solus
-
Posts
10 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by solus
-
-
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.
-
Why must there always be an undercurrent of pretentiousness and contempt in some of these posts? People come here for advice and camaraderie. Is it really necessary to make a jab at someone just because they express an opinion with which you disagree? I've worked in museums for more than 18 years, and the first thing you learn is the value of diplomacy and tact. Good luck successfully navigating that environment until you master those skills.
As for the OP: I have a BA in art history and have worked in three major art museums since graduation. I decided to apply for a terminal master's, even if that meant paying for it myself. I'm fortunate to have the means to do so, and I want it that bad. I've been reluctant to apply until now, because based on my experience working in academia (I also work frequently with scholars outside of museums), I wasn't sure that art history programs would be interested in someone like me. Even though I have a wealth of experience and have worked with some of the greatest scholars in the field, I'm not interested in becoming a professor. I'm just passionate about the study of art history, and I want to expand on that knowledge, as I think it would benefit my long-term career goals in an art museum. Many of my colleagues, curators and professors alike, encouraged me to apply in any case. My GRE scores were good, my recs were outstanding, my writing samples were great, my experience should have been a bonus. However, I was rejected from three of the four programs to which I applied (I'm waiting to hear from the fourth). I suspect that art history programs, even terminal master's programs, aren't interested in someone who has no plans to pursue a PhD (short-sighted in my opinion, as not all of us working in the field want to be professors or curators). I'm sure there are more than a few regulars on these boards who'd be happy to correct me if I'm wrong. I don't want to discourage you from pursuing your dream. (I've long wanted to pursue a master's in art history myself.) However, I think it's a good thing to be realistic about your options/expectations. I knew what I was getting into when I applied, but I was hopeful that at least one program would find me attractive based on my experience, etc.
I was accepted into many an arts administration program, but I'd rather spend my time and money studying art history. I suggest that you look into other programs like museums studies, etc. That might lead you in an unexpected direction.
As for children, I personally don't have any; however, you wouldn't be the first person with kids to go back to grad school. Don't let that stop you from going for it. Getting accepted into a program is the hard part. After that, who cares what the faculty thinks about your personal life.
I hated the GREs, too. I did fabulously on the Verbal and Writing sections, and OK on the Math (surprise). In my opinion, standardized tests are meaningless as a gauge for academic potential; however, they are necessary for most programs. If you do decide to apply to art history programs, they'll most likely be looking at your Verbal and Writing scores. I'd study extra hard for those sections and make sure you meet the requirements of the program to which you are applying. A lot of them specifically state minimums. BTW, I'm finding it difficult to understand the correlation, as stated above, between GRE performance and scholarly study. Really? Seems like a stretch to me, especially if the rest of your application (i.e., writing samples) demonstrates an ability to research, write, think critically. I don't see how GRE scores can convey something like that.
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.
-
Thank you for your extensive explanation. It really helps a lot to have another person's opinion!
My department here seems quite divided on which path I should take. I intend to eventually work in the field of Art Law (entering law school following my masters and, perhaps, doctoral programme(s) in History of Art). My intention is to, at either school, write an interdisciplinary dissertation incorporating art/legal theory (hence why I did not apply to Courtauld). From that perspective, Oxford would probably look better to law schools. However, I don't want to decide purely based on that.
I agree that UCL's atmosphere is are wonderful and my department has a longstanding relationship with it. Also, the location cannot be beat. However, I do feel like I may be a slightly better fit for Oxford academically. I have previously studied at Cambridge, so I know the Oxbridge system well...
While I entirely understand your beliefs regarding Oxford's no-work rules, I do not plan to work while completing my graduate studies. As such, those rules have not been a consideration for me. As long as I receive even partial funding from some source or another, I'll be able to handle the costs.
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
-
If I attend UCL I would be taking Dr. Mills' Human and Nonhuman in Medieval Art and Dr. Loh's Early Modern Horror. Conversely, at Oxford I would be in Dr. Johnson's module, Women, Art and Culture in Early Modern Europe. Their electives all cover European 15-17th century art. Thank you for your advice. Mind if you to elaborate on why you changed your opinion?
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...
-
My speciality at both departments would be European late medieval/ renaissance (UCL - Dr. Mills, Dr. Loh v. Oxford - Dr. Johnson). As such, the strength of the contemporary art faculty is great, but not directly significant to me. Could you go into more detail relating to the "reputation of the faculty" please? Thanks!
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...
Phd + MFA?
in Art History
Posted
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 