losemygrip

Brianny, what discipline are you in? My standard reaction is: go for the best financial deal (which is probably Maryland). While Hunter has well-known faculty, I've seen terrible work from their grad students. Worse than Yale. I honestly know almost nothing about UMD's MFA program, but it's probably about as good as any state school. Think twice about going WAY into debt just so you can live in New York and go to Hunter.

Oh, and be sure not to refer in your application to you "M.A. dissertation." It's an M.A. thesis, and a Ph.D. dissertation.

I'll reiterate: even if you apply to the same schools, do not do so unless you are bringing something significantly new to the table. Just a new essay or writing sample won't hack it. You need additional experience, or significantly increased GRE scores, or far more glowing references--something like that. Preferably all of those. Otherwise, it's likely to be, "We had this same application last year and rejected him/her--why is s/he wasting our time again?" rather than, "Gosh, look how much this person has accomplished since s/he last applied--we could use someone with this dedication." If you're going to wait and do something to add to your application between now and then, feel free to re-apply to the same schools. If you're just going to submit based on the same record, try different schools.

Do not re-apply to the same schools unless something significantly changes in your record. Don't do it. It won't help. You CAN get an M.A., and then re-apply. I would pick a different set of schools for next time. Josephine Beuys: going to a top grad school does not guarantee a career in academe, nor does attending another program ruin your chances. The school I attended for my PhD was much lower ranked then than it is now, for example (I'm quite proud of the reputation they've gotten). In fact, it HELPED my chances in academe because I got a TON of teaching experience there, way more than my later colleagues from Harvard, who couldn't even retrieve a jammed slide from a projector. (Yes, this was the old days.) I was told that my teaching record was a huge plus when I applied for jobs. The other thing is--the so-called top schools are usually not all that much better than the next tier in reality.

Go to IU. MICA's reputation isn't enough to make up for the cost. IU is fine.

Who is giving you the best deal financially? I would go for that. If no one is offering you a good package, and the difference in cost is negligible, I'd probably say NYU.

Hey smartin, you did great. Have you decided where you're going yet? You have a lot of good choices (although being told I was LSU's "top candidate" would be a draw, since they're backing it up with funding). I'm not sure which of those programs has the best reputation in graphic design.

You cannot seriously be debating Pratt vs. CMU? For real? Forget Pratt. It will do NOTHING for your career compared to CMU.

As the grizzled veteran around here, let me ask: what makes you think you want to be a curator? You don't mention any actual experience with art. What's your background in art? If you were admitted to the Rutgers MA in art history, good for you. Given your lack of an art history background, that's a credit to you. However, by that same token, why are you jumping into grad school in art history without really having any background in it? How do you know you'll like it? I probably would have advised you to take undergrad art history courses for a year before graduate school. This would have improved your chances for graduate admission as well as given you a chance to make sure you liked it. That said, assuming you are successful with an art history MA at Rutgers, that will be a good stepping stone for you. There are several arts administration masters programs that are good--I've had a student be very successful out of Seton Hall with an MA in arts administration. She was offered 2 jobs in Manhattan (one at MoMA) as she was graduating, but they were entry level, so she couldn't afford it. Still, considering the huge numbers of people dying for museum jobs in NYC, I thought that was impressive and said a lot for the program (and her). I understand Delaware is now offering a curatorial track PhD. That might be an option after Rutgers. But in any case, I'd say you need to get some real experience in the field before you proceed too far with this.

I think Montclair State is a great choice. The student work in CAA's regional MFA show last year was very good, much better than Yale, Hunter, or most of the other big-name schools in the northeast.

Yes, unquestionably, without a doubt. An MA from Williams is career gold. In all respects.

While I think Cal Arts still has something of a reputation in new genres because of their connection with technology and the entertainment industry, their reputation is not what it once was. You should probably go for the money.

Consider the terminal M.A. Some schools offer only the M.A. and not the Ph.D. (e.g., Williams, Wisconsin-Milwaukee, Florida, etc.). There you will find funding at the M.A. level. I did one of these for that very reason--I got the best deal right out of college there. Full funding plus T.A. My school even had extensive travel funds for M.A. students. Extra bonus--you can try out grad school for a couple of years and make sure it's really something you want to do. The M.A. at the Institute of Fine Arts was at one time considered to be a superb credential. It had the reputation of being as rigorous as a Ph.D. at other schools. Unfortunately, since they have gone to this model of using it as a cash cow to try to fund their program, its reputation has declined.

I hope you're not serious about this, because that would be a mistake.

OK, this is crazy, and I can hardly believe I'm doing it, but here goes. I'm curating a show for our very nice university gallery, and today one of the two artists BACKS OUT. Six months until opening. I'm pretty darn sure there are other fine artists out there working in the same vein that I could use to replace him/her. So let me know if any of you or your friends or mentors fit this mold and might be interested in a two person show with a small publication that opens in August. I'm perfectly happy working with an emerging or more established artist, as long as the work is good and the behavior is professional. The show involves mundane objects such as trash cans, commercial objects, etc., that are made of unexpected media and/or are semi-trompe l'oeil. The whole point of the show is that while these objects might seem to be simple trompe l'oeil tricks, they are actually conceptual in content. Think of Robert Gober's kitty litter bag, for example. The other artist in the show has work like a bathroom scale perfectly rendered in beautiful parquet wood. If you have any ideas (either your own work or other artists you know of) either PM me or go right ahead and post in this thread. If you come up with a good artist I can use, I promise to mention you in the acknowledgements! [i hope this isn't some violation of GradCafe policy, but it could potentially help one of you guys, so maybe it's OK.]

If you're in printmaking, go to Iowa unless CSULB offers a better financial aid package. In fact, I'd say the same relative to any of the ones you're waiting on.

Hicks, here's my advice to you from the perspective of a grizzled old codger. Don't worry about looking for your precise interest in a faculty member. Just find a school that is good in contemporary/recent art history. I think also you may want to look hard at art history programs that are in combined departments with studio because the faculty are more likely to respect your studio background (because they deal with artist colleagues every day). I think maybe you've been too narrow in your approach (that is, if you really want a PhD in art history and not just a way to pursue this research). Missouri is not a highly ranked program, but they're completely separate from studio, and also in financial distress, so they may not be accepting many students. They also don't do much in contemporary. UCI might be good, but it's highly theory based--are you into that stuff? Duke was a good choice, though. I think you should consider places such as Texas, WUSTL, (I believe they have a brand new contemporary person who may be looking for students), Illinois, Iowa, etc. Also, strangely enough, consider Brown. They have a reputation for accepting idiosyncratic students. See if any of the schools you're interested in have a good Religion program as well. Then you can tie that in and present yourself as primarily interested in contemporary art, but with a secondary interest in religious studies, and "I'd like to investigate possibly interdisciplinary work." Etc. And, you still have a few out there. Temple is a good possibility.

Regarding PAFA and NYAA: These are appropriate discussions to have. I personally do not believe that a $100K degree from one of these places gives you any competitive advantage to make it worthwhile. They are well-known in the niche market of traditional representational painting, but not so well respected in the mainstream art world. If you can get decent funding, by all means. But otherwise, find a normal school with at least one good figurative person on the faculty, and go there.

Over on the studio art boards, there have been people who received no notices and checked their status online and discovered that they had been accepted. Have you tried that?

Does anybody know what happened to Starling? He was a frequent poster for a while, but lately has dropped completely out of sight. I'm wondering how his admissions process is turning out.

It usually will come as part of a recruitment package. The best offers usually start with a year or two of pure fellowship, where you get paid just to be there (and free tuition, of course), followed by a year or two of TA. Sometimes they might start you right off with a TA and scholarship. Sometimes you might become an instructor for a semester or two after you've graduated. It all varies depending on the institution and their needs at the time. Go for the best financial package you can get.

If you want to get a teaching position, the biggest, most reputable college that will give you lots of teaching experience is the best choice. Factor that in with finances. Generally those teaching assistantships come along with a good offer.

Do not go to Cranbrook. I repeat: do not go to Cranbrook. If you want to teach, you're going to be much better off getting teaching experience with one of your other options. Not to mention the money you'll save.

Wow, mlo, looking at your successes--you must be REALLY good.

Raphael Rubenstein wrote some articles for Art in America where he called this kind of stuff "provisional painting." I agree that it's better than Yale. But still not much. Not very original or thought-provoking. And I find the sloppy workmanship on the paint surfaces downright offensive.