Bronte1985

Columbia does have one of the very top art history programs, but its MA program is, in fact, not well respected. Essentially, it is a cash cow for the department; your tuition is helping to fund all of those PhD students. If money is no object, and you won't go into debt paying tuition and living in NYC, then maybe it's something to consider. BUT: know you will receive very little to no attention from the tenured and tenure-track faculty. (Hell, the PhD students can barely get attention from the faculty! But that's another story...) The resources are, of course, unparalleled, in terms of libraries and museums, but you will be no one's priority. On top of that, I have been around for a while now and have not met any students at top PhD programs who received a terminal MA from Columbia. If you go to Columbia, you are purchasing a name, but you won't get much return on your investment., Now, Williams is a totally different situation. In every cohort of the top PhD programs, there is at least one or two graduates from their MA program, which, unlike Columbia, is well funded. It is probably the top MA program in the country. Also unlike Columbia, there are no PhD students with whom you have to fight for attention from the faculty. If you have the choice between Columbia and Williams for an MA, the choice is very clear.

Penn's reputation is excellent. It's a smaller program than Harvard/Yale/Princeton, which can be good and bad, and it's reputation is, I would say, just below those schools'--in the same league as Chicago, Hopkins, Northwestern, Stanford. If you get in to HYP and there are people there you could like to work with, you may have a (very) slight advantage on the fellowship/job market than if you went to Penn, but Penn would still be an excellent choice; once you're at that level, what will really separate you from the pack is the quality of your work, your perceived promise, and one or two publications in top venues.

If you want to apply to an art history PhD program, your writing sample really has to be about art. It's hard to imagine you'll get in otherwise. You say you want to work in museum education, so why are you also applying to philosophy programs? I don't really see how that will make you qualified. In general, it takes a lot of energy to apply to PhDs in two different disciplines--they require totally different statements and writings samples, not to mention letters of recommendation. By all means, if you want to pursue art history, you can, and should talk about how your experience in Philosophy and German has prepared you, but you will still have to articulate two very different cases in your statements for each discipline. It's OK to be unsure what you want to get your phd in--I hesitated between English and Art History--but you really should pick one. Art history and philosophy are very different disciplines. You can draw on art history in philosophy and especially philosophy in art history, but their methodologies, objects of focus, conventions are not at all the same. I would take some time to figure you what you really want to study and what you're actually prepared to study, and concentrate your energy on that.

What broader concerns/questions in your field does your project intersect with? What are the main scholarly landmarks around those concerns and in what ways in your project in dialogue with them? How does your project contribute to the scholarly conversation by shedding light on an area not addressed by other scholars? And finally how are you going to go about carrying out your project--what theoretical models will you draw on, what evidence will you use, how will you use it?

Well, because, while your advisor is important, you're not enrolling in an advisor, you're enrolling in a department and a university and living in a community. Every city, every school, every department has its own personality, its own ethos. If you get into Columbia and are supposed to work with a great advisor, but don't want to live in a large, hectic city or work in an ultra-competitive environment, you're going to have a pretty miserable 6-8 years. In choosing a program, you have to consider a whole host of factors, of which your advisor might be the primary but certainly not the only one.

I think this advice is absolutely sound. There are no guarantees when it comes to getting a job. There are a whole host of factors involved: who you worked with, what your dissertation topic was, what fellowships you got along the way, what and where you published, in addition to what program you came out of. A prestigious program guarantees nothing, but it does confer certain advantages both tangible and intangible. The best, to be sure, is a famous advisor at a prestigious institution. As it happens, though, the most prestigious institutions have the highest concentration of famous scholars. On that note, I would also caution that it is a bad idea to hitch your wagon to one person: if you come to a program with just one famous scholar to work with, he or she could leave and then you're in trouble (I would not be surprised, for example, if Jill Cassid is actively trying to leave Madison, given the situation there). Ideally, you want two or three people with whom you could conceivably work.

I've got to respectfully disagree with this. I know I sound like a broken record, but however good a scholar Jill Cassid or Leo Costello is, a PhD from UW-Madison or Rice is not the same as one from Harvard/Princeton/Yale/Columbia/IFA/etc when it comes to resources, opportunities, and prestige. Even if the research area is not a perfect match, I'm sure there are profs at all of these schools who would be happy to advise a dissertation on race and slavery in the 18th century; in fact, it's often a good idea not to overlap too exactly with your advisor's research. Beyond that, I think it's perfectly reasonable to set geographic limits for where you get your PhD. Getting a PhD, and a job afterwards, does require a lot of sacrifice, but this is one stage where you actually do have some control. Why live somewhere you don't want to when there are good options where you want to live? If you decide you want to be a professor and have to move somewhere less than desirable for a few years after you get your PhD, why make the sacrifice sooner than you need to?

Your advisor is right. It's an excellent idea to take time off between your BA and applying for grad school. After you finish your thesis, he or she will be able to write you a much stronger letter. Beyond that, it's good to get space and spend some time in the "real world" before you plunge into grad work: you'll be more mature and more sure about what you want in life, in ways you probably can't appreciate you right now. If you're interested in France, it wouldn't be a bad idea to look for opportunities there to sharpen up your language skills. But, really, you should feel free to do whatever you want in your gap year, if your credentials are already strong. In general, if your grades are stellar, your work of high quality, your recs glowing, and your personal statement sophisticated and compelling, you will be able to get into a top program with just a BA. And I'm not sure where you heard this, but you certainly do not need publications. In fact, it's probably a bad idea. You're not a mature scholar yet, however strong you work is, and when you are you will likely regret having your "student work" widely available. By the time you finish grad school, though, you will certainly want to have one or two articles under your belt.

Better metaphor for academia: getting mean, personal and defensive when you someone says something you don't want to hear, rather than responding calmly with evidence. As it happens, I have a good, tenure-track job, thank you very much. And, yes, I probably have better things to do than post on this forum. But I do feel strongly that this advice should be out there for prospective PhD students. There are many reasons to get a PhD, but it is indeed serious, and it involves a lot of sacrifices. If you decide after you're finished that you want to pursue another line of work, that's great, but it's hard to start from scratch in a new profession, at 30+, with no other work experience, and, unless you have other sources of income, no savings. PhD programs do not, as a rule, prepare you for jobs outside academia or the museum (though they should!). So I for one don't think a PhD, especially one from a mid-tier program, should be entered into lightly. People certainly can do well coming out of mid-tier programs. I don't dispute that. Your odds are quite a bit better, though, coming out of a top program. This is a matter of statistics. There will always be people who beat the odds, but the problem is, everyone thinks they'll beat the odds, and not everyone can. So all I'm saying is that people looking to get a PhD should take an honest look at the job situation and make an informed decision based on their situation and goals. I'm so glad that @mrssalad's friends have gotten great jobs, and I sincerely wish the best for everyone out there, regardless of whether they're at Yale or Iowa.

*level=language

I know it can seem that way, but it's not true. The Ivies and other top programs want you to be able to do PhD level work. That means: an understanding of the major debates/issues in the field; the ability to articulate a well thought-out research plan; having already conducted a high level research project that integrates visual analysis, theory, primary sources, and secondary sources; fluency or at least a high level of proficiency in at least one research level; evidence of high achievement; and letters saying you have the potential to make a major contribution. Some people have that after their BA, and if they do they will get in to a top program, especially if they have top grades from a top school. Others, probably most, don't and would benefit from a Masters program to acquire the skills they need to thrive in a PhD program. Iowa, Madison, Florida: all good programs, with good people. But you will face a very steep climb--I'm talking near-impossible--if you want a tenure-track job or a curator position at the end of it. There are people who have done well coming out of these and similar programs, but the sad reality is that most do not. Prestige matters still. Add to that the disparity in resources, and that dream job ends up being even further out of reach. I know it's uncomfortable, but if you can't get in to a top program in the first place, you have to be honest and ask yourself: Why didn't I get in? Will I really be able to catch up? Is it possible I don't have the very specific, highly specialized kind of skills to be a successful academic? The people at the top programs already have a leg up on the skills they need to succeed (think about it: the gate keepers of academia already let them through the first of the many gates one has to cross to get that dream job, and that's the easiest gate to cross. What makes you think it's going to get easier?). They also have better resources and connections. If you attend one of these others programs, you will be behind, and you will have to work even harder, with far fewer resources, financial and scholarly. The competition for jobs is tight--according to the Mellon foundation, less than half of humanities PhDs will find full-time employment in academia--and only the very strongest survive. You really have to ask yourself if going to a less prestigious program is worth the gamble. This is a personal question and no one can answer it for you. I'm just saying that it demands confronting the reality of the humanities ca. 2018 and deep reflection about what you really want--about your goals, your ambitions, your abilities, your future.

With only one art history class, you might have trouble getting admitted directly to a PhD program. A terminal masters might be a good idea to get more experience. However, you might have a chance if you've worked extensively on visual culture and can demonstrate that, as well as a solid awareness of the major debates in art history, in your application; but again all that depends on the particulars of your experience, which I don't know. No matter which route you choose, it will be essential to articulate in your personal statement how the skills you acquired in history have prepared to do graduate work in art history. The two fields are not too different--it's not like you're switching from physics. I don't know how important art history credits are for MA programs, but it probably depends--you should contact programs individually. And, again, since history is so closely related I would think it wouldn't matter too much. It is certainly not essential to have published before applying to the PhD (which, in the US, are almost all MA/PhD programs). In fact, I would say it's probably a bad idea: you will likely regret having your juvenilia floating around once you're most established. That said, it is essential to have carried out a major research project, like a thesis. What admissions committees care about is whether you have the skills (and aptitude) to succeed in their program. Nothing demonstrates that better than a writing sample with an original argument, sophisticated use of primary and secondary sources, good visual analysis, and a letter from a professor who can attest to all of that.

It sounds like you should work with a medievalist. Of course there are overlaps with Renaissance (now, more than ever), but medieval art history remains a distinct field, with its own set of concerns and debates, and you want an advisor who is familiar with them. Moreover, I don't know too many Renaissance scholars who would say they "start around 1200." If you can't find a medievalist specializing in Italy--it's true that there probably aren't many--I would wager that many medievalists would be willing to supervise a dissertation in Italian art if you can articulate connections between their interests and concerns and yours. Of course, you will probably also work with the Italian Renaissance specialist in whatever dept you end up in, so he or she would be an important, if not the primary, resource for you. This is something you should also discuss in your personal statement. Now, there is a caveat, depending on what exactly you want to work on: there are several Renaissance specialists (like Alex Nagel) who are interested in the links between Medieval and Renaissance, and in questioning the boundary between them, so they might be interested in supervising your work. In any case it would be a good idea, as you say, to ask your POIs if they'd be willing to take you on (perhaps wait till spring, though). Be aware, though, that some will not respond to your inquiry--professors are busy people and sometimes they don't answer emails from prospective students--but don't make a judgement based on them on that. The most important thing now is to talk to your advisor and other professors. They will be able to help guide you in finding a suitable program.

*WOULDN'T worry about it.

Then it sounds like you're in a good position. There are plenty of scholars who are interested in the Enlightenment, so what I would do, if I were you, is frame your project in terms of the Enlightenment, or rather in terms of the question you want to ask. Why have the artists and objects you study been largely overlooked? How does your project reshape our understanding of the Enlightenment and its relationship to art? Your project is not, or shouldn't be, so much esotericism for its own sake as what you want to do with it. As for the problem with "esotericism," why not simply deemphasize the word? Focus on what you're interested specifically, whether that be alchemy, astrology, hermeticism, mesmerism, palm reading... People you're speaking with might be blanching because esotericism suggests a unified tradition or field--who knows? Some people care if topics are trendy, some don't. And certainly trends change. I would worry about it. Worry about how you can articulate why your topic is relevant to scholarly discussions happening today and why it matters.

1. Writing about an unknown artist or subject no one cares about is fine as long as you can articulate why people in your field and the discipline at large should care about your artist/subject. Whatever you write about, you have to a clear sense of the stakes: what is the historical and theoretical importance? Now, you can go out and chase trendy topics and that might give you a slight advantage but I do believe you'll have an easier time answering those questions and your work will be more meaningful if you're actually passionate about your subject. 2. I guess it depends what specifically you want to study. It would be tricky to write about the entire esoteric tradition. You'll have to pick a time period: antique, medieval, early modern, modern. After that, you might look for someone with an interest in the history of science, but certainly you don't need to study with someone who works on the same thing as you. You may want to look at schools with strong history of science programs

The main thing that admissions committees ask themselves is this: is this person ready to do high level research? How do you show that you're ready to do hight level research? Excellent grades, for one. If you want to go straight from undergrad to a PhD program, this is particularly important, and it helps a lot if these excellent grades come from an elite school (not fair, I know, but this is the way of the word, especially the academic world).If you've garnered a prize or two for your excellent work in art history or another humanistic field, even better. You need to stand out as one of the best, most promising students in your major. That's only the beginning, though. Language skills are key. Fluency in your main research language--Italian in your case--will really make you stand out; even better if you've had a start on German or Latin, too. Are you writing a senior thesis? If it's possible, you must. And it also has to be top notch. What does that mean? It means that you've chosen an appropriate, manageable subject; asked an interesting, relevant question that shows awareness of major debates in the field; drawn on a wide range of primary and secondary sources, some of which should be in your main research language; integrated sophisticated formal analysis; advanced a relatively original argument; and written the whole thing in clear, logical prose. If your advisor can write that you've done all that, and the committee can verify it for themselves in your writing sample, you will be golden. What better way to show that you can do high level research than to have already done it? With your excellent grades and thesis, you will have hopefully cultivated good relationships with a few professors, who will be willing and able to speak to your potential in their letters. After that comes the application itself. Your personal statement is your opportunity to narrative your experiences, to bring it all together, and use them to demonstrate that you know what kind of questions you want to pursue in grad school and why they're important. Do you have a coherent, interesting, well thought out research agenda (not too general or too specific) and do you have enough experience to carry it out? Do you know why you want to go to the grad school you're applying to and study with the people you propose to study with? Extracurricular experience, like museum internships, helps, especially if you're able to articulate how they've helped prepare you for grad school; even better if you're able to integrate your experience into your thesis research somehow. But it's not the most important thing. If you haven't made the experiences meaningful, and you don't have the record of academic excellence to back it up, you'll have a hard time convincing committees that you are, in fact, ready to carry out high level research. You can try to speak at conferences or publish something, but this is not at all necessary--professionalization is not what's important at this point--and I think, for various reasons, that it can do more harm than good at this point in your career. The point is, applying to a PhD is not like applying to any other job: racking up experience does not matter nearly as much as evidence of a quality mind and strong discipline. If you don't yet have enough research experience or the grades or the languages, an MA first is not a bad idea. Above all, talk to your professors--not only about if you're ready and where you should apply, but why you want to go to grad school in the first place. The job market is truly miserable and only getting worse. Being an art historian can be a wonderful life, but you will have to make frequent, serious, and sometimes painful sacrifices along the way, both during grad school and especially after. You need to go into this with open eyes. Too many people don't and regret it down the line.

You certainly have enough experience for the PhD, though your undergrad institution and GPA might be a bit of stumbling block for top, top programs. Experience and GPA only matter so much, however. What admissions committees care about is the quality of your work. If your writing sample and personal statement are top notch, you'll be fine. They'll need to be well written, well researched, and original; that is, they have to demonstrate a solid grasp on the major debates in your field and at least indicate a path towards an original intervention in those debates. You should talk to your professors about your readiness for the PhD--they'll know best.

I've said this before, but there seems to be some misconception about what it takes to be a successful application to the PhD. It's not like applying to a regular job. Experience (internships, curatorial work, gallery work) can make a difference, but it's probably the least important thing. What committees care about is: does this person have what it takes to succeed in grad school? What does that entail? Understanding the major debates in your field and in art history; being able to articulate a pertinent, fresh research agenda; understanding the stakes of the questions you want to investigate; carrying out research in primary and secondary literature; and conveying your ideas in a clear, elegant way. That's it: they're interested in your mind above all. How do you show those skills? In your personal statement and writing sample. If those aren't up to snuff, you won't have a chance. They have to brilliant, because they will receive the most scrutiny. As for "experience," that can definitely be an asset, but you have to be able to demonstrate how that experience has helped you develop the skills I listed above.

I'm sorry to hear about your predicament. First thing's first, a PhD is a long road, and writing a dissertation is grueling, lonely, time-consuming process. If you're miserable now, I don't see how sticking it out and hoping that things "get better" could make you anything but more miserable. In order to be successful, you need to be wholly committed to and passionate about your work. That said, what is it about medieval/renaissance art that you find so much more interesting? Do you really think switching will solve all of our problems? Remember, the grass is always greener on the other side. Perhaps because you're feeling down, you've latched onto the idea that switching fields will solve all of your problems, but it sounds to me like there are deeper issues here. You need to get to the bottom of what's really going on here. So first thing's first: you have to decide whether you really want a PhD and why. There's no shame in dropping out if you're not wholly committed to it. In fact, it would be a very sane position. Now, if you decide that you wouldn't be happy doing anything else, you need to think more about your field. A few thoughts. First, what got you interested in African art in the first place? Perhaps you can get in touch with your initial passion. I should say that if trends continue the way they are going, you'll have better job prospects as an Africanist than a medievalist/renaissance specialist. There's a growing demand, and the field remains small. Now if you feel like you need to switch fields, you have a couple options. First, maybe you can combine the fields and work on a cross cultural topic, like African-European exchange in the middle ages or early modern period. With the global turn now in full swing, this would be an eminently reasonable topic. Second, I don't know about the structure of your program, but in most cases you are not wedded to the topic or field you proposed in your application. You're still in your first year of coursework. Presumably you have one more year left. Take classes with the medievalist and the renaissance specialists in your department. Plenty of people switch fields. People grown and change: that's fine. Your third option is to transfer. It's not the best option, but your reputation could certainly "recover." People do transfer programs. Whatever you do, I you need to have a frank discussion with your current advisor and DGS. This may feel uncomfortable, but it's the professional, adult thing to do, and will be the best for you in the long run. If you're having problems, they can't read your mind; remaining silent will only create more problems and misunderstandings. Be frank but respectful about your issues and explore options with them. They do not want to see one of their students flounder. Trust me. Good luck!

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.

I think the most important thing you can do now is write a super compelling personal statement and writing sample. There seems to be a misconception on these boards that "experience" carries a lot of weight in these decisions. From my experience, it doesn't. Committees care that you have good ideas and can express them well. If these things are lacking, all of the internships and publications (in what are usually very minor venues) and high GRE scores in the world will not do much good. Make sure your personal statement articulates a clear, cogent, and interesting research agenda. What questions are you interested in? Why are they important? How do you fit in with the field? Similarly, your writing sample should exhibit clear, elegant writing, rigorous research, and original thinking grounded in a firm understanding of the field. These things are the best indicators of potential, and that is what committees are most interested in. I would also recommend you reconnect with your recommenders asap, both to discuss your applications and to jog their memories for their letters.

AMEN

All of this is very accurate. I perhaps wasn't strong enough in my last post; I really wouldn't recommend her, unless you have $500 you don't mind wasting. For what she gives you--minor, cosmetic, sometimes contradictory advice that fits everything to a pre-determined template--$50 AT MOST would be a fair price. Her work is lazy and disengaged. The whole experience was disappointing and frustrating, and the more I think about it the more frustrated and disappointed I get. I wish there were some way to hold her accountable. She's got a monopoly on this editing thing, and she's managed to established herself as some kind of academic career guru (because her advice in the book is solid) and has acquired an authority that allows her to behave this way. What really bugs me is the way she preaches about how unethical the university system is and yet has profited from it in the most exploitative ways, feeding off grad student's anxieties and charging enormous fees to do very minor work. Makes you wish there was Yelp for job document editors. I can't imagine anyone who's used her feels they got their money's worth.

I hired her and would recommend her with some serious reservations. First, I'll say that my documents were better after working with her. That said, for what she does, she overcharges. She charges by the hour--4 drafts, an hour on each. It's clear, however, that she doesn't spend anywhere near that amount of time on them. For the first draft, she sends a form letter telling you to read her book/blog posts more carefully, with maybe a sentence pointing to some problems areas in your document (e.g., your letter needs to be better organized; it's emotional, self-aggrandizing, etc.) She does line edits on the subsequent drafts, but they are mostly cosmetic, and, not surprisingly, geared to making your document hew more closely to her template. In any case, I found it hard to believe she spent more than a half hour on any of the drafts. On top of that, she is needlessly brusque and condescending (I realize she's being "real," but for what she charges I think a kinder approach is not too much to ask for). But her advice is solid, and, as I said, the documents came out better--not much better, but better all the same. The problem is that she charges a lot of money for what she does. And she can, because what she's selling is a (false) sense of control to scared grad students at the mercy of a baffling system. The reality, though, is that, while there are certain rhetorical tricks out there that are helpful, the system is finally opaque and variable. I've read cover letters and statements from a number of friends who are now employed at top universities, and a shocking number of them break Karen's most sacred "rules," sometimes, it seems, all of them. In the end, the decisions of search committees come down to so many factors that are out of your control: do they like your topic, do they like your advisor, have you published enough? What Karen offers can help, but only a little bit. So, if you've got the money, then sure, go for it, but don't get your hopes too high.