Equivalent Experience / Preparing to Apply

[adjunctlifer]

Hi all!

I'm new here, but have definitely looked around a bit, and didn't see an answer to this question. I'm hoping to apply to Art History PhD programs in the coming 2-ish years, and have a question regarding applications. I keep seeing that programs will take candidates with MA's or "equivalent experience."

I already have a masters, but it is in studio art (an MFA), so I don't have an MA and I'd rather transition directly to a doctorate program than get another masters (and I can't afford to go back to school unless I am fully funded). So, I'm spending the next year or two trying to beef up my experience so that I can be a strong candidate to A) get into a PhD program and B) be fully funded. My question is regarding what would be seen as equivalent experience, and what sort of jobs and experiences I should focus on in order to build that experience.

As a bit of a background, I am currently teaching as an adjunct. I'm teaching art history, and I love it, but I know that I won't ever be able to get a full time job teaching art history with an MFA, and I'm exhausted by the adjunct rat race. I've taught a courses over the last few years at local colleges and universities in studio art, as well as in visual studies/art appreciation and a survey art history course, too. I've also worked in a major art museum for the last four years or so, but my position is part time and not impressive on paper. So in some ways, even though I lack the requisite course work, I feel prepared. BUT I am worried that this won't read on an application the way that it feels in real life.

Given that I am early in my research process and haven't really decided on a research topic yet , I have time to try to beef up my experience. Any advice on what might help?

[Artgirl87]

Honestly, it sounds like you have more experience than most people going into a PhD program—don't forget a significant number come straight out of BAs and get into top programs—so I wouldn't worry about that. 

While it would be premature to lock-down a "research topic," it would be advantageous for you to establish an area of study that you are passionate about, and publish or present papers in that space. This will help you build something of an academic identity, which (most crucially) is legible on paper. 

Good luck. 

[killerbunny]

I agree with @Artgirl87—you've got the (extracurricular) goods. Now for the most important part: writing a great sample and devising an enticing/relevant research project/topic that shows where you situate yourself in art historiography and how you plan to advance it. Two-ish years should be just enough time to come up with both. The sooner you decide your interest and begin reading voraciously in that area while keeping an annotated bibliography in advance of writing an eye-catching sample, the better you stand to get a funded spot in a PhD. A piece of advice for much further down the line after you have found faculty you want to work with, look at the guidelines for the writing samples with plenty of time to think about how to make the best use of the page limit, which varies considerably from school to school. 

[adjunctlifer]

Thank you so much for the replies. I guess I'm worried because I have essentially no art history courses on my transcripts - maybe 7, for both degrees? And, that definitely does not include a survey course. I also took zero language courses, and only a few writing courses (the attitude of my advisors in graduate school was that I already knew how to write, so I didn't need to spend time on that). So, as far as my transcripts are concerned, I'd probably have trouble even getting into a MA program. I'm a bit worried, especially because I know that the entire world will be looking at the economy in the next few years and deciding to go back to school.

My other issue is that, living in the crazy-expensive Northeast, I don't have an excessive amount of free time after I make certain that my bills are paid, and definitely not any extra money at all, so the idea of taking extra courses to beef up my transcripts just isn't a possibility. I've been learning French mostly on my own, and am currently taking courses at my local Alliance Francaise at the B1 level, so I'm hoping that helps fill gaps too.

I also know how broken US academia is because I'm involved. I got my first adjunct art history position because a course needed to be filled fast, and then all the others because of the first. So I'm also aware that my experience is built on shaky ground, and I want to try to stabilize that ground before entering into a doctorate program. But I'm also suspicious about the admissions process after working admissions events at one of the colleges I taught at (decisions seemed so random). So I want to make sure I'm aligned as well as utterly possible.

As far as publications - do you think that only those in peer-reviewed journals would count? Or do you think other journals (online and in print) would help show experience as well? I don't have the former yet, only the latter.

 

[killerbunny]

2 hours ago, adjunctlifer said:

Thank you so much for the replies. I guess I'm worried because I have essentially no art history courses on my transcripts - maybe 7, for both degrees? And, that definitely does not include a survey course. I also took zero language courses, and only a few writing courses (the attitude of my advisors in graduate school was that I already knew how to write, so I didn't need to spend time on that). So, as far as my transcripts are concerned, I'd probably have trouble even getting into a MA program. I'm a bit worried, especially because I know that the entire world will be looking at the economy in the next few years and deciding to go back to school.

My other issue is that, living in the crazy-expensive Northeast, I don't have an excessive amount of free time after I make certain that my bills are paid, and definitely not any extra money at all, so the idea of taking extra courses to beef up my transcripts just isn't a possibility. I've been learning French mostly on my own, and am currently taking courses at my local Alliance Francaise at the B1 level, so I'm hoping that helps fill gaps too.

I also know how broken US academia is because I'm involved. I got my first adjunct art history position because a course needed to be filled fast, and then all the others because of the first. So I'm also aware that my experience is built on shaky ground, and I want to try to stabilize that ground before entering into a doctorate program. But I'm also suspicious about the admissions process after working admissions events at one of the colleges I taught at (decisions seemed so random). So I want to make sure I'm aligned as well as utterly possible.

As far as publications - do you think that only those in peer-reviewed journals would count? Or do you think other journals (online and in print) would help show experience as well? I don't have the former yet, only the latter.

 

You are 100% correct in your concerns about the competitiveness of upcoming application cycles and the viability of a career in academia. What do you want exactly from a PhD in art history? To leave adjuncting for a more secure, sustainable career, a tenure track teaching job is probably the most pie in the sky solution out there. Is there any way to leverage your current education and experience to get a better position (if that's what you're after) that does not involve going to school for 5–7 years? This is not to discourage, but knowing what you want out of going this route is necessary; you need a purpose to make it through the admissions gauntlet and to convince admissions committees of the specificity of your goals. 

I wouldn't be worried about your transcripts. Seven art history courses is fine (unless I'm misinterpreting what you wrote and you don't have art history on your transcripts). Every graduate program is different in what they expect and some are reasonable about relaxing their requirements when an applicant has a lot of job-related experience with art history. My concern would be getting recommendation letters from people whose opinion of you as a scholar will convince the admissions folk. But maybe you could get a couple of former professors and someone from the museum you work at, or a permanent instructor in a department you've adjuncted for? Is there a way to do a research project at the museum that could be turned into a writing sample? 

I think the best way to find out how well aligned you are is to pinpoint your research interest(s), start on a project, and then reach out to professors who interest you, introducing yourself and (briefly) explaining your background and interests, to see whether they're encouraging or not. They might take the time to let you know if you need to work on beefing up a certain area of your profile. Better yet, is there anyone with whom you have an association from your schooling or teaching that can provide you more personalized insight into your prospects? 

 

[adjunctlifer]

8 hours ago, killerbunny said:

What do you want exactly from a PhD in art history? To leave adjuncting for a more secure, sustainable career, a tenure track teaching job is probably the most pie in the sky solution out there. Is there any way to leverage your current education and experience to get a better position (if that's what you're after) that does not involve going to school for 5–7 years? This is not to discourage, but knowing what you want out of going this route is necessary; you need a purpose to make it through the admissions gauntlet and to convince admissions committees of the specificity of your goals. 

I want a more sustainable career, yes. But I also want the dedicated time to learn and research without the noise of everyday life. I know that there is noise in grad school, and a million different things pulling you in a million different directions, but it's also a luxury of time to think and study, and I miss that and I want it. There are definitely other career paths, and other pathways to get to the end goal, but I also would need to do so much backtracking and extra work to make myself competitive, and a doctorate would jump start that for me. And frankly, a fully-funded doctorate program would probably pay more annually than what I'm making now.

 

8 hours ago, killerbunny said:

My concern would be getting recommendation letters from people whose opinion of you as a scholar will convince the admissions folk. But maybe you could get a couple of former professors and someone from the museum you work at, or a permanent instructor in a department you've adjuncted for?

I know that this would be possible; it would just take a little bit of relationship building, which is doable, just difficult in the work-from-home-era.

I also know that the first step is to think more on my research and project proposals. I have a general field of expertise, but need to narrow my focus and think about methodologies, for sure.

[killerbunny]

10 hours ago, adjunctlifer said:

I want a more sustainable career, yes. But I also want the dedicated time to learn and research without the noise of everyday life. I know that there is noise in grad school, and a million different things pulling you in a million different directions, but it's also a luxury of time to think and study, and I miss that and I want it. There are definitely other career paths, and other pathways to get to the end goal, but I also would need to do so much backtracking and extra work to make myself competitive, and a doctorate would jump start that for me. And frankly, a fully-funded doctorate program would probably pay more annually than what I'm making now.

I hear you on all of this and very much share the same motivations. After a series of editorial and publishing jobs, the stipend of a PhD with decent funding isn't too much of a pay cut for me. I wish you the best of luck and look forward to hearing updates on your progress. 

[adjunctlifer]

Thanks, @killerbunny. I'm totally bogged down with progress and ideas - feeling that overwhelm of looking at a huge process, and needing to break it down into smaller steps in order to actually make it happen.