Jovant

I did the MAPH program two years ago and made my decision today to accept an offer from my top choice. BEST DAY EVER until I came across this thread. I hesitated initially to respond, but I have to admit - especially on a day like today - without MAPH, I wouldn't have been accepted into a PhD program, let alone one of the best places to pursue research in my field. 
 
If you can't afford it, then that's that. I don't want to waste your time. It is a very expensive program. So was my undergrad. I'm sure at one point, for my parents, it felt like driving a luxury car off a cliff every year. BUT if it IS one of the few options you have, and you can afford it (or you handle the pressure of having student loans like a lot of people in my cohort did), u of c has a lot to offer, but ultimately with any program, it is up to you to make best of it. Generic advice I know, but really simply put, no one program does it all, and for me, knowing how much it cost, I was really determined from the beginning to get my money's worth. 
 
I went to an ivy league school for undergrad with a major in art history, senior thesis with a great professor, and scored 1590 on the GRE, so I was really disappointed the first time around. But looking back, there was no chance in hell I would have gotten in. I didn't have a developed research focus and wasn't well-read in terms of current literature in my field beyond readings from undergrad classes, and at the very least, I was off to a pretty good start after a year at U of C. The core class fall term was hella challenging, but I survived it and got an A, and most of the seminars I took, I was the only MAPH student which made me feel out of place to join in on the discussions, but I just had to get over that. I found what really helped me was being proactive in reaching out for advice and feedback from professors and students, and I plan on continuing that as a PhD student. In choosing my thesis advisor at U of C, I was really lucky to have been able to work one-on-one with a professor whom I respect very much, and she was incredibly supportive during the entire application cycle afterwards - both in encouraging me but also letting me know the areas I needed to improve on. Some of my peers had to push themselves a bit harder to find that. My preceptor was also the best human being in the world and a huge part of my support system even after I left the program. 
 
By the time I applied (a year after the MA), I had a better statement, three new letters, museum internships, improved proficiency in my second foreign language, and stronger drive to pursue a PhD. From my precept group, one friend applied right after MAPH and got into one of the most best programs for his field of study. It was different for others, and a lot of them simply realized they didn't want to be in academia and got jobs (working at a bank, teaching at a community college, joining an education dept at a museum, founded a curatorial collective etc). So, no it might not be a traditional art history program, but it worked for me. 

IMHO, these are rather bizarre questions to ask *now* given your professed stance against the program. Perhaps these might have been issues to have clarified *prior* to mounting blanket offensives against a particular program? Anyway...
 
1. What you seem not to comprehend is that there is little distinction between MAPH and the regular PhD. In fact, aside from the one Core seminar course, students are able to take any graduate courses, anywhere in the division of the humanities. Thus, I routinely found myself in PhD seminars, mixed graduate/undergraduate courses, or introductory graduate/undergraduate lecture courses. So, as in any department, the number of "repeat" faculty members will vary from year to year. In my year, I had two faculty members with whom I took two courses each. 
 
2. How do you get to know any faculty member with whom you don't take classes? You talk to them. Just like in any graduate program.
 
3. What do you do with anyone who's on leave? You establish contact and build a relationship. If they're able to meet, you meet.
 
4. Yes, there are MAPH events of all stripes spread throughout the entire program duration. Career-advancement (academic/non-academic), panel talks, faculty talks, a weekly social hour allowing for mingling between students and faculty, etc.
 
5. You can obviously access the full resources of Chicago, since you are a graduate student. So, yes, you can access departmental resources. I don't know if you mean the kind of departmental meetings that set agenda or clarify matters for PhD students and the PhD program--if so, then no, since you are not a PhD student. 
 
6. The initial advisor is assigned just like it is in most PhD programs. After that, you choose your own. 
 
7. How on earth is it even remotely relevant to **the program** whether or not someone gets along with their preceptor? Isn't that wholly upon the individual to sort things out?
 
8. Yes, Preceptors are assigned based on research interests. It wouldn't really make sense not to do so.
 
9. Your faculty advisor directs your whole thesis from beginning to end. You can, obviously, approach anybody else--whether PhD student or faculty--for advice or whatever.
 
Once again you insist on comparing MAPH to programs explicitly dedicated to a particular approach, even though MAPH is designed to be different--it is designed to appeal to those with more interdisciplinary approaches. I don't really know how to state this any more bluntly. Furthermore, you're perfectly welcome to audit any language courses you wish--nothing restricts you from NOT pursuing language learning. It is true that the program is designed so that PhD applications are best completed the year after graduation, which is actually an advantage to my mind. Again, personal preferences will differ. Again, if the program isn't FOR YOU, that is no demerit of the program itself.
 
You may be perplexed as to why I am so stubborn in defending the program. It's because on the one hand, I experienced it (and you didn't), and so know first-hand what it does and what it doesn't. On the other hand, almost every one of your criticisms have to do with personal preferences rather than the program's merits or demerits. In fact, the only point you've made that counts as a demerit against the program itself is its unusual timeframe, which encourages PhD applications a year afterward. Everything else either stems from your lack of knowledge about the program (witness all these questions you ask *after* your criticisms), or from how you believe programs should work (necessarily funded, etc. etc.)

Someone make an MAPH forum and we can be done with all of this bullshit. It's ironic that you're complaining about "tired evangelization" Papelpicado, because there's been a non-stop MAPH circle-jerk on these forums for months now. It's obnoxious, and more often than not, quite tone-deaf. 

As a side-note, it floors me that the following sentence was written by a graduate student; I would have been embarrassed to have written it in high school. 
 
 
I'd also like to say that "Now I scoff at me" is grammatically incorrect. What you are trying to say is "Now I scoff at myself." Perhaps your atrocious writing played a part in your rejections from PhD programs...

Since I believe this exchange isn't exactly proving productive, I'll include a final comment on this purely for future readers. Obviously, I remain in complete disagreement with m-ttl.
 
First, "special permission" = Ask the faculty member. It's that simple.
 
Second, I don't believe it's a program's responsibility to secure internships for its students. Those half a dozen internships are funded by the program itself. You're obviously free to pursue your own options (as should be the case).
 
Third, MAPH does come with a number of partial (and lately, apparently a few full) scholarships. I don't especially see anything objectionable in a non-funded MA. Clearly, it's aimed at those who believe the investment is worth it. Others are welcome to pursue other options. For me, despite the steep cost, it was a worthwhile investment because I realized I value a year spent at Chicago, working with Chicago's faculty in Film and Media Studies (and other faculty members of interest in other departments) was far more than the sticker price. I also realized, given the program's placement history to top-tier PhD programs, that it basically offered me the best possible platform for a future PhD application. And if, somehow, I discovered that a PhD was not up my alley, I'd still be left with an MA from Chicago--something that, as I mentioned earlier, did prove to unlock doors simply because of the name. It certainly helped tremendously when I remained in non-academic work for an intervening year. Coming from my BA, I saw quite clearly how far the right name goes. So yes, all of this combined outweighed MAPH's sticker price for me. YMMV, as may those of others. This is no reason for me to object to the program itself, nor does it seem logical to cite personal preferences as criteria for a program's merit or lack thereof.
 
Fourth, I'm a bit perplexed by your condescension ("You've seen, what, three schools?"). Granted, you may have experience with 13. The fact remains that I now have experience with one institution on the far lower end of things, and two on the far upper end. Now, you may be convinced that it's possible to experience what Chicago offers at other places. But that, as you yourself point out in criticizing me, is your "personal gut feeling" and no more. I am not sure how it may be possible to benefit from the presence of Tom Gunning, Robert Pippin, WJT Mitchell, Jim Lastra, Bill Brown, and many others *outside* of Chicago. Ultimately, it's a question of what -you- value and how much it's worth to you to have an opportunity to interact with certain people. Obviously, the fit of your own interests plays a significant role. If not for my interactions with some of the people at Chicago, I strongly doubt my current interests would be what they are. That, in turn, influences the possibilities of success in A. Admissions to PhD programs; B. Future publications; C. A whole host of other things that come with academic development. In short, no, I absolutely do not believe that Chicago's peculiarly interdisciplinary approach is common, and while I certainly think Yale's approach is unimpeachable, I also recognize individual differences where one program just works better than another. Chicago's history of tenure-track placement in Cinema and Media Studies speaks for itself. Do you seriously think--financial issues notwithstanding--it makes sense to pass up a chance to work at literally the top department in the field? If you do, that's your own "personal gut feeling" and your own perspective. It doesn't mean everybody shares it.
 
Fifth, why on earth would I want to take courses at a community college when I have an opportunity to do so at Chicago? Again, if it were financially unfeasible this would not be a concern. Such was not the case for me. It's quite inexplicable to me why you seem bent on translating personal financial circumstances into universal suggestions.
 
Methods courses are not the same everywhere. Some simply are better than others. In your response to the other person, you again show a bizarrely condescending attitude when you presume they "probably didn't ask professors...." Nobody needs to be told that applying "only to the Ivies" is a bad idea, for the simple reason that it's well-known that the best department aren't always at the Ivies. There are unfunded graduate programs of many stripes. I sincerely doubt that many would question the worth of an MA from Chicago, whether it be for further academic pursuits or otherwise. 
 
You have no experience with the program, as was clear from your lack of actual knowledge about the program. Yet you take it upon yourself to criticize my apparent lack of experience with multiple programs. You might think the program "takes advantage of students." I don't think the many graduates who are presently at leading programs across most fields in the humanities, or those who are well-settled into non-academic careers exactly because MAPH opened doors would agree with that sentiment. Funded MAs certainly exist. They also are not at Chicago (at least for the present). So, again, we return to the question of ***whether the individual deems it a worthwhile investment.***
 
You miss the point, yet again, when you reduce MAPH to "every graduate program." It is precisely the fact that MAPH adopts a *different* approach utilizing resources *not available* everywhere that sets it apart. 
 
In closing, I will reiterate that I find it absurd that you impose your personal ideals and preferences upon everyone and then to criticize them when they point this out. Yes, I get it. You find MAPH morally objectionable, regardless of its remarkable success with regard to its explicitly stated goals. I get that you, personally, would not pay, even for an MA at Chicago in Art History. For me, it was Film Studies, as that is my primary area of interest and Chicago unquestionably has the most powerful department in the nation. None of this gives you any ground to criticize ***the program itself*** as though it were somehow failing in its mission or were deceptive. All you have, in the end, is your own (lack of) experience and "personal gut feeling." You may have been well-served by your choices. I have by mine. Many others, graduates of MAPH, have been by theirs. 

In one word: no. For me, the most important aspect was the opportunity for intellectual growth that coming to the University of Chicago would give me. And if you think it sounds like I'm drinking the UofC's maroon Kool-Aid here, let me tell you: I was so deeply skeptical when I got here that it would be anything nearly as rigorous as they said it would be, that my socks were knocked off my feet by how incredibly smart everyone is here - and I don't just mean that they know things, but there is a whole different way of critical thinking that goes on here that is a mile deeper than anything I was exposed to even at an undergraduate institution ranked only a few spots below the UofC (not that those rankings mean a whole lot anyway). I'm absolutely certain that most "cheaper" options do not provide this. 
 
Naturally I'd rather that I didn't have to pay quite so much for it, but the idea that simply because you have to pay for it means that somehow it isn't worth it is deeply problematic. Just because you personally feel that it is not feasible for you, does not mean that it is not a solid option for others, and I hope that people reading this will be able to relate my narrative and subjective experience to their own, and weigh how well the two mesh when thinking about attending MAPH. 
 
These "cheaper" options are also great options especially if you want a traditionally strict art-historical training instead of a rigorous interdisciplinary intellectual atmosphere. If your work as a scholar focuses on more traditional ways of doing art history - like, for instance, pure iconography, formal analysis, and biographical interpretation - there might be better fits than the UofC. I would also say to anyone applying that knowing your methodology of choice is a good idea - I didn't when I applied! Find professors who work with your methodology. If you've done all this and you know methodologically who you would work well with, great, you might be more prepared to enter a PhD program than I was. But had I not done MAPH, I would never have known that I needed to know this. MAPH isn't just about expanding your background of coursework, it's about changing the way you think about scholarship and how you work as a scholar.
My advice to people who haven't applied yet: do include some MA programs in your portfolio, even if you think you are prepared for a PhD, because you may not be, and you may not know it. Do your own research on what program you think is the best fit for you. If you really want to become better at understanding and articulating and destabilizing complex arguments, MAPH is a great place. 

Personally, I do not know if I'm going on to do a PhD yet, because of the enormous time commitment and the complete possibility of doing several of the things I want to do with myself without one - doing research, writing books, working in a museum. Before MAPH, I was totally convinced, but now I'm aware of other options, I am content where I am for now I'll move on when I need to. Don't feel pressured (even internally) to jump in to a PhD just because it seems like the next logical step. 
 
Naturally, Swagato's points about the program are very valid. Thanks as always! 

Hi, all. As a current MAPHer, I thought I might weigh in on the program. I applied to several top-tier PhD programs (interdisciplinary programs, like Berkeley Rhetoric, UChicago Social Thought, and Stanford MTL; and straight philosophy programs, like Boston and DePaul), and got close to a few but eventually rejected from all. Then came the mysterious and unexpected letter from MAPH. I accepted because I wanted to stay in school and because my girlfriend was doing an MD/PhD at UChicago.

In short: it was one of the best decisions of my life.

Before I accepted though, I looked at all the MAPH comments on GradCafe, which resulted in some serious nail-biting and gnashing of teeth. So many people seemed intent on hating it. In retrospect, after two quarters in the program and heading into the third and final quarter, I can say that the 90-plus percent of the people who wrote in the forums hadn't even attended MAPH. Sour grapes abound: beware of them. Most heard about it from a friend-of-a-friend or their cousin's professor, or what-not. Most derided it, saying a) it's a cash cow for the university, that MAPH students aren't taken seriously, and c) it's impossible to get faculty attention. To which I would reply on all three counts that in real life experience, those are (by and large) nonsense. Real live MAPHers, of which there are a few on the forum have said different.

As those other MAPH posters have said, you get out of it what you put into it. If, in your undergrad, you were used to professors patting your back and telling you how smart you were, that's not going to happen at U of C. EVERYONE here is pretty damn smart. Profs won't go chasing you for overdue papers, won't cheerlead, and won't hold your hand. They WILL respect students who, as my thesis advisor says, "work your bloody ass off."

One poster suggested that:


"it seems like it would be better for someone more laid-back. someone who doesn't necessarily want a career in academia or who wants to keep their options open."
The latter part I agree with -- many MAPHers who enter the program convinced they want a PhD are confronted with a huge workload and elevated expectations. I would guess that somewhere between 40 and 60 percent decide NOT to pursue academia. That's because MAPH is incredibly serious and the program is onerous. If someone is "laid-back," MAPH will crush you. Into tiny little pieces. But if the idea of working with some of the world's top faculty members in an environment profoundly dedicated to higher learning and giving aspiring academics the boot camp-style training needed to get ready for the PhD programs you weren't granted admission to, then MAPH is a dream come true. But it's also grueling, exhausting, and you will have never worked harder in your life.

If you decide not to do academia, MAPH bends over backwards to give students occupational opportunities, with tons of internships, externships, and professional development workshops. The MAPH staff are some of the most encouraging folks I've ever met, regardless of your post-MAPH goals. Do I sound enthusiastic about the program? Damn right I am. It costs an arm and a leg, and I am saddled with a massive amount of debt as a result of attending. Do I regret it? Never. Not once, not for a second.

PS: It's very worth checking out the blog of a friend and fellow MAPHer at MAPHmatically Yours.

Hey everyone,
 
I am a current student in UChicago's MAPH program, and I thought I would give my opinions on this topic.
 
Like so many others, I was rejected from UChicago's English PhD program, but I was referred to the MAPH program. I accepted, although I was incredibly hesitant because I, too, suspected it was a "cash cow" for the University. I was also worried that, as a MAPH student, I would be a second-class citizen and I would not have access to the same resources and professors that the PhD students have. I was worried that I would be judged as unintelligent because everyone would know I was a MAPH student, rejected from the prestigious PhD program.
 
I was wrong about every single hesitation I had. This year in MAPH has been, by far, the hardest, most frustrating, most confusing, and most rewarding year of my life.
 
First of all, the University of Chicago is a non-profit organization, so calling the MAPH program a "cash cow" is incredibly unfair. The program certainly does fund the PhD students, but no one is making loads of money off of MAPH.
 
Secondly, as a MAPH student, I have access to every single resource that the rest of the students have: the library, professors, seminars, symposiums, FREE COFFEE IN THE MAPH OFFICE, social hours, etc. Not one student/professor at UChicago has ever made me feel as though I am less of a scholar, or less of an intellect, because I am an MA student. Professors go out of their way to meet with you, even if you are not their student. You are in classes and interacting with the PhD students on a regular basis, and I have never once felt that they looked down on me. The class sizes are small and are designed to work as a seminar.
 
As a MAPH student, you are held to incredibly high academic standards, and being in class with PhD students and other brilliant MAPH students will cause frustration sometimes, but you will grow. You will be FORCED to grow.
 
The MAPH thesis (due in FIVE WEEKS) is a huge source of stress, but never in my life have I been so protective of a project--this thesis is my baby. It's a lot of work, but most people plan to turn it into their writing sample if/when they reapply for PhD programs. MANY MAPHers are accepted to top PhD programs, including UChicago.
 
In MAPH, you will have the toughest year of your life, but if you are prepared to work your A$$ off, then you may belong here. It's sink or swim, and I have not met one person in MAPH that has not risen to the occasion. You will be surrounded by the best and the brightest, and, as I already mentioned, you will be forced to grow and learn in order to keep up. The environment is intense, the pace is rigorous, and some of the people are pretentious, but if you can make it through MAPH (winter quarter is the worst), then your life will be forever changed---not even an exaggeration.

I am one of the many people who have decided not to continue on to my PhD, but after I graduate in June, I will have my Masters Degree from one of the top Universities in the world. I took a work study position at the University of Chicago press in December, and MAPH has helped me turn it into a full-time job after graduation. So, whether you continue on to your PhD or you just want a job, the MAPH staff and preceptors care about you and work their butts off to help you get on your feet for the future.
 
Happy MAPHing.

When you get rejected by a program, they don't write a personalized rejection letter. They certainly don't tell you who they chose over you. When the shoe is on the other foot, you don't owe anyone anything.

Fun fact, some of you may remember I put the wrong school's name in one of my SOPs. Well, that school went on to offer me an interview, so never say never ha. 

This is a tricky situation and I know it's a common topic of debate at my school and other schools too. I'll just present my opinions:
1. If you are uncomfortable about something, you should certainly express your discomfort. However, simply doing so doesn't mean that other people are obligated to change their actions. Also, I would ask you to first seriously reflect on exactly what is making you uncomfortable. If it's because you're being left out, then present it that way, instead of saying "I don't want you to speak your language around me"
2. I agree with PoliticalOrder---I don't know why you say it's "rude" to speak another language around someone who doesn't understand it. It's not rude. It's everyone's right to speak whatever language they want. 
3. I do think that not including you is not very nice though. But I don't think you should think of this as a language issue. Because even if they were all speaking English, a group of people can still bully and exclude another person. 
4. This is becoming a big debate in my hometown too---about 80% of people living there do not speak English as their first language (this is not to say that they don't speak English, but instead to say that they all know another language well). In some areas of town, there are store signs and businesses operating almost solely in another language. Some people who only speak English are getting upset because they don't understand the store signs. But I don't agree with them. I don't think a person has a right to always be in a place where they understand everything around them. I think it's a very privileged position to have, and I don't think it's right for an English speaking person to always be able to understand everything they see and everyone they interact with.
5. Some labs/groups here have "language rules" where you can only speak English in the lab. I disagree with these rules strongly but I have no power to do anything about it. I think it is important, for things like safety and science communication that all scientific conversations (or e.g. while doing an experiment) is in a language where everyone who needs know what's going can understand. But if you're in the lab, just joking around with a friend, or having a casual conversation, I don't think there should be language rules.
6. Finally, I think it's really important to think about it from the other person's point of view. In my department, there is a large group of international students that primarily speak Mandarin (there's also a sizable French speaking group too). I don't speak Mandarin. For most department socials, all language groups mix relatively well. When there was a lot of debate on campus recently about language issues like this, I asked some of my Mandarin speaking friends what they think. 
Their answer was profound (to me anyways). They say that they feel stunted or limited when speaking English. To them, they learned it growing up because it was the language of science, the language of work. So, they are fluent and gladly speak English for scientific communication, but they cannot properly express themselves in English. They say it's a lot more difficult for them to express sympathy for their friends, express their emotions, make jokes, and basically all of the other things people use language for other than strict communication. When I realised this was when I realised that it is wrong to require someone to only speak a certain language. In my opinion, doing so limits their ability to be themselves, and I would never want to do that. It's not right for me to ask someone to do this just because I want to know what they are saying.

I wouldn't say not having replied yet is a sign of being disorganized. Most adcoms haven't even started meeting yet (I'm guessing the deadline for applications is probably December 1 or later) so it's difficult for any POI to be in contact with anything about your status. Patience is key here, as is keeping in mind that dealing with applications is one small part of a professor's job. The rest of the job is ongoing as current students still have needs (you have to teach them, grade their work, write exams, hold office hours) and there are research-related tasks to be done too (applying for funding, getting actual research done, writing it up, submitting it to journals, etc.). While applicants are really focused on their applications, they really don't rise to the forefront just yet for faculty (or even for current grad students).