Seeking

Greenpen says it well. MODA will lead you to curatorial asstt jobs and you'll need a PhD later to become a full-fledged Curator. MA IFA can also lead you to curatorial jobs but will have greater options for you in terms of getting a PhD because it's a full Art History and Archaeology program and hence, offers more research skills, networking etc. Besides, ultimately, what matters is whether your PhD is from an Ivy League.

I wish you were applying for a Civil Engineering PhD in top US universities. I don't know how the top universities would view practical political experience. Academic writings and references go a long way in a PhD application. Besides, in your SOP you need to justify how you relate your political Science interest to your past training and your future goals. See if you can write a strong SOP for Political Science. If you are really interested in Political Science and not in Civil Engineering, I think the best course of action would be to enroll for an MA in Political Science at a well-known university - either in Delhi or in the US. But beware that US Masters programmes don't have much funding. You may also try a UK university. During this period, try to present conference papers and publish some research articles in refereed journals. With this experience, a top US university is more likely to accept you. A second option for you is to apply for a PhD in Science Policy in the US universities. Try to present some conference papers and if possible, get a paper accepted for publication in Science Policy. With your Engineering background and papers in Science Policy, you may be able to argue your case for a PhD application in Science Policy. A third option is to present conference papers and if possible, get a paper accepted for publication in the field of Political Science. But there is not much time left for this and the universities may feel you don't have a pre-PhD university degree in Political Science or in a related field. You can see which of these options suit you.

MA in Art History and Archaeology should ideally be followed by a PhD in Art History that will lead you to an academic job in a university and also towards curatorial jobs in museums if you want to follow that route. MA in Modern Art and Curatorial Studies will also lead you to a curatorial job in museums and art galleries but eventually you'll need to get a PhD in Art History or curatorial practice if you want to rise in your career as a curator. The Art History department of Columbia is really very well respected. NYU department is also very good, but Columbia is somewhat more respected. I feel you can take the NYU offer since it's in Art History and follow it up with a PhD from Columbia. That way, you can choose your career - either as an academic or as a curator. Many departments at Columbia and NYU participate in the inter-university consortium, which allows students to offer courses in several universities in the NY area. You can find out if while at NYU, you can take a few courses at Columbia. That way, you can experience both universities and perhaps offer a few curatorial courses at Columbia while getting an Art History MA. Good luck with your career goals.

I want to make two clarifications - First, I was referring to the fellowship money in the Humanities that comes from the university. In most cases, the first year is funded through fellowship, with no labour expected. TA-ship is money paid for labour from second year onwards, which quite rightly shouldn't be returned. Second, I am not an advocate of pay-back idea. I am merely saying it's better for the student to discreetly find out how the two universities feel about it - the first univ about the fellowship already paid and the second one about the funding during the first year. Of course this applies only if the first year was a fellowship year in the first PhD and if the second university normally gives a fellowship for the first year. I'm not referring to the TA-ship here. Besides, some universities have a fully-funded PhD program for a few Humanities subjects. How would they feel about a fully-funded students leaving without completing the PhD, or about a student who left a program to join them? We don't know the exact funding situation of this poster above. Funding in the Humanities is a serious problem. The number of students wanting to do PhD in Humanities is always less than that in the Sciences and in professional degrees and not enough funding is available even for these small number of students. In such a situation, the universities naturally like to admit such students for a funded Humanities PhD who would complete the PhD. If a student is inclined to change programs, a university may decide that it's better to give a fellowship to someone who wants to complete the PhD, because funds are scarce in the Humanities. As it was remarked above, there are not many students who change institutions - there are much less in the Humanities. So, the rule about this is not very explicitly known. Hence, it's always better to find out about this.

Too many grammatical errors. There is a need to proofread the text. Especially because you live in the UK, you are expected to show a good command over English language. As said above, the quotation is jarring and there is a need to connect the skills gained in a law degree with the public policy and economic development courses offered by this programme. Explanations are verbose. I feel you need to draw attention to the strengths of the programme you are applying to, noting some of the courses, draw their significant relevance for skills gained in law and finally show how these skills will help you to achieve your professional goals. These elements should be divided in separate, clearly-written paragraphs in good English. The first sentence of each paragraph should draw attention to the aspect you are discussing there. This writing style turns the reader off. There are too many references to the grandfather. Rather than making general statements about helping your native country that is "almost a failed state," suggest actual professional avenues where this degree will lead you. Besides, it is difficult to believe that a UK citizen will go back to his Third World native country - you need not have emigrated in that case. Connecting your law degree skills and the skills gained from this program to the professional opportunities available in the UK makes better sense. In general, the tone should be professional and not like that of a story.

The above two examples are from the sciences, where funded projects come to the science departments. But a purely humanities discipline doesn't get funded projects - unless a professor gets some funds on a project and decides to take a PhD candidate, which is very rare in the Humanities. In general, sciences have more funding than the Humanities. A PhD candidate in the Humanities is funded by the university from its own resources, or from an outside fellowship, which comes from public resources. If such a candidate moves, it means this money was wasted, when it could have been given to another candidate who would have completed the PhD. But I do hope what is said above for the sciences holds true for the Humanities as well. So, talking to a reliable faculty member is a good suggestion.

If not enough Masters' courses is a reason, you can always attend extra Masters courses at the same univ - with or without credit. You can talk to the professors who are teaching these courses and see if they'll allow you to attend. Not taking students for PhD for a couple of years doesn't mean it's a sinking ship if the univ and program are well-ranked. Post-PhD at least lack of PhD students in this program will not hurt your job prospects. You will be tested by your employers on the basis of your credentials. So I don't see any particular advantage in moving. If they offered you funding, you may have to return this money when you move. Besides, the professors at the other university may not be interested in taking a candidate who left a good program - what's the guarantee that you won't leave their program as well if you don't find it to your liking? Almost certainly, you won't get funding at the other univ and if it's a fully funded program, they would prefer a fresh applicant rather than someone who moved from another good program. So you need to see if you can fund your PhD on your own if you move.

Delhi College of Engineering is fine. Your work experience on projects will certainly count. Six months are not enough to produce many papers - at the most you can manage one presentation and perhaps one acknowledgment of publication, though not the actual publication. Most probably you will be competing with people who have at least 3-4 papers, if not more. You can get these papers on your CV and get some more research experience to compensate for the low numbers of papers. The other option is to wait for a year, use this time to publish more papers, improve your language skills and apply for the Fall 2013 season. Your GRE and TOEFL/IELTS scores will still be valid even after a year and you will have better credentials next year. So, you can decide between these two options. Rather than scatter your research on to several research areas, it's better to concentrate on one area and work towards getting an expertise in this area. So, you should decide upon one professor at UCB and write papers in his/her area of expertise. When you begin searching for more universities, try to find a professor who specialises in the same or a related area. Of course, you can always use a second research area as a secondary interest by using it in some way in your papers in an interdisciplinary manner. That way, in case this professor is not able to accept you, you'll have a second option of an advisor.

Are you at the IIT? If not, obviously you'll face competition from lots of IITians with credentials similar to yours. Anyway, at this stage the reputation of your college doesn't matter that much as long as it's an accredited college. What matters is that you should present some research papers at conferences, perhaps publish one or two papers in international refereed journals and get some research or internship experience. Moreover, your research area should match with that of a professor at the university where you are applying. There are two ways of ensuring this - either you decide about a research area of your choice that has potential for growth and find a professor who works in that area, or you survey what kind of research areas the UCB professors are engaged in - if you have set your heart at UCB - and develop your research area to match the research interests of one of these professors you want to work with. Since you are coming from India, I presume that funding will also be an issue for you. Certain research areas have more funding than others and some professors have more funded projects than others at any point of time. You should also look into this - if funding is an issue for you that is. Good luck for your US venture.

It's true that dual degrees of MA/MFA are mostly on the West Coast, though NYU offers dual degrees such as MBA/MFA for people who may want to go into art administration. If you would like to go into teaching Art History, perhaps it's better to develop strong research skills in Art History. This is because you are a painter already and you can practise your painting even apart from academic activity, but there is a significant difference between creating works of art and teaching/researching/critiquing works of art from a historical perspective. The latter requires specific kinds of analytical skills that can be acquired only through graduate educational training. This will demand significant time, energy and patience from you. Hence, perhaps it will be better for you to get a strong academic training in Art History while continuing to practise your painting. It is also worthwhile to know that some of the skills acquired during graduate traing in Art History actually conflict with the emotional aspects of painting that an artist may be used to experiencing. You may draw an analogy from literature or political studies - being able to write a novel and becoming a good critic of novels; engaging in politics as a practising politician and becoming a political science professor - are two very different types of skills. Same goes for art. Because of this, it is important for an artist wanting to turn into an art historian to achieve a pragmatic balance between the two fields. There are many artists who have become art historians, but to achieve equal excellence in both fields requires a lot of balancing act.

Sorry, please read this post. The above post is an error and somehow I can't delete it. My post was addressed to the realwinster. I feel you should take up research projects and internships in these one or two years if possible, try to improve your future grades and present a few papers at conferences. IIT Madras gives you ample opportunity to present conference papers. Make use of it. Besides, try and see if you can get at least one or two papers published in an international refereed journal. You should also be clear about the area you want to research in the US and find a professor whose area of expertise fits your research interests. With all this, you can have one or two well-known universities in your list, besides a few universities from the lower rungs.

I feel you should take up research projects and internships in these one or two years if possible, try to improve your future grades and present a few papers at conferences. IIT Madras gives you ample opportunity to present conference papers. Make use of it. Besides, try and see if you can get at least one or two papers published in an international journal. You should also be clear about the area you want to research in the US and find a professor whose area of expertise fits your research interests. With all this, you can have one or two well-known universities in your list, besides a few universities from the lower rungs.

Anyone joining or joined PhD in theatre/performance studies in 2011 Fall? So far I have seen none!

I'm sorry if I conveyed this impression, but I didn't mean you were not focused. I meant the small number of students who went there and complained about it on a different forum may not have realized the LSMA is meant to prepare the students for a specialization in one of these areas. By the way, all of these area studies at Columbia are highly regarded. Columbia's Human Rights MA is no longer part of LSMA. It has now moved to the Human Rights Institute of Columbia and their course structure is here - http://hrcolumbia.org/hrstudies/ You can compare it with a "regular MA" course structure that you'd like to do. That way you can make out whether this is the program you want to attend. This is the Human Rights MA that was earlier housed in LSMA, but has now moved to the Human Rights Institute - this is the program you applied to. Check with the LS and Human Rights Deptts. Since it's part of the Human Rights Institute with a strong Human Rights focus, I don't see why it should be a joke or not a legitimate degree as some might think. As for reputation, Columbia's Human Rights Institute certainly is well-regarded.

Ideally, one should go for an LSMA with focus on various area studies only if one wants to continue into a PhD program in one of those areas. Otherwise, if you are not decided about a PhD yet, it's better to get an MA in some other related subject at Columbia with possibility to take human rights courses available across the university. It doesn't mean the program is bad - Columbia is well-know for its strength in the areas included in its LS program - it just means the students who went there without having a long-term plan to specialize in one of those area studies, perhaps didn't realize what this program was all about. An LSE degree will be as well-regarded as a Columbia degree. You may consider joining there if they are offering you funds and perhaps later if you feel like getting a PhD, you can always apply at Columbia. London will be a great experience too.

I hope you've joined a good institution by now. I am not from this discipline, but in the process of exploring, I found the following quite interesting - Northwestern's sustainable energy policy Columbia's environment programme University of Delaware's Environmental management and policy.

Are you the person who posted a series of Maths PhD rejects from top-ranking universities and a good GRE score around 7th of Apr in the results section? I felt bad for you and am glad to know you got a good offer from Warwick. I do hope you joined it, as some posters above say it's a good option.

Are there none joining a Performance Studies/Theater PhD in the US this Fall?

It looks like Univ of Connecticut is a good option for you - if you are getting funding there. See how you feel about it.

I can't say about either of these programmes. But it looks like if you can find the 25% funding, USC-LA is better, because LA is a great place for playwright and other performance careers. If you can't find the funds, then you go to Catholic Univ.

No, they shouldn't. they should help you if they are strong.

PS - Of course, the other thing you can do is to take the Cambridge offer, write the GRE after a while and see if post-MPhil you can get a PhD offer from a top ranking US university - remember "top ranking" is the key. So, there is a risk in there.

I'm sorry, I presumed Cambridge offered you a PhD position. An MPhil degree won't cut much ice, unless you are confident of getting a PhD offer at Ivy League/Oxbridge after this. It's a PhD from a top-ranking institution that matters the most. A supervisor can help if s/he is in a senior position, has influence with the faculty of their own and other departments where job openings may come up when you are graduating and most important, has the generous nature and willingness to help. An influential supervisor without the willingness to help is of not much use. So, in the present circumstances, perhaps Univ of Connecticut would be better if they are giving you funding and if your supervisor there is well known and has the willingness to help. Most US universities help their PhD graduates to find a Postdoc so I guess in the log run you'll land a teaching job in the US.

I know two archaeologists from Cambridge - from the same specialisation and supervised by the same famous professor. One has a high-profile career and the other is struggling to get a regular job. The difference - the high-profile archaeologist is a great communicator and is a prolific author with many publications. The other one is a good archaeologist but not so great communicator and not having many publications. But communication skills and publications being basic requirements in all cases, perhaps your job application will always be topped by an Ivy League or Oxbridge candidate if you are not Ivy League/Oxbridge and if there are many candidates coming from these institutions. Perhaps you can have a PhD from Cambridge and get a Post doc or a teaching fellowship at Univ of Connecticut. Another aspect you can consider is which of the two advisors is actually in a position to help you get a job.

First rule is to stay motivated and not be influenced by negativity. If you stay positive and keep on working hard towards your goal, you'll make it. Before convincing the Graduate School, you should convince yourself that you really want a Graduate degree in a different discipline and why you want it. There are many in late 30s or even in early 40s who go for a Graduate study, so your age is no factor for feeling low about. A high GRE score, good SOP (see elsewhere on this forum for some great advice on how to write a strong SOP) and strong recos are the essentials to get you into any graduate school. Having said all this, you are leaving a stable job and gong for a new discipline. Hence, you need to do some research about the job prospects of that particular discipline and the past success rate of the graduates from that particular department. I feel you can choose a discipline that will enhance your job prospects. I don't know about the success rate of the subjects you have mentioned. You need to research it. You need to ask yourself what appeals to you, what you have an aptitude for and whether it will lead you to a growth in career. We all are interested in several subjects and a good strategy is to go for the one that will lead to a good career growth, making others as our secondary area of expertise. There are graduate schools that give full or partial funding for graduate study. You may consider applying to those programmes, to avoid getting into high debt. For example, with your management background, a graduate degree in a discipline related to industrial psychology is a good match and psychology departments have good funding for graduate study. You may look for "Human development," "industrial psychology" etc. to look for programmes and funding. But first, you need to ask if you like the idea of studying human development. Environment policy, foreign languages, economic development etc are some other fields that go well with management and all these disciplines have funding at graduate level. You may even combine two subjects to get an extra advantage, such as environmental policy with foreign language courses. You need to ask yourself which discipline you'll be comfortable studying and working in. Good luck with your graduate school search.