fullofpink

Oh you know, things like, "Well, we don't want to this look like a Whitney exhibition" or "The Whitney's done worse than this, no one will bat an eye." I can't remember too many that were specific and the ones I do remember I don't want to repeat since that will give away my anonymity in case my fellows are on this forum, but some have made my jaw drop. Also, regarding the Biennial, recently they have been making huge strides in repairing the show (and its reputation, if only by not hyping it up as much as they used to) and the latest reviews seem to be positive, but their shows over the last decade seemed to have mixed reviews and poor reception.

This program seems to be for artists or contemporary art historians who want to dabble in art history and critical theory. It's not a degree program and is not affiliated with an accredited program. It looks more like a specified internship where you are paying them $1800 to participate. "Credit may be granted by the students’ home universities for work done in the ISP. Most cooperating schools grant twelve to sixteen credits for participation in the program. Students need to make the necessary arrangements to receive credit." I would also like to add that although the Whitney is a well-known institution with a great early modern American collection, their reputation isn't the best in regard to contemporary art. Their institutional practices are heavily criticized by museum professionals --- lately, they are the butt of some pretty questionable jokes and people place them on the same level as the New Museum (read: not good). If you want to go into museums or academia, this is not the program for you.... or I should say that you shouldn't rely solely on this program to get you into the door. This may be a decent program for those who want to go into art galleries or become dealers.

Goldsmith's History of Art is ranked 17th equal with Cambridge, School of Oriental and African Studies and Aberdee by the RAE in 2008. http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/table/2008/dec/18/rae-2008-history-art-architecture-design Courtauld is second after Glasgow. However, sometimes undergraduate ratings are not useful for graduate programs. I'm not quite sure how this works in England. I hate to say, that I am also not the best to judge programs in contemporary or visual studies. It's not my field and I really do not know much about it. If it had to do with a traditional art history track then maybe.... lol. I would also like to amend my earlier statement, Courtauld and UCL are probably the most recognized and respected in America. Also, those two programs birth many well-known scholars today. The other programs may not hold much weight with the name. I once informed my DGS that I was interested in going to England for a program and said that Courtauld was my top choice. He said that if I was going, to England, Courtauld should be my only choice. However, a really great scholar in my field is at Courtauld, so it may be useless to go there if they don't have someone in your field. Another program may hold more weight. Maybe you are searching in the wrong department/school? Try the art schools (not art history) or look in the humanities. You might find more cultural/interdisciplinary fields there.

Most UK programs don't fund international students -- you may want to take that into a BIG consideration. Out of those, I believe Courtauld is most respected on a general level. UCL is very close (although that isn't on your list). Someone who went to an international program gave me good advice - get your degree in the country you want to work. While doing an MA is okay, mostly because it's easy to transfer back to America, obtaining a higher degree may not be advisable unless you want to continue your practice in England. However, a foreigner getting a Visa to work in England is nearly impossible these days because preference is given to British citizens. Just a head's up.

Most of the programs that focus on a curatorial track seem to push people into galleries and the professional art market, at least from what I take. If you are getting a MA in this type of program, most can only find jobs in this area (since, as we've discussed in a 1000 other topics, most museums/institutions want a PhD curator who has done a very traditional Art history track). I don't think curatorial programs are generally well-received by the academic community. In a typical Art History graduate program, you are focusing 100% on art history. In some curatorial tracks 1/3 is focused on art history, while the other 2/3s are focused on creative thinking/curatorial challenges. In other curatorial tracks, you work 100% on art history while doing an addition 33% percent on curatorial programming, but it's hard for ad coms to distinguish this if they aren't familiar with the individual program; thus, they kind of loop these programs together as "more practice, less education." If you aren't convinced, you can always reject it. If it is your only acceptance, then don't feel pressured to accept this offer because it's your only one. There's always next application season, or you mind find that your interests change completely in the next few months. If you aren't committed to a career in museums, I would definitely search for an alternative this very specific program.

If you are really curious, can you email your POI or intern supervisor and ask what assignments you will be doing? This might help you.

Do you want to work in a museum in the future or are you leaning more on academia? If you want to work in a museum, be it curator or in the exhibition department (or something else), a communications internship will only strengthen your application for a post in a museum after your graduate degree. You have had plenty of working in an institution, but most curators (and museum staff (especially at galleries and small museums)) must have a wide range of skills to be competitive. However, if the expense is too great and you really have no interest in this, then save yourself the trouble. If you want to go into academia, this internship might be useless. For applying to graduate school, this internship will not make you look directionless. It just means you have many interests and a wide range of skills.

Have you looked at other programs? There's a bunch that are specifically for emerging curators: The Courtauld (London): MA Curating the Art Museum Bard (NYC): MA in Art History from the Center for Curatorial Studies New York University (NYC): PhD in Curatorial Studies York University (England): Graduate Diploma in Curatorial Studies in Visual Culture University of British Columbia (Canada): MA in Art History (Critical Curatorial Studies) Rutgers (New Jersey): Curatorial Studies Certificate Virginia Commonwealth University (Virginia): Curatorial PhD CAA Curator Standards and Guidelines --- From my discussions with students and faculty from some of the MA programs, most concentrate on contemporary/modern. I have heard good things about VCU's program, but it is brand spanking new and is designed to create curator's who can move into director roles as they mature professionally. I've been noticing that NYU keeps playing around with their program, so I'm not convinced they have worked out the kinks yet. Courtauld, as always, is a very respectable program. Columbia's program seems legit. Out of this list, I would say that Bard students are most successful because that program is widely recognized and students tend to do very well in their field. I would also say that if you want to be a curator, a program like Columbia's will give you a leg up, but won't really seal the deal on the dotted line. When looking at curatorial programs, make sure the faculty interests match yours. I would also look for secure institutional affiliations. A school may say that they are affiliated with a major museum or gallery, but if you still have to apply and compete for an internship, then I would question that affiliation. Experience experience experience counts, ESPECIALLY when applying for jobs. I would also see where their alumna go afterwards (do they work in museums? Are they freelance? Do they work for galleries? Do they run galleries?). (Sorry in advance if I forgot some programs. Those were the ones off the top of my head)

Congrats! I'm glad to hear it

You seem pleased with UTSA. If it's a program that you think you would excel in, personally and professional, why not try it? They are funding you and since their concentration IS Latin American, it will only help. However, if you are on the fence and don't think you can commit, have you thought about strengthening your application and trying again next year? If so, you might be able to defer your acceptance with UTSA for one year (though it may not hold your financial package in place). The whole "what do people do after they get their MA here" is hard to put into account. Every student is so different in their personal goals, research interests, writing and (even) maturity. Then again, you may find that you don't want to go after your PhD once you get your MA! So, I wouldn't really take that as a major factor in your decision. If you are a stellar candidate for a PhD program, then you will be

And I agree fully with hopelesslypostmodern. lol.

How many places did you apply? Are you only interested in MA programs at this point? Were any of these your top picks? How in love are you with your topic? Will you be willing to consider switching them? My friend went to a school for her MA where the professor didn't align exactly with her topic. She ended up writing a thesis she wasn't in love with on a topic no one cares about (simply because it was her professor's passion and this person wanted someone to do it). Would you be willing to do that at Hunter? Are you independently wealthy? Can you afford going to NYU plus paying a steep living costs for two years while you pursue a MA? You will need to find a job during the program. You will also be vying with at least 20 others MA students at the same time, who knows how many students your professor will have nor do you know how much time they will give you over their PhD students AND their own research interests? UT SA -- was it a top choice? Was it a bottom choice? Is it only lucrative because they are the only one offering you funding? Does UTSA have any other departments that you can reach out and receive help with your other areas of interest (including museum institutions)?

1: It must be a research paper. This means you need at LEAST 8 different sources in your bibliography. This shouldn't be a paper about your opinion or strictly on formal analysis. You need to make an argument and tie it in with what other people have said. 2: Definitely make sure your citations are in Chicago Manual of Style (my school's English department teaches MLA. It's a pain in the ass). 3: Make sure the sources you use are about 75% current. They aren't just looking at your writing, they are looking at your research skills. If they see that most of your resources are in books dated 1980s and before, they aren't going to think you know most of the current research on the topic you are looking at nor will they think that you know how to use newer research methods (databases). This is circumstantial though - unless there really ISN'T any new research on the topic -- and honestly, in that case, I'd changed topics. It's very difficult to argue on those grounds unless you have something VERY solid and you can give it a good historical context by supplementing the older works with newer sources on historical significance. 4: Make sure you have academic journals in your source list. You should have at least a third. It shows that you know what sources to go to and you know how to differentiate the good from the bad. If you can help it, no websites -- unless they are well-respected in academia. 5: Between 12-15 pages is what seems to be the norm. I don't necessarily agree that it must be an art history paper. My DGs gave us a great article to read that was English based on Jane Austen arguing how her literature exposed the feminine virtues that ladies learned while on the European tour. It was an interdisciplinary study on art history/culture(anthropology) and English. It was quite well donet. Something that touches all corners would suit nicely.

Don't discount UMass and Tufts! Tufts is a very respectable program with a great art history department. Also, the opportunities you have are just a red line tran away to inner Boston for some great institutions (MFA, Isabella Gardner, ICA). Living in Boston is also way easier than New York (although still very expensive). I mean, with anything you have pros and cons, but think, your focus may become more defined while you do your terminal MA and you may desire an entire change of focus. If you stay at NYU, who knows - you might dread continuing in their PhD program anyways. You might not even want to pursue a PhD after you get your MA -- in fact, one Columbia stat says that they have 150 participants in their PhD program and 50% are ABD. Honestly, I assume that IFA's stats are way worse (I would actually love someone to provide me one if they know it!). UMass... it's a smaller program with smaller recognition. It's great if you don't know what you want to study specifically. Also, the opportunities are there too. Umass is the only school in the Pioneer valley with a graduate program and EACH and EVERY institution in the region CRAVES a graduate student for an internship. You would have your pick of the litter for internship opportunities. Also, that area is Art crazy and there will always be something going on. Also, since the undergraduate school is so large, there may be plenty of money to pursue conferences and research grants (since it is a research school). You won't have that many peers to compete with for these grants and opportunities, and you would be a valued member of the team. I'm sorry if I'm trying to discredit IFA --- I mean, it's a school I've seriously consider going to, but don't think that reputation is everything. It's not.

Yeah I hadn't look at it since last year. My GDS worked there and didn't have too much to say about the program and didn't think I would like it. No thesis? Not academically inclined at all and no museum would take a curator without some form of writing accomplishment. Good call

Why do you want your PhD? Is it to pursue a curatorial position? Or because you want to teach in academia as a professor? Or is this something that you want to achieve on a personal level? Georgetown's program is a fast-track MA program that places you into the working world pretty quickly. First semester is academics, second semester is working at one of the large auction houses in London and last semester is thesis work. From my perspective, this seems like a good thing if you want your MA and want to work in art world outside academia. It's a bit more honorable program than what Sotheby's and Christie's MA track offer, but it's more training with art objects than thinking about art objects. I really do not think it would be as good as training for an academically-focused PhD program, nor for being a curator. You don't host an exhibition and you aren't interning with museum (even though I bet the connections to DC will be top-notch, it's just not the department's intense focus). Syracuse on the other hand is a lesser known program, but it is much more academically inclined. It's probably better if you want to go onto a PhD (although you should definitely make sure you know the faculty and their interests. My friend got roped into her advisor's project and it pretty much screwed her up when applying to PhD programs. She didn't really get to work on what she wanted, and barely got accepted to a PhD program. Of course, this may be circumstantial for her (or anyone), and you can certainly say the same for any program, but because it is a small department that only offers a terminal masters you should take everything into consideration). However, if you look at the alumni list, very few 2005+ MA alumni exist or their roles defined. What you really need to do is sit down and think about what you most want to do and then plan accordingly. Funding is a big issue, but don't get stuck in a school that is going to define you just because someone offers you a little extra money (if it's a lot, then you *might* want to think how far you want to go )

I have 3 W's and my application is super strong. If you have a strong app, I hardly think it matters.

I would like to stress that this needs to stop being spread around. This is simply not true. Every application is circumstantial and it pertains to the individual and the institution. A PhD is most necessary if you want to pursue academia. Some people initially don't, and just because you want to get a higher degree after two years, work a bit, and then pursue the PhD -- no adcom is going to fault a candidate for it. In fact, no adcom is going to fault someone who thought they wanted a two year degree and then decided to head for a PhD immediately afterwards. You should emphasize this more.

What's your research experience?

Hi guys, I only have my BA but I've applied to the Met at least three or four years in a row, and without a doubt I'd received my disappointing letter of rejection every year in April. Last year, when they started doing the application fee (then only $35) I told myself this would be the last time I would apply -- especially since I was graduating (and could no longer qualify as a student) and my application at the time was the best it could be. However, I also applied for a paid year-long fellowship at the National Gallery in DC. Surprise to me, I actually heard back from NGA for second round interviews and was rejected by the Met for their little summer study outright, even though I suspect that I was a much better fit with the Met. I'm not sure why the Met rejected me. I don't even feel like they looked at my application and that my money was completely wasted (hence why I refuse to apply again). The best way to do a Met internship is to do an unpaid one and then find outside grant funding (it exists) to pay for your stay in New York. That is, if you want the reputation. However, although getting this internship may look prestigious, I know some who intern at the Met and their duties are NOT glamorous. The departments are huge, they are given meaningless tasks, and there are a LOT of inter-battles that happen in the institution. It looks way better on your resume/cv if you have a worthwhile internship at a smaller institution that gives you more responsibilities.

Here's a pdf explaining the tuition and fees. It's clearer than the Busar thing! http://gsas.nyu.edu/page/grad.financialaid.tuitionfees

GPA is only one small factor beating up against many (much) larger factors. Yes, as someone said before, GPA + GRE + SOP + LOR are all part of the package, but you must also consider your professional and research experiences. Have you done internships? Were they worthy internships (meaning, you didn't just fill in a database, you actually did legitimate research)? Have you won any grants or fellowships? Have you done study abroad? Do you know a foreign language or two very, very well (as in, you feel comfortable writing in it)? Have you presented at a symposium or conference? Have you assisted a professor in research or teaching? These factors are also VERY important and having ANY one of these puts you ahead of many in the game, especially if you think G+G+S+L is going to make or break you.

For most of these programs, if you haven't heard anything by the interview date then you didn't get it. They'll send you a wonderful rejection letter stating the number of people who applied to the program in an effort to make you feel less like a terrible scholar!

Would anyone who got into Williams offer to speak about some of their credentials when applying to the program? I will totally accept a PM And, the person who received the Dean's Fellowship from the Ohio State University discuss their background? I'd love to hear this! Congrats to all acceptances!!

Can someone explain to me the appeal of a museum studies degree? What I understand is that it aims to be an equivalent to a Master of Library Science but instead of focusing on library systems, it is about a wide-range of museum responsibilities. The people who I know who received their museum studies masters has come to regret the decision and wished they had gone for a masters in art history instead. What kind of qualifications does it give you and what jobs do you pursue with it? The ones I know interested in museum studies, or have completed their masters in the field, are mostly interested in education (but then, that's the focus my department has with their museum studies program). I'm just really curious because I really do not understand the purpose of it. Would anyone mind clarifying? [btw, I get arts administration.]