Greetings,
I was wondering if anyone would be kind enough to help me understand what might be the differences between art history MA programs of Boston University, NYU (IFA), Tufts, and Columbia. I was accepted to all of them except for Columbia, which I am still waiting on.
My primary concern is with the strengths of the programs and I would like to focus on Western pre-modern art and architecture. My first inclinations are towards Columbia and IFA due to program description, location and school notoriety (which I admit is superficial). Tufts and BU are clearly considered to be very good schools but at the end of the day we're comparing specific programs and the chances of securing employment afterwards, either in these cities or abroad. It just seems like New York based schools will have an inherent advantage but that could be a misguided perception.
I could very well not be accepted to Columbia and then the choice would be between IFA, BU, and Tufts. Part of me wants to stay in Boston because my rent would be covered, it's a more relaxed environment, and maybe would be less competitive.However, New York is a wonderful city to study art history with more resources and I am familiar with the city because I earned my BA from Hunter College. I like the idea of a smaller school like Tufts but I am afraid it will not be recognized for art history as well as the other schools might be, especially the NY ones.
Any insight would be greatly appreciated, thank you.