anonymousbequest

@bearcat, jk about the paranoia. I was riffing off of earlier posts regarding "Hal Foster" and the sometimes discussed topic of whether any faculty members read gradcafe. Few probably know of it, for those that do it could be like a great reality tv show, new season every fall.

I'll be in Paris and London soon and am looking forward to Angel of the Odd as well. Although curators there can have a tough time with layout due to space, crowds, and budget constraints, so we'll see how it looks. The Aesthetic Movement exhibition last year had great objects but the presentation took away from them. Not my favorite museum, but it was probably a glorious train station. At the Louvre there is a little exhibition of American genre painting including something by Bingham of the famous "bearcat". I'm also excited to see the new Islamic wing, which is one of outgoing director Henri Loyrette's great accomplishments. And thanks to whoever mentioned Manet at the RA, I wasn't aware of that one but I'll put it on my agenda. I find that when people learn something for the first time they can be very eager to take ownership of that new knowledge by explaining it in a pedantic way. It's new to them, so could be new to you. As much as they read as patronizing, Hal's comments probably came from the right place. And what a small world, he's just been in touch with me about a student. Maybe people should be paranoid on grad cafe.

Daily application update to ponder: UCSB's POIs has begun notifying successful applicants and nominating for fellowships. While this seems early, they also seem to send their acceptances really late. (I have personal connections to the program but would prefer not to say more about that)

I'm with losemygrip on this one, and shame on you kunstgesichtedude (my vote for most pretentious/twee username on the art history forum btw, not to mention that it's "kunstgeschichte" with two "h"s) for being so patronizing to losemygrip. Taking the GRE is one of the first, but by no means most significant, challenges a prospective art historian will face during graduate school and a career in academia or museums. If taking tests is such an obstacle now, how is sitting for comps and orals going to be? Any online research, including on these forums, would make it clear that the programs promising the best chances of career placement require the GRE. To ask whether there are any which don't suggests that getting into a top whatever program may not be that important to the OP, perhaps indicating a lack of seriousness or at least of the work it takes to become a PhD in art history. As a working art historian, losemygrip is on the other side of those challenges and I respect her advice. Along with willingness to take the GRE, I hope the OP might ask herself whether she and her family are willing to relocate for grad school, she can spend significant time away from her family on research trips/fellowships, and then relocate again (perhaps many times) during a career as an art historian? If the answers to these questions are "no", I would advise that she get a MA from whatever school in her area grants them and then pursue teaching at the community college level or seek work as a curatorial assistant/curator at a regional museum.

Sorry, on the west coast again, but USC has a special certificate in the history of collecting and display as part of their graduate program in art history. The Getty Research Institute has lots of resources in this area. On the east coast, you may want to find out which New York program works most closely with the Frick's Center for the History of Collecting in America.

I don't know, it still seems like an odd sour grapes thread to me. The topic is not, "The Terminal Art History MA at the IFA - Is it Worth It?". There are many threads where this has been brought up to which the OP could have made a contribution. However, the OP clearly felt that their experience at the Institute could stand in for all programs. Which is why I thought to post what I did. I guess we can quibble over the MA vs. PhD thing, but I do feel as though I see a lot of folks worried about applying straight to the PhD from undergraduate here, but this group may not be typical of all graduate school applicants. We do see folks who have applied multiple times and are attempting different strategies to crack the acceptance code, or even some who haven't ended up in a graduate program at all yet.

It would be relevant to mention any curatorial or research assistant positions, and any work on specific exhibitions. Also, and I'm sure you know this, but any contributions to catalogues would be important. However, at your level if you wrote an exhibition brochure or pamphlet, as well as any articles on art topics for a members' magazine or the like would also count as publications. There may be a section for publications on the application where you could work these in. Also mention either in your SOP or the appropriate place on the application any public lectures you have given. If your work at the museum has been answering phones, manning the entrance desk, inputting data into Raiser's Edge or TMS, etc... it won't be relevant and you don't need to focus on it. I'd be interested to hear what fullofpink has to add, I think she is a curatorial assistant and might have dealt with this during the course of her application seasons.

What an odd post apropos of nothing. It sounds as though you either had bad advice from your undergraduate advisor or didn't find gradcafe early enough because it seems to be understood here that the Institute's MA is indeed all of the things that you menion. However, just in case another potential art historian who is new here reads your post and believes it, I feel the need to dispel a couple of your assertions. Unless you are in contemporary art or want to work at a small museum, you need to get a PhD to be a curator. I think it's even going to become common to see PhDs as art educators at serious, scholarly institutions. It's almost mandatory now for an art educator to have a MA. Second, there are many worthy MAs aside from Williams. Nothing against Williams, it has a great record, but there are a number of terminal MAs that have sent students on to nearly every PhD program you can think of. I do agree that if one has a strong undergraduate degree in art history and is prepared with at least one language, applying to PhD programs is smart. It seems like this forum has created a myth that one needs to have an MA from somewhere before applying for the PhD. Recently there was someone from what seemed like either Chicago or Northwestern humble-bragging about their stellar GPA and GRE scores but applying to terminal MAs because they felt they had to. But most people didn't go to an elite college (or even if they did may not have a high GPA for some reason), or perhaps didn't major in art history but fell in love with it as a senior or even after graduating. For those folks, a terminal MA may be the best option to burnish their bona fides and improve their chances at getting into a top tier PhD program. Good luck with law school. At least at UCLA you've got the Hammer in Westwood as well as some great sculpture on campus (right there north of the the law school). If you are living in Palms or Culver City, as many UCLA students do, you also have the Museum of Jurassic Technology there (across from the Helms Bakery complex, speaking of, if you have not been to Father's Office do go) which is one of my favorite places in Los Angeles and if you are over on Barrington or Sepulveda the Getty is easy enough to visit. So hopefully you are still enjoying art even though post-graduate art history was not for you.

Solomon-Godeau retired from UCSB, and in any case she was notorious for driving students away (and crazy). If you become interested in Liz Childs at Washington University, do look into that program very carefully. On the surface it seems like it should be fine--good (although small) faculty, full-funding incluiding summer stipends, lots of funded travel opportunities, but it has some serious idiosyncracies. Childs's husband John Klein also teaches at WashU and works on Matisse (and I mean ONLY on Matisse), but could be another member of your committee. I like Hollis and from my intereactions with her I'd guess that she would be a down-to-earth advisor for whatever that anecdotal evidence is worth.

Maybe consider Santa Barbara? Mark Meadow's and Ann Adams's students have done ok, at least those I can recall (professors at Duke & Georgia, curators at Getty & RISD). "artofdescribing" shouldn't have overlooked an Alpers student at another "top 15" (is it just me or are there about 30 programs in the top 15?).

Since you are at Hampshire and it sounds as though may be staying in the area, have you considered UMass's MA program in art history? The school seems to have a good relationship with Delaware, and has sent students to its conservation program. I do believe Williams funds many of their MAs (if not all of them) but I'm not sure how much more cachet it would lend your CV for your interest in conservation, but if you are a MA resident UMass might be a cost effective way to get further coursework in both art history and chemistry. I'm not sure I know where some of the conservators I work with received their art history degrees, I look more at their experience with similar objects and reputation among colleagues.

Losemygrip makes some excellent points, to which I will only add a couple of thoughts. If Rutgers admitted you for the MA, it does suggest that they think you can do the work, which is good. I'd probably recommend going there, and then applying for the PhD there and other places. All things being equal, you are looking at two most likely unfunded offers, but 2 years to gain an understanding of art history may be better than one intensive year. Rutgers is a fine school with some excellent professors, but it can get overshadowed by the more prestigious names in its neighborhood. I wouldn't worry so much about the reputation of the school right now. Museums also tend to be more of a meritocracy than academia, because they don't need to attract paying undergraduates or shore up US News rankings with statistics of how many of their staff went to Ivies. It is important that before you broadcast your desire to be a curator to your POI or department you find out whether curatorial work is an option they think is worth pursuing. A number of programs and professors discourage students from becoming curators, because if their goal is to replicate themselves curators are infertile. This is changing but be careful. Best of luck.

Omnibuster, here are my thoughts on Williams vs. the Institute for the MA: Williams is funded (at least partially for everyone, unless I'm mistaken, even if you are not fully funded living in western Massachusetts is going to be far cheaper than New York). Williams takes you to Italy. Williams has a great alumni network. Williams can provide hands-on experience working with and from objects. Williams admits a small cohort, meaning lots of attention from faculty, leading to more meaningful letters of recommendation. I'm guessing that it's true that they have about a 50% placement in PhD programs. NYU, well, it's in New York which is far preferable than Williamstown (4 hours from anywhere you want to be). Their faculty may be better on paper but again, competing for their attention will be difficult, especially when they have already relegated you to second tier status. Hope this helps.

First, jilly11, congratulations on being accepted to an MA program. You should feel good about that and hopefully not take these comments as people trying to rain on your parade. But, as someone who is on the other side of things, I have to agree with oh_la_la and fullofpink here. I would look long and hard at the numbers of people from the Institute who graduate with an MA who actually do make it from there into a PhD program (same with Columbia or Chicago's MAPH), adding that to the amount of debt you will accrue while in the program before making any decisions. Also, the size of both the MA program and PhD would make it nigh impossible for you to forge the deep mentoring relationship with your POI that will help launch you into the PhD program there or anywhere else. Then there is the matter of the degree's reputation, I don't think highly of the Institute's terminal MA, seeing it as kind of a bought degree and not associating it with the reputation of the PhD program. I think it can add some cachet to folks working in galleries, auction houses, or non-curatorial departments of museums, but that's about it. Plenty of people on this forum have been through the soul-sucking process of gradschool applications over multiple seasons, it's just the nature of things now with so many people applying and schools cutting back on admits. If I were you, with only the MA option at the IFA, I would perhaps take a year off, intern if you can as fullofpink suggests, or take some language classes to better prepare you for next season. There are great funded or partially funded terminal MAs out there with track records of sending students to good PhD programs. Three that come to mind are Williams, UMass Amherst, and UC Riverside. I think Notre Dame offers some kind of merit-based funding as well. I would look at schools that do not have PhD programs though, because there again you would be fighting for attention against very needy PhD students and ABDs. It is a myth that schools "won't" accept people to their PhD programs without an MA (unless the MA is built into the architecture of that school's program). There are just so many more students with them now that it can seem that way. Some people here hedge their bets, applying to funded, terminal MAs as well as PhDs, which may be the smartest option. As for job prospects with just the MA, they are perhaps not as dismal as fullofpink describes, but they are certainly not in curatorial departments of museums or anywhere in academia. You can work in other departments of museums, in collections management, education, development, or admin. For many people this is rewarding and completely fulfilling, a very good choice. If you really want to get scared for your future--know where oh_la_la is right now--go over to the Art History Academic Jobs Wiki 2011-2012. It may make you rethink graduate school altogether.

I'd suggest just querying your POIs about whether they'd be interested in topics in print culture. They don't necessarily need to work specifically with prints to advise you. To learn the connoisseurial/technical aspects of printmaking you could, as losemygrip suggests, intern or get a fellowship in one of the great print collections: MFA, Philadelphia, Met, Huntington. As you undoubtedly know, the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries saw a great revival in printmaking throughout the trans-Atlantic world, so I'd guess you wouldn't have much of a problem finding someone who would be interested in working with you. In American art, I hear the Michael Leja at Penn is working on a new book on some aspect of prints.

You bring up the interesting issue, oft discussed, of whether terminal MAs help or hurt the student who eventually wants a PhD. Seems as though conventional wisdom here on gradcafe is that getting a terminal MA will help create better options for getting into a PhD program later. I think that for some students (me for one) an MA can be a sort of "proving ground", but the MA program matters. There are very few MA programs that have track records of placing students into top-tier PhD programs and the Cal States are not those. I guess it's possible that someone has made it from a Cal State somehwhere, but in my acquaintence with faculty and graduate students from a couple of the larger programs no students ever made the jump. But it's always best to do one's own research. I'd suggest looking at the profiles of graduate students at the institutions where one is most interested for the PhD, and see where they did their unergraduate and MA degrees. One may see patterns emerge.

It's generally understood that people who do MAs at any of the Cal States will not be moving into a PhD program. Neither UCSD, UCLA, UCB, nor UCSB offer terminal MAs, but UCR and UCD do. While I think most students at Riverside and Davis do not advance, some exceptional students have been admitted to very good PhD programs. If you want to stay in CA a little longer (and who can blame you!), and since you just switched majors, maybe do some post-bac work in art history at one of the Cal States that will prepare you to compete for PhD programs?

I guess my feelings of the matter are that a) why would you get a Ph.D. if you don't want to eventually get a job that requires a Ph.D.? Save yourself the hassle and years (and money, even "fully funded" people take out some loans), it's not fun. You can be a grant writer, museum educator, registrar, administrator, development officer, or even curator of a community gallery without one, if you just want to work in the visual arts. You get a Ph.D. because you have a desire and think you can contribute to the production of knowledge in art history, not write grants. And, your advisor and school will not support you unless they feel you are committed to at least trying to be tenured at Princeton or (secondarily) curator at the Getty. It damages the reputation of programs/professors not to have their graduates work in the field, plus you take up resources of more serious students. Some advisors won't even support you if you express the desire to become a *gasp* curator. b ) why would people on this forum listen to someone dispense advice (much of it misguided) who isn't even *in* graduate school much less in a position to speak to the job market beyond a few anecdotes gleaned while working as a low level research assistant god knows where? Here's an anecdote: an Americanist at one of the Philadelphia programs is married to a curator who works at a museum in New York. They have children and commute. To me, that's the kind of thing that ambitious art historians need to gird themselves up for. If you are not ready to face that, and think you will just cobble together some adjunct teaching with grant writing you are naive. Adjunct teaching is terrible work btw, little pay for little respect. It's a vicious cycle, you have to try and find more opportunities to make a living which gives you no time for publishing which means that you won't be marketable for tenure track jobs. But carry on, fullofpink. Maybe it will work out for you, or maybe you'll end up married with kids, not working in the field, holding on to your Ph.D. as a talisman that you actually accomplished something in your life beyond breeding, that you bring up at mommy and me classes. That is, if you get in somewhere. Aojumper, you say you want to do Colonial and/or 19th century (I'm assuming early 19th because of your interest in Colonial) American art history. Off the top of my head, the best places for that would be Delaware with Wendy Bellion, Berkeley with Margaretta Lovell, Harvard with Jennifer Roberts, and (maybe) UCSB with Bruce Robertson. Pat Hills is not working in Colonial (or even 19th century anymore). Alex Nemerov is a wild card. A lot of Americanists who formerly were interested in Colonial and 19th century have switched focus into the 20th as part of an epochal shift of the entire discipline.

Delaware did lose three "first generation" Americanists, who have nearly all retired at this point, but Wendy Bellion is there now and recent Ph.D.s have continued to be successful in academic and teaching. Historically, Yale, Penn, and Delaware were the hotspots for the training of Americanists on the east coast with Harvard refusing to have anything to do officially with teaching of American art (until Jennifer Roberts). I can understand wanting to be near family, but if your conviction to become a scholar is not strong enough to take you to a school within a long train ride from New England, you might want to reconsider your chosen path. After all, once you finish who knows where your first teaching/curatorial position might be?

I'm wondering whether you should nix MIT and Brown, they are not known for American art. Look at Delaware, Penn, and maybe Temple instead? Also you should read work by Jennifer Roberts and (particularly) Alex Nemerov before deciding on Harvard or Yale. They come from a certain methodological tradition that doesn't suit everyone. BU may be losing Pat Hills soon.

I think this advice is perhaps naive. You'd be hard pressed to find any museum that would take a M.A. who did a couple of years of the kind of museum work graduate students do into the curatorial ranks over a newly-minted Ph.D (contemporary being the exception). Ph.D.s have more knowledge about their field than M.A.s, which one needs to produce exhibitions, publications, and installations--a curator's main function. The other stuff curators do that one doesn't learn in grad school--managing budgets, personnel, schmoozing donors, knowledge of conservation, framing, and the art market--can be learned on the job, in the same way that grad schools don't teach you how to teach, you learn by doing it. I know a lot of people who received curatorial post-docs or who were hired by museums straight out of their Ph.D. who had no museum experience at all (I'm one of them). The only M.A.s I ever run into are curatorial assistants. Now it may be that I'm talking about a different kind of institution than fullofpink, but I'm guessing that people on gradcafe who really want to go through the long process of earning a Ph.D., would want to work for nationally-known museums with stellar collections (of which Williams College is not, and the Clark is for its area). Now back to Williams. Until the late '80s, the M.A. degree in art history used to be enough to get people jobs teaching at the junior college level and for some museum jobs, particularly administrative. Williams was the "best" M.A., and became a sort of finishing school--complete with its own "grand tour"--for a group of people went into museums, several of whom became directors. Most of the famed "Williams Mafia" are now either retired or close to it, with Michael Govan of LACMA perhaps the last, and he's not really part of the group. Nowadays, the M.A. degree in art history can get you an entry level administrative position at a museum, so I'd guess that most Williams grads (try to) go onto Ph.D. programs, just like students at every other M.A. program in the country. The Williams name has a certain allure because of its past, and because it is one of the best undergraduate institutions in the country. I think of it the same way as Bryn Mawr--if you saw Ph.D. rankings 30 years ago, Bryn Mawr was in the top 10. Now not so much. Back then there just wasn't as much choice about where to study, now there is a proliferation of great faculty and programs across the country so a small college with limited offerings like Bryn Mawr can't compete with even public schools. Similarly, the M.A. degree, even from Williams, just isn't what it used to be. I know several Williams M.A.s, and they went to a variety of Ph.D. programs. I think it's a solid program with name recognition. But if it comes down to a choice between a funded M.A. vs no funding at Williams, take the funded offer.

Agreed! The IFA 2-track MA program, and Columbia's too, seem like a great way for those schools to fund their large cadres of Ph.D. students. I'm sure you could do great at the IFA and be one of the very few who transition from the terminal M.A. to their Ph.D. program, but you could also do your work at Tufts or UMass, get some teaching experience, graduate with a lot less debt, and still go to the IFA later (if you wanted, you might not after you hear more about its culture). There are a few threads here extolling UMass this season. I don't think I've met anyone in professional life who did their MA at Tufts, but that just maybe because they don't do my area. Tufts is certainly the better undergraduate institution of the two, but that doesn't necessarily mean anything--look at the reputation of Cornell's Ph.D. program in art history for example, or Notre Dame's M.A.

It is true that sometimes curators of contemporary art only hold the M.A. degree, but in most other fields (save dec. arts perhaps) if you don't have a Ph.D., don't bother applying, even if the posting may say "M.A. required Ph.D. preferred." Many years ago when curators acted more as "keepers" of collections (to use the quaint British term for curators), a M.A. could get one in the door, and you still find curators over 50 who may only have M.A.s, even at places like the Getty. However these days most curators are involved in similar kinds of knowledge production through research, exhibitions, conference papers, and publications as their academic brethren, which takes the breadth and depth of knowledge, research skills, and methodological underpinnings that only a Ph.D. can provide. This is true at the university gallery level (Amherst, Williams, Smith, Princeton, Penn State for example), major national (Met, MFA, LACMA), and even regional (Amon Carter, Minneapolis, Indiana) institutions. Curators of contemporary art are not as research-oriented, and spend much of their time at galleries looking for new and interesting artists or trends to form exhibitions around, hence they just need a M.A. The main difference between curators and professors is that curators spend their days with grownups who want to be engaged with art instead of with (often) apathetic adolescents. And sometimes they get to wear ball gowns or tuxedos at fancy parties, or perhaps even bid seven or eight figures at Christie's, or be featured in the New York or Los Angeles Times. However, they have to go into the office everyday, and don't get summers off. And as a poster above said, hierarchy for curators at larger institutions mirrors that for professors: assistant (entry level), associate (equivalent of tenured professor), and full (just plain "curator"). There are some idiosyncrasies, the MFA has no associate curators for instance, and sometimes you'll find "senior associate curators" (Yale) or whatnot. At the highest level is often a "chief curator", a designation that usually means most of that curator's job will be administrative (like a dean). So I might rethink settling for a M.A. if you are shooting for a curatorial career at anyplace larger than your local historical society or house museum (where you will be paid $20,000/year and have to find a second job). And don't get me started on "museum studies" programs, I've only met one curator of a major collection who did one (USC's back when it was the Williams of museum studies M.A.s).

God advice Zoltan. I would add that the most important things to consider (in order) are (1) the success of students who have worked with your potential POIs in winning coveted pre-docs and then placement in academic and museum jobs post-graduation, which reflects on the professor's reputation, their support of students, and whether there will be a network of alumni who can help you get jobs, fellowships, publications, and exhibitions as you begin your career (2) how quickly students working with your POIs finish (being a grad student should be as brief as possible) (3) funding. As you begin the run up to the April 15 deadline for your big life changing decision, I encourage you to have some frank conversations with your POIs and their current grad students, particularly ABDs if you can. That said, the latest NRC rankings are a good rough estimate. I think there is consensus on the top 25, but debate on where programs exactly fit, which is why they came up with a range rather than a hard number. And of course it is difficult to rank graduate programs in art history because any given program may or may not cover a certain sub-field. If a top 10 school doesn't have anyone you want to work with, it's not a top 10 for you.

Congratulations! Glad to see a fellow UMass alumnus making good.