Bronte1985
-
Posts
51 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
3
Posts posted by Bronte1985
-
-
A lit review will not cut it, nor will a paper that analyzes a work of art "in a variety of ways" without a coherent argument. Your writing sample needs do several things. It needs to put forward an original argument. It will also need to demonstrate that you can do visual analysis, and that you can do so in dialogue with other scholars while drawing on relevant primary sources, both textual and visual. This is the kind of work you will be expected to produce in grad school, and the admissions committee will want to make sure that you're ready to do it. More than that, they want to know that you're ready to become a professional scholar and make a contribution to your chosen field. If you have not written this kind of paper before, you may want to look into getting a masters to get more research experience.
-
Changing specializations is not uncommon but you will almost certainly need to get a MA in East Asian art first. Committees will want to make sure you're actually ready to make a scholarly contribution to the field, so you'll need to show them that you can actually read advanced Japanese texts (and preferably speak near-fluently as well) and that you have a good understanding of the field. Without a couple of years of formal training and an MA thesis in East Asian art, I'm afraid few PhD committees will be convinced that you're ready.
-
First of all, there is a very small client pool for this kind of thing so you certainly won’t find any “big companies” specializing in Art History. There are, however, a good number of freelancers out there, many of whom have PhDs. I would google around. That said, while I’m sure a good editor could improve your materials, I’m not sure one will really be worth your money. I would ask one of your professors and perhaps a smart friend, especially if they’ve been through this already, to read a draft first.
-
There's also the question of how personal to make your statement. If you have a compelling story/background that is relevant to your research program, then by all means bring it in, but keep the focus on your scholarly matters. This is not (primarily) about your personal journey, though in certain case elements of that story may be germane.
-
Writing a statement of purpose can be daunting but their purpose (as it were) is pretty simple. The admissions committee wants to know who you are as a scholar, and they want make sure of two things: 1) that you're prepared to do top-level grad work and 2) that you're a good fit for the program. That means you need to communicate that you have an excellent understanding of the field, a well articulated research program that will make a contribution to said field (which should be specific but not too specific; you probably shouldn't propose a specific dissertation topic but you need to demonstrate that you'll be ready to propose one in 2 years), and an understanding of the stakes of your research program (the "so what"); it also means that you need to explain why the professors and/or resources at the school you're applying to make that program the ideal one for you. What are the questions and issues that will drive your research? Why are they important? How do they relate to conversations and debates happening in your proposed field and the discipline more broadly? Why are you especially qualified to pursue those questions? These things are pretty formulaic in their form (and if you end up going to grad school you will be writing many of them in the form of fellowship proposals and cover letters), but this document *should* be exciting for you as well as your committee. This is your chance to show your passion, your intelligence, and your knowledge. Why do you want to spend the next 8 years or so of your life in grad school? Good statements of purpose have a certain spark, but there's really no secret; really, you just need to know what you're talking about and write clearly, concisely and eloquently! That doesn't mean it will be easy. Statements of purpose are straightforward but they're hard to get right. You'll probably have to do a lot of soul searching and write many drafts before you're "there." Don't worry about getting in wrong the first time. You probably will. Keep revising and, if you are indeed ready for grad school, you will end up with a great statement. I also suggest you talk to your professors about your statement and ask them if they'll read a draft.
-
On 4/7/2022 at 7:20 PM, Beek2023 said:
I have spoken casually at a few conferences on my early American research, and besides the undergrad journal I will soon have an exhibition catalogue to put on my C.V. from my fellowship (I secured the image rights).
Make sure you don't put the catalogue under "publications." Securing image rights doesn't count as a publication (in any case, publications at this stage of your career are totally unnecessary and possibly a bad idea). You can list that you secured image rights for the catalogue under a brief description of your fellowship, but honestly that is a skill that is pretty irrelevant to grad school work, so you can leave it off; the admissions committee will not care (unless one of them is in the final stages of preparing a book for publication and needs a research assistant who knows what they're doing! ?).
-
Your resumé sounds very strong, but a strong resumé will only get you so far. What will distinguish your application from the hundreds of others is the quality of your writing sample, personal statement, and letters of recommendation. Your writing sample needs to show that you're ready to do grad work at the highest level. That means, in addition to being well written, demonstrating an ability to develop a clear and original argument, carry out sophisticated visual analysis, work with primary sources (hopefully in at least one language other than English), and engage meaningfully and critically with secondary scholarship and theory. Your personal statement needs to demonstrate an awareness of the key debates and methods in your field, as well as a clear and well thought out research agenda that complements the research of whomever you want to work with. Your letters of recommendation need to attest that you are among the strongest students your professor has taught, that you've mastered the skills I listed above, and that your work to date demonstrates potential for growth into a mature scholar. You can't control what your letters writers write about you, but hopefully you've developed relationships with them over the years so they can write knowledgeably about you and your work. You should speak to them early and often about your goals, and hopefully they can give you more advice.
-
The days of becoming a curator with just an MA are largely over, no matter where you degree is from. It's still possible in contemporary art and at smaller regional museums, and I've heard of isolated cases where the curator had accumulated a lot of curatorial experience and published, but otherwise a PhD is pretty much a prerequisite now.
- nudeinbrook and Beek2023
-
2
-
Also, as a side note, because I feel ethically obligated to say it: do make sure you explore other career paths while you're in college. There are many wonderful things about getting a PhD, but the job market is horrendous and just when you think it couldn't get any worse it gets worse. You want to make sure you fully understand the sacrifices a PhD entails and that really, really want it. You will learn and experience a lot in the next four years. It may confirm that you want a PhD--or not. All I'm saying is, keep an open mind.
-
It really depends on what your local school is and what opportunities you would have there. That said, if you do well at Barnard and cultivate relationships with some of your professors, you should have no trouble at all getting into a top--fully funded--program. It seems like half the PhDs I know did their undergrad at Columbia/Barnard.
-
The difference in how you'd write isn't so much a question of style or tone as of subject, scope, methodology, and contribution. Each journal occupies a particular niche in the academic landscape and addresses a particular audience. The Art Bulletin, Art History, and Oxford Art Journal are general art history journals: methodologies can vary, but articles submitted to those journals should make a clear disciplinary contribution, beyond a particular field or subfield. There are differences among these journals, but not, as far as I can see, very significant ones, beyond length.
For articles that make a more field-specific contribution, there are many journals that have a more narrow focus, like October. October is journal dedicated almost exclusively to articles that deal with modern and contemporary art but, unlike, say, Art Journal, their articles tend to engage a particular set of theoretical concerns (Neo-Marxist, post-structuralist theory, traditionally). Grey Room, on the other hand, concentrates on Media Studies, so, for example, you probably wouldn't be publishing on "high art" there, unless you were rethinking it using the conceptual tools of media theory. (October and Grey also happen to be more "cliquey" and tend to publish people the editorial board already knows--last I checked, October doesn't even do double blind peer review).
So the main difference among journals is audience: who's reading the articles. Who do you want to reach with your article? What scholarly conversations is your work taking part in and how big of a contribution is making. In terms of figuring out the differences among the journals, the best thing to is to read a few issues as well as the journals' mission statements. The differences are sometimes subtle, sometimes obvious. If you picked up an issues of Oxford Art Journal and compared it to an issue of the Burlington, for instance, I think the differences would be pretty clear: articles in OAJ make extended, conceptually sophisticated arguments grounded in a broader historical and/or theoretical context, while the articles in the Burlington focus more on connoisseurial and/or documentary topics. So keep reading. Especially if you start at the top journals, you may have to submit to a few places before you get your article accepted; sometimes you may have to reframe it, other times not.
Hope that helps!
- Artgirl87 and killerbunny
-
1
-
1
-
Hmmmm....that's tricky. There just aren't too many research assistant positions out there, unfortunately. The big museums do have them, and it used to be that all you needed was an MA, but because there's such a glut of PhDs out there, they're increasingly being filled by people with their doctorate. I should warn you, though, research assistant jobs pay pretty poorly and advancement (say, to a curatorial position) is very difficult without a PhD. Before you take the plunge and enroll in grad school (MA or PhD), I think you need to reflect on the kind of job you want and do some research about how many positions in the field exist and what qualifications are necessary. I totally understand the desire to grad school and I understand your love of historical research, but, unless you have independent means, you want to make sure that all the time and money and energy that you need to invest to go to grad school will actually help you land a viable job at the end. Good luck!
-
You don't say what your career goals are. You don't want to be a professor, but if you want to be, say, a curator, you'll need a PhD. MAs in art history don't open that many job opportunities on their own. If you want to work in museum education or administration, or in a gallery, you don't necessarily need an MA; and a PhD likely wouldn't help you at all. So the question in, why are you going to grad school? Will either an MA or PhD help you achieve you goals? On principle, given how low salaries are in the art world, I would be wary of taking on too much debt to fund an MA. On the other hand, spending 7+ years getting a degree, making a paltry stipend, especially when you're older and don't want the kind of jobs a PhD is supposed to prepare you for, isn't exactly sound financial planning either. So I think you need to do some serious introspection about what you really want.
-
17 hours ago, Maple1eaf said:
I’ve enjoyed reading the comments on here in as far as it gives light to all the different opinions there are in this given topic. For one, it is telling that those within current programs are not even cautioning us but rather persuading us not to apply. This just highlights how out of touch institutions are to the world. It is sad that future scholars are advising current applicants not to apply. This kind of sentiment is not unique to academia. Lawyers have the highest rate of alcoholism in any profession, yet there are still many people going down that track even knowing the amount of stress and unstable financial return. This probably ties into what the poster above mentioned. We all do certain things for our own reason. Every profession has its exploitative side as well. Does that stop people from doing it? No. There are social workers who are severely underpaid and overworked, yet they still find a reason to help others. Should they get paid more? Yes, without a question.
Academia is unique in that it is held up by powerful institutional pillars. And in the past 20 years or so, we've only really seen this institution open up and accept scholars from non-traditional backgrounds. By its design, academia is supposed to uplift a heteronormative, homogenous white space. Because of this, most scholars within undergrad/grad environments don't see beyond these walls. And really, I am talking about the elite of the elite schools. Most people getting into the top schools have been pipelined into getting there, whether it be coming from a top prep school/boarding school, going to a top 30 undergrad, and then getting a place to a top grad school. This is no mistake. Does it erase the amount of work the person experienced to get there? No. But it does put into context when you start having applicants from low-income backgrounds who have faced more adversity on their way to getting to one of these top schools. Many of these new scholars have already realize that though they have achieved a great feat, this degree is still not a means to an end for them. Simply getting a degree from harvard or yale will not make things easier if you are a black or brown phd holder applying to further white institutions.
So in this context, it does still feel as though certain ideas echoed here are gatekeeping those same very underrepresented scholars who by design as well have had to overcome many obstacles and jump through similar gatekeepers just to get a similar spot where you stand. I really do believe these underrepresented scholars are the ones who are paving the way in creating a new reimagined institution.
With Covid having destroyed nearly every field, it's hard to even gatekeep something we all know is going to majorly change in the coming years if not sooner. Gatekeepers telling certain applicants not to apply because they are being foolish of their career prospects may seem harmless and just "advice", but there are many who do not look at this from that perspective.
And we all see how exploitative this profession is even before we get there. From the application process to being a grad student to entering the field. It never ends. But does that mean we accept this cynicism that one should stop trying?
These kinds of conversations touch on certain aspects of our current society. And who is facing the discomfort right now? In short, the very same homogenous white space that for the first time ever is feeling the same pressure and discomfort that certain minorities have been feeling for quite a long time now...
No question that academia has been exclusionary for a long time and that it needs to change and, importantly, that it is changing, albeit slowly. Still, while some may be speaking from a place of disappointment and bitterness about their experiences, I don't think anyone here is "gatekeeping." They're asking prospective students to be realistic. Idealism is nice, but reality is reality, and conditions are what they are. You can decide to fight and struggle to make change--and bravo to you if you do!--but before you do decide that, you better be damn sure you know what you're getting yourself into. Knowing how exploitative and cynical the profession is, is it really worth it? Can you really imagine doing nothing else? Can you effect greater change elsewhere, while facing fewer professional hurdles? (You mention social work: well let me tell you, art history is not social work; no matter how socially engaged your work is, scholarship in the humanities, especially art history, is mostly inward looking, not to say selfish. Even within the institutions of the university and the museum themselves, art historians don't really have the power to effect systemic change. If you make it to the top, you may have prestige and cultural capital, but no one in the administration will listen much to you. So if you want to make change on that front, become an administrator.) None of this is to say that being an art historian can't be rewarding and valuable work, and short term yes, maybe hiding out in grad school for a few years isn't the worst idea. But before you take the plunge, I just urge you to square your idealism with the often depressing reality on the ground and take some time to be practical about what you can actually achieve and what you actually are willing to sacrifice to get there. This advice is not a personal attack or an effort to take "gatekeep" or take you down a peg.
-
41 minutes ago, onomatopoeia_ said:
Dear Bronte1985, thanks so much for your insight! I found every word true and helpful.. I might have overestimated my aptitude and keep aiming for something higher than I can reach at the moment...I appreciate that you mentioned "tremendous amount of hard work". It is so true. I never feel I have done anything remotely close to what I should have done, and this could be the reason for my lack of emotional fortitude...so work harder is always the answer...
I have been thinking about other options for a long time and always come back to the idea of getting a Ph.D..in the last six years since I graduated from the M.A. program I have made almost of all my major decisions based on the prospect of "maybe I will attend a Ph.D program next year" and everything I do feels like an overstretched prelude. I really don't want to just give it up for the first "no"...thank you for letting me know that this is just a beginning of many many rejections along the way. This vision of what lies ahead down the road, although brutal, is surprisingly comforting. Now I feel much less concerned about what my advisor said in the email...thanks again for the input. I really really appreciate it.
I'm glad that was helpful! Another thing I'll say is that one of the most pernicious things about academia is the way it encourages you to identify your self-worth with academic success and how your peers judge you. That's not a good way to lead your life whether or not you're a "success", but keep in mind that being a successful art historian or any kind of academic is a very specific skill. Failing at it does not mean you're not a smart person with a lot to contribute to the world. You are not your work.
-
So your former advisor gave you advice you didn't want to hear? That's hard, I know, but that doesn't mean you shouldn't consider seriously what she is saying. She wasn't trying to hurt you. She was giving you her informed opinion based on what she knows about your work and PhD admissions, and she would be doing you a disservice if she gave you false hope. But that doesn't mean she's right. You have her opinion, and now you need to be clear-eyed about your chances of getting in to a prestigious program. No one here can do that for you, and getting there may involve painful, honest introspection about your academic record and aptitude. If this is something you really want, you have to ask yourself: 1) am I willing to sacrifice the time and emotion and intellectual labor writing applications to top programs even if there's a good chance I won't get in? 2) am I willing to apply to lower-tiered schools, knowing that graduating from one will make finding an academic or curatorial job even harder? In my experience, many students applying to PhDs overestimate their abilities and underestimate the competition, especially if they've been a big fish in a small pond, and they have unrealistic expectations about their job prospects at the end of the PhD. Unfortunately, most people have to learn these lessons the hard way. That said, it is possible to succeed, despite the odds, but it takes a tremendous amount of hard work and emotional fortitude. Being a successful academic has, after a certain point, only a little do with how smart you are; it has to with your persistence, drive, and savvy. If you continue on the path towards a PhD, you will encounter more discouraging "no's" than you'll know what to do with. No, your paper wasn't good enough. No, you didn't get that fellowship. No, your article wasn't accepted. No, you didn't get that job interview. They keep coming and it *is* emotionally devastating. In brief, think of this advice from your former advisor as the first hurdle of many you will encounter. Do you really want to run the gauntlet, with all the sacrifices that entails, to end up with a degree that may or may not lead to the kind of job you're hoping for? It can be tremendously rewarding, but only for a very specific kind of person. I urge you to consider your situation and your goals carefully.
-
-
1 hour ago, wt2020 said:
IF YOU ARE THINKING OF APPLYING PLEASE READ
I have lurked these forums for years since first thinking of attending a graduate program in art history in 2012. I finished my PhD this spring from a top-tier program and I now feel more than ever that it is imperative for me to loudly voice what is, in some ways, a cruel but honest truth about this system: A PhD in art history is a bad idea.
Everything vivodito mentioned above is true. To add anecdote to fact I will say I had a tenure-track job at a decent liberal arts college revoked this summer because the department put a hiring freeze in place and is now cutting funds. I am now returning to a competitive field of recent elite PhDs from this graduating cycle in addition to those lingering from nearly a decade of cycles past. I have colleagues who are brilliant, and whom I adore, who finished their degrees in 2012–14, in the early recovery post 08' recession, who have spent a decade now trapped in adjunct hell, working 3 jobs a semester at different universities to make ends meet. The constant demands on their working hours means they are never able to do the kind of work museums or schools want to see in their hirees. They will never find stable jobs in the field but that doesn't stop them from competing with those of us graduating now. The finalists last year for Columbia's unfilled architecture spot where largely c.2014 grads. We should loudly sing the praises of those like Prof. Ilene Forsyth at UMich who had the immense foresight and ability to endow chairs on her way out, but sadly most institutions do not have such saints.
If the dimming prospects of the field don't dissuade you, think about the PhD itself. It is a horrible and arduous process that is, somehow, simultaneously full of some of the most amazing, fulfilling, and formulating experiences you will ever have. Especially if you are just finishing undergrad, know this, you will give your 20's to this process. Your non-academic friends will be establishing careers, getting raises, maybe even starting families or buying houses. You will be married to your work, your dissertation, and your classroom. You will make less than $30k if you are lucky. You might have health insurance, you might have labor rights. If you are lucky you will also see the world, meet inspiring minds, make friends for life, and learn more about yourself as a human (not just as an intellect) than you are prepared for. [I am going to get grilled for this, knowing this forum, but] EVEN THESE SILVER LININGS ARE NEARLY IMPOSSIBLE IF YOU ARE NOT IN ONE OF THE TOP TIER PROGRAMS. We no longer live in a world where the independently wealthy whimsically dig mummies at the behest of colonial Egypt. If your department cannot: pay you living wages, ensure full health insurance, provide ample time to complete the program (5-7 years), protect your rights as a laborer in the department DO NOT GO TO THAT INSTITUTION. You will be taking on debt you can never recover from and placing yourself in serious harm. For all my struggles this past year I have watched friends and colleagues from places like UWisconsin and UCLA absolutely suffer over the past 8 years. Imaging working a full-time job (your studies) on top of which you must teach (another part- to full-time job) after which you either make "Extremely Low Wages" (HUD's classification one step above poverty) while living in the 9th most expensive city in the US (UCLA) with no ability to unionize and demand better working conditions OR make NOTHING if UWisconsin cannot scrounge the funding for a stipend on top of your fee waivers. This is nothing against the quality of the professors in these institutions and the students they produce but know this: Yale and Harvard send at least one class a semester abroad on study trips (to places like Russia, the UAE, and Mexico) because they have the money to do that on top of paying their students over $30K for 7 years. Imagine entering the job market out of UWisc. where you never had the funding to travel to your sources, time to truly invest in your work, or chances to network locally and abroad. Now know you are against a Yalie who had the time and support to go to every conference, travel to Russia on Yale's dime, write a solid dissertation because they didn't have to TA after year 3, and spent the night before the CAA interview in a fancy hotel they could afford on their real (albeit still meagre) stipend. This is also not to mention the cruel and classist stigma of hiring committees: I once had an ivy-league professor (old white man) tell me that ivies don't hire graduates of non-ivies, "you can only ever move horizontally or down in the pecking order," which is, thankfully, not a universal truth, but one that still lingers painfully on.
"Okay, I'll apply to one of the top programs then." Not this year. As mentioned above, in the (I would argue correct) demands and interests of their current students, many programs are cutting admissions to support current candidates. Yale and Chicago are skipping the whole year. The IFA is reducing admissions to half for at least a year. UPenn is considering something similar. Assuming they will not also make such drastic changes, you can guarantee Columbia, Harvard, Princeton, Berkeley, and Michigan will all also be slimming their usual 12 or so a year down to maybe 8-10. That's potentially up to HALF the number of genuinely funded and supported spots available in top-tier American programs for this application cycle. And you can bet rejected students will be applying again next year, meaning the application pool will only be growing. [we can argue over who is and is not in that top tier but each of those programs pays living wages, insures their students, is overly represented in major fellowships like Kress and CASVA, and in new hires. Only ONE (IFA) is fully unionized, ensuring students are paid extra when they choose to teach as compensation for extra labor]
If you have made it this far please hear me out, none of this is a reason not to apply. When I was finishing my undergraduate I was deeply in love (and still am) with the field of art history and gave myself gladly and fully to a senior thesis supervised by my favorite professor who was caring and helpful and incredibly supportive. What he told me come application time was crucial: "If you can imagine yourself doing anything other than a PhD in art history then you should not be applying for a PhD." At the time I was a little hurt and took it as his admonition of my unreadiness for graduate school. What I have realized since is that 1. he tells this to all his good students and 2. the process of getting a PhD in art history is mentally, emotionally, and physically (yes, books are heavy) destructive work that will chew you up and spit you out into an even more grueling and horrible world, and if you are not so enamored of, so head-over-heels-crazy about doing this insane thing, weathering all the long nights, sacrifices of friends and family, and meagre living standards then you must (not should, must) turn elsewhere. It is no mark against you. There are brilliant, interesting, passionate, and powerful people doing all sorts of things other than PhDs in art history and I encourage you to think long and hard, especially now, if you are one of those people. If you can imagine yourself doing anything other than a PhD in art history—and I mean anything: an MBA, law school, finance, a start up, tech, medicine, hell, even history (those guys can get cushy state department jobs)—then you should not be applying for a PhD in art history.
If you can look yourself in the mirror and know that you are willing to weather the horrifying tempest that is dying humanities, collapsing departments, under-supportive programs, and a field that is only just (but thankfully is) beginning to deal with its historically myopic fixation on white-western-male-centric topics then I wish you the best of luck, godspeed, and may you and all those like you save us all.
EVERY. WORD. OF. THIS.
-
9 minutes ago, venusofwillendork said:
Hi! I know you just messaged me, but to answer this specific question publicly -- yes, reaching out to faculty is super important. You need to stand out from 100-300 applications to be not only academically in the top 10, but personally someone the faculty want to work with. Think of this like a job application. If you just send off the application and let it go, you might be awesome, but you will not do as well as the person who has used their networking connections, or done an informational interview. They might be bothered, so you should always be polite. But it's their job to work with new students, so it's a fair thing to ask.
I agree with this, with a few caveats. It is a good idea to contact faculty before you apply, because it does make you stand out (though conversely, it can also backfire if you make a bad impression). That said, a good number of faculty, especially at the top schools (think Harvard, Columbia, Princeton, etc), do not typically respond to these inquiries or if they do, will tell you they cannot meet with you. For some this is as a matter of fairness; others because they're too busy. Whatever the reason, don't read too much into it if you don't get a response or get the response you were hoping for. If the faculty member and the program are a good fit, apply anyway and see what happens. If you're admitted, you can talk with the professor then.
-
Start with: The Art Bulletin, Art History, Oxford Art Journal; Representations and Word & Image are not art history journals, strictly speaking, but have published many important articles in the discipline
-
2 hours ago, Bronte1985 said:
Have you taken any art history classes? You don't have to have majored in art history, but you will likely not be admitted to an MA/PhD program directly without at least a few art history classes and a major research project, ie a senior thesis, in a related discipline, preferably on a topic that involves visual material. But that's just the minimum: you need to demonstrate to an admissions committee that you have 1) a sufficient background (broad knowledge of the material and issues in the field; that's why classes in AH are important), 2) research skills (relevant languages, work in primary sources, substantial written projects), and 3) potential to contribute to the field (the ability to articulate an informed and interesting research question and position it in the relevant literature, strong writing skills, and a record of academic achievement). Your transcript, personal statement, writing sample, and letters of recommendation need to show that you have these qualifications. It's hard to get them without a certain amount of coursework in art history and other related writing-, reading-, and research-intensive disciplines. I suppose it's not impossible without that background--and certainly whatever the case it will be important to articulate how your work in design informs your research agenda--but you'd have your work cut out for you to convince a committee that you're ready.
-
Have you taken any art history classes? You don't have to have majored in art history, but you will likely not be admitted to an MA/PhD program directly without at least art history few classes and a major research project, ie a senior thesis, in a related discipline, preferably on a topic that involves visual material. But that's just the minimum: you need to demonstrate to an admissions committee that you have 1) a sufficient background (broad knowledge of the material and issues in the field; that's why classes in AH are important), 2) research skills (relevant languages, work in primary sources, substantial written projects), and 3) potential to contribute to the field (the ability to articulate an informed and interesting research question and position it in the relevant literature, strong writing skills, and a record of academic achievement). Your transcript, personal statement, writing sample, and letters of recommendation need to show that you have these qualifications. It's hard to get them without a certain amount of coursework in art history and other related writing-, reading-, and research-intensive disciplines. I suppose it's not impossible without that background--and certainly whatever the case it will be important to articulate how your work in design informs your research agenda--but you'd have your work cut out for you to convince a committee that you're ready.
-
On 4/7/2020 at 12:30 PM, CyrtomiumFalcatum said:
I've created an account just to emphatically disagree with what I feel are some highly spurious claims being made in the above post. I graduated from Columbia's terminal MA program a couple years ago and found that my experience was far removed from that being detailed here. The post above gives the impression that you join the MA, pay up, and then don't see anyone for two years. Aside from the seminars that everyone takes anyway, I was seeing professors in office hours basically every week, and I was frequently in close contact with at least four tenure(-track) members of faculty, all of whom greatly shaped my work and, for what its worth, helped me throughout the various stages of the PhD application process. (The idea that even PhD students are neglected by Columbia faculty is also far from from the truth.) I would also like to mention especially that the director of the MA program is fantastic (and a graduate of the program herself), and makes a concerted effort to create a sense of community for the MA students—this includes, among other things, 2 MA-only methodology and practices courses, day-long thesis workshops every semester (attended by faculty), and visiting lectures from people in the museum and galleries sector. In the last few years I have known (myself included) many people from Columbia's terminal MA program to receive multiple PhD offers from what this Forum likes to refer to as "top programs": Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Stanford, Columbia, UCBerkely, UCLA, or be hired by institutions such as the Met, Frick Collection or Chicago's Art Institute. In my PhD program there are currently 4 Columbia MA/MODA graduates.
All this said, it is an expensive program, so this is obviously something that should be factored into one's decision. I also know several brilliant graduates of the Williams MA in my current PhD program. Ultimately, what one "gets" out of any of these programs is a function of what one puts in. My point however is to say that the opinion given in the above post seems to be entirely conjectural and, at worst, outright false.
This is heartening to hear! Obviously you know better than I do, and I'm very glad to learn that the faculty are so involved and interested. I was basing what I said on reputation, but I don't have hands on experience. I did not attend Columbia for my MA or PhD, but from what I've heard from PhD students there is that most professors take a decidedly "hands off" approach, which is not unusual at the "top" programs. Perhaps the culture is changing. In any case, you are totally right: you get what you put in, whatever the programs (though with some places you do get a better return on your investment).
-
14 hours ago, theoryschmeary said:
I'm curious to know which art history PhD programs you consider to be "top". I'm a recent graduate of Columbia's MA program (I can provide details to the OP in a follow-up post) and have known several alumni to go on to PhD programs at Harvard, Princeton, Stanford, Northwestern, Columbia, and UPenn, just to name a few.
Maybe things have changed then! I'm glad if they have. I'm curious, though: how was your experience in the program?
Can I use a Lit Review as my Writing Sample in PhD Application?
in Art History
Posted
Sounds like you're on the right track!