mrssalad

Their admitted students day is in a few days...you might want to contact them.

This says all what is needed to be known about "top programs." Michigan is not considered a top program either. FYI.

I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss those names or schools. Their names, especially Casid's pop up in many acknowledgements.

As someone who has done this before, I hope you take my advice. It could save you hours of time applying and hundreds of dollars on application fees. I'd first urge you to see if the names you have given are accepting students at this time. Generally only tenured profs take students (not lecturers, etc). I'd also urge you to check out the current grad student profiles and see how many of them have MAs. My friends who are at Yale, Harvard, NYU, etc all had MAs in art history. I'd also ask you to think specifically why the Northeast only and think about what kind of job you want. A PhD is a long commitment and a lot of work with no job promise. Why do you want it? Note that MANY JOBS (including your first one) may not be in an "ideal location." I had a friend who was stuck in an undesirable location before getting a "better" job in a more urban city. If a job does pop up for you but its not in the Northeast, would you still take it?

Off the bat, I would say that I am less worried about not having an MA for you than I am about the places you are applying too. Specifically, who do you plan on working with at these institutions?The only person I can think of who works at one of those places on the 18th century + Caribbean would be Tim Barringer at Yale. I'm not entirely sure who could advise you at some of the other places. Blatantly missing from your list would be UW-Madison. Jill Casid is probably the best person you could work with when it comes to visual culture, 18th cent art, and issues of slavery/colonialism. I think Leo Costello at Rice has written about 18th/19th cent art and slavery. I'd urge you to drill down on where you are applying too and why.

I am currently attending another top program and was rejected from U of Chicago's art history department and put in MAPH 2 years ago (with no funding). If you want a Masters degree to then get a PhD in art history, I'd advisee looking at specific MA programs in art history that offer funding.

I think many people experience this and ultimately do get into the MAPH problem. Unless you are funded with a stipend, I would not take the offer.

I'd look at most of the ivies, Berkeley, NYU, Northwestern, Chicago, and Duke. Go browse their current students and see how many of them didn't have a MA.

I can't hep but think you are over-thinking it a bit (in a good way). Yes, it's true. I think MA programs have become a way for very qualified students to get into the top tier PhD programs in art history (and some PhD programs won't consider an applicant without a MA). HOWEVER, there are still places out there that view MA programs as an opportunity for people like you who may have had a related humanities degree to get a new degree n art history! With a degree in English and studio art experience, I am not sure why you wouldn't be a solid applicant for an MA in art history! I'd also keep a look out for MA degrees that offer their students funding. Williams tends to be the most desired program, but I'd also look at UMass-Amherst, Tufts, Wisconsin, and UT-Austin. I know of folks who have received MA funding at those institutions. Good luck!

This is tough. My close colleague/friend who is a professor in architecture of the period said that she/he will only take on students who want jobs outside of academia. He/she didn't think there were enough job positions in higher ed in the field. I would go with it ultimately depends on what you want to do with the degree?

Good luck! Its early and the holiday. Also, I wouldn't get wrapped up in the mid-range vs high range nonsense. A place may be a top 3 ivy, but if it doesn't have a scholar in your field, then its clearly not a top program for you. The one thing to watch out for would be funding. The "rankings" are often tied to how much funding they can give you as a grad student. I would only consider going to programs in the U.S that can offer a minimum of 4 years guaranteed funding with at least 15-20k a year (if in an affordable place to live) or 25-30k (if in a more expensive city).

This is old. Ouch! Out of curiosity I was looking at some of the top departments used on this list. I forgot how many retirements and deaths (sadly) there were since this list was made. I wonder how these might impact the department rankings. Brown got tiny. Mary Sheriff is no longer with us at Chapel Hill. Alpers and Clark retired from Berkeley. Fried retired at JHU. Steven Levine retired at Bryn Mawyr, just t name a few.

No, I mean if you go under results (look above where people post when they have heard back), someone posted that he/she/they are having an interview with them.

Anyone want to claim there Berkley interview update on results?

Are those it? You have to apply to UW-Madison. They have CHe/NElson and are huge for anthropocene studies.

Can we please quit it with this ranking and job statistic ego/battle nonsense? We are living in a time when the humanities are under attack and its not helping us to be attacking each other other. Moreover, many people enter the academy and do not want a major museum position or tenure track teaching job. Some want to become art librarians. Some want to work in historic homes. Some may want to teach high school or community college. Some are retirees who want to get a degree for their own fun (not many of them, but I've seen a few on some program websites). Others may want to go into administrative roles at the college level or for art organizations. I just mea this conversation has taken a turn to belittling people who may not see the tenured job at a top institution as their #1 priority. Yes, there may be alot of Columbia or IFA grads circulating in museum and 4 year institution jobs. But, they also have significantly larger departments than does a place like Northwestern University or Brown University. Clearly, a department with more graduate students will have more professionals out in the world.

One got a PhD in 2017 and was a visiting professor at a fairly eminent liberal arts college. This fall he/she/they started a tenure track job. One museum job was given this year - he/she/they got his/her/their PhD in 2018. The top 20 tenure-track liberal arts college happened in I believe 2015/2016 after a year long visiting position. They are just a few examples of people I personally know. There are several others who landed jobs post 2012.

I don't buy this either. A place like Wisconsin or Michigan may be for the sake of argument a 10-20 program instead of a 1-10. But they do have 1-10 history, history of science, and literature departments. UW-Madison as Bill Cronan and the Nelson Institute which has a massive amount of funding and a global presence. They have Jill Casid who is a complete game changer in the art history/visual culture fields. This is to say that I think anyone can go to any institution and play his or her cards right and end up OK.

That is not true. I can give lists of 10+ names of people I have met at conferences who got PhDs at these institutions and are currently in tenure track jobs. I do not feel comfortable giving specific names online. But if anyone wants to send me a personal message to get more explicit details, feel free. I will say that one is working at a top museum in New York, one is at a top museum in San Francisco, one is at a top state school, and one is at a top 20 liberal arts college (among others). As for the others: are these people working at Princeton? No. But, why should we assume that everyone gets a PhD to work at an ivy or top-research producing institution? MANY PEOPLE do not have the goal of working at Princeton in mind. Many may want to work at a smaller liberal arts college, a local state university, or community college. And, we should not diminish these people's goals. They do very important work too.

To all: I think most of the ivies offering PhDs really do want you to have a MA in hand before entering their programs. For those of you looking into 19th/20th century art, I would forewarn you that getting into those programs are highly competitive and that someone like a Carol Armstrong or Darcy Grigsby may not take a new PhD student every application season/year. If your dreams are to go directly to a PhD program to do museum work or art history some other places you might want to consider could be Iowa (Dorothy Johnson), UW Madison (they have a strong visual culture program and top notch lit studies and history departments that could be useful), and Florida.

I think they do really interesting work; work that I don't think usually gets the attention it deserves.

As someone already in grad school, I can say that a lot of people are offered admittance to an MA program (especially at Chicago, Columbia, and NYU) if you haven't been rejected or admitted yet. If its something to keep your hopes up (I know how devastating this process can be and how arbitrary things can be). Hang in there! It'll work out!

Typically, deadlines are extended when (a) an ideal number of applicants hasn't been reached or (b) the ideal number of quality or needed applicants hasn't been reached.

To be competitive for a job and for future external grants, you probably shouldn't be relying on university funding to get you through your final year or two in the program.... Also, many thanks to whoever had the brilliant idea to organization this document.

It is my understanding that there are basically two types of funding: (a) where everyone gets admitted with the same package and (b) where everyone gets different packages. Besides the few places that give everyone the same package (and its pretty clearly stated on the websites of the respective programs), there's really no way of knowing what your package will be until you are admitted and one is given to you. Once you have a package, you can feel free to talk to the program about how it might compare with other offers (I bartered for another summer research allotment). I'm sure there are going to be many out there who disagree with me, but I wouldn't let a funding discourage you from applying to a place (many rumors can be false). If a place or person is a good match, then apply! And see when you get admitted if they offer you something decent.