AClarke
-
Posts
22 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by AClarke
-
-
your icon is clocks, didn't recognize it as art. sorry about that.
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 am currently grappling to find the right words and evidence to elegantly articulate these sentiments in a Statement of Purpose.
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?
-
Oh, and be sure not to refer in your application to you "M.A. dissertation." It's an M.A. thesis, and a Ph.D. dissertation.
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
-
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.
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).
:) -
If you really want a PhD I would say go for it! Perhaps there are other schools you can apply to as well? Also, you may want to take some time and reflect upon why you weren't as successful as you might have been. But there are PLENTY of stories on here about people who struck out their first application season, reapplied, and got in to fantastic, good-fitting programs. Best of luck!
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?
-
Is it just me, or is it nuts that Columbia still hasn't send out a big batch of admits/rejects? I've already accepted an offer elsewhere, so it doesn't so much matter to me, but I do think it's sort of strange, and I am curious...
Good luck to everyone!
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...
-
anyone still waiting on temple, ifa, columbia or emory? down to my last 4.
I'm waiting for Columbia too, as I'm sure a bunch of people on here are... anyone go to the open house?
-
You won't know anything until you get that package; you should be ecstatic to get an acceptance!
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.
-
Hi mandasue555, I received an email on Tuesday (March 6) from the the department chair/executive officer Kevin Murphy with details of my offer and fellowship information. There doesn't seem to be a fixed date on their website for notifying candidates, so don't be surprised if they continue rolling out offers (and rejections) gradually. I was told prospective students had until April 15 to reply to their offer of admission fyi. Good luck!
Thanks for the info - and congrats on your offer!
-
I'm dying with anticipation now... I keep checking this website like a crazy person.
I'm still waiting for a response from Harvard, CUNY, Columbia, and MIT (HTC) [all art history PhD]. Given that people seem to have heard from Harvard, Columbia and CUNY already it's making me a wee bit anxious. I'm guessing Harvard is a no go and that, since I live in Europe, I'll be getting my rejection via post at a delayed rate. My question marks are Columbia and CUNY.
If I didn't get an invite to the open house thing at Columbia, does that mean it's a no go?
It seems like some people have heard from CUNY? Would love to know what you heard from them and how you heard it
-
Hi everyone, like most here I've followed the results board as one by one schools to which I've applied have sent out their small clutch of acceptances and I find myself it seems, without a golden ticket. Whilst I've pretty much resigned myself to the fact I didn't get in to these programs I'm curious that I've heard NOTHING whatsover (acceptance, rejection, or perhaps the most cruelly tantalizing, 'waitlisted'). Can someone explain how this phase of the process works? I'm inferring that since acceptances have been sent out, all decisions (thumb raised and thumb lowered...imagining ad comm as laurel-wearing, smirking senators) have been made- the flood of formal rejections simply being deferred until those previously contacted officially accept their invitations. Or is their still hope in silence?
Hey there - just saw that you were admitted by CUNY - I have not heard anything but saw on the results survey that people checked on the website - I don't see any info on the website... where did you hear?
-
Late this whole message board - but I'm guessing since I wasn't invited to the open house at Columbia that means I'm rejected?
What's your motivation? (Art History PhD)
in Art History
Posted
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.