JosephineB

I am familiar with Bryn Mawr.

Wellesley is a all women's undergraduate college, so I don't think you will have much luck pursuing an MA there.

Hal -- You do realize that not everyone studies contemporary art? In my (pre-modern) sub-field it is first and foremost important to have a command of the primary sources and the historiography. This takes decades to achieve. It's not really appropriate for a new grad student fresh out of undergrad or some irrelevant masters program to throw down some Onians or Lacan and try to cobble together an argument. This is not innovative or appropriate for the field, and it will not get you recognized in a positive way. In fields that are founded on careful interpretation of historical details and encyclopedic knowledge of classical languages and iconography you first become a student of tradition. it is only once you have mastered the canon and traditional approaches/methodologies that you are positioned to question them in a way that is meaningful and responsible. I can't imagine you have spent much time in graduate level academia or in sub-fields outside of your own.

To play devil's advocate... In my sub-field there are about 7 schools at which one can pursue a PhD. Out of those seven, 5 are the absolute top Art History programs, and the remaining two are considered top 10 or 15. ------ On the topic of publications Brazilian, I am not sure if it is necessary or even advisable at this stage in your career. I *technically* have a publication from a paper I wrote in my undergrad days. It won an award and as a result was published, without my consent, in my undergrad university's journal. It's accessible online if you search my name, and is one of the first google results when you search a major artwork from my subfield. It's not a bad essay, but I wrote it when I was a junior and its not representative of the work I do now - I don't like the idea of adcoms, students and colleagues being able to find it online. Hold off on getting work published until you have matured as a scholar. This advice does not hold for things like museum catalogues, though. I think that catalogue entries can be a great way to get publications that show your commitment to the field without tying you to something you may change your mind about later.

This has to be true to some extent at most if not all grad programs. Yes, there are professors who encourage you to take risks, ask questions - be unconventional - but there are also professors who will not entertain divergent points of view. Unlike in undergrad, where professors will nod politely and feign appreciation, I have seen profs cut students down in seminar for arguing against their views. It's easy to write these profs off as out of touch hot heads, but sometimes you have to play the game - these are the people who decide on departmental fellowships, and who can write you letters of recommendation to their famous colleagues. In academia there is definitely a hierarchy, and the attitude that everyone must put in their time and suffer though absurdity (without complaint) before they have full autonomy and intellectual freedom. It is important not to step on toes too soon. No one should do anything, or produce work that they find truly abhorrent, but there is definite strategic value in just shutting up and doing what you are told for the first couple of semesters. Show them that you are dependable, and that you can produce high quality work.

To answer the OP's original question --- I believe that a fantastic writing sample (or two) can make up for deficiencies in an application. When it comes down to it, academics are expected to produce high quality, well researched, and well written work - grades are important, but superior writing and research skills will carry you farther than a perfect gpa. Applicant A had a 3.9 and a good writing sample, whereas Applicant B has a 3.6 and an outstanding writing sample. In my opinion applicant B has the better application. Once you reach a certain level, the ability to write exceptionally cannot really be taught. I do however agree with earlier posters who talk about 3.5 being some kind of imaginary, but real, threshold in graduate admissions. If you have considerably below a 3.5 (especially sub 3.0), it is objectively harder to stay competitive with 3.7+ applicants. It may not be fair or make sense, but it happens nonetheless.

To be brutally honest - I don't think you will have any luck applying to a traditional Art History graduate program with this as your research area. This type of topic is much better suited for a literature or visual/media studies sort of program. The whole point of going to graduate study is to utilize resources that only a university can offer (established professors, libraries, seminars, etc), in order to work towards a desired outcome. It is doubtful that, at this point in time, there is an Art History department that has the resources to support your topic. I'm sure you could find a lower ranked school or some sort of "studies" program that has a POI willing to take on your interest, but if you are concerned about money (which it sounds like you are) this is a dangerous path to go down. It you want to work on a niche topic you have to be a Superstar - near perfect record, recognition, and ability to show command of a more conventional area. I think you have a few options: - Choose a more "conventional" research topic study. If you are admitted to a program talk with your advisor about how you can cultivate your side interest in Comics/graphics/etc. Once you have fulfilled all of your distribution requirements and are farther into the program, your advisor may support you to write a thesis on the comic book topic. - Apply to english programs. If this is really the topic that you want to devote 2+ years of study to, this is a much more appropriate discipline. - Skip graduate school altogether. Even if you are fully funded, there is a good chance that spending 2+ years getting such a niche degree will ultimately be damaging to your finances/ability to get a job. When you are not in graduate school it is difficult to imagine how much of a financial and personal sacrifice even a funded graduate program can be. I would advise anyone against going to graduate school in the humanities unless they are independently wealthy or 100% sure that this degree is the ONLY way they will be able to obtain future employment. Short version: Take some time off. Think realistically about what job opportunities will be available to you even in the best case scenario.

Why don't you track down a few of your favorite articles that were written in the past few years, on a topic that you would like to study. See who wrote them and look up where they teach. No one can do your research for you, because no one knows your interests as well as you do. Also, doing research is a major part of being an art historian.

<blockquote class='ipsBlockquote'data-author="DontHate" data-cid="1057888216" data-time="1356046797"><p> I don't think any of my grades are awarded based on points. I'm in seminars, and my papers are what determine my grade. They're just given letters.</p></blockquote> ? GPA stands for "grade point average." You don't get a gpa at your school?

I also have to agree with losemygrip and anonymousbequest. OP, I am not sure how you got the impression that art history students are not good test takers. If the GRE is an obstacle for you (or any other applicants) I honestly don't see grad school as a good option. The GRE is the easiest test I have taken since my sophomore year of undergrad and nothing compared to grad work. Especially for a student who wants to get a phd in the humanities, the verbal section should be a walk in the park. You will not enjoy reading essays on visual semiotics, translations of Riegel, or taking quals if you find the GRE insurmountable. If an aplicant has a disablity that makes taking the standard GRE impossible, there are always ways to get accommodations.

What is the grade scale like in your guys' programs? At my school there is a university wide policy that 98-100=4.0(A+), 96-97=3.9 (A), 94-95=3.8(A), 92-93=3.7(A-), and so on... This is not how it was at my undergrad. There anything above a 93 (or 92 or 95 in some departments) was worth a 4.0. I was under the impression that this how most grade scales were set up? Does my grad program's scale seem strange? It seems unfair that my 97 receives a lower grade point than my friend at a different school's 93/92. I wonder in phd admissions committees recalculate gpas in these cases? Also what have people heard about expectations for UG language classes taken while in Grad school. For example, I have been earning straight 3.7's in the KILLER dead language I am taking. These grades are not factored into my gpa, but I wonder if the expectation is that I be earning 4.0s because these are technically at the UG level?

I wouldn't mention who your advisor's advisor is unless you have some sort of working relationship with her. Otherwise, it seems like you are grasping for something to say. My advisor's advisor was the #1/giant/superstar of all time in our field who pioneered the topic I want to study, but I would never think of name-dropping him.

I don't necessarily think that's true. When I was applying to grad schools my advisors encouraged me to begin with an anecdote about how I became interested in Art History. I recounted a story about how my school librarian wouldn't let 3rd grade me check out a book on Van Gogh because she thought it was inappropriate. Everyone who revised my statements raved about how much they liked the anecdote. I got in (with funding) to every school I applied. I think if you do it right without being cliche and have a strong voice as a writer, anecdotes can be a good thing.

If that is in fact your primary goal, I am not sure you should be looking at PhD programs for art history. I really don't see how an art history PhD would help you reach that goal. Here are some questions for you to think about: - How do your goals relate to the academic study of art history? - Why do you think a PhD in art history will help you meet your goals? - What do you think graduate study in art history entails? What do you know about it? Based on the information you have provided I am not really sure you have done much research on exactly what is involved in an art history PhD program. I think that what you are looking at is more in line with non-profit work and arts administration.

This is all around pretty lame advice. There are plenty of reasons to get an MA that improve students' chances of PhD acceptance - cultivate a longer writing sample, teaching experience, language acquisition, conference experience, building contacts - I could go on. This all sounds far from unserious, no? Also, fully funded MAs do exist and are given to "serious" students attending MA programs.

I agree with everyone who is saying to wait! I waited until late October/early November and it worked well for me (my applications were due in mid Jan though). Another thing that worked well for me was to use my UG professors as resources to get me in touch with POI. If you have professors who are well acquainted with your POI this can be a less awkward way of getting in contact.

If you are really torn up about this, send a calm email to the DGS/dept secretary/whoever the designated person of contact is. Explain the circumstances and don't go into any unnecessary detail. I really don't think it will be the issue you are making it out to be.

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.

I respectfully completely disagree with your advice. I think that having your "heart set" on a school should not be enough of a reason to continue to pursue something that might be unrealistic. I don't even mean this just in OP's case. I think there are many practical considerations that need to be made when applying to graduate school that vastly outweigh feeling or intuition. I think that

What do you want to do with your PhD? If you want to teach, I am sure you realize how dismal the job market is, and how it gets even worse if you have to geographically restrict your job search. What would you do if your only job offer was in Wyoming? If you are not willing to live *anywhere* your chances of actually putting your PhD to use via university/museum employment go from being low to almost non-existent. I really think you are doing yourself a disservice by only applying to ultra-top-tier schools. I would venture to say that there are probably at least 3-5 more schools that meet your criteria of east coast and highly ranked but have more realistic chances of admission. Everyone wants to go to a top program, but statistically the odds of that happening are not good at all. I can't blame you, because personally I know that if I don't get into a top 10ish PhD program I will most likely not pursue a career in academia. Do you have a mentor who you can have a serious conversation with this about? I get a few red flags from reading your posts, and I worry that you might not fully understand the realities of what you are getting yourself into. If this is offensive or unhelpful to you, please feel free to disregard my advice! This is a faceless internet message board, and I only know about 1/1000th of what is going on in your life and your decision to pursue a PhD.

I too am going straight through from UG to masters! I might take time off between MA and PhD, but right now I am extremely focused and motivated, and my advisors and I decided that this was the right choice for me. A lot of my decision also had to do with the timing being right on a few important factors. I

This is so important! During my application process this fall I was talking with a POI about what my specific interests were within our subfield. I started talking about how I was really interested in studying [specific thing] in tenth century imperial ideology even though it is kind of obscure. S/he practically squealed with excitement, and told me that s/he had written their masters thesis on [specific thing] in twelfth century imperial ideology, and would be beyond thrilled to work with me on it. S/he is going to be my advisor this fall. If I had gone into the meeting trying to tailor my interests to POI's exact research as listed on the website, or only paid attention to what was on the website, we might not have made the connection. It is definitely worth getting more information!

Are you a current student at UW? (I see that your location is Seattle) Do you know others who applied there? It is one of my schools, and I haven't really seen anything on the results board or the forum from others applying/accepted.

(LONG time lurker but I wanted to answer your question...) The problem with an unfunded MA is that you are paying a LOT of money for a degree that other people are getting for free and does not necessarily get you any closer to a PhD. In the case of IFA you will be paying just under $70,000 for a masters. That is over twice the price of what you would pay for an MA at a top state school even if you are paying out of state tuition. An MA is a stepping stone to a PhD, but you have to seriously consider whether or not you want to be $70k out before you even start your doctorate. Fully funded MAs do exist but they are rare. I was just accepted to a fully funded MA with stipend at a top 20-30 school. I could go to a more elite program, but for me a free degree at a decent school is more important than having a big name on my CV. It's hard to get a funded MA anywhere, but I am guessing it is nearly impossible at schools like IFA or Columbia. In terms of the "cash cow" issue, I have heard from many professors and friends that if you are paying full price at a school where others are paying nothing, your tuition dollars are funding your classmates. It also means that you were not one of the department's top choices. Do you have a UG advisor or mentor you can talk to about this?