georgica2

If you're planning on applying for a PhD in the US after getting your MA, many of the European programs are not considered particularly rigorous (at least not when compared to top US MA programs.) For one, they're substantially shorter (1 year as opposed to 2 or 3) and tend to have very little coursework. I wouldn't necessarily say that ALL of them aside from Courtauld are useless, but most US PhD programs won't see a European 1 year MA as the equivalent of an MA from a multi-year program in the states.

There are a lot of reasons why she might not have responded -- on sabbatical/a research trip, bogged down with deadlines, generally technophobic. I wouldn't necessarily take her silence as a sign that she's totally uninterested in working with you. That said, if she's absolutely the only person at this particular program you'd want to work with, it might be worth reconsidering the application. I'd suggest maybe trying to get in touch with some of her current students or the program administrative office to see if she's taking on new students, etc.

I might be in the minority on this, but I think if the question states "no more than 1,000 words," than anything over 1,000 words is too much. If it's "approximately/about 1,000 words," I'd go with the 10% rule and try and cut it down to 1,100 or so.

To echo the above comment, it depends what you want to do with the MA. As for Pratt, I don't know much about the specifics of their programs, but as far as I can tell, they don't actually have an academic art history MA program -- all of their grad programs appear to be either studio-based or more arts admin-related. NYU has multiple art history-related MA programs. The Art History MA at the Institute of Fine Arts is one of the top art history MA programs and many of its graduates go on to get PhDs in art history and/or become museum curators. NYU also has various arts admin and museum studies MA programs with completely separate faculties. Those programs obviously include art history courses, but there is little, if any, interaction between those students and the ones in the art history program at the IFA. I don't know much about the selectivity of the Sotheby's and Christie's programs, but they're more tailored towards people who are interested in going into art business, auctions, galleries, etc. If you're hoping to eventually get a PhD in art history, this is probably not the route you want to take. If you're interested in design/applied art, the Bard Graduate Center has MA and PhD programs in decorative arts and design history; it's not my field, but as far as I can tell, it's a very well-regarded program. Lastly, there are also MA programs in art history at Brooklyn College and Hunter College and a museum studies MA at City College, all of which are part of CUNY.

The figures were the first things I cut with my writing sample when I had page limit issues. Assuming you're working with relatively well-known works of art (the sorts of things art history professors would be familiar with and can be googled with relative ease) it shouldn't be a problem. Remember, they're assessing your ability to write and conduct art historical research, not reviewing the essays for publication. I included a brief footnote on the first page of my writing sample stating that I'd removed the images for the purposes of page limits.) Also, I think that the text is more important than the bibliography (eg, I would NOT suggest sending 5 pages of text with a 10 page bibliography.) Simply listing sources doesn't say much about your ability as an art historian; they're just as concerned (if not more) with how you utilize and interpret the material. For schools that don't want your entire thesis, maybe choose a chapter that you think best highlights your writing/research skills with a cover letter that summarizes the project as a whole and how this particular excerpt fits in.

The title isn't going to be all that important -- it's more the name of the professor (and whether or not the committee recognizes it) that matters. Either way, since it seems like you have pretty good relationships with both professors, it might be worth speaking to both of them and asking their opinion about the situation (eg, asking the studio professor if he feels familiar enough with your academic work to write a rec for an art history program or if he thinks you should go with a professor who is strictly an art historian, and vice versa)

Definitely have to echo what's already been said about UC Berkeley. They posted a listing on CAA for one modernist at (I believe) an assistant/associate level, but assuming that position will be filled by next year, their program still won't be anywhere near as strong as it was with TJ Clark and Anne Wagner and probably won't for awhile. If you're interested in possibly going abroad, Courtauld Institute in London has Sarah Wilson, who specializes in Eastern European modern/contemporary. It's not really my area, so I don't know who the major players are or where they teach, but it may be worthwhile to look into Russian/Slavic studies programs as well as art history.

Midtown is pretty accessible from most parts of the city because it's centrally located (hence the name) and it's also one of the only parts of the city where you can get crosstown by subway with relative ease (both the E and V go East-West at 51st street and the 7 goes between Grand Central and Times Square at 42nd.) If you're going to be in Midtown, you can basically live anywhere in the city. LIC is a good and cheap option for commuting to Midtown, to be sure -- as I said in my other post, the E, V, and 7 will all get you to Manhattan in 1-3 stops. It definitely won't have the same cool vibe as many neighborhoods in Brooklyn, but I've noticed a lot more young people around lately. It's particularly popular with artists because there's cheap industrial studio-type space available, and there are a bunch of galleries/non profit art galleries in the area (PS1 and Sculpture Center, most notably.) However, there are a lot of areas of Brooklyn that are cheap, accessible, and much more interesting. If commuting time is your primary concern, Queens is probably more convenient, but Brooklyn is likely better for social life and general atmosphere. Honestly, I live in Manhattan, so I'm not an expert on the outer boroughs, but New York magazine's website (nymag.com) and Curbed.com (a real estate blog) have tons of local information for each area if you search around. Also, a great site to check out for subway routes and commuting info is hopstop.com -- type in any 2 addresses and it'll show you the available routes and approximate travel time. If you're

As you probably know, Hunter and Columbia are on opposite sides of the city, so where you'll want to live will be totally dependent upon which you choose. The most important thing is going to be picking a neighborhood that allows you to get to the general neighborhood with a minimum of transfers. If you're going to be at Hunter, I'd suggest looking in Long Island City, Queens. It's cheap and a very quick commute to Midtown. The E/V will take you from Ely Ave/Court Square in LIC to 51st and Lex in 1 stop (you can transfer to the 6 up to the Hunter stop at 68th, or just walk) and the 7 train Court Square station is about 3 stops from Grand Central. If you're looking in Brooklyn, I'd try to find somewhere near the L train, which goes to Union Square. Williamsburg is the obvious choice, but it's going to be relatively expensive compared to other parts of Brooklyn (still cheaper than most of Manhattan, though.) I know you said you're most interested in Brooklyn and Queens, but if you wind up at Columbia, you might want to consider the Bronx -- the Riverdale section is very safe, mostly families and Orthodox Jews, and it'll be a much quicker commute.

I'm assuming this is a response to my post. I did plenty of research before applying, and only applied to schools where I felt I would be a great fit. Every school I applied to is a top program in my field with excellent professors working in my specific area of interest and in locations I found liveable. I had one clear-cut top choice (I was rejected) but other than that, I didn't spend too much time "ranking" my choices -- I didn't see any reason to debate whether I'd rather attend Princeton, Yale, or NYU since there was a good chance I could be rejected by all of them. I knew I'd be happy at any one of the schools I applied to, but they were all very different programs with various pros/cons, and once I knew what my options were, I started comparing them specifically. Considering I'm still waiting to hear back about funding at one program, I don't see any reason why I should make a decision before feeling like I have all the information I need (and, by the way, I notified the programs that I'm no longer considering.) Just because you managed to visit schools across America and made your decision months ago doesn't have any bearing on my decision, or anyone else's. I don't need an "excuse" -- we're obligated to notify programs by April 15th, not before, and I don't feel remotely apologetic about taking the time I was allotted so that I can walk into a program in September feeling like it was the absolute right choice. And yes, I do work full time, which meant that I didn't have time to do extensive visits at all the schools I applied to. Once I found out where I was accepted, I was able to do longer visits, hang around campus, attend some lectures/public events, get a feel for the program and the university. I certainly had no intention of making a decision based on a brief campus tour back in October. I'd guess that most "thoughtful" individuals actually take the time to "think" about their options before "pulling the trigger."

I think that nervousness is a natural reaction -- I'm feeling the same thing. This is my 2nd time applying (I was rejected at all 4 programs I applied to last year) and the fact that something I've been planning on and working towards for 2+ years is about to be a concrete reality is, frankly, terrifying. I always thought I'd be ecstatic at this stage, but instead the thought of September makes me sort of nauseous. I'm guessing everyone is feeling something sort of similar, at least on some level. It sounds like this program is a good fit for you, and you've been given a great offer -- I wouldn't let anxiety get in the way of it. As I said before, I've been there, and the move IS possible, even in such a short period. The key is to start early and do as much as humanly possible in advance.

It would be nearly impossible to pursue the degrees simultaneously. Both are presumably full time programs (surely the PhD is, at least) and even if you were able to find a university willing to allow it (highly unlikely) the workload would be ridiculous, especially since they're totally different fields with completely different requirements, tracks, etc. Remember, virtually all PhD programs and many MA programs require students to maintain a pretty high GPA to stay in the program -- in all likelihood, you'd end up failing out of one of the programs. However, I have heard of PhD students who, after finishing their course requirements and proceeding to the dissertation stage, take some sort of a leave from the PhD program to pursue another degree in a different subject -- ie, I know a handful of PhD students in the social sciences and philosophy who have pursued Law degrees mid-PhD. They DON'T try and do both at the same time, though (unless the school has some sort of formal dual degree program, which I'm guessing there isn't since you're asking.) However, not all universities will allow this (and many won't allow you to be enrolled in multiple programs at once.)

I guess my take is that if you'd be willing to let $3500 stand in the way of going to the program, you're probably not that enthusiastic about it. That's not to say that $3500 is a pittance, but if it were me and I was offered a place at a program I was really excited about, especially if they were giving me a good funding offer, I'd drop everything. I think what you really need to figure out is whether or not this program is a good fit and if you'd be happy there. If you want to go, you'll make the logistics work. I did my undergrad degree abroad, so believe me, I understand how daunting the idea of picking up and moving your entire life to another country is. However, 6 days IS enough time if you really want it to be. When we moved back to the states after finishing undergrad, my boyfriend and I packed up our entire apartment in about 5 days -- and he started work literally 2 days after we arrived. For one, there's nothing preventing you from starting to pack up and ship your stuff before your contract is up. If you start preparing well in advance, it's completely do-able. It'll be a stressful week, to be sure, but that's what moving overseas is like regardless. Another thing I'd recommend -- rather than asking to defer your acceptance, why not explain your situation to the program simply ask if you can start a week late? They clearly want you enough to offer you a generous fellowship, so I bet they'd be willing to work with you to make your move possible.

As someone who is still staring at 2 offer letters trying to sort out which one to accept, the answer is yes. I'm not doing it to be cruel to those on the waitlist (I'm guessing the same goes for all of the other people who are still deciding at the last minute) but it's a big decision, and since I didn't get into my absolute top choice, I want to make sure that I've fully weighed the options. Remember, many programs only notified accepted applicants in mid-March -- I got my last decision about a month ago, during which time I had to find a time to visit schools, research the programs, weigh the pros/cons of each program, etc. This all takes time. 4 weeks blows by pretty quickly, especially when you're trying to make a huge life-altering choice like where to spend the next 5-7 years. Also, crucially, many programs don't make funding decisions until April, which means that applicants are waiting until the last minute to see whether or not they're going to be able to even afford to go to a program.

I would suggest calling them on Monday morning -- if you were accepted, you have to tell them on April 15th if you're going, so I can't imagine that they've held back any notifications at this point. They sent out letters (both acceptances and rejections) via post, so it's possible your letter just got lost.

Is anyone seriously considering CUNY? If so, what field? Has anyone visited? Since getting the acceptance letter, I haven't heard a peep (which doesn't bode well for funding, of course) and am wondering if anyone has communicated at all with the department or had a chance to look around.

I believe this was discussed on one of the other threads (maybe on the first page?) but you shouldn't be surprised at all. International students are almost always the last to be offered funding, especially for a taught MA, as opposed to a research degree, where there's limited funding to begin with -- this happens in the States, too, not just at Courtauld. If you look over the results page, you'll see tons of international students applying to American universities griping about the nonexistent funding for international applicants. Additionally, in Britain the vast majority of funding for graduate students comes from the AHRC, which is government money, and only UK (and sometimes EU) citizens/residents are eligible. I would be surprised if they funded more than 1-2 international students, since that's likely coming totally out of the institution's pocket. One thing to keep in mind is that ALL universities in Britain are state universities -- run by the government, funded by the government, etc., so their priority is necessarily going to be educating their own citizens, much in the same way that American state universities limit (or eliminate altogether) funding for international students to subsidize state residents. It also means that their endowments are a fraction of those of private American universities. And, lastly, getting substantial funding for an MA is rare, regardless of what country you're in. Most American MA programs are totally unfunded.

You're not the only one who is feeling a ton of post-acceptance doubt. I too was accepted at multiple programs this year after getting in nowhere last year, and as soon as I received my final acceptance and realized that this was about to be a reality, I entered total panic mode, wondering if I even WANTED to pursue a PhD, whether this was the field for me, etc. (complete with researching a ton of programs in other fields and thinking about how exciting the material was.) Doubt is natural. Not only is a PhD a huge undertaking, but committing to a discipline means choosing a career path, a lifestyle, etc. Anyone who says that they're not experiencing any kind of anxiety or hesitance over their decision whatsoever is lying/crazy/in denial. It comes with the territory. Getting the acceptances makes it "real" in a way it never was during the course of 2 rounds of applications. Just remember, there is a reason you applied to these programs, a reason why you wanted to get a PhD to begin with, even if you can't really remember what it was right now. Don't let your anxiety, fear, doubt, etc. let you talk yourself out of doing something that you clearly wanted enough to go through the hellish process of applying, not once, but twice. I suggest that you talk it over with one of your recommenders. I'm sure they will be able to talk you through some of the issues that concern you about the PhD and about your field generally. I also suggest you talk with some law students -- they are, generally speaking, not a happy bunch. I'm guessing that many of the things that attracted you to academia will be missing from law school -- direct contact with professors, a sense of community, etc. Law school classes have hundreds of students, professors who are often also practicing lawyers or consultants and are unlikely to remember your name, and a huge amount of competition. On top of that, the state of the economy means that many law firms have stopped recruiting new hires altogether while the application numbers for law schools have soared, meaning that getting into law school is harder than ever, even though your chance of getting a job after graduating and taking on a titanic amount of debt aren't great. My honest suggestion: go into the PhD program. If, after a year in the program, your feelings still haven't changed, drop out. It happens all the time. Allow yourself to make an informed decision about whether or not the PhD program is for you. If after a year you don't like it, you haven't lost much -- as someone else said above, law school isn't going anywhere. It might even be a little bit late in the game to start law school applications for Fall 2011 anyway - law school admissions weigh the LSAT extremely heavily (it counts way more than the GRE does for humanities programs) and most applicants study for 6 months - 1 year before taking the test.

I'd absolutely wait to get it in writing from choice #1 before turning down choice #2. It would indeed be pretty bad if a program reneged on a verbal offer, but that doesn't mean it never happens. There's a reason why most schools stress that communications via email, phone, etc. with individual professors are unofficial and offers of admission/funding are only binding if they come from the graduate school/dean/whatever. It's unlikely that a professor would inform you of a funding offer unless it was solid, but there's always a possibility of funding not coming through for a variety of reasons outside of that particular professor's control (let's assume for the moment that a school/prof wouldn't be cruel enough to intentionally make an offer that was likely to fall through...) It may seem paranoid, but there's no reason to gamble. I'd suggest first asking school #2 for an extension. April 15th is the commonly held reply date for a reason -- it allows all candidates to make informed decisions about where they're going, and prevents programs from strong-arming them into accepting offers before they're ready. I'd also call school #1 and ask if funding letters have been mailed. If they have, wait a day or two and see what happens. If not, I'd tell them that they're your absolute #1 choice and you're ready and willing to commit as soon as you have that letter in your hands, and ask if they'll give you something in writing (or at least when you'll get it.) If they're hesitant, it may be an indication that your funding offer isn't as definite as it was portrayed to be.

That's basically what I was afraid of. Honestly, a part of me sort of wishes that I hadn't asked to be considered for the MA so I wouldn't have to choose, and could happily go on to CUNY PhD program without any doubts. However, since I have yet to be offered any sort of funding at CUNY (and given the sorry state of their finances, probably won't) the money is less of an issue right now than whether or not the new MA is "worth it," so to speak. Is anyone seriously considering the IFA MA? Specifically anyone who is hoping to get a PhD, or weighing it against a PhD offer? Pros/Cons? Shadow -- that was the website I was referring to. It only speaks of "proposed changes" and is somewhat vague on the specific details, so I was wondering if anyone had more information (i.e. had spoken to people at IFA directly.)

Has anyone actually been admitted to IFA's PhD program for Art History? I looked over the results, and I see a few rejections and a bunch of rejected-PhD-admitted-MA (including myself), but no outright PhD admits. Also wondering if anyone has more in depth information about the new IFA program structures. The website is pretty vague and only refers to "proposed changes" but nothing definite. In the old system, everyone started out in the MA, regardless of whether or not they were going for a terminal masters or a PhD, and after completing the IFA MA, students could ask to proceed to the PhD (subject to faculty approval.) Now that they've split the program into 2 tracks, MA and direct PhD, I'm wondering how this affects incoming MAs. Can MA students who perform well in the program continue to the PhD (obviously there are no guarantees, but assuming an acceptable level of work in the MA) or do they have to do a totally new application as if they were outside applicants? IFA was one of my top choices, but I have another offer from a PhD program, and I don't know if I can justify going to IFA if I'd have to completely reapply in 2 years.

Have you checked the online app for Penn? The emails directed everyone to an online decision.

As OliverOD said, you shouldn't be surprised about not getting funding. Most postgrad scholarships for UK universities comes from the AHRC, which is government-funded and only UK/EU students are eligible. On top of that, tuition is subsidized for UK residents at both levels (undergrad and postgrad), with international students paying substantially higher fees to compensate. With regard to the benefits/drawbacks of a Courtauld MA, I wouldn't worry about getting your MA at a different program than the PhD -- some universities actually avoid accepting internal candidates especially if they have sequential programs, and it certainly won't hurt you to get your MA elsewhere. With that said, though Courtauld is well-known internationally and has an excellent reputation, the UK system is very different to the US, which is something you should factor into your decision. Universities in the UK are very focused and require a great deal of independent work -- there's not a lot of room for changing your mind about what you want to study or experimenting with a variety of different courses, especially in a program like Courtauld where you apply directly to a course/professor. If you have any doubts about your research interests, Courtauld is not the place to go. As with any university, the accessibility of faculty members varies person to person, but in general, the culture of UK universities requires students to be very independent and pro-active. If you're a person who needs a very hands-on advisor/program, a UK uni might not be right for you. Again, the key thing in your decision should be how closely the course fits your research interests, and how certain you are about specializing. If you absolutely know what you're interested in and the course is a perfect match, Courtauld is a good choice; if you're wavering between a few different areas of interest, or the Courtauld course seems exciting, but not totally related to what you envision your PhD research to be, it might be worth considering a US program.

I'm pursuing a PhD in art history, not a museum studies degree, but my understanding of the purpose of these programs is that they prepare you for all of the non-curatorial positions in museums -- education in particular, but also things like development, visitor services, public programs, etc. As a discipline, museum studies is typically more along the lines of sociology/anthropology rather than art history, combined with the professional development aspects of arts admin. The specifics varies from program to program (some may have more art history emphasis than others) but generally museum studies focuses on issues of museum history, what the purpose of museums are, how they can best serve the public, their roles and responsibilities, ethical concerns, and so on. Also, it's important to point out that not all museums are art museums - there are also monuments, children's museums, science museums, history museums, etc. and these programs are likely to attract people from various disciplines. However, I can understand why someone who wants to be a curator might regret going for a degree in museum studies, as most curatorial positions go to those trained as art historians. This, however, is less the case in Europe where museum studies programs are often interchangeable with curatorial studies.

I wouldn't worry too much about the rankings, especially if they're that old -- for one, I'm guessing that rankings are strongly correlated with the strength of faculty research, which has presumably changed considerably over the course of 15 years. Consider Berkeley, for instance -- always been regarded as a top program, but they're about to lose a bunch of big-name faculty and the university budget has been decimated. That's the sort of thing that would drastically alter a program's ranking from year to year. Base your decision on the current faculty (and success of their current and recently graduated students) -- if there are people doing interesting and important work in your area , the program will be respected.