betsy303

You may want to think of Wisconsin. They have both Tom Dale and Shira Brisman (who has a new book coming out in a month or so). Grad Center is largely 20th cent and contemperary - FYI.

I would say as specific as you can be while also appreciating the natural changes/flexiblity/turns of the research process?

Upon perusing the profiles of current students (albeit briefly), you don't see many coming from state colleges or other local institutions, especially ones without MAs.

Wisconsin (along with Minnesota, I bleievE) have really outstanding Asian studies programs. Don't just look at the art history department, but look at other related disciplines that you might want to take coursework in as well.  So many historians!

Besides for Asian, Minnesota strictly speaking in terms of art history is a  probably a middle of the line road program. However, I think this has alot to do with older folks retiring off and having a newer group of young scholars. Hence, it may be in a transitionary period, with potential to grow. I think of it kind of like Wisconsin or Chapel Hill. Something that I really want to HIGHLIGHT is a place like Minnesota or Wisconsin or even Irvine  have very good English departments and outstanding history departments. People in these related departments are potential dissertation committee members as well. Something to think of.....

I think this is largely true, with a big HOWEVER. There are many examples of placements from other types of institutions - an Irvine hire at Notre Dame, Wisconsin at Oberlin, and an OSU at Cornell. There are many successful folks from Bryn Mawr (despite an albeit small program and not many other PhD granting disciplines). 

You gotta go with what your gut tells you to do. Different folks will always give you different advice. All I can say is your mentor will be your lifeline and you will be working with him/her/them for a very long period of time (and potentially for most of your academic career as well). Hence, its vital you can work well with the person and feel comfortable. I would put that at the highest priority. There are ways around the prestige of the 10 school as well you should be aware of. I.) There are sub-specialities. II.) You should aim to have a dissertation committee that is interdisciplinary. While the art history faculty member in your field may be mediocre or good, the history dept. or English dept. might have someone extremely well-regarded and wonderful. III.) Not everyone wants to work at a top tier university or art museum. Some really enter a PhD with the goal of working at a community college, liberal arts college, or other local public institution. Those aren't things to be ashamed of either and can be quite rewarding careers. Long story short, your success will depend upon not what the "best school is" but rather the "best school for you." 

I think it might be somewhere implied on their website that they typically expect a 167 or so on the verbal GRE. I think most of their folks tend to be older with MAs (probably perusing the current grad profiles will help). Many seem to have gone to Williams and old BAs for Ivy or Ivy-esque institutions. Many will continue to disagree with me on here and thats totally fine. All I can urge you to do is to find an advisor who thematically engages with your work in an interesting work above the name of the institution. A few very eminent 4 year colleges recently completed tenure track job searches with folks from UW-Madison, Kansas, BU, and Missouri. Just focus on finding an adviser who will challenge you.

This is an interesting question. I think the only way to really get a feel for a scholar's method is to read a lot of his/her/their work. Some really broad scopes include biography, connesuriship, social art history/cultural and historical context driven, iconography, and theory. Art history by Hatt and Klonk might help clarify the differences to you, if you are intrigued. Many of these methods overlap (and most good scholars depend upon a variety of the above as well). I will say, there are some folks out there who do prefer certain methods. For example, I was an idiot and applied to work with a hard core social art historian who is pretty anti-theory and mostly historically driven. I am more interested in theory. I think in general most departments like to have a rooted method/core belief despite a diverse area of research interests. For example, a program like Rochester, Wisconsin, Bryn Mawyr, or Princeton tend to be driven by theory and psychoanalysis. Other programs such as Northwestern and Chapel Hill tend to be more included to use historical context. 

I think it might be somewhere implied on their website that they typically expect a 167 or so on the verbal GRE. I think most of their folks tend to be older with MAs (probably perusing the current grad profiles will help). Many seem to have gone to Williams and old BAs for Ivy or Ivy-esque institutions. Many will continue to disagree with me on here and thats totally fine. All I can urge you to do is to find an advisor who thematically engages with your work in an interesting work above the name of the institution. A few very eminent 4 year colleges recently completed tenure track job searches with folks from UW-Madison, Kansas, BU, and Missouri. Just focus on finding an adviser who will challenge you.

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

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

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

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 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 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.