anonymousbequest

I wouldn't characterize Williams as "traditionalist" whatever that might mean these days. Certainly the work of people like Darby English, Holly Edwards, Marc Gottlieb, or Ondine Chavoya wouldn't be considered as such. Like a lot of programs I believe they have some older faculty members who might work within methods that foreground biography, iconography, artistic influence, or formalism but it doesn't seem that there is one "Williams approach" to art history. Williams students often go into museum work, they are legendary for it- the "Williams Mafia". You will find Williams grads in curatorial and directorial positions at major museums throughout the country, sometimes with just their MA but often after going on to a PhD program. The program is from most accounts object-oriented and students do paid internships at the Clark, MassMOCA, or the Williams museum. Curators at those institutions also teach in the graduate program. In addition all first year students are taken on a trip their first winter break to visit museums/sites in another country, way back it used to be Italy every year (which would have been very traditional) but now I think they go lots of places- Russia, Mexico, Europe. Perhaps these are the reasons why the Columbia professor considered it "traditional" and "formalist"? Looking at their graduates, a lot do seem to come from Ivies or top ranked LACs, but the same could be said for most of first (and even second) tier PhD programs. If that dissuades anyone from applying it would also precede applying to a number of PhD programs. In short, I wouldn't worry about considering Williams for an MA. I'm not suggesting that it is the only option, or best for everyone, or even the best MA for everyone, or better than PhD programs, no "microagression" intended. It appears that they take about 10-12 students a year. I'm not sure about their funding, but since they can put a number of students in internships they may be able to fund all or most of them at least partly.

Heard through the grapevine that Williams is bringing out admits for visits next week.

No to beat a dead horse here, but I do have an interest in making sure people reading this thread actually understand curatorial work, which you as someone with some kind of museum experience but who has not taken his/her/ze first graduate seminar in Newark, clearly does not. Curators who are more CAA than AAM (if you get my drift) have zero need to know how to mat something. I do need to know the kind of mat and frame most appropriate for an object, based on research about how an artist framed their work, or general framing trends at a historical time. Then I work with a framer or prep to make that happen. I don't assign an accession number to a new acquisition or loan, a registrar does. I give them all the information they need to do proper data entry in TMS because I have done the research on the work acquired or loaned. But I count on my collections management team to get data entry and photography done in a timely manner. If I notice that a work needs conservation, I work closely with conservators. I know about different condition issues and how best to resolve them, but not the specific chemistry of varnishes. I make visits to the conservation studio often on significant projects. When work arrives to my museum, the preps open the crate, the registrar accessions it, does a condition report, and I decide where it's going in the galleries. Registrars and preps schedule that, and I'm there when it comes time to hang or place it. I consult with conservators and registrars on light levels and climate, so know how long a work should be on display in the space I chose. Because curators do always place objects. What you refer to above about spacing and layout as a prep job is actually a critical component of curating. We do scholarship by writing like an academic does but also in space. Layout of objects is part of the argument we are making about the set of works we have selected, either in permanent collection galleries or exhibitions. I also write object and area labels, which then go through a collaborative editing process, and I give them a final proof after copyediting and design has finished with layout. But I don't fabricate. Or cut vinyl. That you don't seem to understand any of this should indicate that anyone reading your posts here and elsewhere on grad cafe should take your "expertise" about museums and art history with a grain of salt at the very least. I do all of these things, and handle objects (but know when I shouldn't) without ever having cracked open one of those tedious museum studies manuals you recommend. I got my first job as a junior curator at a major institution right after finishing my diss. I had no significant museum experience. It was my scholarship and a famous advisor with a big network that got me the job. And it wasn't all that long ago. I pay attention to registrars, preps, conservators, educators, development, design, etc... so I'm able to collaborate with them on their terms, and they respect my broader and deeper knowledge of art history. Good luck to you!

I guess we will have to just disagree. I can think of a handful of folks hired at solid national and regional museums in the past 5 years with the kind of limited experience I mentioned, most with PhDs or MAs from just a few schools. People I know personally. But you don't know any. We know different people. I have also never been in a situation where "art historian" curators have matted or framed work, put nail polish on stuff (which I think used to be a common way to identify 3-d works, one sees it in archeology, dec arts, and natural history contexts, maybe those curators mentioned by the other poster are from a different generation) or fabricated their own labels. Or where labels aren't collaborative and reviewed by more than one department, not to mention been proofed by a copy editor. Typically, at mid-sized and up institutions, on-staff framers do framing, or perhaps preparators. Labels are made by communications, preparators, or the design team. And registrars are on hand to supervise the movement of art work so that climate and light levels are maintained. All of the above jobs are important and rewarding, but they are not curatorial. Nor should they be, because curators are doing the kind of research and scholarship they are trained best to do. Asking them to use the scary mat cutter would be like asking the preparator to write a catalogue essay. Each might be able to do it but not to their best, or best for the institution. Maybe we just have experience with museums of different size, programming, budget, and endowment. You made the point that there are perhaps more museum jobs out there for the taking than academic, which I agree with (there are like a half-dozen open searches in my field right now). There are also a lot of different kinds of museums, which grad students and prospective grad students reading this thread have a bit more info about due to this discussion.

I apologize that I used "you" when I should have been using "one". I meant it generally and not specifically. And I do feel that I admitted that art history can seem rigged toward those born to privilege, as well as condemned any classist tendencies in the field in my previous post. But I stand by my assertion that there are many curators who were/are hired after the same limited kind of job "experience" that a TA/Preceptor who becomes a professor might have. Many of them went to top schools where they had rigorous art history training, and no they don't tend to have a sense of entitlement because they love art history and are in it for the intellectual, emotional, psychological feels. It is also perhaps easiest not to act entitled when one is fully a member of the hegemony. They have traveled widely because they were well funded or had means so have seen lots of the key objects in their area personally. They tend to have great networks so when putting together an exhibition can reach out to make calls to figure out which works are available, which aren't. They can learn about conservation from conservators, framing from framers, label writing from educators, acquisitions from their senior curators, donor relations from advancement, design from designers, etc... all on the job. I don't know much about educators or development or registration, because they aren't nor need to be art historians. Curatorial and (if desired) directorships are the only museum jobs requiring one to be an art historian. Maybe there should be a separate museum studies sub forum in the Humanities? What every single museum studies book says isn't relevant to any of the jobs posted above except maybe the wonderful, whimsical Shelburne which I can see going to someone who has interned a lot and worked her/his/ze way up. But it's geographically less desirable and Tom Denenberg will I think have his hands full trying to get someone all the way up there for a term position. All the others will go to MAs or PhDs with varying levels of experience, but not a decade long slog as the curator and chief bottle washer at a house museum. The Arizona job is not art history and not curating strictly. The OP's experience in fashion would be good training for a curatorial career. There's a real art to exhibition design, and it's difficult to learn in grad school. Knowledge of color, texture, fabric, lighting all would come in handy. I would suggest as others did, to take some post-bac classes in art history until you are ready to apply for a straight MA or PhD (and know your heart is in art history and grad school).

Oh I don't know whether the grind is that much different. Professors are expected to read and write a lot too after all, plus they have to lecture and (shudder) grade undergraduates. And deal with needy grad advisees, and serve on endless committees. I absolutely do not believe that it takes a decade of grunt work to become a curator who goes to fancy openings and curates their own exhibitions. You should think of it like making tenure, which takes roughly 7 years. I think that would be sufficient for a strong curator to move up to a rank with significant responsibility. And have to put on a cocktail dress or tuxedo from time to time. The advice here isn't bad, it just seems to be written from the perspective of being an intern at a smaller museum, as well as having a bit of a chip on the shoulder about the (very real) class divides in the field (which are even more an issue in the curatorial ranks). It's a narrow band of experience that might not be that of an Ivy League grad student (or those from a select group of non-Ivies like IFA or CUNY) who gets an assistant curator position before filing the diss (some of them might only have a MA from Williams), and there are a lot of those folks out there. And they for the most part deserve the jobs they get because they are smart, approach curatorial problems from interesting methods, can write, are good at research, and are "donor ready", e.g., they can go to fancy events without embarrassing the institution. I would caution that if you do a decade of grunt work at a house museum expecting that experience to lead to a job somewhere better, like the Met or Getty, you likely will be disappointed. Just as professors who start at a small, non grad degree granting school won't likely end up at a top ten R1. And don't resent your "Ivy League/Small Private School" colleagues for getting better jobs faster. They may be better trained than you, or made smarter choices (and yes perhaps because they were more financially able to, sad to say). Courage grad cafers!

Not sure about this point. Just as graduate students are not trained to teach but after earning the PhD are assumed to be able to be profs, the same holds true for curators. Some grad students may be thrown into TA sections, but there is little or no rigorous pedagogical training, while others may intern or assist on exhibitions but it isn't necessary. Most of the curators I know had no real museum training, they learned by doing just as profs do. But they did have advisors who worked in object-based methodologies and generally come from programs like Yale or Delaware which support curatorial ambition. A good museum on campus, such as at Yale, Harvard, or Williams doesn't hurt either. It goes without saying that programs with many alum in prominent curatorial positions perhaps trumps the last two points. It's relatively easy for a curator at a well-funded museum to hire a freshly minted PhD from their school as a research or curatorial assistant to let them get their feet wet, where the same is of course not true for academic jobs. There's a lot of debate about the efficacy of museum studies degrees in general, but especially for curators who are increasingly doing research that requires the skills, knowledge, and context provided by the PhD. If one wants to become an educator or registrar, the Hopkins online program is supposedly "good" and you get to put Hopkins on the cv without actually having to go to Baltimore or get in to any Hopkins academic program or anything.

I would suggest either UMass or UCR. The main reason is that both are terminal MAs at programs without the PhD (UCR did just start one this year, but I'm guessing they have few students yet). In a school with a PhD the terminal MA students will be much less of a priority for an advisor than their students taking exams, dissertating, defending. But UMass and UCR are also near lots of cultural resources. Boston, New York, Williamstown, and New Haven are within driving/train/bus distance from Amherst while the entire heaven that is Los Angeles awaits you 1.5 hours away (in good traffic, 2.5 in bad) from Riverside.

My experience was a bit different than oh_la_la's and I'm not sure the debt issue needs to be so fraught. I did take out loans, unnecessarily really because I also had good funding in my program. But like oh_la_la, I'm in a good position at a school (to which many of you are applying, hope to see some of you in my seminar this fall) that pays commensurate to its peers. My loan payments are annoying but not crippling, I write off the interest each year on my taxes, and since I work in higher ed the loans will be forgiven (goes for any 401c(3)). One could look at it as an investment that will require sacrifice in the medium term. Now, it's true, tenure track jobs are difficult to come by, but chances are if you don't get one you'll still stay within education or the nonprofit sector so would also have the ability to discharge your loans after 10 years. This isn't to say taking on debt is good, or that all debt is equal, I'm just trying to offer perspective from the other side. What if you did in fact make it? What if you realize your aspirations? Then what will $125,000 debt mean to you, with your good salary, excellent benefits, and professional satisfaction?

Sorry, I didn't mean to suggest that Darby English wouldn't teach or advise students at Williams. He is just a convienent example of how ranking programs by TT assistant prof appointments isn't inclusive ennough to get a real picture. In the NRC-type ranking system, Rochester couldn't count him in their employment rate anymore as they could when he was at Chicago as faculty. From the graduate program's website it seems like the teaching is done by regular Williams faculty plus Clark, Williams College Museum, and MassMOCA curators and administrators, post-docs, and visiting fellows. Some of these people have degrees from Harvard, the Institute, and Penn while others have MAs (from Williams) or PhDs from Rutgers, Rochester, or the aforementioned UCSB. So how to classify them? What about curatorial appointments at leading museums? Is becoming an assistant curator at the Met or Getty really lesser than getting a TT job at eastern podunck state? I don't know if I have a better answer for tracking, but the Williams example suggests that success in the academy (or academic-museum hybrid) is more complex than simply a TT job at HYP.

Chicago's loss is Williamstown's gain with Darby for sure; however, his position at the Clark is not as faculty. I guess Rochester just lost a point on the google doc. A couple of other things to note, a) I'm not sure what your methodology is excatly, but you have missed a few appointments & fellowships that I know about in my small-ish field, so I'm guessing there are others b ) the school list for placements is narrow. Mid-tier state schools should probably also be taken into account, they are about as desirable as LACs where the teaching load is the same and no grad students, although well-endowed LACs may pay a bit more. Curatorial placements are not taken into account for the NRC or any other ranking, which is a shame and I think helps skew the data toward the ossified top 10. I did an rough experiment with an NRC top 20, UCSB, which has a 5% placement rate for assistant profs accordng to this thread. In museums though, grads from past decade seem to have mid or senior level curatorial appointments at Stanford, UT Austin, Williams, RISD, Getty, SLAM, O'Keeffe Museum, Huntington Library, and Peabody Essex. College museum curators often teach undergraduate and graduate courses, but I don't know how you would put that kind of variable into the algorithm. Yale and the Institute might have similar curatorial placements. This thread has been useful but also divisive of the typical esprit de corps I have experienced on grad cafe. By all means, it's great (& wise) to encourage people to go to schools with full funding but we are all chasing dreams here and rationality has sometimes little to do with it. So not sure how helpful it is to create a have/have nots as I think has been implied. There are a lot of variables, and yes I do think it would be harder for the students at Missouri-Columbia to compete with those at Harvard but there are a lot of mid-size and small publics and private colleges in Missouri and the region, so those grads might do just fine if you expand your definition of successful placements past Ivies and Little Ivies.

Part of the issue here seems to be your desire to work at a museum. Some programs are encouraging of grad students pursuing curatorial work and others are discouraging. There is overlap among them in the "top 20" but not completely. Off the top of my head I tend to think Williams (MA), CUNY, Santa Barbara, Princeton, and Yale as strong in museum placements in recent years. Do make sure you get a sounding from any POIs about their willingness to train curators. And take heart, a recent hire at the Met has his PhD from Kansas (and is one of the most exciting scholars in his field).

Why those two? There are a few other worthwhile schools in between geographically, including Rutgers, Tufts, and UMass. BU is to Boston what Rutgers is to New York programs though.

Submit the best analytical writing you believe you have done. If that was a lit topic, so be it. You can learn object specific skills in the art history program, but POIs will want to see that you are bringing superior thinking to the party. Nobody wants to read a 100 page undergrad thesis though, nor should they even exist IMO, so just send the chapter that can stand alone.

Some of these programs do not offer a terminal MA, so make sure you double check. UC Riverside does have faculty interested in photography, and students often do internships at the California Museum of Photography with the opportunity to curate exhibitions. Similarly Williams has faculty plus photography collection resources at the Clark and the college museum, both actively collect and exhibit photography. I think internships at the three museums in the area based on a grad student's area of interest is part of Williams program's overall structure. UMass Amherst is a wonderful program but without some of the specific collection resources of Riverside or Williams. But, all three have funding and send students on to tier 1 grad schools. The Syracuse MA I think is not terribly well regarded and I never hear much about Tufts (would be interested if anyone on gradcafe has knowledge of that program). Have you looked into Arizona? I believe that they work with the Center for Creative Photography. You also might check out Notre Dame, they have a terminal MA with some faculty interested in contemporary photography.

Not sure you need to look that far afield to New York or Williamstown. If you are in Fontucky, have you considered UC Riverside? It's close and has funded a funded MA program with professors who teach in contemporary. I'm not sure whether UC Irvine has a terminal MA but might be worth a look as well.

Jennifer Roberts works primarily in 18th century now. I'm not aware of any of her current advisees who are working in contemporary, mostly 18th and 19th century American. Mirror Travels was her disseration. I don't know that she wouldn't take a student interested in post-minimalism but just that you should speak with her before making her a POI.

I also think that the job market is more diverse than just saying that only PhDs from T-20s get all the jobs (and then don't publish, which is catty and smells like sour grapes to me). It has been traditionally true that graduates from 15-20 programs end up teaching in those same programs for reasons both good and bad. And it's true, sham searches with pre-chosen candidates do still happen at some Ivies. BUT there are also some pockets of regional strength in the mid-west and south, for example. Iowa, Kansas, Minnesota, Emory, Penn State are all fine choices, but you might have less of a shot at that TT at Yale than if you were from Harvard (except maybe in African from Iowa) but you may go to Nevada Reno, Auburn, or Missouri Springfield. It's all relative, and frankly if you had your heart set on that Yale job, it would have helped to have kicked ass in undergrad at an Ivy, top R1, or top tier LAC which feed into the T-20 grad programs, which meant that you would have needed to kick ass at a great high school that feeds into those undergraduate colleges, which meant that you most likely needed to be born into some kind or privilege or have had highly motivated parents, etc. etc. Dig too deep and it gets a little ugly. I hope that most of you admits are not navel-gazing about what may or may not happen 8 (or 10) years from now. Cheers!

Notre Dame and UC Riverside have at least partial if not full funding for select students.

I would echo nearly everything that oh_la_la has said, from my slightly different perspective as someone who sits on fellowship committees (pre and post doc). All of your CVs will look about the same if you are reasonably smart. CAA has lots of panels every year, so chances are you might have given a paper there or maybe at your field's major conference and a handful of grad student conferences. There are a limited number of fellowships so I'm not overly impressed when I see a CASVA, Fullbright, ACLS, etc... I expect them. I would be impressed by a publication in a major journal but don't care so much about book reviews (and neither will tenure committees). They are a lot of work for little reward. The most important thing is the work. Is it interesting, does it seem it necessary, will it make a difference, and is it presented in a way that makes the first two obvious? Secondarily, letters of recommendation. I do care who they are from to a certain extent, it's helpful if I know and respect the person's work, but not where they are from. What I care about is how excited the recommender seems about their student's (or colleague's) work. I've seen great letters of rec that complement proposals to such an extent that they seem almost like extensions of the applicant's own thinking. That's a strong letter. I've also seen letters from very prominent folks at august institutions that are either cursory or more about their own work than their student's/colleague's. Those weaken the application overall. Oh_la_la's advice about choosing your advisor wisely is CRITICAL. Ideally when you start to go to conferences and meet senior people in your field, some will have already heard about you. If you don't have such an advocate or your advisor is not active within the field, you are at a disadvantage. I think I would also add that you should pick a minor field that gives you maximum teaching range. You are a medievalist? Great, how about a minor in contemporary Chinese art? It's a little gamesmanship but in the best light speaks to your intellectual curiosity. The last is important because... I'm guardedly optimistic that those who want them will eventually get jobs. BUT that TT job may be at a satellite campus of Middle of the State You Never Wanted to Live In Oh No Where's The Whole Foods University. And you may be the only art historian, and you may teach a 4-4, and you'll make $35,000, and the library might be terrible, and there is no research/travel funding, and your students may be as dumb as a box of rocks. But you'll be living the dream. This could happen to you regardless of the ranking of your program. There are just a few Ivies, public and private R1s, and top tier liberal arts colleges but lots of middling public and private schools everywhere. I would say that all of Oh_la_la's advice and what I just wrote stands for those of you who want to be museum curators as well. Do try to write a dissertation that could be adapted into an ambitious exhibition and catalogue though.

Tanya Sheehan at Rutgers.

Rutgers is a venerable program, no doubt. I feel it also acts as somewhat of a safety school for those rooted in the Northeast (particularly New York), who were really hoping to get into the Institute, Columbia, CUNY, or Princeton (if they looked to New Jersey). There might be a reason why Rutgers, like BU which is in a slightly similar situation vis a vis Harvard, often sends out acceptances later than others. Closing time at the bar? I think of Temple as an up and comer who isn't necessarily trying to replicate Penn's strengths but have a different identity than the "least choice in a big market". Temple seems to have an exciting energy right now. Anecdotally, I know folks from both who have jobs. But funding should be your main concern if you are looking at an MA and hoping to transition into their PhD (or another). Do try to play them off each other if you can get anything, they are near enough in geography and reputation to worry about competing for students, even at the MA level.

The advice is equivocal at best. Could you tell us which Ivy, which specialization? 5 year package? Stipend per year? How much teaching? Did you negotiate a better deal because you were admitted to a few programs? Please give us insight that we can use. Thank you.

This! Let's take Alex Nemerov, a scholar who bounces between Yale and Stanford, for an example. He's working within his mentor Jules Prown's approach, but has gone further into Freudian speculation than Prown did while amping up the close reading of objects into a kind of historical art criticism. His work is creative, engaging and thoughtful, but the approch is by no means unique- many of the second and third generation Prown students produce similar work. And many are highly successful. Structurally, Nemerov had the advantage of the highly influential Prown, and of debuting his method in a spectacularly public fashion- the catalogue for the highly controversial West as America exhibition at SAAM. This is not a unique situation, I think we could trace a number of lineages in the same way. It's nice to think that "pushing boundaries" however one defines them will be enough to get you in and then get you a career, but a charismatic/influential mentor is waaaay up on the list too. Isn't that why everyone applies to the same 15 schools? When you are deciding on where you will go, choosing an advisor who will steer your career is almost as important as whether they will "foster" (ha ha) your development as a scholar. Look for those who are on editorial boards, fellowship committees, CAA board, etc... Those relationships will come in handy. If the professor seems isolated, no matter how brilliant, think twice. I would argue that this can work in the opposite way as well, a professor may want to work with a student who seems personable and even keeled as well as brilliant, inviting them into the program instead of the brilliant but weird kid. From the prof's point of view the more charismatic applicant may prove more successful navigating school and career (carrying on the professor's legacy).

Yep, if you want to see how the other half lives: http://academicjobs.wikia.com/wiki/Art_History_2012-2013 It heats up right around CAA.