Artgirl87

Great thoughts—thanks!

The other day an academic said to me that she would write a very different article for the Grey Room vs Art Bulletin vs October. I get it. Or, at least, I thought I did. Because when I later reflected on this (intuitively sound) statement, I realized that I wasn't really sure how my writing would change (beyond the practical particularities of word count etc). I'm posting because I wanted to get a sense of how people distinguish the kind of writing and the kind of theoretical tone that each of these publications possess? What would you say differentiates the Burlington Magazine from Oxford Art History? Can we construct a taxonomy for these journals? Hit me with some thoughts/polemic!

Just go for it!

It would be insane if they didn't let you defer. Insane.

I should begin by saying that I know very little. In fact, no one on here *really* knows much when it comes to admissions; we're all just riffing off personal experience and inferred/presumed values. BUT, what I do know is that none of the things that you mentioned above are going to get you into a PhD program. By the same token, none of these things are going to preclude your entrance. You have a really solid GPA and some great experience—but, of course, that isn't enough. The things that you haven't mentioned are far more critical in getting you into a program: a strong vision of your research interests and a compelling sample paper. In my experience, these two things will carry greater weight in determining your admission. Don't worry about not going to an Ivy; worry about the things that you can change — and that actually matter. Bonne chance!

These are extraordinary circumstances, and asking to defer 1 year is not an extraordinary request. Open a dialogue and see what they say; there is no harm in asking.

I would suggest that it will vary on a case by case basis (for instance, if you are doing a PhD you may want to dive right in, given the length; but, if you are undertaking an MFA, you may value the in-situ experience more). And, to be clear, I think either choice is fine. My intent on starting this post was really to flag the importance of being informed before people enrol, or take out loans, etc.

Yes! Of course you should apply! Maybe consider casting the net a little wider (and applying to a few more schools), but don't be discouraged by the state of the world. This too shall pass.

Honestly, it sounds like you have more experience than most people going into a PhD program—don't forget a significant number come straight out of BAs and get into top programs—so I wouldn't worry about that. While it would be premature to lock-down a "research topic," it would be advantageous for you to establish an area of study that you are passionate about, and publish or present papers in that space. This will help you build something of an academic identity, which (most crucially) is legible on paper. Good luck.

Most conspicuously, I think that funding is going to shrink rather drastically. This likely means that most PhD programs will be offering less places, and that all of their new hiring will stop. Realistically, places in academic will shrink across the board. But I would like to also suggest to anyone feeling anxious, or feeling like they have to rush into a masters this year, that it is okay to take it slow, and that it is okay to take a little more time. Just getting through this global pandemic is enough — don't succumb to the internalised rat race that places productivity above personal wellbeing. It's understandable (and perhaps even desirable) to take a year off and take your time: no one is judging you. Anecdotally, I would just add that this is also the message being communicated to PhD students in my program — students who typically aspire towards excellence, but whom are being told that, in the current climate, doing "fine" is more than enough. The funding will come back, and, if you are patient, so will the opportunity to pursue the things you love.

Go to Bard; you can always write a paper later. Moreover, most art history PhDs in the US only ask for a 20 or 25 page paper in the admission application (which is far shorter than an MA thesis; my UK masters' paper, for instance, was ~ 60 pages). Also, if you aren't interested in Chinese art long term, then going to the Courtauld doesn't really make sense, as their coursework is very specific.

To clarify, this isn't to diminish or shit on anyones offers, etc — but rather to suggest that waiting a year might be the preferable option given all the hard work people have put in. From what I hear, internal memos are directing professors to start prepping online content for the Fall (although that is obviously subject to change, and shouldn't be taken as gospel).

I, personally, doubt it. At least, it will not be the kind of semester that you (and I) are expecting — with in situ learning, etc. So, it is perhaps something for people accepting Masters (esp. the expensive ones) to consider, as there is a large divide between online and in-person learning.

I think this is pretty spot on — the Courtauld is the better Masters and Columbia is the better PhD. The only caveat would be whether you actually want to pursue your concentration at the Courtauld; you would undoubtedly have more flexibility at Columbia. While you *wouldn't* be locked into that concentration for your PhD, it does lay some of the theoretical/knowledge foundation for your future study.

Two great options; you can't go wrong. Courtauld has a stronger art historical pedigree, but Cambridge is Cambridge and always will be Cambridge. Esp. for Russian art both programs are great options.