kaufdichglücklich

You don't need an MA to be accepted into a medieval art PhD program, but you do need Latin, German and French. Most Americans do not have these qualifications when they finish their BA so they need to get an MA. When I say Latin, German and French I mean *actual* knowledge of these languages, as in the equivalent of a 2nd year university level or higher. Medievalists cannot fake their way out of language requirements in the same way as many other fields can. If you don't have advanced knowledge of German you simply cannot write a dissertation on medieval art. Professors at top programs generally will not even look at an applicant that doesn't have at least 2/3 at the time of application. It's shouldn't be difficult to find potential advisors - just look at who has written recent publications you are citing/reading and google them. 

I'm sorry but this is terrible advice. There are infinite career paths beyond restaurant server and teacher that would provide significantly more stability than a PhD program. Also academia is chock full of disillusioned queer people. Not sure if it's the paradise you're looking for. 
And re: your final point... I have attended low/medium ranked and high ranked programs for my graduate education and anyone who says that lower ranked schools are a better experience is lying or delusional. It's the difference between a 15k and 35k stipend. It's the difference between having a fast tracked application to funding opportunities vs not even knowing they exist. It's the difference between having a guaranteed 6 years of funding vs never knowing if you will have to take out a loan to pay your rent or lose your health insurance at the end of the semester. Ok maybe your advisor will be "nicer" at a lower ranked program, but a letter from them won't go as far on the job market or during fellowship season. You certainly have a lot of advice for someone who has never attended an Art History PhD program of any kind. 

I am fine with my usage of that word. You are doing yourself and others a disservice by promoting a reckless and doomed plan of study. An MFA has very little weight in the humanities (in programs that offer credit for MAs it usually isn't accepted) so I'm not sure why you think this gives you authority on this topic. 
I mean I guess if your goal is financial ruin, go right ahead. In my decade of higher education I have only met 2 Art History PhD students who had "different goals for attending graduate school" (aka not to find a TT or museum job). One was the wife of a tech billionaire and one was essentially a trust fund socialite. 

I'm sorry but this is terrible advice. There are infinite career paths beyond restaurant server and teacher that would provide significantly more stability than a PhD program. Also academia is chock full of disillusioned queer people. Not sure if it's the paradise you're looking for. 
And re: your final point... I have attended low/medium ranked and high ranked programs for my graduate education and anyone who says that lower ranked schools are a better experience is lying or delusional. It's the difference between a 15k and 35k stipend. It's the difference between having a fast tracked application to funding opportunities vs not even knowing they exist. It's the difference between having a guaranteed 6 years of funding vs never knowing if you will have to take out a loan to pay your rent or lose your health insurance at the end of the semester. Ok maybe your advisor will be "nicer" at a lower ranked program, but a letter from them won't go as far on the job market or during fellowship season. You certainly have a lot of advice for someone who has never attended an Art History PhD program of any kind. 

I'm sorry but this is terrible advice. There are infinite career paths beyond restaurant server and teacher that would provide significantly more stability than a PhD program. Also academia is chock full of disillusioned queer people. Not sure if it's the paradise you're looking for. 
And re: your final point... I have attended low/medium ranked and high ranked programs for my graduate education and anyone who says that lower ranked schools are a better experience is lying or delusional. It's the difference between a 15k and 35k stipend. It's the difference between having a fast tracked application to funding opportunities vs not even knowing they exist. It's the difference between having a guaranteed 6 years of funding vs never knowing if you will have to take out a loan to pay your rent or lose your health insurance at the end of the semester. Ok maybe your advisor will be "nicer" at a lower ranked program, but a letter from them won't go as far on the job market or during fellowship season. You certainly have a lot of advice for someone who has never attended an Art History PhD program of any kind. 

I'm sorry but this is terrible advice. There are infinite career paths beyond restaurant server and teacher that would provide significantly more stability than a PhD program. Also academia is chock full of disillusioned queer people. Not sure if it's the paradise you're looking for. 
And re: your final point... I have attended low/medium ranked and high ranked programs for my graduate education and anyone who says that lower ranked schools are a better experience is lying or delusional. It's the difference between a 15k and 35k stipend. It's the difference between having a fast tracked application to funding opportunities vs not even knowing they exist. It's the difference between having a guaranteed 6 years of funding vs never knowing if you will have to take out a loan to pay your rent or lose your health insurance at the end of the semester. Ok maybe your advisor will be "nicer" at a lower ranked program, but a letter from them won't go as far on the job market or during fellowship season. You certainly have a lot of advice for someone who has never attended an Art History PhD program of any kind. 

I want to second and third the posts by wt2020 and vivodito. FOR THE LOVE OF GOD DONT DO IT. It's not worth it and it will only lead to misery and financial insecurity. I attend arguably THE TOP program there is and the vast majority of my classmates are absolutely miserable. It doesn't matter that we have publications, top fellowships and big name LORs - our job prospects vanished virtually overnight and the university refuses to use its considerable resources to help us in any real way. We will not get jobs in Academia. This is absolutely a lost cause and no good will come from pursuing academia. The only people who I think should be applying right now are those that are seriously independently wealthy and do not need to work for a living. An Art History PhD no longer leads to a job in academia. 

You don't need an MA to be accepted into a medieval art PhD program, but you do need Latin, German and French. Most Americans do not have these qualifications when they finish their BA so they need to get an MA. When I say Latin, German and French I mean *actual* knowledge of these languages, as in the equivalent of a 2nd year university level or higher. Medievalists cannot fake their way out of language requirements in the same way as many other fields can. If you don't have advanced knowledge of German you simply cannot write a dissertation on medieval art. Professors at top programs generally will not even look at an applicant that doesn't have at least 2/3 at the time of application. It's shouldn't be difficult to find potential advisors - just look at who has written recent publications you are citing/reading and google them. 

If you want to study Medieval I would prioritize Latin, then German, then French. Latin is definitely the most important, so you should being right away. Learning Latin first will also help you immensely with German, because it sounds like you have not studied a case language before. If you are already strong in Italian I would not worry so much about French - I imagine you can probably already make a go of it just using your Italian. Probably a semester of French for Reading is all you will need. 
Not to be harsh, but unless you are committed to devoting 2-3 years of INTENSIVE study to Russian it is probably too late (and not worth it) to get involved with a Russian topic. 

If you want to study Medieval I would prioritize Latin, then German, then French. Latin is definitely the most important, so you should being right away. Learning Latin first will also help you immensely with German, because it sounds like you have not studied a case language before. If you are already strong in Italian I would not worry so much about French - I imagine you can probably already make a go of it just using your Italian. Probably a semester of French for Reading is all you will need. 
Not to be harsh, but unless you are committed to devoting 2-3 years of INTENSIVE study to Russian it is probably too late (and not worth it) to get involved with a Russian topic. 

If you want to study Medieval I would prioritize Latin, then German, then French. Latin is definitely the most important, so you should being right away. Learning Latin first will also help you immensely with German, because it sounds like you have not studied a case language before. If you are already strong in Italian I would not worry so much about French - I imagine you can probably already make a go of it just using your Italian. Probably a semester of French for Reading is all you will need. 
Not to be harsh, but unless you are committed to devoting 2-3 years of INTENSIVE study to Russian it is probably too late (and not worth it) to get involved with a Russian topic. 

I don't really think it's possible to rank Art History programs in the same way that you can rank, say business, law or medical schools. The sample sizes are too small and their are too many variables at play. Like for example... MIT is probably the "top" program if you were to go by placement and award stats alone, but it's a tiny program with an extremely limited faculty and accepts only one or two students a year. For the majority of AH applicants, applying there is probably not even an option.
As someone in the field, just going off of what schools are producing fellowship winners and successful candidates on the job market I would say that it seems like the "top" programs right now are (in no particular order) IFA, Harvard, Columbia, Yale, Penn, Chicago, Princeton, Berkeley and Stanford. Obviously people from other schools have success and get jobs and fellowships, but in general people from these schools seem to come out on top. 

I really resent the implication by a lot of posters in this thread that "younger" grad students are some how less serious about their coursework and research, obsessed with "bar hopping" or clueless as to how the real world works. My department has a cohort of 10-15 each year, and I would say there is usually 1 recent grad, 2 thirty-somethings, while the rest are between 25-30. 25-27 is also really not that young, and it's a bit patronizing to act like people this age have little life experience and are obsessed with drinking. Lots of us in this age cohort are putting our lives on hold to get our PhDs, which is huge sacrifice and makes us highly motivated to get in, and out and move on with our lives. Just because I'm 27 and like to hang out with my cohort at a bar on Friday nights, doesn't mean I don't work my a** off seven days a week. 
That being said, in my department the social aspect is hugely important, and (with a few exceptions) people in coursework years who don't socialize within the department seem to really struggle. It's important to have people that you can vent to about professors and coursework, share bibliography, get advice on fellowships and generals, introductions to scholars, advice on ins and outs of certain archives, etc...... I guess my point is, if you don't cultivate some type of a support system *within* the department, the next 6+ years are going to be an uphill battle.

I really resent the implication by a lot of posters in this thread that "younger" grad students are some how less serious about their coursework and research, obsessed with "bar hopping" or clueless as to how the real world works. My department has a cohort of 10-15 each year, and I would say there is usually 1 recent grad, 2 thirty-somethings, while the rest are between 25-30. 25-27 is also really not that young, and it's a bit patronizing to act like people this age have little life experience and are obsessed with drinking. Lots of us in this age cohort are putting our lives on hold to get our PhDs, which is huge sacrifice and makes us highly motivated to get in, and out and move on with our lives. Just because I'm 27 and like to hang out with my cohort at a bar on Friday nights, doesn't mean I don't work my a** off seven days a week. 
That being said, in my department the social aspect is hugely important, and (with a few exceptions) people in coursework years who don't socialize within the department seem to really struggle. It's important to have people that you can vent to about professors and coursework, share bibliography, get advice on fellowships and generals, introductions to scholars, advice on ins and outs of certain archives, etc...... I guess my point is, if you don't cultivate some type of a support system *within* the department, the next 6+ years are going to be an uphill battle.

I really resent the implication by a lot of posters in this thread that "younger" grad students are some how less serious about their coursework and research, obsessed with "bar hopping" or clueless as to how the real world works. My department has a cohort of 10-15 each year, and I would say there is usually 1 recent grad, 2 thirty-somethings, while the rest are between 25-30. 25-27 is also really not that young, and it's a bit patronizing to act like people this age have little life experience and are obsessed with drinking. Lots of us in this age cohort are putting our lives on hold to get our PhDs, which is huge sacrifice and makes us highly motivated to get in, and out and move on with our lives. Just because I'm 27 and like to hang out with my cohort at a bar on Friday nights, doesn't mean I don't work my a** off seven days a week. 
That being said, in my department the social aspect is hugely important, and (with a few exceptions) people in coursework years who don't socialize within the department seem to really struggle. It's important to have people that you can vent to about professors and coursework, share bibliography, get advice on fellowships and generals, introductions to scholars, advice on ins and outs of certain archives, etc...... I guess my point is, if you don't cultivate some type of a support system *within* the department, the next 6+ years are going to be an uphill battle.

I really resent the implication by a lot of posters in this thread that "younger" grad students are some how less serious about their coursework and research, obsessed with "bar hopping" or clueless as to how the real world works. My department has a cohort of 10-15 each year, and I would say there is usually 1 recent grad, 2 thirty-somethings, while the rest are between 25-30. 25-27 is also really not that young, and it's a bit patronizing to act like people this age have little life experience and are obsessed with drinking. Lots of us in this age cohort are putting our lives on hold to get our PhDs, which is huge sacrifice and makes us highly motivated to get in, and out and move on with our lives. Just because I'm 27 and like to hang out with my cohort at a bar on Friday nights, doesn't mean I don't work my a** off seven days a week. 
That being said, in my department the social aspect is hugely important, and (with a few exceptions) people in coursework years who don't socialize within the department seem to really struggle. It's important to have people that you can vent to about professors and coursework, share bibliography, get advice on fellowships and generals, introductions to scholars, advice on ins and outs of certain archives, etc...... I guess my point is, if you don't cultivate some type of a support system *within* the department, the next 6+ years are going to be an uphill battle.

I really resent the implication by a lot of posters in this thread that "younger" grad students are some how less serious about their coursework and research, obsessed with "bar hopping" or clueless as to how the real world works. My department has a cohort of 10-15 each year, and I would say there is usually 1 recent grad, 2 thirty-somethings, while the rest are between 25-30. 25-27 is also really not that young, and it's a bit patronizing to act like people this age have little life experience and are obsessed with drinking. Lots of us in this age cohort are putting our lives on hold to get our PhDs, which is huge sacrifice and makes us highly motivated to get in, and out and move on with our lives. Just because I'm 27 and like to hang out with my cohort at a bar on Friday nights, doesn't mean I don't work my a** off seven days a week. 
That being said, in my department the social aspect is hugely important, and (with a few exceptions) people in coursework years who don't socialize within the department seem to really struggle. It's important to have people that you can vent to about professors and coursework, share bibliography, get advice on fellowships and generals, introductions to scholars, advice on ins and outs of certain archives, etc...... I guess my point is, if you don't cultivate some type of a support system *within* the department, the next 6+ years are going to be an uphill battle.

I really resent the implication by a lot of posters in this thread that "younger" grad students are some how less serious about their coursework and research, obsessed with "bar hopping" or clueless as to how the real world works. My department has a cohort of 10-15 each year, and I would say there is usually 1 recent grad, 2 thirty-somethings, while the rest are between 25-30. 25-27 is also really not that young, and it's a bit patronizing to act like people this age have little life experience and are obsessed with drinking. Lots of us in this age cohort are putting our lives on hold to get our PhDs, which is huge sacrifice and makes us highly motivated to get in, and out and move on with our lives. Just because I'm 27 and like to hang out with my cohort at a bar on Friday nights, doesn't mean I don't work my a** off seven days a week. 
That being said, in my department the social aspect is hugely important, and (with a few exceptions) people in coursework years who don't socialize within the department seem to really struggle. It's important to have people that you can vent to about professors and coursework, share bibliography, get advice on fellowships and generals, introductions to scholars, advice on ins and outs of certain archives, etc...... I guess my point is, if you don't cultivate some type of a support system *within* the department, the next 6+ years are going to be an uphill battle.

I really resent the implication by a lot of posters in this thread that "younger" grad students are some how less serious about their coursework and research, obsessed with "bar hopping" or clueless as to how the real world works. My department has a cohort of 10-15 each year, and I would say there is usually 1 recent grad, 2 thirty-somethings, while the rest are between 25-30. 25-27 is also really not that young, and it's a bit patronizing to act like people this age have little life experience and are obsessed with drinking. Lots of us in this age cohort are putting our lives on hold to get our PhDs, which is huge sacrifice and makes us highly motivated to get in, and out and move on with our lives. Just because I'm 27 and like to hang out with my cohort at a bar on Friday nights, doesn't mean I don't work my a** off seven days a week. 
That being said, in my department the social aspect is hugely important, and (with a few exceptions) people in coursework years who don't socialize within the department seem to really struggle. It's important to have people that you can vent to about professors and coursework, share bibliography, get advice on fellowships and generals, introductions to scholars, advice on ins and outs of certain archives, etc...... I guess my point is, if you don't cultivate some type of a support system *within* the department, the next 6+ years are going to be an uphill battle.

I really resent the implication by a lot of posters in this thread that "younger" grad students are some how less serious about their coursework and research, obsessed with "bar hopping" or clueless as to how the real world works. My department has a cohort of 10-15 each year, and I would say there is usually 1 recent grad, 2 thirty-somethings, while the rest are between 25-30. 25-27 is also really not that young, and it's a bit patronizing to act like people this age have little life experience and are obsessed with drinking. Lots of us in this age cohort are putting our lives on hold to get our PhDs, which is huge sacrifice and makes us highly motivated to get in, and out and move on with our lives. Just because I'm 27 and like to hang out with my cohort at a bar on Friday nights, doesn't mean I don't work my a** off seven days a week. 
That being said, in my department the social aspect is hugely important, and (with a few exceptions) people in coursework years who don't socialize within the department seem to really struggle. It's important to have people that you can vent to about professors and coursework, share bibliography, get advice on fellowships and generals, introductions to scholars, advice on ins and outs of certain archives, etc...... I guess my point is, if you don't cultivate some type of a support system *within* the department, the next 6+ years are going to be an uphill battle.

I really resent the implication by a lot of posters in this thread that "younger" grad students are some how less serious about their coursework and research, obsessed with "bar hopping" or clueless as to how the real world works. My department has a cohort of 10-15 each year, and I would say there is usually 1 recent grad, 2 thirty-somethings, while the rest are between 25-30. 25-27 is also really not that young, and it's a bit patronizing to act like people this age have little life experience and are obsessed with drinking. Lots of us in this age cohort are putting our lives on hold to get our PhDs, which is huge sacrifice and makes us highly motivated to get in, and out and move on with our lives. Just because I'm 27 and like to hang out with my cohort at a bar on Friday nights, doesn't mean I don't work my a** off seven days a week. 
That being said, in my department the social aspect is hugely important, and (with a few exceptions) people in coursework years who don't socialize within the department seem to really struggle. It's important to have people that you can vent to about professors and coursework, share bibliography, get advice on fellowships and generals, introductions to scholars, advice on ins and outs of certain archives, etc...... I guess my point is, if you don't cultivate some type of a support system *within* the department, the next 6+ years are going to be an uphill battle.

Considering the fact that living expenses will bump you up around the neighborhood of $100k I would say it's not worth it. At all. You're definitely better off reapplying and focusing your attention on funded or in-state programs even if they are not as highly ranked.