x\/x\/x

@sol.sheri, @Allegorica, and still no word from Tulane. I feel like the mother in Alfred Hitchcock's Psycho but with my skeleton finger connected by cobweb to the refresh key.

I see where this advice is coming from, but institutional prestige matters a lot--like it or not. Academia is not an egalitarian culture! On the contrary, it's obsessively hierarchical. People from Harvard, Columbia, Princeton, Yale, Berkeley, etc. have an advantage in fellowship application and job searches simply because of the name attached to their degree; for harried committees, it's a stamp of pre-approval, and applicants from the top programs go to to top of the pile. (There's also a chicken or egg question here. Is it that the best candidates are already at the top programs, and the preponderance of people from those programs in top fellowships and universities is simply a reflection of that? I'll leave that alone for now though....) 
Also, the poster above is correct. You don't want to attach yourself to one advisor. What if he or she leaves? People do all the time. What do you do then? It's also true that the resources, financial support, and connections at the top programs are an advantage, in ways both big and small. Don't underestimate that. You fall behind early because you had to teach for an extra year, on campus, while your colleague at Yale was off doing research in Europe or wherever, with all the time to write and maybe work on an article and meet important people in the field. Already you're at a disadvantage.  
Another point, to take your example of someone who wants to work on 18th century painting. Yes, Dorothy Johnson and Michael Yonan are well respected within the field, but they are not so well known outside of it. People like Ewa Lajer-Burcharth or Darcy Grigsby, by contrast, have made a much larger disciplinary impact; almost everyone in art history is, to some extent, familiar with their work, because their work speaks to people outside of their field. Guess whose recommendation letters carry more weight? Remember, search committees will not be composed of people in your field. To you, as an eighteenth century specialist, a strong recommendation from Michael Yonan might mean a lot; to people outside the field, not nearly as much as one from Lajer-Burcharth or Grigsby. Will you probably get better advising from Yonan? Yes. Will it give you enough of an advantage on the job market when you're competing with top-notch students from Harvard and Berkeley? The sad reality is, probably not. Are there exceptions? Yes. Should you bank on being the exception? Good luck to you if you think that's a good way to proceed. I'm not saying this reality is good, but it is the reality. I've just checked caa jobs: there is a grand total of ONE job in eighteenth/nineteenth century art this year, across the entire country (other fields are not much better, but since this is the example we're working with, I'm sticking with it). With the job market as it is, you need to think long and hard about where you want to get your degree from, if you're going to have ANY shot at a job when you're done.

calling programs--by which I assume you mean calling the department administrator, who is generally not privy to any of the information you're seeking--to learn about your application's shortcomings is a fool's errand. It's a bit like asking the price of a dress in a fancy boutique: if you have to ask, you probably don't belong there. I'm not saying that's right or wrong, it's just how it is.
Along those lines, if any of you think getting a phd in art history is about being "mentored," you are in for a rude awakening. Professors don't bring you "on board" out of the goodness of their hearts; they do so if they think you will ultimately make them look good with minimal (if any) assistance, allowing them to accrue more of academia's chief currency: prestige. If you succeed (get fellowships, publish, land a job), they take credit; if you fail, it's because you weren't good enough. In any case, there is no liability: as long as their next book contract/cushy residential fellowship is secured, the rest is background noise. Nobody reaches the upper echelons of this business because they prioritize teaching or advising. Getting a phd is about internalizing rules (mostly of the unsaid variety), strategizing your relationships, shameless self-promotion, and offending as few important people as possible in the process. 

calling programs--by which I assume you mean calling the department administrator, who is generally not privy to any of the information you're seeking--to learn about your application's shortcomings is a fool's errand. It's a bit like asking the price of a dress in a fancy boutique: if you have to ask, you probably don't belong there. I'm not saying that's right or wrong, it's just how it is.
Along those lines, if any of you think getting a phd in art history is about being "mentored," you are in for a rude awakening. Professors don't bring you "on board" out of the goodness of their hearts; they do so if they think you will ultimately make them look good with minimal (if any) assistance, allowing them to accrue more of academia's chief currency: prestige. If you succeed (get fellowships, publish, land a job), they take credit; if you fail, it's because you weren't good enough. In any case, there is no liability: as long as their next book contract/cushy residential fellowship is secured, the rest is background noise. Nobody reaches the upper echelons of this business because they prioritize teaching or advising. Getting a phd is about internalizing rules (mostly of the unsaid variety), strategizing your relationships, shameless self-promotion, and offending as few important people as possible in the process. 

While it's wonderful to hear of everyone's acceptances, and I send my sincerest congratulations to you all, the portal screenshots are a bit much. Telling folks to look out for "funding" in their application status is a bit like telling hungry people to eat the prime rib on the plate in front of them. We get it; there is no ambiguity or secret language to decipher. 

While it's wonderful to hear of everyone's acceptances, and I send my sincerest congratulations to you all, the portal screenshots are a bit much. Telling folks to look out for "funding" in their application status is a bit like telling hungry people to eat the prime rib on the plate in front of them. We get it; there is no ambiguity or secret language to decipher. 

calling programs--by which I assume you mean calling the department administrator, who is generally not privy to any of the information you're seeking--to learn about your application's shortcomings is a fool's errand. It's a bit like asking the price of a dress in a fancy boutique: if you have to ask, you probably don't belong there. I'm not saying that's right or wrong, it's just how it is.
Along those lines, if any of you think getting a phd in art history is about being "mentored," you are in for a rude awakening. Professors don't bring you "on board" out of the goodness of their hearts; they do so if they think you will ultimately make them look good with minimal (if any) assistance, allowing them to accrue more of academia's chief currency: prestige. If you succeed (get fellowships, publish, land a job), they take credit; if you fail, it's because you weren't good enough. In any case, there is no liability: as long as their next book contract/cushy residential fellowship is secured, the rest is background noise. Nobody reaches the upper echelons of this business because they prioritize teaching or advising. Getting a phd is about internalizing rules (mostly of the unsaid variety), strategizing your relationships, shameless self-promotion, and offending as few important people as possible in the process. 

calling programs--by which I assume you mean calling the department administrator, who is generally not privy to any of the information you're seeking--to learn about your application's shortcomings is a fool's errand. It's a bit like asking the price of a dress in a fancy boutique: if you have to ask, you probably don't belong there. I'm not saying that's right or wrong, it's just how it is.
Along those lines, if any of you think getting a phd in art history is about being "mentored," you are in for a rude awakening. Professors don't bring you "on board" out of the goodness of their hearts; they do so if they think you will ultimately make them look good with minimal (if any) assistance, allowing them to accrue more of academia's chief currency: prestige. If you succeed (get fellowships, publish, land a job), they take credit; if you fail, it's because you weren't good enough. In any case, there is no liability: as long as their next book contract/cushy residential fellowship is secured, the rest is background noise. Nobody reaches the upper echelons of this business because they prioritize teaching or advising. Getting a phd is about internalizing rules (mostly of the unsaid variety), strategizing your relationships, shameless self-promotion, and offending as few important people as possible in the process. 

calling programs--by which I assume you mean calling the department administrator, who is generally not privy to any of the information you're seeking--to learn about your application's shortcomings is a fool's errand. It's a bit like asking the price of a dress in a fancy boutique: if you have to ask, you probably don't belong there. I'm not saying that's right or wrong, it's just how it is.
Along those lines, if any of you think getting a phd in art history is about being "mentored," you are in for a rude awakening. Professors don't bring you "on board" out of the goodness of their hearts; they do so if they think you will ultimately make them look good with minimal (if any) assistance, allowing them to accrue more of academia's chief currency: prestige. If you succeed (get fellowships, publish, land a job), they take credit; if you fail, it's because you weren't good enough. In any case, there is no liability: as long as their next book contract/cushy residential fellowship is secured, the rest is background noise. Nobody reaches the upper echelons of this business because they prioritize teaching or advising. Getting a phd is about internalizing rules (mostly of the unsaid variety), strategizing your relationships, shameless self-promotion, and offending as few important people as possible in the process. 

calling programs--by which I assume you mean calling the department administrator, who is generally not privy to any of the information you're seeking--to learn about your application's shortcomings is a fool's errand. It's a bit like asking the price of a dress in a fancy boutique: if you have to ask, you probably don't belong there. I'm not saying that's right or wrong, it's just how it is.
Along those lines, if any of you think getting a phd in art history is about being "mentored," you are in for a rude awakening. Professors don't bring you "on board" out of the goodness of their hearts; they do so if they think you will ultimately make them look good with minimal (if any) assistance, allowing them to accrue more of academia's chief currency: prestige. If you succeed (get fellowships, publish, land a job), they take credit; if you fail, it's because you weren't good enough. In any case, there is no liability: as long as their next book contract/cushy residential fellowship is secured, the rest is background noise. Nobody reaches the upper echelons of this business because they prioritize teaching or advising. Getting a phd is about internalizing rules (mostly of the unsaid variety), strategizing your relationships, shameless self-promotion, and offending as few important people as possible in the process. 

calling programs--by which I assume you mean calling the department administrator, who is generally not privy to any of the information you're seeking--to learn about your application's shortcomings is a fool's errand. It's a bit like asking the price of a dress in a fancy boutique: if you have to ask, you probably don't belong there. I'm not saying that's right or wrong, it's just how it is.
Along those lines, if any of you think getting a phd in art history is about being "mentored," you are in for a rude awakening. Professors don't bring you "on board" out of the goodness of their hearts; they do so if they think you will ultimately make them look good with minimal (if any) assistance, allowing them to accrue more of academia's chief currency: prestige. If you succeed (get fellowships, publish, land a job), they take credit; if you fail, it's because you weren't good enough. In any case, there is no liability: as long as their next book contract/cushy residential fellowship is secured, the rest is background noise. Nobody reaches the upper echelons of this business because they prioritize teaching or advising. Getting a phd is about internalizing rules (mostly of the unsaid variety), strategizing your relationships, shameless self-promotion, and offending as few important people as possible in the process. 

Hi InnovativeL,
 
I have to say I admire your tenacity and your moxie and I genuinely hope you find your way into the doctoral program of your dreams. You are clearly smart, motivated, resourceful, and resilient.
 
However, it strikes me as utterly perverse to put yourself through this kind of financial (and nutritional!) hardship solely for an invitation to the upper echelons of academe. As Secret_Ninja implied earlier, the "goals" of Fulbright can hardly be assimilated under the heading of "professional development." Paying someone for the privilege of working for them is ludicrous, plain and simple. Furthermore, as someone who is ABD at a R1 university, I can safely say that just about none of my colleagues across the disciplines had publications or conference presentations under their belt prior to admission. We've hired assistant professors who did not have peer reviewed publications on their CV yet. There is a fine line between enthusiasm and desperation, and if there is one thing by which academics cannot abide it's the latter. 
 
I would strongly encourage you to develop a plan B--or even a second plan A, really--should you not gain admission to a PhD program next year. Barring that, you should absolutely polish your writing skills as you move forward. This is, of course, simply an informal message board, but many of your locutions lead me to believe that you are not just a sloppy typist but a non-native speaker of English. Regardless of what the case may be, if you want to be competitive in securing research fellowships or other related academic honors in the US, anything less than crystal clear writing will be a major (if unsurmountable) obstacle. 
 
I wish you more than luck.