condivi

In any case, a resume (or résumé) is invariably called a CV in academia, so not worth worrying too much about it here

OK I stand corrected on Michigan

That's great!

I don't know where you go to school, and I can only go by my experience, but I very rarely encounter scholars who've graduated from places like North Carolina, or Iowa, or even Michigan and who have a good (tenure track) teaching job or are publishing in major journals. By contrast, most of the professors at these schools have graduated from programs like the ones I listed before. Maybe--hopefully--things are changing and people graduating from less prestigious programs are getting a fairer shake, but I haven't seen the evidence. Of course, if you don't have ambitions to teach at a major university, and would be content to teach at a regional college or community college, then you have many more options and opportunities.

It's true: since all grad programs are so small, they are all very selective. And the relative reputation of the program does not necessarily correspond to selectiveness. I know someone who got into Harvard and Berkeley, but not into Bryn Mawr. Also, I know a lot of people will take issue with this, but if you can't get into at least one very top program (you should apply to several) then perhaps you should reconsider your career path. There are so few jobs out there, and, no matter what you're told, you will be at a distinct disadvantage from your peers from the most prestigious schools--Harvard, Yale, Columbia, Berkeley, Princeton, IFA, Hopkins, etc--if your degree is from a lesser known program. There are exceptions, but the overwhelming majority of people who get the best jobs graduated from the most prestigious programs.

There's no reason this person couldn't do a secondary field in Italian Renaissance with a major field in Ancient Greece. In fact, I think those two fields go nicely together. "Lorenzo" is not saying, as far as I can tell, that he wants specialize in BOTH! But it's true, Lorenzo--if you want to study Classical art, pick a school that's strong in that area--they're rare enough--and then think about your options for doing some work in the Renaissance.

if you simply google "mirror", some pre-renaissance images of mirrors come up on wikipedia. could be a place to start.

Applying is the easy part! Wait till you start grad school!

Hmmm...these days you pretty much need a PhD to be a museum curator. There's just too much competition from people with PhD's for it to be any other way. But if you're unsure about what you want to do, or feel like you need more experience, then it makes sense to get an stand-alone MA first rather than jumping straight in to an MA/PhD program. As for what to do during your time off, how's your language ability? If you want to study non-American/British art, try to find work or an internship in the country/region you want to study. Language prep is so important for upper-level work in art history.

Ah, I see. Ideally, your writing sample would have something to do with your proposed area of research, even if only tangentially. So, for example, if you wanted to work on twentieth-century art, it would be best to submit a paper on a twentieth-century topic. Even better would be if the paper spoke directly to your specialty and your approach. If that's not possible--and it isn't always--submit your best work, and explain in your personal statement how and why you've changed your area of focus, and, if possible, try to show how your previous work as embodied in your sample has informed your current interests/approach/etc.

I would think twice about doing a whole new writing sample. In the first place, will be able to have a professor (or two) look it over and comment on it? Second, will you actually have the time to write a good one? I mean, where you're in college your job is to research and write papers; doing that outside of that context might be more difficult than you think. Finally, keep in mind that by the time you finish writing your new sample, you probably won't have enough time to edit and revise it with the proper amount of critical distance before you have to submit your application. Don't underestimate this: you'd be shocked by how bad a paper you thought was good when you wrote it looks when you read it again after a year. Revising an already-written paper will allow you to fix flaws that only time can reveal and to add insights that only having worked through your first ideas earlier can allow. Also, to answer your other question, I'm not sure how you'd tune your writing sample for various applications. You want a good representation of your interests and approach. That should be the same, I would think, for every program. Try to be honest about what you want to do as an art historian and how you want to do it. Tailoring your approach to fit what you think some professor might like is a recipe for mediocre scholarship.

Also, I dare say that if someone as smart as TJ Clark or Julia Bryan-Wilson were applying to grad programs in AH today, they'd probably still get into a top program!

It's interesting that the really top schools--Columbia, Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Berkeley, Chicago (ICA excepted, though four courses isn't very many)--seem to emphasize number of courses less than some of these other schools (which I'm *not* saying aren't very good). What I think it comes down to, and what Harvard is getting at, is: does the student have something interesting to say about art; is their mind agile and creative; do they have a sound understanding of the historical and theoretical issues around their interests? These things can be gained, and demonstrated, from plenty of sources beside the number of art history classes taken (which, as Josephine B notes, "usually have nothing to do with my area of interest"). Also, we're talking about a Master's program here: part of the point of enrolling in one is to get more experience before applying to an MA/PhD program, isn't it? Otherwise, why not apply directly to an MA/PhD program? None of us knows how much Cimabue knows about his/her research interests or what his/her academic record is like--these are what matter in the end; the rest are contingent factors and vary from student to student.

Hmmm...maybe. I was admitted to a few top-10 MA/PhD programs with only 4 art history classes and only a BA. There were some slight disadvantages at first to not having a major in the subject, but you catch up quick when you have to. I guess the question is, how defined are your research interests, and how much do they have to do with your other coursework. If, for instance, you want to study Italian Renaissance art, and have only taken one class in the subject but have taken others in classical and Renaissance history/literature/philosophy, you'll be more than fine. If, however, you discovered an entirely new interest during your one AH course, and your record isn't really stellar, it would be advisable to take some more courses.

I think I misread your post. Do MFA's in art history even exist? Usually you get an MFA in studio and an MA in art history--I'm not aware of any programs where it's otherwise. And if you're not a practicing artist, there's definitely no reason to get an MFA!

which is also to say, by the way, read as much as you can in art history this summer!

I think your education makes you well suited to apply directly to an MA program. A strong background in history, literature and philosophy is almost more important, I think, for practicing art history at the grad level than an undergraduate major in the subject (Svetlana Alpers says something similar in an interview in the latest Art Bulletin). In your personal statement, emphasize how much you have, in fact, learned about art history insides and outside the classroom and, just as importantly, how your other studies bear on your new interests and enrich your scholarly perspective as an art historian. If your writing sample shows you know what you're doing, and you have good grades, you should have no problems.

If you want to study art history, there's no reason to get an MFA. I'm not sure what your professor was talking about. Of course, a background in studio art provides some benefit for practicing art history--especially since we are in a moment that emphasizes process--but the vast majority of art historians do not have MFA's. In fact, I can't think of a single prominent art historian who does, off the top of my head. If you want to study art history, apply for an MA in art history or an MA/PhD program.

yes, but Heuer is mostly Northern Ren, and Pinto is mostly Baroque architecture, and besides he must be retiring very soon, if he hasn't already. I think Columbia or Hopkins would be your best bet for PhD.

I think Princeton still doesn't have an Italian Renaissance specialist on its staff.

I'm not sure about this. The advice I was given, by a number of professors, is that it's best to stay in a traditional field. Interdisciplinary programs are often very interesting and innovative, but they put graduates at a disadvantage come job-search time. Few universities have a rhetoric department or a visual studies department, so you won't be hired by those departments but by an English or Art History department. In general, departments want people with a solid disciplinary background so they can teach foundational courses. I've been told they worry that graduates from interdisciplinary programs aren't qualified to teach them. And, sad but true, *there can be* a certain amount of defensiveness or territoriality from professors from traditional departments towards interdisciplinary programs. In brief, if you want a degree from an interdisciplinary program, you'd better be sure you're pretty damn exceptional.

Take a look at the faculty at various departments. Are the Medieval and Baroque specialists well know? Do you and your professors admire them? Have they published important/influential work? Have their students gone on to do important work? Those are about the only criteria.

Have you written a senior thesis yet? If you're applying to a PhD program straight from undergrad, it's key to show admissions committees that you can carry out an extensive research project, and a thesis is the best way to do that. Otherwise, they may question whether you're ready for graduate level research.

Thank you

OK, so why is everyone taking what "Hal Foster" says so personally? The tone is a little strange, I admit, but that's no reason to get angry about it and jump down his throat. There were no personal attacks, though he did get some in return (calling someone an asshole is not very collegial, by the way). Take it from someone who's been in a PhD program for four years now, you can't get so offended, so defensive, if someone says something you don't like. And I hate to say this to everyone who is so on edge about admissions decisions, but getting in to a PhD program is the easy part: if you're qualified you will get into a good number of programs; if you don't get in anywhere you probably aren't qualified. It's simple, and probably the fairest shake you'll get in grad school (think about this: when you apply for fellowships, all the committee will see is a short project proposal and your letters of recommendation--in most cases, no transcripts, no writing samples, very little about your previous work, no matter how good). So don't stress so much. Be generous about what people say. Give them the benefit of the doubt. Let people share their interests, and get excited about what you're about to do. You shouldn't be applying to grad school if the biggest pleasure it gives you is to indulge your neuroses and anxieties (though that is part of the fun).