisor is great! However, not if it comes with someone who won't routinely support, or worse, someone who is antagonistic. I have heard many stories about these advisers who for whatever reasons have actually gone and written "negative" letters. The last thing you need is someone who isn't 100% supportive or only pulls through for you at the last minute....

Best of luck! I scored in the bottom 25% of the qualitative and the top 80% in the verbal. It didn't stop me from getting in. No one knows how or why they got admitted other than a combination of qualifications and luck. Also, for what it is worth, many programs will also allow you to have a doctoral minor in film. Another program that comes to mind is UC Irvine.

I'm also thinking of programs like Chicago or Rochester. Honestly, there is really no way to "gage" your chances. It is dependent upon who in the department is willing to take students, who else applied, and what the situation for funding is among, other things. Many programs like prefer folks with a MA degree first. A lot of the ivies like to take their "own." Have you tried reaching out to professors to see what the ball park is like? If they are taking students for your particular area this time around? Many programs make it a policy to not "deal" with potential students and won't respond. However, the ones that do can be really useful. I got into 4 programs and went with the program that the professor who was immensely helpful during the admissions process. It translated into the advisor now who is always available and will go up to bat for me.

I've been thinking about this as I have been continually (and silently) reading other threads. I wanted to REINFORCE that I currently attend a 10-20 program and have seen many of colleagues go on to pursue wonderful things (without being too particular, tenure track jobs at eminent liberal arts college and some pretty great "big city" curatorial gigs). Every SINGLE one of my colleagues has gone on to pursue a fabulous job over the last decade or so. I did not get a MA along the way. Roughly, 50% of my colleagues did (many from the Cortauld). I am so glad I didn't go as I found many of my colleagues repeating course level work that they did as part of the MA. But again, it works for some and for others it does not. Its about what works for you. The top ten "elite" comes with assumption of working at a high power research institutions. Not everyone wants that kind of job. Many people really enjoy working at liberal arts colleges, smaller museums, galleries, and community colleges. Its disappointing how many people look down on jobs that are very much needed, but tis is life. Also for what it is worth, it is most definitely true that there are more top 10 program folks floating around then the next "batches" of programs. However, this assumption doesn't distinguish between programs that currently have 100+ PhD students enrolled verses those with 20-30, or less. Job placements don't lie. I hope this helps assuage many fears and best of luck to all! It works out! I promise!