condivi
-
Posts
116 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
1
Posts posted by condivi
-
-
From what I understand--and you should ask the schools themselves, because I can't quote numbers--it's exceedingly rare to get into Columbia from the MA program, and somewhat less rare, but still rare, at IFA (until recently, everyone at IFA was admitted to the MA program and then had to apply to the PhD program, but things have changed, and now people are admitted directly into the MA/PhD program). If you want to be a professor or curator, you'll need a PhD. And for getting into a PhD program, internships and networking are far less important than the quality of work you do, so go to a place that will allow you to write a killer writing sample and cultive relationships with professors who will write you stellar recommendation letters. As I said, you really should talk to current students to gauge the situation at these schools. But my impression, based on only indirect knowledge, is that you'd get far more attention from faculty at BU or Tufts.
-
What are your career goals? Do you want to get a PhD eventually? For an MA, it doesn't matter all that much where you get your MA, as long as you do well (where you get your PhD is a different story). Both the IFA or Columbia MA programs have reputations as cash cows for the PhD students; and from what I've heard from students there, I wouldn't count on getting too much attention from profs at either place. If BU or Tufts is giving you funding, then it's a no-brainer, unless you're independently wealthy; you should never go into debt for grad work in a PhD. I also think you would get more attention at the Boston schools, but it depends on the prof. Have you spoken to potential advisors? Whose work do you most admire? Who do you click with? The most important thing at the point is finding a good mentor. Talk to people--professors and current students.
-
If you want to be a curator these days, you have to get a PhD. While in the program, you should intern, or continue to work as a curatorial assistant, and try to get fellowships in museums. You might get a curatorial job while you're ABD (though you'd probably have to finish before you were promoted to Associate Curator), but your chances of moving up are vanishingly small without getting a PhD. I would encourage you to talk to your supervisors at your museum for advice.
-
13 hours ago, MarinaLazarus said:
Hi!
I'm asking advice as I received a conditional offer from Cambridge for a PhD in History. The problem is that I've a MSc in Architectural History and Theory and a BA in History of Art and my dream was doing a PhD in one of these subjects- However, my research project involves both architectural history and history and my MSc supervisor suggested me to apply for a PhD in History at Cambridge as there is a potential supervisor who has already worked on my research topic. With my surprise, I have been accepted but now I don't know what to do. Cambridge was my plan B (I know it sounds strange) and I haven't heard back from my first choice (PhD in History of Art at Toronto: 5 years, 2 of courses and exams and 3 of dissertation writing instead of only 3 for the uk program). In addition, I don't have news about funding from Cambridge. I'm not worried about the supervisor who is expert in material culture (so both art and architecture) but what I fear the most is that I wouldn't fit in the department and that I would regret not being in the Art History one.
Is it very stupid to refuse an offer from Cambridge (obviously, I will wait for the other notifications to come in)?
My supervisor told me that a PhD in History (and from Cambridge) is more prestigious that a PhD in History of Art, Is that true?
I get admitted also at St Andrews (History of Art) with no news of funding (only tuition fees).
This is very difficult to answer without more information, but bottomline: don't go anywhere without funding.
-
It depends on the artist, and the art historian, and the period in question. I wouldn't say either of you is exactly right, but one could safely say that, as a rule, art historians and artists have different priorities in looking and studying.
-
-
What makes you assume that this would be an issue? Assuming your grades and recs are good--especially if can get one from at least one art hist prof--your background should not be an issue for any program, in Europe or the USA. Emphasize your museum experience in your statement, as well as how your experience with history informs how your study of art. The leap from history to art history is not very big, and many programs actually prefer a background in a neighboring discipline. Don't close off options already!
-
Actually, now that I think about it, there are plenty of baroque specialists at top programs: Nicola Suthor at Yale, Felipe Pereda at Harvard, Todd Olson at Berkeley, Diane Bodart at Columbia, among others...
-
Not even most people from Harvard or Columbia find work at a "top school," so aim as high as you can. Most PhD programs are funded, at least for five years; do not go to a non-funded program. Unfortunately, there aren't too many people who specialize in Baroque art at top programs, but they some people out there. Keep in mind you could also work with Renaissance specialists. As you decide, think about these questions: Whose work do you admire? Whose methodological perspective and theoretical concerns align with yours? Are you interested in Northern or Southern Europe? Check out the faculty pages at various programs. See whose work speaks to you. Read a lot, and be ready to articulate a coherent research program in your personal statement. Do you have any languages? If not, begin asap, in whatever area you're most interested. Most importantly, talk to your current professors. They'll be able to guide you.
-
No one cares where you do your language training. They care that you have it. Provided that the community college program is as rigorous as the program at the more prestigious school, go with that. Summer is the perfect time to brush up your language skills, and, pace betsy303, you can learn quite a bit during that time. The better your language skills are, the better your chances are getting in somewhere.
-
I was admitted many moons ago (i.e 6-9 years ago). I didn't have an MA, but I did have an excellent GPA from an elite SLAC. My math and writing scores were not remarkable but my verbal scores were in the 99th percentile. What matters, beyond excellent grades and a pedigree, is having a coherent research agenda and clear understanding of the stakes in your proposed area of study. Some people need an MA to get to that point; others don't.
- brown_eyed_girl and Neist
-
2
-
Of course it's possible! And you would be doing yourself a huge disservice not to apply. You are, it's true, at a disadvantage, but if your writing sample and personal statement are top notch, you stand a decent chance. You can't know until you apply, and neither do your professors. I would also encourage you to apply for terminal masters programs (funded ones)--that would give you a better platform for apply to top tier phd programs later on.
-
I dare say the answer is not as straight forward as the previous posters make it out to be. Iconology is not really irreconcilable with a semiotic approach. Semiology is a massive discipline and in many respects encompasses iconology, as they are both concerned with the meaning, natural and constructed, of visual form. To answer this question, you'd need to say what understanding of semiotics you were working from.
-
9 hours ago, Mr_Drop said:
I've been hearing this cash cow issue with the IFA for a while now, although I have to say that it confuses me how it is any different from any other masters program out there without a funding (as it is rare to find funding for masters). So I feel like this debate somewhat unfairly steals away from how good of a program the MA at the IFA is.
The thing about the IFA MA program is that it's huge. Students tend to not get the attention they would otherwise, especially since there are also PhD students present. Better to go to a smaller program where there are only MA students. Also, anecdotally, having been around for a number of years, I've never met anyone at a top school (expect for the IFA, obviously), who did an MA at the IFA. So, I would definitely inquire about their placement.
9 hours ago, Mr_Drop said:Thank you both for sharing your perspective! UNC is a MA/PHD program, and they do offer funding but due to being a state school it might at times get tricky (so I've heard) - and I would absolutely not call the program middling, they are a top 20 (if not 10, according to some rankings) program with excellent scholars in their body of faculty, but then again this what I've gathered and obviously not everybody might agree.
Yes, there are some very good scholars at UNC. And it is a good program; but it is a step down from Harvard, Princeton, Columbia, Yale, Berkeley, Chicago, Hopkins, Stanford, IFA, Northwestern, Penn, CUNY, and a few more. As I've been saying repeatedly on this forum, good is not good enough, given the job market. You have to go to the best of the best because you will be competing for even not so great jobs with the best of the best. Some people from UNC have gone on to good, if not great, jobs, but, sadly, it seems not the majority. What makes you think you'll beat the odds? It's people's natural instinct to say they will--but you really have to think about this. A strong belief that you will somehow beat the odds and get a job is not enough.
In any case, as I said, art history, no matter how well you do (unless you become a museum director) will never pay enough to make going into debt worthwhile. Debt might seem like not such a big deal now, when you're young. But how about when you're in your 40s trying to buy a home, start a life, save money for retirement? If UNC will pay your way, then wonderful: f you work your butt off and publish and win major fellowships and do significant work, then you will get a job. But otherwise, if you can't get that guarantee then don't do it.
-
8 hours ago, Mr_Drop said:
Hi everyone - long time follower of the thread here! I seem to have reached a fork in the road and wanted to ask for your opinions. I have two acceptances that I'm thrilled with, UNC Chapel Hill and NYU IFA, both for MA but UNC with the possibility of a PHD track without re-applying. Doctoral studies is what I ultimately hope to do, and UNC is a great school with an excellent professor that I would love to work with, but there is one unfortunate caveat that honestly is the only thing stopping me from jumping the gun - a precarious funding situation. Hence why I'm still considering doing the MA in IFA (on top of it having a good reputation, network and education obviously). IFA is definitely not cheap either but it's going into 2 years of debt versus *maybe* several years in this case. Both schools come with their pros and cons so it would make me really happy to hear what you guys think of each school, separately and/or in comparison. Thanks!
Please, for God's sake, do not go into debt to pursue a PhD in art history. That debt will follow you for a long time, even for a two-year masters. (It would be totally insane to go anywhere but a fully funded PhD program, unless your parents are footing the bill; and even then, it's not good for a variety of reasons). The IFA program in art history is cash cow for their PhD program. I don't know much about UNC's MA program, but it is middling. I think you need to think long and hard about your future. Maybe try to strengthen your application and try again next year. Because, to be perfectly honest--and I don't say this to be bitchy; this is entirely in your own interest--neither option is very good.
-
22 hours ago, betsy303 said:
I think people should remember that folks at all departments have opportunity to present their research at conferences, symposia, etc. As long as you are active in the field outside of your department and meet folks, I think one ends up fine.
I've never heard of anything like this--I can't even really imagine it--but that's great for your friend. But as a rule this does not happen. Schools put out a job announcement, people send in applications (cover letters, writing samples, teaching statement, research statement, letters of recommendation), the committee invites a short list for skype or conferences interviews and then invites about 4 people for campus interviews. The problem is, given a stack of 150 applications, half of which are from places like Harvard and Yale and Berkeley, it becomes very easy to divide the pile into apps from places like these and less prestigious places. Guess who's going to get the closer look? Again, not fair, but this is how it works.
My feeling is--and I know this will offend a number of people--if you don't get into a top program, you should think real hard about going to grad school in the first place. There are all sorts of reasons why people don't get into a top program--maybe you're a late bloomer, maybe you had some personal problems--but already the fact that one didn't should raise some red flags. Not everyone's got the stuff for top level academic work; it takes a very particular kind of aptitude. If you can't get into a top program, which is the first and EASIEST step on the road to tenure, that might be a good indication you don't have the stuff. As I said, there are all sorts of reasons why people don't get into a top program, and people do succeed coming from less prestigious programs--but you'll really have to work to get the best fellowships and publish in good places, which is the minimum for getting a decent job these days. You have to have a compelling reason--beyond a gut feeling that you, because you're special, will beat the odds--to think you can perform with the best of the best. Passion is, sadly, not enough. You don't want to be 35 years old, with no savings, realizing that following your passion for 10 years got you nowhere. All I'm saying is that you really have to reflect and be honest with yourself before you make the decision to go to a less than prestigious program. Heck, you have to do that if you have the chance to go to Yale!
- bosie_dearest and poliscar
-
2
-
11 hours ago, betsy303 said:
Many people get fellowships. Also, you can always save up some cash in your pocket and finance your trips to conferences. You can meet plenty of folks at these. I got several job offers from a smaller conference as well.
I'm not sure we're talking about the same thing. I'm talking about tenure-track jobs. You don't get job offers at conferences. At CAA you might do a first round interview, but you will not get a job offer; that's not how the job search process works. Also--saving up some cash in your pocket for a trip to a conference, which, with accommodations and airfare, will cost about $1000? Ha! Not easy when your stipend is less the $30,000 or when you're on a TA salary. Better to go to a school that has funds to send you to conferences or better that sets you up to get a fellowship with a travel budget. And when I'm talking about fellowships, I'm not talking about fellowships from your home university. I'm talking about external fellowships. Most people don't get those. In fact, a professor at Rutgers and another at Pittsburg once lamented to me that their students never get fellowships, and they're not sure what to do.
9 hours ago, marie_ret said:While this is somewhat true, I think we need to remember that the field is RAPIDLY changing. More and more people are being hired for tenure track positions who did not attend the Ivies/Berkeley//Chicago/Etc. I am currently at a university that is certainly not in the top tier (as in probably not top ten) but I can name a number of our PhD students who have held CASVA, Met, and Getty fellowships. Condivi is right in saying that the competition is fierce, but the age of tenure track positions only being given to the old Harvard alumni is gone.
Again, wish this were true. But this has not been my experience. Look at any decent school, and you'll see the majority of the faculty got their PhD at Harvard, Berkeley, Yale, Columbia, Princeton, etc, not University of Illinois, Kansas, Pittsburg, Temple, etc, etc. Do you have numbers to back your assertion up? I have some numbers. Here's the distribution of schools for CASVA fellowship for 2014-15: Stanford (2), CUNY, Johns Hopkins, Harvard (3), Princeton (2), Brown, Yale (2), Berkeley, Columbia (2), USC, UPenn, UChicago. All of these, with exception maybe of USC, are top 10 programs. And notice how Harvard, Princeton, Yale, and Columbia have the most fellows? That's not an accident. I'm not saying it's right, but you should know going into a less prestigious program, the cards will be stacked against you to a degree.
So please people, I'm not saying this to be nasty or snobbish. I'm saying this so you go into this with your eyes open. Don't kid yourself about the realities of the job situation.
-
6 hours ago, betsy303 said:
I think people should remember that folks at all departments have opportunity to present their research at conferences, symposia, etc. As long as you are active in the field outside of your department and meet folks, I think one ends up fine.
5 hours ago, m-artman said:THIS. This is so true.
Would this were true!
Unfortunately, everyone out there is active outside their department and meeting people and presenting their research. This is not enough. You need fellowships. You need publications in good journals. Coming from a lower-tiered school puts you at a clear disadvantage for fellowships, which slows down your research and also makes it harder to meet important peopel--it's at these various research centers (CASVA, Getty, the Met, iTatti, etc) where you meet people. The competition is fierce. There are more qualified people than jobs. Most people do not end up fine. Most people end up on the job market for years, even ones who are more than qualified. Some never find jobs. Going to anything less than the a top program puts you at such an advantage that the deficit is hard to make up.
-
Who told you you could only contact one person? Not true at all! In fact, you should indicate in your personal statement more than one faculty members you'd like to work with. Your interest will change during coursework and you'll build relationship with different faculty members. Now is the time to avoid getting tethered to one faculty member. You should never be attached to someone right away, but some faculty members feel differently, so it's a good idea now to indicate that you'd like to work with both profs.
-
If it's a program with two years of coursework before you start on your dissertation, then you don't want to be too specific about a topic, because profs know your subject will change. Instead, you want to clearly lay out the area you want to study and discuss the larger questions you'd like to explore. It's a tricky balance, because you have to be specific yet show you're open. Certainly, it's not enough to say "contemporary art." What artists/movements are you interested in? What issues are you interested in? What kind of approach would you take to explore those issues? You want to demonstrate that you know the main issues in your field and that you're able to ask good questions.
Also, no, do not discuss your ideal job. Should, however, mention if you'd like to go the university or curatorial route, if you know.
-
32 minutes ago, Pythia said:
Thank you for answering my question! Do you have any recommended programs or professors that I should look into?
Well, whose work do you like? I suggest reading widely, and see where the scholars you admire are based. As for being afraid of rejection: you must get over that. Grad school is full of rejection. Not getting in somewhere will be the first of many rejections. Nowadays, it's likely you won't find a tenure track job after you're done, and it's becoming more likely every year. Make sure you have the skin and dedication to pursue a PhD in the first place.
-
On November 28, 2015 at 7:50:58 PM, Pythia said:
Hi all, this is my first time posting within this forum. I've been lurking for a while and I'm kind of nervous to post, but everyone on here has been so helpful to others, so that's definitely encouraging!
I'm currently an undergrad (classics major) and a bit clueless about this grad school process. I have started looking into schools, though I'm not 100% sure about my research interest. I really like American art - 18th/19th century - but judging from these forums and elsewhere, it seems like it's an uncommon field in art history. That said, I also enjoy Jacques-Louis David (currently writing on a paper on him, actually), Caspar David Friedrich, and a few British works of the same general time period.
So my question is, if I'm interested in American art, should I only be applying to schools with professors who specialize in American art (even if they aren't as focused on what I like the most)? Or should I also apply to schools with professors who enjoy that general time period, but not necessarily American art? I have noticed that there seem to be more specialists in European art rather than American, so it has kind of dwindled my list - which may be good or bad. Perhaps that kind of American art is not really a thing to study and I should just be focusing on European art of the time instead? I'm sure someone has posted a question similar to this, but I just wanted to clarify for my situation. Thank you for your help.
Ideally, you should study with an Americanist if you want to study American art (if you're trying to chose between American and European art, you should pick what interests you most--European is already a crowded field, and there are more funding opportunities for Americanists). It does happen that professors will advise students who share similar methodological interests but not the same field, but you should make sure there'd be a secondary person on the faculty who knows your material and the literature on it. One possibility would be to work between two professors--one who shares your theoretical orientation and another who shares your geographic interests. But keeping looking--there are a lot of interesting Americanists out there working on 18th/19th century art.
-
8 hours ago, jryaraghi said:
I definitely am looking at the Aga Khan program but I have to be honest I am nervous about applying to all of these schools, seeing as the list is turning out to be Harvard, MIT, Stanford, UCLA/ Berkley, and Columbia.
What's wrong with that? You should only be applying to the best schools. Getting in to a top school is the first--and easiest--step to getting a job at the end. If you can't manage that first step, you should think seriously about your plans. Don't be afraid to put yourself out there, and don't waste your time applying to schools with less than stellar placement records.
-
1 hour ago, Joan Callamezzo said:
What would be your end game with a Visual Studies degree? It's such a niche field with virtually no job prospects. It would be more prudent to choose a field within "art history" proper and then focus on visual studies within that discipline. I wouldn't worry too much about not having a formal art history background. Plenty of students in top art history programs were not AH majors.
Agree!
Scandinavian Art
in Art History
Posted
You can study Scandinavian art with a scholar with another area of specialization, with an historian of French or German art, for example. In fact, it might be a good idea. No one will want to hire someone who can only teach Scandinavian art, so studying with someone not in this niche specialty would give you more cred on the job market. I would suggest that you consider which 19th century scholars you admire most and write to them to inquire whether they would advise a thesis on Scandinavian art. When you get to the dissertation stage, you can make contacts with Norwegian scholars who could help mentor you and offer the kind of expertise you would need.