AClarke

This is actually part of what got me excited about art history in the first place. I've always been interested in 17th C. Dutch art, but a real turning point for me was taking an upper level course on 17th C. Dutch visual culture as an undergrad. Without going into specifics, my prof had some really new and exciting ways of looking at visual culture as a whole (including Dutch map making - which I hadn't yet considered alongside painting at that time). That was the point at which I realised that Art History was not just comparing and contrasting formal qualities of old paintings. I think this is part of the reason that this topic got hijacked earlier and this flame war broke out - not to return to that. But part of Art History is obviously critical frameworks and the lenses through which we look at art.

Ok - didn't think this would start a flame war! But yeah, saying that Felix Gonzalez-Torres just looks like clocks to someone on an art history forum made me laugh and cry a little. Anyway, I actually am interested in hearing about motivations for PhDs on a serious level. Anyone, anyone?

I hear you on this one! SOPs are the worst... how to convey that you're worth admitting? In one former job, I was in charge of hiring a few times. I have to say that the amount of times I read on job application cover letters "I'm organised, compitant, easy to work with" etc... whether it was true or not about the applicants, it just became meaningless fluff after a while. Could maybe say the same about a SOP. I'm sure they read things like "I'm passionate about my field" over and over again. The question is, then, how do you convey that you really are passionate about your area of research?

After being on this forum a short while (and I'm in a seriously contemplative point in my life) - I'm curious what all the 2012 applicants to PhD programs or current Art History PhD students motivations are for pursuing a PhD? I've seen a lot of people throw around opinions on what the "right" or "wrong" motivations are. How to get into a program is one consideration - what it takes to get there may be different than what you want out of it. I'll use myself as an example. I've worked with museums and private galleries to "gain experience". These experience have taught me that ultimately these are not the places I'd like to end up working. I love the academic environment and research and have always thought that, if I can hack it, that's where I'd like to be work-wise. Of course, realism enters into the equation, but, the shortage of academic jobs aside, if I want to eventually end up with an academic position, getting a PhD is a necessary step. I have a sense that there's a divide between those who see it as a career-training step and those who see it as a labour of love. Maybe it's a combination of both?

I did a taught MA in the UK - they always referred to my end paper as a dissertation there. Did a google search just to be sure. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thesis#United_Kingdom

Cheers for the advice - I think you're right... I'm going to look again at my writing sample and personal statement. I just assumed it was best to send everyone my MA dissertation but now I'm thinking it might be better to send different samples to different people (maybe it was obvious I should have done that, but I didn't). :)

Hey thanks for the response and the well wishes - I am comforted by the number of second time applicants I see on here. I've gotten a lot of ideas from here on how to possibly make my application better... but I wish I could somehow know what it was exactly that put me in the rejects pile.

So I've gotten my final rejection letters today and now I'm wondering - should I plan on re-applying next year or is there minimal chance of being admitted given that I haven't been successful this year? I have been accepted to CUNY but have no offer of funding (I can still hope in the next 2 weeks that something will come through, but the office has been pretty vague about it - only saying they'll tell me before April 15). If I don't get funding at CUNY I really can't feasibly attend. So, this begs the questions - should I go for all this again next year at the same places?

I was thinking the same thing - based on previous years they seem to have made their decision much earlier... I like to think that they're spending all this extra time trying to squeeze me in But actually, I've written them off at this point... I'm still curious because some people posted on the results list that they had been invited to the open house - so someone would have mentioned being admitted...

Can't believe it's March 19th and I'm still waiting to hear from places... I had imagined I would know by now! Anyone else still waiting? I suppose it's a bit silly since the last 2 will most likely be rejections...

I'm waiting for Columbia too, as I'm sure a bunch of people on here are... anyone go to the open house?

Don't get me wrong - it's an honor to be accepted! I went into applying for CUNY, though, knowing I can't really do it without funding. Talked to some students there when I visited who said that even if you don't get up front funding, most people find a way... But after doing an MA that got me $65,000 in debt for 2 years and working to earn enough to scrape out a living, I'm a bit jaded by the whole grad school and money equation.

So I saw on the results survey that some people randomly checked the CUNY website and got their admission status. So, I just checked and looks like I've been accepted - they say the offer details are in the mail. I'm hoping it's going to be funded, but given that I didn't get an e-mail from the department, I'm guessing it's not. I really can't afford to do a non-funded PhD, that's for sure. But still glad that at least I got in somewhere. Was starting to think I was a hopeless case.

Not sure if anyone else applied to MIT, HTC - but I got a rejection e-mail today. That was probably the best fit for me, but I know they only have one place for art history/theory. This does not bode well.

Thanks for the info - and congrats on your offer!