Sjofn

I don't have the option of visiting them; not from the UK. -.- Both are taught graduate programmes, and consist of a mix of both coursework as well as a thesis at the end of the year. I understand the faculty part - the only problem is that it all looks so new and nice. I guess I'll have to sit down and research more. Again, about the vibe, I prefer the small town over the city. However, at the end of the day, that won't get me anywhere; it's the course that will. Thanks a lot for the help. ^.^

Hi. Thank you so much for all the help. I'm afraid I don't really understand what you mean by 'a school with all 4's'. In terms of ranking though, St. Andrews is indeed higher up than UCL in at least 3 UK league tables. However, in the world-rankings, there is a huge gulf between the 2, with UCL being in the top ten for arts and humanities and St. Andrews being a speck far away. But then again, I've been told repeatedly that all these tables have different methods of assessing and it's difficult to gauge which uni is where. It does turn out, however, that in the local league tables, UCL suffers incredibly when it comes to student satisfaction, something which St. Andrews seems to be doing good at. But, what do you mean by the 3's and the 4's?

So, the tuition fee at UCL is more than at St. Andrews, with the acco being almost the same for both the places. However, there is indeed a slight chance that I get a scholarship (not much - around £2000) at St. Andrews (emphasis on slight though; the results haven't been declared yet). Plus, living in London is said to be more expensive. However, expenses aren't really a concern as much as making the right choice regarding the programme is. Again, because I'm transferring from a Literature background, I initially felt that the course at St. Andrews will be more accommodating and friendly as it deals with art history on generic terms, at least initially. Moreover, the place and the people seem really very nice. I felt that UCL might be a wee bit too focused and might hence not provide much room for exploring more. The problem is that I'm not acquainted well enough with the discipline to be jumping to conclusions straight away. And therefore, the programme at UCL, being more to do with visual culture might just give me a chance to get into film-studies or anthropology later. However, this is all speculation and I'm ending up contradicting myself repeatedly - the what ifs are damn annoying. I went and checked Columbia's art history faculty and there's this professor who deals with art and media, basically what the course at UCL tackles. So, well, I guess whatever the decision I end up making, it won't exactly be wrong. However, I really really want to get into a good Phd programme in the end and thus, need to figure out which course to go with.

Hi, So I've got conditional offers from both UCL as well as St. Andrews for a Masters in History of Art. Even though at first, I was really concerned and confused by the 'prestige' of the universities, it turns out it really doesn't matter much. And what is important is the course. Also, I really like the locations of both the unis, so that doesn't really come into play while making the final decision. So, here's the deal. UCL offers an Art History programme which is more contemporary and visual culture inclined - American media and Politics of the image in Germany in the 20th century are my modules (the job prospects seem nice). On the other hand, St. Andrews has a more traditional conception of art history, with one or two modules focussing on the 1960s I guess. I come from a Literature background but really like art history. After the completion of my Masters, I want to apply to the US for a phd programme (the integrated ones look good). However, I'm scared that by the end of my Masters programme, what if I want to take a break and do a job. Ah. Really confused. So, considering all of this (my background and future aims), which course will be more suitable? Any help would be much appreciated. Thank you.