Hegel's Bagels

I'm confused about why I see so many art history applicants on the results board...History (regular) is required curriculum in every A.A. and B.A. program, so at least there is an 'artificial' demand for a steady supply of history professors, but what kind of demand is there for teachers (or practitioners) of art history?

any insights...?

My, the response got shrill pretty fast. Very quickly:

mckee002:
1) 'beta male' is not the same as 'gay man'. I'm sure as a gay man in the Bay area, you could confirm that vast numbers of gay men are not at all 'beta males' as it is generally understood. I'm uninterested in the sexuality of my classmates, but in appearance and demeanor, there is a variance from a guyish guy type. I don't care if the guy is gay - I do care if I can't find a single dude who looks like he could throw a football in the park.
2) art history can and should be a serious discipline.
3) you and I will have to agree to disagree about the value of grievance studies vs. traditional art history. I don't buy your defense (the likes of which I've read a hundred times 'interrogating gender and race' and other nonsense). But you are probably in the majority, while I'm one of a few young fogeys, I guess.

runaway:
1) your icon is clocks, didn't recognize it as art. sorry about that.
2) rereading my #4 response for 'snide misogyny' - perhaps I was unclear. I don't think much so much scholarship is unserious because it seems to be practiced by women. Those were adjacent observations, but not related. As for attitude within graduate school, the not-so-serious approach to scholarship compared to other disciplines: surely that has some other cause than the sex of the student. I know plenty of female musicians, for example, who practice as hard and perform as well as the men.

artofdescribing:
1) if you can imagine, it's not worth a penny to me or anybody if you find my remarks offensive or presumptuous. I quite clearly said my observations were from limited experience - familiarity with three above average departments - and that would rather find out that i was wrong.
2) no doubt there are serious, ambitious, scholarly students. Great to hear you've met some!
3) sorry about the 'red flags' - you may find, one day, that pseudo-intellectual academic fads don't have quite the heft they once did. Think how quaint a Freudian reading now looks in most subject areas - not far from a phrenological one. I do expect there is room in the field, still, for those who aren't committed to nonsense of that sort. In fact, it's easy to find young professors teaching at good schools who aren't theory heads, and who aren't abusing good art with contemporary political hobbyhorses.

There are so many things that are offensive and presumptuous about this post that I don't even know where to begin. You have a strange conception of the current field of young scholars. There might be one or two vapid students that somehow make it into less prestigious programs, but it hardly seems to be the cess pool of shallow girls babbling incessently about how much they looove Da Vinci that you make it out to be. I thought all 13 students in my MA cohort to be intelligent, interesting, and very ambitious. I thought the same about the students (half of whom were male btw) I met at my PhD program's visiting day. Your comment about "theory heads" definitely raises a few red flags and really raises the question about why you decided to enter a field filled with "grievance studies" and plagued with "less-than-serious" conference notices.

There are so many things that are offensive and presumptuous about this post that I don't even know where to begin. You have a strange conception of the current field of young scholars. There might be one or two vapid students that somehow make it into less prestigious programs, but it hardly seems to be the cess pool of shallow girls babbling incessently about how much they looove Da Vinci that you make it out to be. I thought all 13 students in my MA cohort to be intelligent, interesting, and very ambitious. I thought the same about the students (half of whom were male btw) I met at my PhD program's visiting day. Your comment about "theory heads" definitely raises a few red flags and really raises the question about why you decided to enter a field filled with "grievance studies" and plagued with "less-than-serious" conference notices.

There are so many things that are offensive and presumptuous about this post that I don't even know where to begin. You have a strange conception of the current field of young scholars. There might be one or two vapid students that somehow make it into less prestigious programs, but it hardly seems to be the cess pool of shallow girls babbling incessently about how much they looove Da Vinci that you make it out to be. I thought all 13 students in my MA cohort to be intelligent, interesting, and very ambitious. I thought the same about the students (half of whom were male btw) I met at my PhD program's visiting day. Your comment about "theory heads" definitely raises a few red flags and really raises the question about why you decided to enter a field filled with "grievance studies" and plagued with "less-than-serious" conference notices.

Sure there's bad scholarship; that exists in every sub-field. There's also some very good scholarship. Your offhand dismissal of a large body of work is rash and irresponsible, especially given your snide misogyny in reply #4 and your own admission that your experience is very narrow.

My user icon is Felix Gonzalez-Torres, so that's quite a hint as to my research interests. But then, I suppose it's bold to make assumptions about others' deductive reasoning.

I hate to hijack a thread with very good intentions and purpose, so perhaps it's a good point to go to DM if you'd like to continue this conversation. My apologies to others.

Mattmcg,

What do you mean exactly by beta male? As a gay man who often has to deal with insults to my "masculinity" this is highly offensive. While in my undergraduate experience there was perhaps a majority of art history majors who were women and gay men (let's be real here), why is that negative? Why does that make the discipline less serious? These new voices in a traditionally white male heteronormative field are valuable.

Also, why go into art history if you don't think it's a serious discipline? I'm sure you could find any number of other "serious" disciplines in the humanities.

Finally, your position that "there are folks who care about art, and there are folks who care about politics and theory, and then happen to relate it to art" represents one line of art historical scholarship without doubt. However, in my opinion (and perhaps in the opinion of many prominent scholars) it is an outdated one that conforms to a cannon of art history created by the very white heterosexual male voices I mentioned earlier. Don't mistake me, these voices (Wolfflin, Riegl, Panofsky, etc.) and their scholarship are seminal and invaluable, but one should not be chained to the past. Scholarship is about moving forward. Art existed and exists in a specific temporal, cultural and economic, framework. And art, by consciously or unconsciously interrogating gender and race, holds a unique mirror to the anxieties of a society. This is an indelible part of art's beauty.

I have to be honest with you, I can't even fathom why you would choose to potentially take out FIFTY THOUSAND dollars in loans when you are being offered full funding. Having that magnitude of debt before even beginning a PhD program could put PhD study and completion out of reach.

You are being offered a funded offer! SFSU obviously is really excited about you and is ready to invest in you! I don't think that should be discounted.

Also, a two-year program gives you more time to forge relationships and develop your research and languages.

Courtauld is good. But that level of debt for any MA in Art History borders on insanity.

Aha, clever, that subtle insult to my intelligence behind the mask of anonymity! I use the plural 'histories' because it's accurate; the very basis of the subfield resists the singular canonical history that has predominated for so long.

For my part, my classes were predominately female because I attended a woman's college. I don't know a single student who majored in art history because it was easy-- instead, the major was quite small and weeded out all but the most dedicated after a couple 200-level classes. Of those not continuing to graduate school, I know my program placed quite a few recent graduates in jobs at major New York museums and art institutions.

My significant other also happened to be an art history major at my college, but believe me, a MRS degree was the very last thing on my mind when I chose my major.

My motivation for pursuing a PhD is, simply, that I can't imagine doing anything else. I am happier in a museum than in any other place on earth. I have specific research interests that deserve examination and the interest and drive to do the work.

And art always interested me more than physics, although I do admire the work of a dear friend who's currently in the midst of her physics PhD program.

This is an interesting question. When I'm in classes with Seniors and first or second year graduate students, I often wonder what drew them into this field. This is my (admittedly limited) experience:
Almost all of them are female (in at least the three schools I've known). The few guys are usually beta males.
Most of the students don't have what one might call a driven, scholarly disposition (easy to see if you compare the atmosphere to a History seminar, or even moreso, to one in the sciences). It is more of the 'I like to read about this and be the art history person among my friends'. A pleasant niche.
Few of the students seem to have retained only a superficial familiarity with the art outside their range of particular interest.

Why do they move on to graduate study? Some combination of a naive sense of the job market (perhaps they assume they'll marry a guy with a job) and a gentle drift into something comfortable after the BA. After all, who wants to look for a job with a BA in art history??

runaway,
Despite regretting the academic cant of the very phrase 'gendered histories of art', I'm still thankful for its existence: as a kind of magnet to attract and identify those without the creativity or intelligence to actually practice art history.

But my point about the composition of the classes was offered only as a description. Not sure what to think about it. Perhaps my experience is at odds with the broader pattern. Or maybe the field changed in the past generation, driving men away (like, say, physics repels women). It wasn't always this way.

Yeah, that's totally not the approach to attempt when applying to grad school.

While I do agree that you should take a reflective step back to consider why you may not have been successful this round, I disagree with the advice that you shouldn't reapply to the same schools. There are so many factors that go into a rejection, and not all of them have to do entirely with the candidate. You may have been rejected from a school because your POI is going on hiatus, or your spot was already filled with the allowed number of students, or any number of other reasons beyond your control. DO take the next few months to improve your application as much as possible: re-visit your writing sample and personal statement; keep active in your field; expand your knowledge base; most importantly, make sure that the schools you are applying to will be a solid fit for what you want to study. Going to a top-notch school means nothing if it isn't a top-notch school for your field of study. And don't be afraid to throw in a few lesser-ranked but still-solid schools. Hope this helps.

I know a few people who have attended the Courtauld, and they make it sound like a great school. It is a quick program, but it seems like they're good at telling students about work and internship opportunities in the area. Certainly London is one of the great centers, right now, of modern and contemporary art. By attending, you will also be joining the "Courtauld mafia," which is one of the most influential professional networks in the art world.

I would emphasize, though, that unless you already have a strong sense of direction the shortness of the program might make it difficult to apply for PhD programs for the coming year, and, since the British system involves tutoring rather than large classes, you will probably only be gaining one or maybe two new references who can write about your capacity for graduate research. In addition, you should remember, in considering the results of your informal study, that the Courtauld graduates several times more MA students than Hunter, and is therefore likely to be more strongly represented in college faculties. Of greater interest may be the number of Courtauld alumni who are currently at the helm of several major museums, including the Metropolitan Museum, the British Museum, and the National Gallery, London. It may be important for you to consider whether you ultimately would like to work in academia or in the art world.

Above all, you should consider the particular scholars who would teach you at either school. I have heard the Courtauld faculty is lovely, and I certainly admire the scholarship they've produced in my subfield. I really don't know anything about the Modern and Contemporary faculty at Hunter, but I know they have some VERY good professors in other subfields, and I think it is likely you would be able to study with faculty from other CUNY colleges. The system is very large, and you might have access to a much broader spectrum of perspectives. Ultimately, go to the school where you would be likely to learn the most!

Hi EllieOfAquitaine. It sounds like we have some things in common. Forgive me for making this anecdotal, but I promise to explain. I got my BA in history and medieval studies with a cert in Irish studies (year abroad), and then my MA in medieval studies with an art history major. While I've done a lot of difficult work I've actually only taken 5 undergrad and 4 grad courses in art history, 3 of which were not medieval.
Nonetheless, I'm beginning a PhD on a four-year university fellowship this fall. I did not pay for my masters - the medieval studies department was an offshoot of English, so we all had plenty of work teaching first-year comp, whatever our major. But it made every difference in distinguishing me from other applicants, I believe, and certainly got my feet very wet in graduate-level work. Learning the lingo, presenting at conferences, seeing up-to-the-minute trends in scholarship, and enjoying graduate-level interaction with professors all greatly improved my ability to convey myself in person and on paper to my potential schools. I was able to acknowledge my risks (poor foundation knowledge) and balance them with my benefits (graduate-level work experience, broader background than most, interdisciplinary knowledge, etc.).
I think it is very wise that you want to use your masters to establish your base in art history, and having the opportunity to do so - even at a cost - is far better than going two steps backwards and taking undergraduate courses to sort of throw on another major post-graduation (if such a thing is even possible). It's about the trajectory of your studies rather than the solidity of your coursework, and if my experience is anything to show, having an atypical path may be a benefit - at worst, it's not uncommon.
A student who has cast their net wide and come down onto a discipline after several years of work in other fields is going to be more sure of it, in my opinion, than most students who graduated high school with a major in mind.

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.

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)

I went through a similar experience that you're going through now. A few years ago, I was rejected from all the PhD programs I applied to and only received an unfunded offer for the MA at the IFA. At the advice of those wiser than me, I decided to take the year off. I spent a few months working in a coffee shop and then about seven months in a language program abroad. The first few months before I left the country, it was miserable. There was no work I could find with just a BA and I was really dismayed with my prospects. However, I applied again, mostly to MA programs (not the IFA) and got some great partially-funded offers. I went to a really strong MA program that paid for most of my tuition and I'll be finishing up this spring with only 21k in debt. Since I don't have any undergrad loans, this is a manageable amount for me. Going to this MA program was the best decision I ever made. I told my adviser right away that I was using this program as a stepping stone to a PhD program and the whole department was absolutely fabulous in helping me become an attractive candidate. I applied again this year and I have three wonderfully funded offers from three top 20 programs. I strongly recommend that you reconsider the IFA MA unfunded. 70k is a lot of debt to incur, especially when you will not be getting the attention that a terminal MA program would provide. There are some great terminal MA programs out there that will prepare you both for the job market and a PhD program (e.g. Williams, Tufts, UMass Amherst, UConn, some of the UC schools, SAIC, American U, etc.) You should definitely talk to your academic adviser if you can about your options. Best of luck!!

I went through a similar experience that you're going through now. A few years ago, I was rejected from all the PhD programs I applied to and only received an unfunded offer for the MA at the IFA. At the advice of those wiser than me, I decided to take the year off. I spent a few months working in a coffee shop and then about seven months in a language program abroad. The first few months before I left the country, it was miserable. There was no work I could find with just a BA and I was really dismayed with my prospects. However, I applied again, mostly to MA programs (not the IFA) and got some great partially-funded offers. I went to a really strong MA program that paid for most of my tuition and I'll be finishing up this spring with only 21k in debt. Since I don't have any undergrad loans, this is a manageable amount for me. Going to this MA program was the best decision I ever made. I told my adviser right away that I was using this program as a stepping stone to a PhD program and the whole department was absolutely fabulous in helping me become an attractive candidate. I applied again this year and I have three wonderfully funded offers from three top 20 programs. I strongly recommend that you reconsider the IFA MA unfunded. 70k is a lot of debt to incur, especially when you will not be getting the attention that a terminal MA program would provide. There are some great terminal MA programs out there that will prepare you both for the job market and a PhD program (e.g. Williams, Tufts, UMass Amherst, UConn, some of the UC schools, SAIC, American U, etc.) You should definitely talk to your academic adviser if you can about your options. Best of luck!!

I went through a similar experience that you're going through now. A few years ago, I was rejected from all the PhD programs I applied to and only received an unfunded offer for the MA at the IFA. At the advice of those wiser than me, I decided to take the year off. I spent a few months working in a coffee shop and then about seven months in a language program abroad. The first few months before I left the country, it was miserable. There was no work I could find with just a BA and I was really dismayed with my prospects. However, I applied again, mostly to MA programs (not the IFA) and got some great partially-funded offers. I went to a really strong MA program that paid for most of my tuition and I'll be finishing up this spring with only 21k in debt. Since I don't have any undergrad loans, this is a manageable amount for me. Going to this MA program was the best decision I ever made. I told my adviser right away that I was using this program as a stepping stone to a PhD program and the whole department was absolutely fabulous in helping me become an attractive candidate. I applied again this year and I have three wonderfully funded offers from three top 20 programs. I strongly recommend that you reconsider the IFA MA unfunded. 70k is a lot of debt to incur, especially when you will not be getting the attention that a terminal MA program would provide. There are some great terminal MA programs out there that will prepare you both for the job market and a PhD program (e.g. Williams, Tufts, UMass Amherst, UConn, some of the UC schools, SAIC, American U, etc.) You should definitely talk to your academic adviser if you can about your options. Best of luck!!

Unfortunately, you have to face the fact of the current economy: only the very very lucky or the very well-connected will "get a job in art history" with a BA. Find a day job, volunteer in an arts field...and Occupy Wall Street.

First, jilly11, congratulations on being accepted to an MA program. You should feel good about that and hopefully not take these comments as people trying to rain on your parade. But, as someone who is on the other side of things, I have to agree with oh_la_la and fullofpink here. I would look long and hard at the numbers of people from the Institute who graduate with an MA who actually do make it from there into a PhD program (same with Columbia or Chicago's MAPH), adding that to the amount of debt you will accrue while in the program before making any decisions. Also, the size of both the MA program and PhD would make it nigh impossible for you to forge the deep mentoring relationship with your POI that will help launch you into the PhD program there or anywhere else. Then there is the matter of the degree's reputation, I don't think highly of the Institute's terminal MA, seeing it as kind of a bought degree and not associating it with the reputation of the PhD program. I think it can add some cachet to folks working in galleries, auction houses, or non-curatorial departments of museums, but that's about it.

Plenty of people on this forum have been through the soul-sucking process of gradschool applications over multiple seasons, it's just the nature of things now with so many people applying and schools cutting back on admits. If I were you, with only the MA option at the IFA, I would perhaps take a year off, intern if you can as fullofpink suggests, or take some language classes to better prepare you for next season. There are great funded or partially funded terminal MAs out there with track records of sending students to good PhD programs. Three that come to mind are Williams, UMass Amherst, and UC Riverside. I think Notre Dame offers some kind of merit-based funding as well. I would look at schools that do not have PhD programs though, because there again you would be fighting for attention against very needy PhD students and ABDs.

It is a myth that schools "won't" accept people to their PhD programs without an MA (unless the MA is built into the architecture of that school's program). There are just so many more students with them now that it can seem that way. Some people here hedge their bets, applying to funded, terminal MAs as well as PhDs, which may be the smartest option.

As for job prospects with just the MA, they are perhaps not as dismal as fullofpink describes, but they are certainly not in curatorial departments of museums or anywhere in academia. You can work in other departments of museums, in collections management, education, development, or admin. For many people this is rewarding and completely fulfilling, a very good choice. If you really want to get scared for your future--know where oh_la_la is right now--go over to the Art History Academic Jobs Wiki 2011-2012. It may make you rethink graduate school altogether.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XViCOAu6UC0

Dang it, looks like Harvard too. Please someone claim those accepts!

Also, I'd like to make note of how awesome everybody is. Guys, you're all great, and don't you forget it! And if schools aren't bowing down to your awesomeness this year, you're sure as sugar gonna smack 'em in the face with it next year (your amazingness, that is, although I can think of some schools that could use a literal smack to the face- I'm looking at you Yale, with your no accepts). The number of schools left to hear back from may be decreasing, but don't let that make you feel diminished in any way. Chin up guys!