losemygrip

I agree that I think the point of the article is to temper one's expectations about Yale.

Pretty much all reputable programs have SOME full funding slots available. The question is whether ALL admits get full funding. Some schools have moved to that model; some haven't. I suspect Stanford is in that model, and that's what you're referring to. The way to do it is to apply to a range of schools, and then go to the one that offers the best package. You might not get in at Stanford, but might get full funding at CSULB.

What exactly do you mean by "conflict of interest?" Don't you have one of them who sympathizes with you and would like to help you go elsewhere? Otherwise, you just need to go back to your original recommenders from when you applied last year.

This is, to some extent, conventional wisdom. It is also COMPLETELY WRONG! (Excuse my yelling.) Those that I knew in grad school who took the "reading knowledge" courses were completely unable to do anything except pass the language exam. They were not able to use the language for research effectively. The whole point is not just to pass a stupid exam, but to be able to use the language skills for your research. The best way to do this is to have a thorough, complete understanding of the language. I STRONGLY recommend taking a regular sequence of study for language acquisition, both spoken and written. Do not worry about whether you get "credit" for it. Doesn't matter. You're doing it to learn. And really apply yourself. Conversation classes that I took vastly improved my reading ability, for example. It's ok if you take the classes at a community college, or the Alliance Francaise, or whatever. But make every effort to engage with it. I also found that the most important classes I took in college that supported my art history training were in upper-division foreign literature. There's nothing like learning nineteenth-century French literature in the original to help you understand the art of that period. As a bonus, when you travel you'll be much more confident than your fellow students. And you can impress colleagues at other institutions. Here's another example: I have participated in the International Congress of the History of Art several times. It's like the Olympics of art history, held roughly every 4 years since the 19th century (the next one is in Nurnberg this summer). Papers are read in 3 or 4 different languages, and you are expected to keep up. In one session I was in, papers were in English, German, and French. (The Latin Americans mostly used French or English, since Spanish wasn't an official language.) My paper was in English, but I answered questions in French. At another session, I posed a question in German. Believe me, your European colleagues will have NO PROBLEM doing this. I can't follow every word of all these foreign-language papers, but I can get the gist of it. Without language training, you might as well go for a coffee break and skip half the conference. Furthermore, if you're studying Asian or Middle-Eastern art, how do you think you'll do field research if you can't speak the languages? So, let's start looking at language training as a positive thing. Mckee, you keep up the good work. It sounds as if you're doing exactly what you need to keep up your French. You might also subscribe to Paris Match--that's always fun. OK, diatribe over.

Stanford is NOT well known for its studio art program. Are people attracted to it because of the Stanford name? Or what?

Which do you think is the better piece of writing and research?

There isn't much talk because there aren't many of you guys. That's why you're all pretty much assured an academic job if you want it!

You'll be highly marketable in Asian art. Just make sure you get a good background in other geographic regions (south Asia, Japan) so that you can teach a range of courses. If you have the language background, I imagine you'll do well, since there is less competition in this area.

This sounds like a Kristine Stiles topic, so Duke is probably good. You might also think about Pitt with Terry Smith (although he's kind of obnoxious). The Visual Studies programs at Irvine and UCSD might also work.

When I started grad school years ago, it was: Undergraduate record (grades, transcripts, languages), recs, writing sample, GRE, statement

That's the one. Three years old is not bad. Most of the admissions info should still be pretty accurate, plus you can check individual websites.

I'd call them "competitive," particularly SVA. Just about ANY program in New York City is really competitive because of the vast numbers of people applying. I see an up-and-coming school with a fairly fresh MFA program that not too many people know about, that's in the nation's 10th largest city with an interesting cultural backdrop. I also know of a superb recent graduate who's done very well (sculpture and combined media). Because it's newer and less known, the competition is easier for admissions and funding. RE: New York Academy of Art As I've posted elsewhere, their student work in this past year's CAA regional MFA show was the best of the lot. Seriously. (A million times better than Yale.) While figurative, it was also daring and innovative in many ways (I wish I could figure out how to post pictures here easily). But I really don't think they offer much at all in the way of financial aid. That's the problem with a lot of small private schools.

We've fought this out elsewhere. You shouldn't discount the GRE, but in your case the rest of your background seems excellent, and there's nothing alarming about your GREs, so you should be fine. I'm assuming you ARE applying to more than those three, and that they're just your favorites?

Northern Renaissance: small field yes, but highly interesting. Any interest in Jeff Smith at U.Texas? He's all about Germany, but has taken on students in a wide variety of areas. I think Case Western is hiring a new person in Northern Renaissance this year, and they have a tradition in that area. You could get in on the ground floor. And doesn't Penn State have someone?

I believe that an art history MA from SFSU would carry much more weight than one from SFAI if you were to proceed to a Ph.D. program.

IMHO, this post is clear evidence that you DO need to get a Bachelor's degree. Bachelor's programs are NOT about technical skills alone, as you seem to think. Furthermore, you DO have to take general education courses as well. I've never known a successful artist who was not somewhat interested in and relatively educated about science, literature, psychology, etc. You seem to think you are above all this, but I think a good BFA program could make a huge difference for you. Without that training, I don't think you would find an MFA "fun and enriching." You'd quit almost immediately.

Haven't you read the other posts? It's extremely useful. See if you can get it in your local library or art dept., or ask for it through interlibrary loan. My guess is the new edition won't actually show up until the annual meeting in February.

But none of those are "mid-range" schools.

Well, there you go then!

Still not much in the way of fallbacks there. Think about it.

I've had a couple of former students to to WVU, one in printmaking. She seemed to do OK. It's a less competitive program, so a good fallback. IUP doesn't do much with print for some reason, even though they have an interesting faculty member. I don't recommend anyone get an MFA at any of the SSHE schools in Pennsylvania because grad students typically can't get teaching experience there. Undergrad, yes. Graduate, no. I think ECU is the best of the ones you've mentioned, although in printmaking the big names are places like ASU and Wisconsin.

I didn't see much print work on your website other than photo-based. Can you do other techniques? Print programs tend to be VERY into the technical aspect. I think those are reasonable choices (although I'm not a fan of Columbia), but I think you should consider ASU. Tops in printmaking, and good in almost everything. I'd put in a couple of fallback schools in there as well (besides Herron). How come no California schools? You just moved out there. What about Fullerton or Long Beach? You'll have been out there a year, so maybe you can get in-state tuition. I'm not sure your work would fit at UCLA.

You should mention artists only as needed to contextualize your work and show that you know who your artistic peers are. Do NOT "drop names" just for the sake of "showing off" (e.g., invoking famous theorists and quoting them, etc.). Sometimes an unexpected reference can really get people's attention: "I find the work of Bob Ross oddly compelling . . . ." But it has to be really sincere and applicable and well-explained.

Montclair State in the NYC area and CSU Long Beach or Fullerton in the L.A. area were already on my list. You're going to have to get out of the CUNY schools to gain the admissions acceptance of a mid-range, regardless of the quality of the program. Maybe SUNY Stony Brook?

I wouldn't count on either Berkeley or USC. You need to apply to some terminal MA programs. Does San Jose State have one? I know UC Davis does. Maybe SFSU? If you can prove yourself in an MA program, you might have a better shot at a PhD program.