violetvivian

Some things to consider while you're thinking about grad school in art history: 1. Why do you want to go to grad school? 2. What kind of "20th century art history" are you talking about? European? American? Japanese? African? Theory? Photography? Folk? Latin American? The list goes on, and your "chances" are different with each choice. If answering this question seems difficult to you, then yes, a terminal MA is a good idea. It will give you a chance to familiarize yourself with a broad section of art history and its various methodologies. 3. What does getting "a job" mean to you? You will probably be able to find a job with a PhD from a school outside the "top 40." It will probably NOT be a tenure track job. Start reading the Chronicle of Higher Ed, and you'll get a good idea of the state of the academic job market in the humanities. Even with a PhD from a top 10 program (and these rankings are too complex to reduce to a list, anyway), you may have a tricky time landing a tenure track position or curatorial gig. This is why numbers 1 and 2 are incredibly important. You can't go into art history for the job prospects or the money. It needs to be something that you're passionate about, and feel a strong need to add to the state of the discourse.

Just a heads up: you may have difficulty finding an art historian to advise you in a PhD in this specialization at the particular schools you mentioned. I can't think of anyone on faculty at Columbia, NYU or UNC-CH who would be a good fit for an "outsider art" project--perhaps folk art more broadly. If you are set on UNC or NYU you may want to look instead to the American Studies/Folklore faculty and Visual Culture faculty respectively. If you'd like more specific information feel free to PM me.

I think this is what you're referring to? It's outdated... http://arthistorynewsletter.com/blog/?p=476 http://arthistorynewsletter.com/blog/?p=483 http://arthistorynewsletter.com/blog/?p=484 And my personal favorite, by adviser: http://arthistorynewsletter.com/blog/?p=485

Nina Athanassoglou-Kallmyer at Delaware? Dorothy Johnson at Iowa?

Bellion is great and an excellent reason to apply to Delaware. The three that I am thinking of left Delaware for other tenured positions but have not retired. They (or two out of three, at least) are also still advising the last of their Delaware graduate students remotely, from their new positions. I think in the next two or three years, when the last of their advisees have graduated, we will see a change in the success/output level of recent Americanist PhDs from the program, unless there is a new hire or two. I would look at Penn and Temple, as others have said. Not in New England, but a cheap megabus ride away. And yeah, that's a very good point.

Delaware has lost 3 (that I can think of) great Americanists over the past few years...

Kuniklos, I think you sound like a really interesting, attractive candidate for any of the programs you mentioned. Don't be discouraged. If every student followed exactly in the scholarly mold of every mentor, a field would never grow or expand. Art History has found its way to psychoanalitic theory, critical theory, race theory, material culture, visual culture, etc. because of people who ventured outside of traditional boundaries. You sound passionate about what you've chosen to study, and if you are confident that Art History is the right housing for it, you will make it work. I'm going to send you a PM with some firsthand info about one of the programs you mentioned. Best of luck!

Best of all, get a strong, detailed letter from someone famous!

There are a lot of questions in this post. I have a few of my own: -Why apply to Berkeley if so many of the modernists have left and the funding situation is so dire? Or do you want to work with Grigsby? If you go to Berkeley now, set up a meeting with her or someone else that you'd be interested in studying with and ask all these questions. No resource better than that. (As an aside: if you are an undergrad at Berkeley, do some research on academic incest before you apply there for the PhD). -Why these particular "unfathomably competitive" schools? I hope the answer is that there is a potential adviser for you (someone whose research interests are in line with your own and that you would want to study with) at each of these schools. There is a scholar of 19th-20th century French art at almost every graduate program out there. That doesn't mean each person is a good match for you. If you haven't already, read their work and see if it resonates with you. If it doesn't, just don't apply. If you're open to considering different programs, take a look at Duke (Leighten is really fantastic, IMO), Penn, Delaware, Michigan, UNC-Chapel Hill--all popular choices among modernists on this board, if I remember correctly. -Do you plan to mention your Icelandic interest in your SOP? If so, have you checked to see if there is anyone on faculty at these schools who studies Icelandic art? You are probably well aware that 19th-20th century European art is by far the most popular specialty right now. As such, you will be considered against a much larger applicant pool than, say, those interested in African art. To set yourself apart from the pack, do your research now. Reach out to the scholars who you would like to work with and ask if they are taking on new students next year, and stay in touch. Make sure your languages are in great shape (scholars of French art don't just use their language for primary source translation, but for writing as well). Ask your respected professor if they can put you in contact with anyone directly. A few of your questions can be answered with some simple googling--read the funding policies on the webpages of particular programs, search for placement rates, google recent graduates and see where they've landed. Good luck!

I am not really sure what your question is (are you concerned about your quantitative score on the GRE?) but I did want to offer some other (cautionary?) advice. Keep in mind that if you do end up being one of the 5-10 lucky students admitted to an outrageously competitive program like Columbia, UChicago or NYU (in the even-more-outrageously competitive field of modern and contemporary art), you will be expected to write. A lot--in English--for an expected audience of American journals, at least most of the time. I only mention this because you mention that writing in English is much harder for you than verbal. Since your thesis is unfinished, you may want to spend some time completing it. If your program won't accept it for credit, it would still be to your benefit in terms of polishing up your English writing skills. You'll also need to submit a writing sample, and I would only suggest submitting something that you are confident in and proud of. As for your quantitative score on the GRE, a 610 in math is perfectly fine for an Art History applicant. It is only really a consideration if it is exceptionally low. My score was lower and I had successful applications.

Can anyone speak to this for the humanities?

This is really interesting, particularly because I've heard similar things. I figured it was a personal opinion/ one-off, but maybe it's a trend. One prof mentioned to me that some of the worst job talks he'd seen were from Harvard grads, and disparaged their high number of in-department hires (i.e. BA, MA, PhD Harvard candidates hired as profs at...Harvard!). My adviser also discouraged me from applying for several reasons, mostly related to the program's conservatism. Of course all this speculation really assuages the sting over that rejection letter I received a few months ago.. Not really sold on sticking Michigan and McGill in the top 10, though. OP, sorry to hijack your thread!

Is it really thought that Harvard is "not nearly as great as" Michigan or McGill?

As others have stated, they aren't equivalent. However, some schools in the US are now trying to develop a PhD in the visual arts. It's quite a controversial topic right now (and the general opinion is that it's a bad idea). If you're interested, you can read more about the new visual arts PhD and more traditional visual arts degrees in a book called Art School: Propositions for the 21st Century. It's an interesting read--I would recommend it to both visual artists and historians.

I would choose NYU-IFA for a number of reasons: 1. If your goal is to become a curator (not a curatorial assistant, or other museum work, but a full curator), you should take the traditional MA track at the IFA. This is because you will eventually need to earn a PhD if you want to pursue this career, and a traditional MA is better preparation for that (in terms of networking, academics, research skills, etc). Then, if you're still interested in a PhD, you can apply again to Columbia or a number of schools with excellent Latin Americanists (cool field!). 2. You have already committed to NYU. I don't know the specifics of your situation, and it's true that Columbia did give you a very late admit, but it's considered a faux pas to renege on an offer after April 15. In this case, the prestige of the programs is fairly equal (particularly on the MA level), and the faculty at IFA has been very responsive and welcoming--I don't see the point of potentially burning bridges at the IFA to accept the Columbia offer. This is the big point that stood out to me when I initially read your post. 3. You seem to be leaning toward NYU in terms of strength in your field. Follow this instinct. It doesn't matter that Columbia is an Ivy if it is weak in your field. In this case, it's not weak, but I think you are right that the IFA is a better research fit (just based on what I've read from both faculties). Congratulations on having two great offers in hand. Good luck!