condivi

Well, it depends on what you want to do with your degree and what kind of degree you want to get? If it's an MA, there's not a whole lot you can do with it. If it's a PhD, are you OK with doing another 7-8 years of school? Are you willing to face the absolutely dismal employment prospects after you finish--which for you, being older, might be even more dismal (sad but true, but schools often like to hire younger candidates)? If your reasons are personal, and financial concerns don't play much into it, go ahead. Otherwise, make sure you have your eyes open to the very real chalenges you'll face and ask yourself if you're willing to deal with the necessary sacrifices and possible disappointments that you'll encounter.

YES!

Probably didn't get tenure.

Exactly.

Listen, at this point, there's nothing you can do, so there's no use letting your situation affect your health or sleep. You sound like a pretty good candidate; grad schools, especially for the MA, don't care as much about grades as you might think. If your work is good, and you apply to enough places, you'll get in somewhere. But in any case, you won't know until you hear back from school, so worrying now is extremely unhelpful.

Whoa, OK, I don't think anyone was saying you should apply directly to a top ten program, especially if your undergrad is less than prestigious. You wrote asking about the professor's advice about eventually trading up to a top program. Having been in this field for a few years now, I happen to think it's sound advice. If you've decided you're against it, I'm not sure why you asked. No reason to be defensive.

First of all, I appreciate how difficult it is for a minority from an underprivileged economic background, and I think it's really admirable that you're trying to break down barriers. It'll an uphill battle for sure. But I'm puzzled why you seem to be selling yourself short. Why, before you've tried, do you think you'll fail? Why are you dismissing the top schools because you assume that they're for the rich, that they won't be welcoming? The field is rich and white at all levels, but many top places really do want minority candidates from diverse backgrounds. If you went to not such a great undergrad, then, yes you might, as you say the professor in your first post suggested, start somewhere else and "move up." As a minority, you'll have to work super hard, but that doesn't mean you should sell yourself short and not reach as high as you can. The funding situation is better at the best schools, and I know many people at them, and while they're some people from very wealthy backgrounds, most are not. To be clear, I'm only saying this with your best interests at heart. You don't want to regret not reaching as high as you could go, even if it will be difficult, because of faulty assumptions. *Everyone* feels like they're not good enough in this field--for a variety of reasons--but don't let that hold you back!! Also, keep in mind, class is in some ways an even bigger factor at museums. So much of your work will be schmoozing with rich people for donations and loans; it's not, sadly, all about passion for objects. Even more than academia, success in the museum world is about connections and charm. I've seen it over and over again.

I totally respect your point of view, but let's be honest--the discipline is pretty snobbish and out of touch. We're art historians, not social workers! It's rarified stuff, for better or worse. Let's not kid ourselves otherwise. As for how my attitude shores up the perception that the discipline is only to be aimed for by those of means, I'm not sure I follow you. If someone does well in their undergrad and produces good work, they'll get into Harvard or Yale or Berkeley, with funding and regardless of financial resources, and they'll *most likely* be better off career-wise than those, rich or not, who end up at less prestigious programs. Of course, there are all sorts of socio-economic factors that influence who ends up at a top program, but those factors don't go away once you get to the job market. It's systemic and cyclical and frankly too bad, but that's academia.

"Genuinely isn't expected" by whom? Anyway, going to a top 10 school is, it's true, no surefire ticket to a job, but to me that shows how necessary it is to go to a top school; otherwise you're putting yourself at an even greater disadvantage. Everyone who starts grad school thinks they're going to publish a lot and write an amazing dissertation. Maybe you will or maybe you won't, but why not do it at the best school you can? There's no reason why you can't write a great dissertation at a non top-ten school, but you will face more challenges. Look who gets the major fellowships--CASVA, Kress, Met, Frick, etc. They come from Harvard, Columbia, Yale, Berkeley, Princeton... It's a sad but true reality: people from those kinds of school go to the top of the heap, leaving many just as excellent students from less prestigious schools out of the loop. They then have to teach more and devote less time their dissertation, while their peers at the more prestigious programs have more time and energy to invest in their dissertations. You should, of course, listen to your mentors; they know best. But I've been in grad school for six years now and, speaking from experience and with your best interests at heart, all I'm saying is make sure you investigate carefully where *recent* grads have been hired.

I think this is great, but make sure you do some research where these people's students get jobs. There are plenty of top people at middling state schools, and I have no doubt you'd get a great education, but there are many professors who have lots of students and yet you'd be hard pressed to find ones who actually make it after they graduate. Sad but true.

First, don't listen to anyone who tells you not to use older sources. You have to be careful with them, but a scholar needs them. As for top ten schools, that's hard to say. The rankings are basically useless, so don't go by them. Off the top of my head (in no particular order, because that's not really possible), some of the best schools include: Yale, Columbia, Harvard, Berkeley, Princeton, IFA, Stanford, UPenn, University of Chicago, Hopkins, Michigan, among others. And you're right--a lot depends on your area of specialization. But in general the best schools have a lot of good people in different areas, and you should find a few among the top ranked schools.

1) Who ever told you shouldn't have sources published more than twenty years ago?! That means you couldn't cite Panofksy or Riegl or even TJ Clark (or whoever the big people in your field are)! You *should* have older sources. It would of course be worrisome to have NO sources from the last twenty years; but it would be just as worrisome to a committee to not have sources from before. That's how you show you have an understanding of the historiography. 2) I mean, not everyone has to go to Harvard or Columbia or Berkeley, but I would strongly caution against not getting a PhD at a top 20 program. In fact, I would caution against not getting a PhD at a 10 top program. Job prospects are bleak, even for curators, and the "prestige" factor is more important than it should be. Don't be afraid to be ambitious.

I'm not sure an interest in Vienna Secession is too narrow at this point; in fact, in your statement you should be more specific(!). You won't, for sure, get into a top program saying you're interested broadly in German/Austrian 19th and 20th-century art. Academics specialize, and when you write your statement, laying out a specific area of interest shows an admissions committee you have the maturity to be a real scholar and do real scholarly work. Not only should you state that you're interested in Vienna Secession, but you should also make clear what kind of intervention you want to make in the field (I can tell that just because the current student pages at top programs list broad interest doesn't mean they stated their interests so broadly in their personal statements). Of course your interests can, and will, change, but committees want to see that you know your field well enough to do the kind of specialized work scholars do. That said, you should make clear that you're not only interested in Vienna Secession, and you should communicate how your interests speak to larger historical/art historical issues. If you do this, a professor who studies, say, 20th-c. German art, or 19th-c. French, would probably take you seriously as a prospective student.

Hmm...I think you'd be hard pressed to find someone at a top school who specializes in Vienna Secession. There's nothing wrong with studying with someone who's interested in it as a side interest or who studies an adjacent area of study (for example, same time period, different country. Have you thought about Debora Silverman at UCLA or Joseph Koerner at Harvard?

I recommend you talk to your professor about your paper. But go in with an open mind and don't be defensive. You seem to have misunderstood the assignment. Try to improve for the next paper by having a better idea of what's expected.

Sorry, but this paper definitely merits a c-. I might have given it something lower. The prompt clearly asks you talk about the style of the painting you choose. You mention neoclassicism, but don't characterize it or make a case why you, writing as a 19th-c. critic, think it fails. This assignment is clearly an effort at testing your skills at formal description while contextualizing those descriptions in your knowledge of 19th-century art criticism. This paper shows neither: you were no doubt supposed to demonstrate what you've learned in class in this paper, but this demonstrates no knowledge of the art or the period. Also, some sentences are almost incomprehensible: if English is your second language, then seek extra-help.

Ha! Well, I'm sure things are much clearer for you now, littlewickedways. Best would probably be to ask what your POIs prefer, though I imagine you wouldn't want to submit different sample to different schools.

You should probably submit something that shows you know how to analyze images and do art historical work, and in fact you should submit something that demonstrates your ability in your specific area of interest. Remember, committees don't have much to go to asses what kind of scholar you are: your writing sample is, in this regard, probably the most important part of your application. Your thesis may show that you're a good writer and that you can think critically, but if doesn't show that you know how to work with images, it won't be very useful to the committee in determining if you have the skills necessary for entering an art history program. If your thesis is extraordinary, your advisor – who should be one of your recommenders – will write about how wonderful it is. But otherwise submitting a chapter from a non-art history thesis won't help you make much of a case that you're right for the programs you're applying to, that you know your field, and that you have potential as an art historian. That said, I agree with Borden that you should ask your POIs if you can. You never know, but I would work from the assumption that it's best to submit a paper that deals with images.

I mean, depending on the school he might be able to co-advise, but I wouldn't count on it. Also, it could be tricky politically

Sontag?

No. He could be on your dissertation committee and you could take classes with him, but if you want him to be your advisor you have to apply to his department.

It's not a faux pas at all. In fact, you should meet with more than one. After all, you'll be working with more than one prof once you enroll; best to make sure you like them and they like you.

Haha! Wait till you start grad school!

Glad I could help! You sound like you're in pretty good shape. Regardless of whether you choose to apply for an MA or an MA/PhD program, I would recommend taking a year off. First, you'll be able to focus your energies on writing a really stellar thesis. Second, you could use your gap year to improve your language skills (many European countries have teaching assistantship programs, or you could apply for a Fulbright) or get a low pressure internship at a museum to get more exposure to the material side of art history. Third, I think it's just a good idea: you'll avoid "burn out", you'll be able to mature more as a person and by extension as a scholar, and you'll have more time to confirm for yourself that this is really what you want to do--because, as I'm sure you know, this is not a decision to be taken lightly, given the job prospects in the humanities and the fact that you'll be barely scrapping by on a little over $20,000 a year until you're almost 30. All my professors urged my to take a gap year, and I'm glad they did. It made me a better applicant and a more mature student.

I entered my PhD program with only a BA. It comes down to being able to demonstrate that you're a mature scholar ready to do high level research. That means a number of things. First, it's essential to write a senior thesis, which will be the best demonstration that you can carry out an extended research project and should probably be the basis of your writing sample. Beyond that, your thesis should show that you can work with a variety of primary sources, that you're methodologically aware and theoretically sophisticated, that you can engage with the historiography, and that you know how to construct a coherent, (somewhat) original argument based in historically sensitive visual analysis. If that sounds like a tall order, keep in mind no one is expecting perfection when you're 22--and in fact when I think back to my senior thesis I shudder at how bad it really was--but you do have to demonstrate potential and that you know what you're doing. You also have to have reasonably well defined interests and a point of view: simply wanting to study Renaissance portraiture because it's "interesting" to you won't cut it. Finally, languages are key: if you have one language down and another started (if you're doing non-American/British art), you'll be very competitive. But keep in mind that scholars mature at different rates. Some people are ready after a BA; other aren't and need the extra time to sharpen their interests, learn more about what it means to be an art historian, and figure what kind of intervention in the field they want to make. My advice is to apply to both MA and MA/PhD programs. If you get into a top PhD program, great; if not, it could be a sign that you're not quite ready. Whatever you do, don't go into debt earning an MA though.