losemygrip

Irvine does not have a PhD in art history, which is why you don't see it in the lists.  As Annie notes, it's "Visual Studies."  It's heavy on theory/criticism.  Think University of Rochester.  If that's what you want, go for it.  If not, look elsewhere. 

OK, let's face it. I'm the Yale hater.

My problem is the really terrible work I've seen coming out of there, coupled with the hushed reverence people have for Yale because it's Ivy League. Big deal. The proof is in the pudding, and Yale pudding is pathetic.

No offense.

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.

In my opinion, this POST is what's really ridiculous. The whole point of fora such as these is to share opinions and information. It's good to know what different opinions are of programs. And the pictures that have been posted may help someone to determine if this is for them. Why wouldn't one want to know if a program had its fans and foes? Oh, and don't assume all participants are current applicants. Some of us may be seasoned professionals just trying to help.

If you don't like the commentary that's coming out of a particular forum, don't write there. Your energies are better spent trying to figure out where you do want to write rather than ranting about the commentary you don't like.

OK, let's face it. I'm the Yale hater.

My problem is the really terrible work I've seen coming out of there, coupled with the hushed reverence people have for Yale because it's Ivy League. Big deal. The proof is in the pudding, and Yale pudding is pathetic.

No offense.

I really like your work. It seems pretty ambitious for undergrad work, so you should definitely be getting in somewhere. You didn't say what discipline you want to be in--is it sculpture? Combined media?
I agree about UCLA. It's the best, and very selective, but worth a shot. I'd also recommend Virginia Commonwealth (the best for sculpture), UCSD, WUSTL, U. Washington. As usual, I'm not too keen on the NYC area schools, except SUNY Purchase. I'd recommend U-Conn also. Once again, I feel Yale and Columbia are way overrated, as is RISD. Indiana is also good in sculpture.
CCA, SVA, and Pratt are not good fallback schools because they're expensive, and in Pratt's case, not very good. Your fallbacks should be Georgia State (in-state tuition if necessary), Tennessee, Florida.

Take it. Do you hear me? TAKE THE JOB!!

The importance of contacts and reputation is vastly inflated. 

If you don't want to be challenged, skip graduate school.

I'm noticing other people who are trying to decide what choice to make.  As a grizzled old professional, I'm telling you: you must go for the money.  Do not go into debt to get an MFA.  That might be worth it for an MD, but there's not such a clear return on investment with art professions.  If you're accepted several places, but no one gives funding, you should skip it and re-apply to other schools next year.  One possible exception might be if you're going to an in-state school with relatively low tuition.  But even in that case, you should expect some kind of assistance--a T.A. or something. 
 
Plus, these schools need to know--if they want to get good students, they have to pay for them.

It's very simple.  You go wherever you get full funding.  That overrides all other considerations.

Claremont isn't expensive if you get the appropriate financial aid. You should not go ANYWHERE if they are not paying all or most of your way. As far as "I would definately not go to Tennessee or anywhere in the south," sorry to see that you're letting bizarre regional biases limit your potential. Because it certainly sounds as if you're rejecting an entire region based on nothing. Of course, you're entitled to do that if you wish.

I'm assuming you'll take more care with spelling and punctuation in your application than in your writing here.

I'm noticing other people who are trying to decide what choice to make.  As a grizzled old professional, I'm telling you: you must go for the money.  Do not go into debt to get an MFA.  That might be worth it for an MD, but there's not such a clear return on investment with art professions.  If you're accepted several places, but no one gives funding, you should skip it and re-apply to other schools next year.  One possible exception might be if you're going to an in-state school with relatively low tuition.  But even in that case, you should expect some kind of assistance--a T.A. or something. 
 
Plus, these schools need to know--if they want to get good students, they have to pay for them.

It's very simple.  You go wherever you get full funding.  That overrides all other considerations.

Funding always trumps everything.  Go for the money.  You won't regret it.

I'm noticing other people who are trying to decide what choice to make.  As a grizzled old professional, I'm telling you: you must go for the money.  Do not go into debt to get an MFA.  That might be worth it for an MD, but there's not such a clear return on investment with art professions.  If you're accepted several places, but no one gives funding, you should skip it and re-apply to other schools next year.  One possible exception might be if you're going to an in-state school with relatively low tuition.  But even in that case, you should expect some kind of assistance--a T.A. or something. 
 
Plus, these schools need to know--if they want to get good students, they have to pay for them.

Rochester is the primary place for a critical theory oriented program.  UC Irvine is also into that.  Most of the other places you mention do not have a reputation for it.  Chicago doesn't do much in contemporary. 

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.

In my opinion, this is horrible advice.  I disagree completely.  It's not that networking won't help your career.  But remember--Jesus never made it in Nazareth.  You'll be taken for granted if you've always been there.  If you're the fresh new face, you'll get more attention.

Just take a good prep course and do the GRE over again. If you're not committed enough to do even that, then you're not committed enough to be successful in graduate school.

Just take a good prep course and do the GRE over again. If you're not committed enough to do even that, then you're not committed enough to be successful in graduate school.

Wait . . . what?! This makes no sense. Why would completing an MA make you ineligible for further study as well as unemployable?

You don't need a bachelor's in art history to pursue graduate study. You have a related degree. You've now strengthened your transcript. So you're ready to apply for grad school in art history. You'll apply to a range of programs, from PhD to terminal MA, from unlikely to likely. And then you'll go wherever you get the best deal.

Case closed. No need to fret.

Go for the money.  No question. 

Go for the money.  No question. 

My advice:
 
If you want to study Manet, DO NOT go to a program with a famous Manet expert.  S/he will already know it all, and it will be hard for you to surface from beneath your advisor's research. 
 
Find a place (or person) that more generally suits your scholarly disposition instead.  (Theory-oriented; object-focused; social history; whatever)