shadow

I worked with Prof. Moloney as an undergraduate and it was my favorite course I took out of my four years - and it had absolutely nothing to do with my major. I saved up one of my few electives so I could take it and it was amazing. I know their department is very well respected.... if it helps!

I've been chatting with a bunch of people via PM about specific fields - feel free to message me. It's pretty easy to figure out what I studied, and thus figure out who I am, via these message boards, so I was hesitant to even comment about the IFA to begin with, and I'm not really willing to critique every prof/subfield publicly here. Ultimately, these are my opinions and the opinions of some of my peers. Everyone has a different opinion. I don't mean to have a negative spin on the IFA, just because my experience wasn't positive (along with many of my peers). If you look back a few years, the posts about the IFA were much more negative that what I've been saying. I have been trying to stress that your experience there is very dependent on what you want to do with your degree, what your financial background is, and what your field is. I can only be honest with what I observed, and you have to figure out if it is the right fit for you.

...there is a bathroom that we have dubbed the "Stall of Tears." But I'm glad you are excited - for some people, and some sub disciplines, it's absolutely the right place to be.

40-50 is about typical for an incoming class at the IFA. Having a big class has both pros and cons. First off, it is nice having a big group of people - and if you are coming from out of town you automatically have a peer group. This gets tricky though because there isn't the pressure to make friends outside of the IFA as there is at other programs, where there are only 5-10 grad students, so it gets a bit tense at times, as everyone works, studys, and plays together. Also although it is a big group, it is by no means diverse. It is predominantly white, young women from upper middle class families. The IFA is definitely not a program that you can just pay your way in to, though having money does help your chances for admission. At most programs these days, if you aren't intending to go on to the phd, you don't get funding for your master's degree. I think what people are concerned about with the IFA's program is that it is operating a very large MA program, and seems to be using it to generate revenue. Keep in mind though the professors are all the same ones that the PhD students work with and the classes are all the same ones the PhD students take (they posted their fall classes, by the way- a lot look great). <<shadow (Or anyone else who has been to the IFA) I've heard a lot about the students - but what about the professors - What kinds of relationships do they have with their students? Did you find them to be generally available and friendly - or was it difficult to get feedback from them? Do they socialize with the students or keep to themselves? I realize I'm asking about all the professors - but maybe you can generalize about the atmosphere and the advising situation? - it would be really helpful, thanks!>> It depends professor to professor. My area is small, so I got to know my professor before I even came to the IFA (I was local). Others have 20 students at a time wanting their attention, so it gets really hard to be memorable. Overall I've found that students have to fight to be noticed, especially at the MA level (since you split your classes between 5 different areas, you don't end up taking a ton of classes with the same prof). I think a lot of professors come to the IFA cause mainly for them it is a research institute. They only have to teach two courses (sometimes one) a semester, to graduate students, which compared to many other programs is an incredibly light load, so they don't really see their first duty as always being to the students, the way it is at other programs. They tend to keep to themselves, and aren't very friendly (though this depends), and are very insultated. It isn't really until PhD level that a sense of comraderie develops. One of the hardest things is doing your out of area QP because it requires working with an out of area prof, who isn't always excited to work with someone who isn't an expert in thier particular field. So you have to be careful when chosing who to work with. The good thing is that overall the other students will be honest with you and warn you about certain professors. So just ask around.... (Obviously I'm generalizing too, and some professors are awesome to work with..... I can be more specific over PM).

Well the most important things to have are the organic chem and pre-program experience, in terms of what I have heard. Then comes the portfolio. Of most of the people I know, the studio art background is where they were weakest, because many were archaeologists. I think the pre-program experience, though, was the one thing everywhere and everyone stressed, and it is also the hardest thing to come by..... places don't want you workign with objects if you aren't trained, and if you don't work with objects, you can't get into school to get training. It's this stupid, viscious cycle... but even if you have to volunteer and remove tape from things for 6 months before getting to do real treatments, it is still worth it. I think nearly every program wants you to have some sort of preprogram experience. All of the conservators I know have been really happy with the IFA conservation program - so that's a good thing!

If you get in for conservation, you should absolutely, 100% go. I have a lot of friends both in school for conservation, and trying to get into school for conservation, and it is one of the hardest things to get into school for.... people wait years, and typically they say you have to apply three or four times before it works out. The IFA is one of THE top programs for conservation, and no matter what funding you get, you should definitely take an offer from them if one came. Besides, at least conservators make some money after they get out of school....

All the rumors you've heard about the IFA ...the cattiness, the competition between students, the faculty not caring, the traditionalism... they're all true. However, how much they are true depends on the incoming class and your subfield. I'd say it very much depends on what field you are in, what you want to do with the degree afterwards, how wealthy you are, and how much your interests match with your faculty advisor, and how willing you are to work out of area. For what I am doing, though, I would never have paid to go the IFA for my master's degree.I loved my advisor, we got along well, but ultimately, when it came time to decide if I wanted to stay for the PhD (and I could have) the environment was not one I wanted to be in any longer, and the degree from the IFA was not going to make me as competitive in my particular field. The conservation school is much more insulated and close-knit and I don't think they have the same issues to the same degree. They're contained in their own building, so it does very much feel like a seperate place, even though they are around a lot and we're all (mostly) friendly.

There could definitely be bigger stipends out there, but not that anyone has fessed up to me. A lot of people end up with stafford loans (unsubsidized and subsidized), or working within the IFA or around the city. The conservation program is a different ballgame. I don't know what, exactly, their financial support is, but I know it is much more generous than the IFA/Art History has been traditionally, mostly because they are independently funded. I'm not sure if conservation students TA - no reason they couldn't apply for it, I suppose, but their courseload is way more intense than the Art History track (they just have a lot more) and they don't really need the experience as much, or at all, in most cases. I can tell you, even with my tuition and health care covered, multiple travel stipends, a small living stipend, and a subsidized book fund, I am still 30k in debt after the IFA. Its just the reality of that program and living in NYC that you will probably go in to debt, unless you are on the new PhD track. But like I said conservation is completely different....

Shadow -- that was the website I was referring to. It only speaks of "proposed changes" and is somewhat vague on the specific details, so I was wondering if anyone had more information (i.e. had spoken to people at IFA directly.)

Congrats on your acceptance! I got into their Archaeology program, but I was curious if anyone knows their matriculation fees. I can find the cost of tuition, but I can't find how much the cost would be per semester, once you hit the comps/dissertation stage of things.

http://www.nyu.edu/gsas/dept/fineart/pdfs/academics/Masters_degree.pdf That website outlines the differences.

The requirements are different. For the PhD track, all of the old requirements stay the same (amount of courses, two languages, two QPs before you get to your PHD coursework). For the MA track you only need one language, you have to take a foundations course (I think) in addition to the other 9, and you only do one MA's thesis. It's been acknowledged that the new MA track is meant to be a way to generate money for the IFA. By making it a seperate (paid) track, they are able to promise their PhD students funding in a way they were never able to before (since they never knew how many students out of one class would continue on to the PhD, they were never really able to plan ahead).

If you go to NYU (or even Rutgers) you can likely take classes at ISAW (Institute for the Study of the Ancient World), which very much encourages looking cross culturally. They also have seemed to offer a number of Near Eastern classes intended to do that. I don't have an opinion about any of these programs, but I wanted to point out ISAW since it is relatively new.

Sending you a private message.

The IFA is very stingy with financial aid; however, as you say, the conservation program is different and has its own independent funding. They actually treat their student very well, in terms of support, especially because they take only 4-6 people. I believe they do interview most applicants, though, who at least seem to have a decent background. So even at the interview stage, it is still very competitive (though the interview is not nearly as rigorgous as other conservation programs). In terms of PhD interviews - they didn't typically do so in the past, but this year is the first year they have started with their new MA track vs PhD track admissions process. Before everyone came in and had the same requirements, while now there are two seperate tracks - so they may have started interviewing PhDs, because they are promised funding.