ArtHistoryandMuseum

Hello there!
  Given my screen name, I couldn't help, but be compelled to write :-)    While I do not think you intended to be casual in your post, I would take your decision entering the museum field very carefully. Have you researched today's labor market for museum work? The picture is not attractive in terms of the job market right now; for example, some museum jobs in metropolitan areas are receiving several hundred applicants for entry and mid-level work. Even the museum that I work at now in a New England state received a couple hundred applicants for a single position. In other words, the competition is intense, and the "hanging in there" to get a job definitely seems to require sustainable passion and drive. I'd recommend an internship or volunteering in a museum if you haven't already. This will also help you get the institutional clues needed to apply for work, and some work experience.   You've written that you are unsure about curatorship. There are many roles in a museum that aren't "curatorial": development/fundraising, museum education, human resources, conservation, marketing/public relations, social and web media, collections... Do you have any idea which kinds of professional roles in a museum setting, which best fit your interests and abilities?   In addition to "museum theory," museum studies programs do train you and teach you a little about each professional role, so you can determine an appropriate fit for yourself. However, actual museum experience will probably tell and teach you even more whether or not it's a fit for you, and what an actual day-to-day is like. Generally, at smaller museums you'll be more likely wearing "all hats" (i.e. you may update the collections database AND give tours AND mail gift acknowledgments) and at larger museums you may be more niched, and limited (say, curator of decorative arts).   Based on your description of not wanting to do the "technical," I could only guess that you might not enjoy the data entry and the computer heavy work that collections technicians and managers do. Although, your library training would be probably most transferrable to collections manager, collections technician, cataloguer, and archivist kinds of roles in a museum (well, mostly -- you'll still have to know the particular databases of the institution, such as Past Perfect and Multi-Mimsy, and possibly, their ways of processing metadata).    You did remark about connecting with your art roots, however.  Do you have enthusiasm for art and/or history, and want to share it with people? Do you think you'd like to plan programs, tours, or interpret collections for visitors? Maybe a track, or focus, in museum education is for you. In any regard, it is absolutely ideal you have passion for what you do. Unless you are working for an upscale museum (like the Getty or the Met), generally museum positions are not highly compensated, so you'd be doing it for the love, really.    At the museum that I work for...   ... the HR staffer is PASSIONATE for employment law. ... the curator is PASSIONATE for minute details about objects. ... the education team is PASSIONATE for museum education theory -- and based on current studies, how multigenerations learn best in museums. ... the collections manager is PASSIONATE for deciding things like, whether in the database it is "medicine, bottle"... or "apothecary, bottle."   And on and on...   Our museum has a lot of fine art, but as you can see, it's not simply that they are connecting with their "art roots". Hence, my earlier comment on not being casual about entering the field -- this is a serious career, and there are many paths that you can elect to take, each with specific responsibilities.    So, should you matriculate in a Museum Studies MA, over Art History? That will depend on your interest to study for a year or two a topic, and  on a few other things that you want. If you seek to enter museum work, you can honestly work either degree to your advantage, especially if you couple it with actual museum experience (make sure any museum studies program you do enter supports internships or connects you in some way to the workforce).    Although, as I think about it, an art history MA may be slightly better for fulfilling work duties, even as a museum educator or what have you, because you have that important background of art. So much easier to develop a tour on a certain movement of art when you know it! Regardless, though, while depending on the job description, a MA in Art History, or a MA in Museum Studies, should get at least you considered for a job in museums, AND if all goes well, hopefully to the interview stage. Keep in mind, also, that museum jobs like HR, marketing, development -- you won't necessarily need a MA. You might, however, need other professional training. Maybe community college or business courses?   Finally, I offer my personal experience. I hold a MA in Museum Studies, and I am employed in a museum. Because I seek ultimately to research and curate American decorative arts in a museum or university museum, a further degree in material culture or art history would serve me better in my job search. While I am currently less competitive for academic museums or curatorial positions, with my MA in Museum Studies, and extensive museum experience, I do still receive invitations to interview for other professional roles in museums, which is great because it is so hard to get a museum job these days. However, for me, sadly, the degree that I have is generally not sufficient for curatorial jobs, of which role seek demonstrable academic knowledge/background in a particular subject or topic. Lastly, a PhD in Art History, or even a MA in Art History, might "over-qualify" you for a position like collections or database-driven development... which I like, too, so I have to weigh that when I apply to MA/PhD in Art HIstory.   Anyway, I truly believe that further graduate school in Art History would prepare me well particularly for the museum roles that I desire to fill. I couldn't imagine another career for myself, but to study dec arts in depth. Hence, why I'm on grad cafe, interested to learn more about the process myself :-)   My bottom line? I hope these rambles of some help to you, and I do wish you the best of luck deciding!

See you there.
 
(I'll send you a PM. ) 

Hey everyone,
 
Like other people here I am heading off to graduate school in the Fall. As my final undergraduate semester winds down, I'm trying to mentally gear up for the more advanced study to come, and I had a question about reading effectively in graduate school.
 
In a couple of other (older, too old to respond to without serious thread-necro) threads, I saw a bunch of prospective and current graduate students discussing the reading workload in graduate school, and how they coped with it. The gist of what I got from those posts was that at the graduate level I should expect between:
one book per week, per class, and probably about 100-200 pages of articles per week, per class, as well. and
one monograph's worth of reading a day, either in the form of a book or a collection of articles. The first suggestion echoes what a student at my future program told me I could maybe expect based on his experiences, but the second one is a bit closer to my actual expectation. Does this seem to hold true for most of you, falling somewhere in between the first and the second?
 
Now, it seemed that everyone in the threads I was looking at was of the agreement that it was simply not possible to remain sane and also read every word of every page of every assigned reading in graduate school. Strategies for getting through the reading (some of which seemed to come secondhand from undergraduate and graduate instructors themselves) included some combination of strategic reading (targetting key sections such as prefaces, intros, the introductions to chapters/sections, first lines of paragraphs, conclusions), but absoluetly no one advocated reading every word.
 
I'm not unfamiliar to skimming. As an undergraduate I've come across plenty of books during research projects and independent studies that were of dubious value to my research, and which I evaluated before committing to further reading or discarding. But I've never regularly skimmed the assigned class readings, and thinking about doing that in graduate school brought up some questions for me:
Do you ever worry that while skimming you're missing out on some key, crucial detail buried in the middle of a chapter that refers to some source you've never heard of or makes an inference that would completely change the way you think about a topic if only you had read the book more completely? How do you handle that? Do you ever go back and re-read later on the books that seemed most interesting? Once you reach the dissertation stage, do you cut back on the skimming (after determining that a text is relevant to you) or does it never end? I really love reading books cover to cover, especially ~most~ of the academic texts in my field that I've come across. There's always a few that are unutterably dry, uninteresting, repetitive, or poorly composed and which I do just skim to get through, but I've treasured the experience of gutting monographs for perspectives, insights, inferences, and just raw data that I didn't have before, and while I'm sure I could skim all the assignments in graduate school, I'm concerned about all the things I will miss doing so, and I'd love to know how other students handle that. I mean, I'm in grad school to LEARN, not just to pass, right?

I want to second this advice! I emailed one professor who never responded, and I got into the program and will be going there next year. I have also heard from students that he is an excellent, hands on advisor. So I definitely agree that people shouldn't be turned off if professors don't answer their emails, it doesn't mean they aren't interested and it doesn't mean they will be an MIA advisor. Apply anyway, and figure out whether they seem like a good fit as an advisor later!

Thanks for your reply. Both schools do have good reputations, though the Carnegie Mellon program is perceived as "better" because of the school's reputation. I was able to visit the campus and speak with a student there, as well as look at post graduation employment data. Though the program doesn't strictly describe itself as a video game development program specifically, from what I understood, you will work on interdisciplinary teams and the entire program is project based, much like how you would work in that industry. In addition, after going through the employment data for that program specifically, most of the graduates did end up in a gaming company, some well known, some not so well known. 
 
While I do feel like this program would definitely get my foot in the door, I don't necessarily want to limit myself to this area of industry, in case I want to change careers down the line. I have gotten many mixed answers from the internet and people I've talked to. Some say it doesn't matter what degree you get because, 5+years down the line it's about experience. Some say the reputation of the school, even if I'm unsure about the degree and the direction it takes me post graduation, would help open doors for me regardless. Still others say to get the Computer Science degree because its more respected and would show I would be able to apply skills in general, and not specifically the gaming industry. 
 
To be honest, though I do have some interest in exploring the gaming industry, I have no previous experience and am not 100% sure that's the direction I want to go, job-wise. And, because of that, it's making me lean more towards CS at Boulder, since I would be exposed to multiple areas of CS. 
 
Anyone have any thoughts? comments? 

The earliest you can enter the USA on an F1 visa is 1 month before the official program start date. I came as early as I could - which allowed me to explore the area a bit before it became over-run with students. Maybe 1-2 weeks - give yourself enough time to recover from jetlag, too! 

When I asked my adviser how he remembered so many journal articles and books he responded with: "I remember to not forget, most people do not". It sounded a bit condescending at the time, but he elaborated further by saying that many undergraduates have been trained to read articles for key pieces of information and don't bother to remember the author names or the year in which they were published, but if you read to remember and read to keep it in your mind for the entirety of your career, you'll begin to approach articles differently. It stuck with me, and I've been trying to apply his contextual style to my studies. It's definitely not the most sage of advice, but my adviser in undergrad was a man of few words.

Whether it be about research, life, or landing a job - have you ever been given such sound advice that it served as a catalyst for your success? Perhaps a bit more prosaic, is there something in particular that an advisor has told you that has helped you be a better student? 
 
The best advice I have ever received was this: During your first year as an MA student, do not shy away from the power of collaboration. Ultimately, it is not uncommon for graduate students to take a "renegade" approach, and attempt to do everything by themselves. However, by embracing your new cohort and building projects together, you can achieve so much more during your graduate studies. This is particularly true for Master's students, as they have a short window of time. Start a journal club, collaborate on poster/paper ideas for conferences, and do your best to foster a professional atmosphere of collaboration within your cohort by including as many as possible who are willing to contribute.
 
Following this advice, I was able to accomplish much during my graduate studies and through the process I have gained friends and colleagues and learned with them and from them in the process; something I have learned and will take with me for doctoral studies.
 
Hopefully contributions to this thread will be a benefit to us all. 

Not quite the same situation, but maybe this will be a little helpful. I went into teaching for some bizzaro crazy reason after I finished my under grad in chem, not education. I wasn't sure what I wanted to do yet and I guess I figured I'd have a guaranteed job as a high school science teacher. Anyhow, like you I hated public speaking, presentations, and was also quite shy (still shy now, not quite so bad). I am sure it will be different since you will not be with high school kids, although depending on the level you'll be teaching it might not be too far off . I found that once in the classroom with just myself and my students things fell into place. You have to remember that your students are at least, if not more, scared of you than you are of them until they get to know you (or maybe still even after). I think for me it helped to remember that I am in control of the situation and you can really play off that if your a control freak like me! I'd also suggest when you're making your lesson plans (do they call them that for TA'ing?) or class plans to keep them pretty flexible and have a couple possible ideas to go from. And do not forget to keep an open mind too, I've certainly learned a lot from my students..... such as a new inspiration to go back to being a student myself Like the poster above mentioned, do some research on different discussion styles like Socratic seminars, or other protocols. They can also give you a good break by leaving the work up to the students.

You just do it. It gets easier the more practice you have. The first semester is a little rough (you'll probably learn more than the students do), because you're just trying to find your groove. Don't take the assessments to heart (if they are bad)--you'll get better. If you don't know the answer, there's no shame in saying, "I don't know offhand, but I'll find out." You're not expected to know everything, but chances are you'll know more than your students. My first teaching experience was teaching English to 30 students and I didn't have a Master's degree in it. It is intimidating, but I'd suggest you search online for good tips. I like to play games during some discussion sessions (think Jeopardy), or bring in relevant YouTube clips to help start discussion. Most students seem to appreciate when you don't have the same lecture style every week, because it's not as boring. :-)

This week I have to lecture to 70 students on a subject I know nothing about. I'm not sweating it. (This comes after 5 years of teaching.)

I was once a master procrastinator. Two years ago, my psych professor said the secret to stop procrastinating...is to stop doing it. ;-)  It is a CHOICE. Grad school is definitely not the place for that, especially if you want to do well.

I started to schedule my days...was it easy to follow a schedule? No. But you get drunk off the feeling of having everything done and not losing sleep, time, and the potential for an A by just following that schedule.

Schedule your days out from now on until grad school and get into the habit...either a schedule or a To Do List...find out what works for you. Look at your schedule/To Do list at the end of each day and determine how well you were able to follow it...then keep improving. This did not take me weeks to accomplish but i recognized that I NEEDED to get my act together.

Procrastination can bring down the best of us, but it is not a life skill that we want to keep with us during certain stages of our lives, that's for sure. Hope this helps.

Remember...schedule and give yourself breaks...BREAKS are important or you start to lose attention to what you're doing...and then the procrastination begins. Start to do your BEST to follow a schedule so that you can form the necessary discipline.
 
Honestly, you may never get rid of your procrastination urges entirely but they will minimize - significantly. You'll have your moments but OVERALL they will minimize SIGNIFICANTLY and THAT is the place you want to aim to get to. For right now.

This isn't so much about ranking as it is about department culture in a way, but I definitely see what you're getting at.  I have always felt that if you are the smartest person in the room, you are in the wrong room.  It may be an adjustment if you are not used to being challenged, but I think people that genuinely enjoy learning thrive in environments where the material is challenging and you have the opportunity to learn from not only your professors, but also your peers.

You may need some time to adjust to being challenged, but I think if you're aware that challenges will come and you're open to taking them as a learning experience and not as a blow to your ego, you will be great.  Be excited!  You might look like a fool, but so does everyone at some point.  Your peers face the same risk.  Learning is hard, and that's why it's so damn rewarding.  Just anticipate the challenges/struggles, don't take them personally (easier said than done, I know), and do your best.  You will grow so much more when you are being pushed!  I think you'll do very well.

As someone who has lived both in Montreal and in Vancouver, I think you should also take into consideration the cost of living in both cities. Vancouver is massively more expensive that Montreal, especially when it comes to renting an apartment (it's one of the most expensive cities in the world). As a city, I much prefer Montreal -- better food, better museums, better cultural life, etc. Being on the East coast also has advantages, as you're closer to the Boston and NY universities for conferences, lectures, etc. 
 
In the end however these considerations are trivial and like other people said above, you should go with the university that is stronger in your area of specialization. 
 
Let me know if you have questions about living in either city or about UBC and McGill in general! 

First post on here but like you, napoleon 87, I have been following the posts on this forum for months.  Your question really hits on something that I have been thinking about in the recent weeks- why this time?  What did I do this time that made a difference?
 
I could type out my life story for the last five years but that doesn't really answer your question, so I will aim for brevity:
 
1. Research!  Stay current on research.  If you don't already belong to the professional organizations and get their publications, do so now. Along with this, get access to the journals and databases you need to cover your topic.  You can often gain access through local universities as a community member if your student privileges have lapsed.  
 
2. With all that handy knowledge under your belt, narrow your topic.  The biggest difference, on paper, of this round was shifting my interest to a theme rather than just a time period or a subject.
 
3. Target your schools and scholars...ok, maybe another wording would be good here. I chose to apply to only three schools after sending inquiring emails to five scholars. Those three schools had scholars focused on exactly my area of interest. I did not apply to programs only because of their name or ranking. 
 
4.  Perhaps the biggest thing I did had nothing to do with the application- I visited.  Yes, with my own money and before applications were decided on.  I know this is not a choice some would understand but I wanted to see each school for myself and make sure the adviser was someone I could work with.  I really think this sincere interest in the program and their research was the key difference between round one and two.  I was accepted to both programs I visited.
 
5. My recommenders were thrilled that I had managed to acquire a job in a unique job tangentially related to art history as well as an adjunct position teaching art history.  They all mentioned that this was something very promising to committees- a clear dedication to hacking it in the discipline. (I should mention, I already have a MA in art history and was applying this round for PhD.)
 
I hope this helps!
 
Oh, and good advice at any point: Languages!  Don't forget to keep up your languages!  German review is killing me...

Congratulations to all those who have been successful on your second round of applications.  I've been following the "Waiting Room" string and applauding silently!
 
Now that you've been through the application season twice, once unsuccesful, once successful, what advice to you have to give?  What did you change and how did you better prepare your applications for the second time around? 
 
Did you apply to the same programs?  Change or keep your intended focus?  Gain more work experience?  How did your materials change (i.e., did you retake the GRE's and rewrite your SOP's/Writing Samples)?
 
Even though I am starting my first round of applications for 2015, I'm really curious to hear suggestions from those seasoned with the process.
 
Cheers again!

Depends on the nature of the job, your pay, & time commitment.
 
Last semester was my first, & I was a for-credit (unfunded) TA, had a full course load, & had a part-time food service job about 12-15 hours weekly. My supervisors were disorganized & inattentive to employee concerns, employees were paid minimum wage & we didn't have a tip jar, & our schedules changed every. Single. Week. I was constantly stressed & frustrated, & had virtually no social life because I was totally burnt out every weekend from job-work & school-work together. It was very emotionally & mentally unhealthy, so I quit at the end of the semester. It simply wasn't worth the spotty minimum wage & stress. So, for me, it wasn't an issue of time or time management; rather, it was an issue of.. well, just about everything else.
 
That said, I'm sure that a job with better supervisors, a regular schedule, & better pay would be feasible, as long as you're a hard work in all senses & a good time manager. However, I would go into it making it clear that you're a student first, & that there would be a chance that you'd have to change your schedule or leave in the future in order to balance & prioritize academic things.

I agree with m-ttl. I went to state schools that are almost NEVER mentioned on these boards for my BA and my MA, and they both were very insistent about concerns with methodology, historiography, theory, and how these areas interacted with our individual areas of specialty and special problems our areas might face- so I, as a 19th century sculpture person, might interact differently with a Panofskyian sense of iconography than say my Italian baroque friend would, and we'd have different questions of connoisseurship or need for interaction with the object directly versus through reproduction, and issues of materiality or availability or primary documentation. Even my community college 101 classes touched on these kinds of problems at a basic introductory level. If I can get this at a school that never breeches the top twenty list for art history at the BA level, and which more than prepared me compared to students who came from top-tier schools in my MA, why are people putting themselves into debt for this? I get very uncomfortable when these sorts of programs are pushed as the best way into the field when they are inaccessible for large numbers of qualified students due to financial reasons, and no one involved seems to think this is a problem.

goat cheese, cranberry & spinach salad:
-obtain spinach, goat cheese, craisins, walnuts and, if you desire, a protein such as chicken or beef
-combine all ingredients in a bowl
-toss with balsamic
-enjoy!
 
I also really enjoy making veggie fried rice/quinoa: 
-heat sesame oil in a frying pan.  add scallions and garlic
-scramble up an egg
-add pre-cooked protein if you desire
-throw in every veggie you possess
-add pre-cooked (read: leftover) rice/quinoa
-add soy sauce/hot sauce to taste
the whole process takes about 20 minutes!

I apologize that I used "you" when I should have been using "one". I meant it generally and not specifically. And I do feel that I admitted that art history can seem rigged toward those born to privilege, as well as condemned any classist tendencies in the field in my previous post.  But I stand by my assertion that there are many curators who were/are hired after the same limited kind of job "experience" that a TA/Preceptor who becomes a professor might have. Many of them went to top schools where they had rigorous art history training, and no they don't tend to have a sense of entitlement because they love art history and are in it for the intellectual, emotional, psychological feels. It is also perhaps easiest not to act entitled when one is fully a member of the hegemony. They have traveled widely because they were well funded or had means so have seen lots of the key objects in their area personally. They tend to have great networks so when putting together an exhibition can reach out to make calls to figure out which works are available, which aren't. They can learn about conservation from conservators, framing from framers, label writing from educators, acquisitions from their senior curators, donor relations from advancement, design from designers, etc... all on the job.   
 
I don't know much about educators or development or registration, because they aren't nor need to be art historians.  Curatorial and (if desired) directorships are the only museum jobs requiring one to be an art historian. Maybe there should be a separate museum studies sub forum in the Humanities? What every single museum studies book says isn't relevant to any of the jobs posted above except maybe the wonderful, whimsical Shelburne which I can see going to someone who has interned a lot and worked her/his/ze way up. But it's geographically less desirable and Tom Denenberg will I think have his hands full trying to get someone all the way up there for a term position. All the others will go to MAs or PhDs with varying levels of experience, but not a decade long slog as the curator and chief bottle washer at a house museum. The Arizona job is not art history and not curating strictly.
 
The OP's experience in fashion would be good training for a curatorial career.  There's a real art to exhibition design, and it's difficult to learn in grad school. Knowledge of color, texture, fabric, lighting all would come in handy. I would suggest as others did, to take some post-bac classes in art history until you are ready to apply for a straight MA or PhD (and know your heart is in art history and grad school).

My big take away from two stints at my small local museum is that I never want to work in a place where I have to build my own set pieces and do my own painting again, but I also learned how to install site-specific pieces, do lighting, write labels, and make a pretty cheese tray for opening night. It's valuable experience even if you think it's weird and not helpful at the time (artists, btw, should never be allowed to bring dirt and plants from their backyards into the gallery for their pieces because that's how you get ANTS).

I bought a sweater from my top choice school and have kept it hidden in my closet; nobody knows (but you guys) that I have it. The day I hear back from the school, I will either wear it if accepted or burn it if not. I keep having dreams about going around--sporting my new outfit, of course--to let everybody know about the A-MA-ZING news. I wish!

My recommendation:
 
Get some experience interning with an education department, or docenting! If you want to teach in a museum, you don't necessarily need a PhD at all. It's loads of fun, but it is best to know exactly what that's like ahead of time. The MA would suffice -- you could choose museum studies, or a contemporary/modern art history MA. I say that knowing museum educator, and a curator of education. One has her MA in museum studies, and the other in art history.  Check out the CAA programs guide to get a feel for if the museum studies programs are more or less appealing than the MA/PhD programs to you. Plenty of museum studies programs will allow you to work with contemporary/modern art and train you for museum work which is not curatorial focused. They also don't always have the language requirement, whereas art history almost always does. Definitely find internships, volunteer work, or even work a front desk job at a museum! 

Thanks so much!
 
As you can see, my GradCafe profile picture of Paul Revere II is from the MFA Boston. I have been just chomping at the bit, to return to the city, in mid-Spring! 

I did undergrad in Boston and moved to Boston from Maine.  I also left Boston two years ago, so unless anything has changed since....
 
Avoid living in Allston or Brighton at all costs.  These are student ghettos.  
 
Not sure about Allston, but you need a parking permit to park on Brighton streets.  In order to get a parking permit, you must provide proof of residency (copy of your lease) and proof of vehicle registration.  Your vehicle WILL get towed if you do not have a permit.  There is absolutely no overnight street parking in Brookline, just so you know.  A parking spot behind my building ran $165/month.  Tow trucks patrolled the lot a few times per day, seven days a week.  Guests will get towed unless they get a guest permit and park in the proper space.  
 
People in Boston love to double, and sometimes triple, park.  Often times directly in a traffic lane.  
 
If you did not take the time to shovel out a spot during the winter, do not park in an open spot even if it is not marked.  You will piss someone off and might find a nasty note at the least, or a flat tire at the most.  Shovel your space and "reserve" it with an old chair, trash can, etc.  
 
Housing:  the Back Bay, if I recall correctly, has officially banned college students.  Not sure if that extends to grad students, though.  The North End is trying hard to ban college students, too.  Too many noise complaints and general disrespect towards year-round residents. 
 
Free stuff:  The streets of Allston/Brighton become full of apartment stuff between August 1st and September 1st.  Mostly Ikea stuff.  You might be hesitant to grab that brand-new looking couch because of the bed bug issue, but practically every type of household item can be found.  Lamps, desks, dressers, tables, etc.  My entire apartment was furnished this, including the mint-condition couch (after careful inspection).  I kid you not: many college students move in at the end of summer, hit up Ikea, then get rid of everything when they go back home for the summer.  Repeat for four years. 
 
Other:  Boston has almost all but lost its blue collar image/neighborhoods.  Practically everything is divided between professional/yuppie/richie and undergrad college student.  
Boston is insanely expensive, and you do not get much for you money.
 
Boston does have a great public transportation system that is also not very great.  It is awesome in the sense that you can commute by public transportation to almost any destination you can think of within the Boston vicinity.  Some busses even run 24/7.  The downfall; none, zero, zilch, run on schedule.  The busses and the Greenline quite simply arrive when they arrive.  With the Greenline for example, you can wait for a half hour before a train comes in your direction, but you will see five or so pass in the opposite direction (they're supposed to run once every 10/15 minutes or so).  Or you can get three trains in a row.  Word of advice:  If you see a Greenline train approaching behind the train that just stopped at your stop, wait for the second train.  It will be a heckofalot less crowded as Bostonians seem to have a problem with waiting.  No matter how full the train is, no matter how much you think the car cannot carry anymore people, ten more people will get on.  Not try to board, but seriously, they will cram the fuck in.  Then you get to the next stop and think that no more people can get on....then ten more squeeze in.  Then that train breaks down because because it is carrying too much weight and causes a serious delay.  
 
Greenline tip #2:  Greenline trains will all-of-a-sudden go express if they are running too far behind schedule.  That means that they will all-of-a-sudden bypass many stops.  If you have your headphones on and did not hear the announcement....
 
Greenline tip #3:  Avoid the D line at all costs.  This is the line that ends at BC and runs past BU.  There are way to many stops in between and the train stops every 20-30 seconds because too many riders cannot be bothered to walk that "extra" 500 feet and most get off at the absolute closest stop to their destination.  And BU is an extremely long school.  If you ride the D line at night, it will be packed with drunk college kids....some of who are drinking and puking on the train.  
 
Greenline tip #4:  Just spend the extra ten minutes it takes to walk to the C line. Your trip will ultimately be a 1/2 hour faster....and less crowded.  
 
Greenline tip #5:  Catch the C train at least a 1/2 hour earlier than you would reasonably need to catch it in order to get to your destination on time.  The D line, an hour.  
 
I lived in Brighton.  Most students move in September 1st.  Most rentals go through a leasing agency, that is just how Boston does it wheather you are in college or not.  In order to get a September rental, you need to have a place locked down by June.  Seriously, get a place at least 3 months in advance as the closer to September it becomes the less units are available unless you can afford a $2000/month studio.  
 
I don't think anyone can truly comprehend the sheer number of college students who live in Boston.  Some estimates place it as high 400K.  I guarantee you that no landlord is desperate to get rid of units.  In fact, the opposite is true:  too many applicants for the same crappy apartment.  Landlords jack up the rent because they can. 
 
I would avoid Allston/Brighton all together, except I did get lucky in Brighton.  The "street" I lived on "only" rented to professionals and grad students.  Seeing as how I did not begin undergrad until I was 23, I was able to easily convince the landlord I was a grad student.  I still heard people partying most nights...loudly.  And there was that one person who must have been a music major of some sort....bagpipes and other instruments were heard at all times of the day and night.  

Hi All!
 
I decided to un-lurk and introduce myself. I am a 48 year old Senior in my final semester, and am majoring in American History and minoring in Museum Studies. I have been an antiques dealer, estate liquidator, personal property appraiser and an auctioneer for the past 20+ years. I love my work, but being self employed for the last 20 years has been stressful, and I would also love the opportunity to delve into the scholarly aspects of my field.
 
I am nervously waiting to hear from five programs that I have applied to. I have no idea where I may land, how I will swing it, or if I will get the job of my dreams; but, I am having a blast living out a true fantasy that I never thought I would be able to do!
 
Good luck to all of us "Old Timers"!!