arthistoryvoe2

Agreed that with respect to the specific institution it depends on the reason for ABD status. In general, if you're applying with a BA there's no problem in having one of your letters be from a grad student who taught you in a course for which she was the instructor of record. If the grad student was a TA for a professor's lecture course and the professor is not willing to work with the TA to co-write the letter, I think this is not an advisable letter to get. The only reason to go for tenured faculty as opposed to assistant professors (with the PhD) is not rank but length of time in the field and greater likelihood that they are known quantities (so a strong recommendation from someone who is known to have high standards can be especially meaningful). But an enthusiastic and detailed recommendation from a junior faculty member can potentially mean much more than a letter from a senior person that's lukewarm or lacking in detail.

Just a reality check: The highly-ranked institution where I teach requires the GRE, but I don't look at GRE scores when I read applications. Especially now that we see the file in an online document reader, and not a hard copy where it's all in front of you, it's REALLY easy to skip those pages (which include the pages where you list your many internships, etc., fwiw) and zero in on the WS, SOP, grades, and letters, in approximately that order. I think many of my colleagues do the same. I say this as someone who got a perfect score on my own GREs. I haven't figured out what the new numbers mean and I don't really care. The test has little to do with success in grad school. If you're not good at taking that kind of test, don't despair, because if your application reviewers are like me, it might not have much of an impact on your chances. But DO study for it and take it again and DO apply to schools that require it. You really start off at a disadvantage if you apply only to places that don't.

Yeah, but maybe OP was thinking of Bryn Mawr, also a women's undergraduate college but one with distinguished PhD programs in several subjects, including, notably, Art History.

From 10 years of experience on admissions at one of the abovenamed institutions, I can say this: the problem with grades as a factor is that you can't tell whether the person who got a 4.0 at Eastern Connecticut would have gotten a 4.0 at Yale or a 3.4 at Yale. That's why the writing sample and statement of purpose are much more decisive for both of these hypothetical candidates. Yes, the 4.0 at Yale will get you noticed, but most successful applicants don't have that - and it still needs to be backed up with the other, more important documents.

I'm not even sure most faculty on admissions committees look at summer jobs and internships at all. Teaching experience of any kind is at least as valuable as sitting at a photocopier that happens to be in a museum.

It's just as likely that the "lesser" school will see the higher-ranked school(s) as a gauntlet thrown down and want to compete for the applicant, or on the other hand say "s/he'll never get in there, so we have a chance" etc. Don't try to second-guess the minds of admissions committees (beyond a certain necessary point)—you will go crazy.

It isn't usually a big factor, but allows admissions committees to see whether you've made well-informed choices, and also allows them to consider "likelihood to come" as a factor. You can leave it blank, but then it could look like you're lying to game the process. Your GRE report will give away where else you sent your scores, as will the inevitable typos in the statement in which you refer to the wrong department, professor, or museum name.

As I was saying....Wouldn't it be rather unimaginable, even if not retired, that Michael Fried would consider supporting a dissertation on abject art?

I am not sure I understand the rationale for your choices of schools, sdavid13, but I am wondering if perhaps you're being lured by big-name theorists who may not actually be that interested in advising a contemporary art topic or one that deals with abjection. (As far as big-name theorists are concerned, it sounds as if your closest affinities might be with Mieke Bal, so you might look at the University of Amsterdam!) For contemporary you might also want to look at Berkeley, Northwestern, the University of Chicago, USC, Texas—unless there is some reason why you refuse to leave the east coast.

To be blunt, one thing you need to do before applying to graduate school is work on your writing skills. See what resources are available at your university, take an extra writing class, find a tutor. You'll need to present yourself better in writing to have half a chance at admission.

In my experience it helps not at all and can sometimes hurt if a message seems ill-informed or overly demanding. Faculty evaluate applications, not personal contacts.

You might want to look at the Art Institute of Chicago's joint MA in Art History and Arts Administration. Many of their graduates do the kind of work you have in mind.

What is it you hope to gain by contacting a POI?

I really disagree with this statement, if it's a department that's actually a good match. The personal statement and writing sample can really make all the difference and an application really may not have gotten much attention at all the first time around, so it might not even be recognized as a repeat. One calculation schools make is "how likely is this person to want to come here, given the other choices they are likely to have?" and the personal statement can make all the difference in that .Or, an institution may have a new faculty member, or someone coming back from leave, whose interests are more in tune with yours, so an application that was rejected in the first round one year will in the next be sent to that person. Etc. If you can, seek advice on your application from someone who is familiar with graduate admissions processes at top PhD-granting institutions (and I would say, agreeing with some of the above, top really means top 20 or so), even if in a different field or subfield.

This is widely reported, and may be true. But it may also be something that deans tell faculty in order to persuade them to feel a deeper commitment to MA students, whom they might otherwise feel aren't the best investment of faculty time (because they are often not staying for the PhD). There are a lot of components in a budget so be skeptical of such claims. It doesn't really matter, though—there may be reasons to do an unfunded MA program, but no one should take on that kind of debt lightly.

Unfortunately, you have to face the fact of the current economy: only the very very lucky or the very well-connected will "get a job in art history" with a BA. Find a day job, volunteer in an arts field...and Occupy Wall Street.

What are the PhD programs that won't accept people who don't have MAs? I haven't heard of that -- it does often help to have the experience that comes with an MA, but having the credential as a flat-out prerequisite? Really?

Contiguous, if the deal is a good one, perhaps you don't necessarily have to be sure you want a PhD to start the program, assuming there is an option to leave with an MA after 2 (or whatever) years? Programs know there is risk involved in any admit. I wouldn't outright lie if you know you don't want a PhD, but if you are not totally sure, you might just try it out.

It seldom helps to contact a professor in advance, and quite often hurts. Most prospective students don't know how to pull off this type of message without seeming weirdly vague, obsequious, and demanding all at the same time. Professors do *not* want to be contacted for selling purposes. It's nothing but annoying; we'll get the application and decide on that basis. Some are willing to be contacted if you have a serious, well-informed question. You might try getting advice from a department assistant or current grad student first about whether it makes sense to be in touch. In answer to the original question: Writing sample, SoP, grades. The SoP doesn't count as much overall as the writing sample but it is the gateway to the writing sample—if the SoP is terrible the sample may not get read. GREs and letters matter to help answer specific questions (what does a 3.65 really mean at X small college we've never heard of? how motivated is this student really? why the dip in grades in fall of junior year? etc.).

A lot of people take longer than "normative time" for whatever reason - life happens, situations change, you run into obstacles, etc. You may have to learn unexpected languages based on new interests. Some people find that although they are very good at coursework, they are less good at setting their own schedule for research and writing. It's lonely. Once you get "off track" it can be harder to get back on because then you have to work to support yourself. 7 years does not seem like an especially long time from the point of view of the US system. 6 is fast. Also, 7 years is typical because the assumption is that you start from a less specialized undergraduate training than in the UK. If you are an art history major as an undergraduate in the US you have generally only done about half your courses in art history. So two years of coursework in a US PhD program "makes up" for the "missing" advanced undergraduate training you would have received in a UK university. (However, I would say that the broad training of US institutions - in the best cases - actually provides people with a stronger foundation especially for interdisciplinary kinds of work in art history.) Also, in the US you are often given more latitude to formulate your own dissertation topic, which takes time, but can be rewarding later in terms of your understanding of a broader context for your work. It worries me a little to see in the UK how many PhDs are advertised for extremely narrow and specific topics that serve the needs of the supervisor but may make it very difficult for the candidate to get a job. Even when the topic is chosen by the candidate, it's often chosen at a very young age and doesn't necessarily translate into a topic that meets the demands of the job market well. In the UK you may be finished sooner, but don't count on getting a permanent job any sooner. it may seem that UK PhDs get a lot of jobs in the US, but proportionally I don't think that holds up - there are some exceptional cases. But I think typically the best UK candidates look a little less prepared to teach and less prepared to turn their dissertations into books on the demanding tenure-track schedule than the best US candidates. On the financial question, I would not do an art history PhD program in the US without a full stipend. The amount and length varies from institution to institution. A gold-plated package—in a high cost-of-living location—would be ca. $30K for 6 years. You may be able to do just as well on $18-20K/year in less expensive locations. Ideally, beyond the 4, 5, or 6 years of your basic funding package you would receive grants or other teaching income. No one should go deeply into debt for a humanities PhD. A terminal MA can be a good idea for some candidates and may require going into debt. But if you are applying to PhD programs and are not admitted with a decent stipend (which may come with teaching responsibilities) you should spend the next year improving your application rather than start at a disadvantage it will be hard to dig yourself out of.

Not to knock Berkeley in particular, but keep in mind that the data NRC uses is at least 5 years old, and in some cases is based on reputation, which means it may refer to even older "data"--i.e. representing views faculty colleagues may have formed about other programs well before 2005. Take with multiple grains of salt. It's not stupid to use their rankings in a general way, especially re: job outcomes for grad students, but remember that these things change quickly especially in the current climate, and especially that if there's no professor for you to work with, prestige means very little.

How are your languages? if you haven't started Latin, do it ASAP, and that might help you decide — if you like it, or if you don't. It's not impossible to switch fields between MA and PhD, but if you decide you want to go on to the PhD it will be really hard to switch fields from contemporary to medieval if you have no Latin (esp if your French and German still need work). You might also find there are some interesting links to be made between the two (starting with Meyer Schapiro, for one).

I thought POI was professor of interest.

This professor sounds like a grade-A asshole, but maybe is dealing with his/her own personal situation. Still, it's really not appropriate to lash out at students based on one's own bitterness, even if that bitterness itself is justified. People from Cal State schools and other comparable schools do get into top programs. If your ultimate goal is a PhD it might be useful to get an MA first (sometimes it is hard for admissions committees to judge what different levels of achievement from schools they're not familiar with "really" mean, and an MA from a program they know can really help).

People seem to have gone off on a tangent—worrying about your thought that you could work as an assistant curator without a PhD—when this doesn't seem to be what you're asking at all. I worked between BA and MA as a waitress, bookstore clerk, RA at a boarding school, and office temp.