solus

Tara, I appreciate it I am actually going to UCL for one year for art history then to FIT for 2 for the MA in Conservation, I have acceptances to both. I specifically want to do textile work, so the IFA only has limited classes for my concentration. For what I want to do I can really only go to FIT, University of Glasgow or Abegg in Switzerland. Some of the courses at the IFA made me think twice, but I really love what I do

If I were you I would make a list of the schools which have programs you like and email those that have both first and then those that are in close proximity to each other second. I want to do two degrees, Art History and Conservation. None of the schools I liked listed that as an option on their websites, but when I emailed and talked to members of the department all were willing to work with me and allow me to work on both degrees consecitively. Many of them were also willing to allow me to use classes from each program to waive others (ie allowing an art history class to count towards my art hsitory work as well as the art history requirement for the conservation, unless, of course, I wanted to take more classes). Some times there are matriculation if it is the same college or university (I had looked at enrolling in conservation at FIT and art history at Purchase, both SUNY schools), but they were willing to allow me to matriculate into one program while working towards both and then as soon as one program was completed matriculate me into the next and then let me finish whatever other classes I needed. I had emailed about 20 schools across the US and UK about this; each one was willing to allow me to work towards both degrees. I wouldnt worry about what schools allow accoridng to their general informaiton. I would go directly to the schools you are interested in. Many grad schools are actually quite flexible about meeting the students wishes/needs.

Im sorry to hear that... Shouldnt wanting to study art history simply for the love of it mean more than wanting the piece of paper for a sepcific career goal? I hope you get into a great program you can love!

I second a lot of what cleisthenes said; Barthes, Said, Foucault, Saussure and Derrida. I would also throw in Jacques Rancière's The Emancipated Spectator and, based on your interests, Ariella Azoullay'sThe Civil Contract of Photography. I havent really studied Latin America in depth, but I have studied Mesoamerican Art with Dr. Mark Van Stone. His main published works predate your interests (actually he stops at the Colonial Era, and is mainly a Mayanist but has an almost encyclopedic knowledge of Mesoamerica through current events and history), but a lot of his works give a good back story and explination of myths and symbols that are still relevant today. Im a huge fan of Reading the Maya Glyphs by Mark Van Stone and Michael Coe. It has quite a bit of history and explination of symbols in it as well as the glyphs themselves. Dr. Coe has written more books/papers/articles than I can list and all are quite interesting. This is well outside of my field and I cant put his books down.

Two things: Purchase College does not require the GRE. It is a great program for early-modern and forward and has a more curatorial emphasis so it would fit well with the museum studies path you would like to take. The second thing is that I had bronchitis when I took my GRE, but as I graduated in fall rather than spring and have to travel 4 hours to my closest testing center, there was no time to retake and meet deadlines. I scored barely over 300, but I did get a 5 on my written portion. I only applied to 6 programs because I know exactly what it is I want and would rather wait for the right program than take a spot at one which does not fit my needs. I was soooo sure I wouldnt be accepted anywhere because I didnt vary my options enough and didnt have the scores to get into the programs I want. So far Ive heard from 4 schools, all 4 were acceptances, one with funding even though I didnt ask for it. So, even with the worst possible GRE scores I would still apply and see where it gets you, you might be pleasantly surprised.

Ok, knowing even more, if it were me, I would choose Oxford. Even if Gandhi attended UCL's School of Law Seriously though, both schools have turned out many fine lawyers, but if you are thinking about a traditional field a traditional education might better serve your needs. It is not only about looking better to law schools, but about the contacts you will make outside your department and the opportunities available. UCL has a lot to offer and is also an old institution, but they are more modern, Oxford is more traditional, both have awesome benefits depending on your field, and in law tradition will get you much further. Haha, the location is the one thing I hate about UCL. The campus is lovely, and I do like London, but in small doses. Im from San Diego, but have been living in Nuremberg for 11 years now. I travel to London often, but I find the sheer mass of people and largeness of it to be a bit overwhelming after a few days. Im planning on living out of the city and commuting. I would almost prefer Oxford in that way. I wish I could just study while Im in university. Im glad that you dont have to make a decision based on whether or not you can work; a little part of me dies each time I hear about a student who got into the program they want and cant find funding or work while in school. I guess it is common for many top notch schools to frown on it. I dont mean to sound preachy, but I wish a great education could be open to anyone who could get in regardless of finances. Either way you decide to go I wish you the best of luck, and if you choose UCL Ill see you in class

Of course you can ask, and its simple: your interest. Both are excellent schools with excellent programs. When it comes down to it the courses at Oxford this year will better fit with your interests, and I am sure a wonderful advisor can be found at either school, even if it is not their main area of research. I have an issue with Oxford's attitude of not working; if students were incapable of working their rears off and still achieving greatness they wouldnt have been admitted to Oxford in the first place. I have been balancing two jobs to put myself through college, taken all of the supplemental courses required to train in textile conservation, as well as learning two languages, and I succeeded well enough that I have not been turned down by a school yet (though my hair has fallen out at midterm and final times lol). However, that, as I said before, is personal opinion. I dont like the idea that they only want students that can come with enough money to fund their studies and live in the UK ahead of time. I would literally have to work about 6 years in my current job before I could come up with those savings, and I am sure this is the same for many students. What matters here is the best program for you all politics and opinions aside. I did also say in my other post that for anything pre-1800 Oxford has more options, the faculty at UCL are amazing, but also highly specialized. You didnt state in your original posting what your specialization is and with that information I would seriously think about Oxford. I happen to like the more down to earth approach that UCL takes, but I suppose when you have been a great leader in education like Oxford has for as long as they have there are certain approaches that they are entitled to (and I mean that completely without sarcasm); they have earned the right to be overly selective. My area of concentration is Western Art 1850 - circa 1940, with a concentration in textiles and their depiction, especially with regards to the Silk Road and Orientalism. As such it makes sense that UCL would have more to offer me with two conservators on staff (Dr. Lange-Berndt and Dr. Richardson) and a module specifically on the East India Company, etc (Vision, Tourism, Imperialism with Dr. Eaton). Oddly, I will also be in Dr. Loh's course as they cancelled the Art as Theory: Writing as Art course, but horror art is a huge hobby of mine, so I figured one course purely for fun and to expand my horizons would be great. So I did actually choose a school that has fewer electives in my chosen specialization, but more possible tutors and courses that pique my interest. In short, I just meant to balance out my previous comment. With your interests I think both schools can lead you on equally exciting paths. I do think the electives would be more applicable to your field at Oxford, but I think UCL has a lot to offer as well. For me, UCL has it all; the right courses, mentors and down to earth attitude, but that might not be the same for everyone. If I wanted to study Antiquities I would hands down choose Oxford or Cambridge...

You should also look into Dr. Wright based on your area: http://www.ucl.ac.uk/art-history/about_us/academic_staff/dr_alison_wright Also, all of the professors you have listed are actually Early Modern specialists. At that point I would also look at the electives offered; UCL has mainly Early Modern and the only elective that would fit your specialty is Dr. Mills' Human and Nonhuman in Medieval Art for the 2013-14 school year. Oxford actually might be a better fit regardless of staff and reputation based on your interests.

Well, it really depends on your desired area. In my research process I ended up not even applying to Oxford, but I did to UCL (as it turns out this years QS rankings just came out and UCL is number 4 in the world, and Oxford is behind that, so all the advice I heard from mentors about not bothering with UK schools other than Oxbridge schools was useless lol) because they had staff and electives that support my long term research goals. Also, when I spoke with my POI at Oxford they explained that it is expected that we will not work and will devote our entire time to study alone and if the staff find out that we are working while in their program there might be consequences. I honestly would never have believed that if it didnt come directly from the mouth of a staff member. UCL takes a much more enlightened view and understands that some of us are not independantly wealthy. Bottom line is that if you want to study anything from antiquity through lets say the lat 1700's early 1800's then Oxford might have the better professors and electives, anything post early 1800's and the courses and professors are better at UCL, but thats just my opinion. On a side note, PM me if you do decide on UCL as I accepted their offer the day I got it

I'm a first time poster, but have been looking in on Grad Cafe for over a year as I prepped my applications (and for the GRE). I decided to jump in to share information about schools who have sent out their responses so some of you can stop worrying. Three weeks ago I heard from University College London (the same week Courtauld sent out their responses) for their first deadline MA History of Art course. This week I have heard from the MA Art History and Curating at University of Sussex, the MA Art History at Purchase College and the MS History of Art and Design at Pratt Institute. Good luck to everyone!! I hope the other responses come out soon, I'm a nervious wreck because of course the one I really want to hear from has not sent anything out yet...