I've applied to and been accepted to several grad schools (for an MA), both art history and curatorial studies programs, but i'm kind of torn. Context - i'm interested in modern and contemporary art, but don't have a super specific focus. My hope is to one day have a curatorial role at a museum.
Right now i'm kind of torn between UT Austin and Hunter for their art history master's programs. I do really like the program structure (from what i can see on the websites) and the faculty for both schools. Both also offer curatorial/museum studies certificates which interests me. I'm an out of state applicant at both schools, but UT offered me a small scholarship, in addition to waiving my the out of state portion of tuition, bringing yearly tuition to about $10K a year. Hunter would be about $20k/year for me. (I'm also strongly considering SAIC which would be a bit more than Hunter, but maybe would be offset by cheaper COL?)
The main reason I'm so torn is that I feel like I would have many more professional opportunities during school in NY or Chicago than I would in Austin. I think UT has a great program with a good reputation, but I've noticed there are many more modern/contemporary museum curators with MAs from Hunter and SAIC than UT (though I've seen a couple). On a personal note, I'm from NY so most of my family and many of my friends are there, and I honestly wasn't a huge fan of Austin when I visited, but I figure this is probably something I can handle for 2 years. Is location a big enough factor to warrant paying $10k more a year? I know it's a personal choice but I'd like to hear some of your takes on it.
Also, does anyone have any insight into any of these programs? Anything would be much appreciated.
