In your opinion, what are the specialties/stereotypes of various art history departments in the US?

[kleo]

As interviews and decisions come rolling in (at least in the US/UK), I would love to have a stronger overview of what particular programs are really known for, in terms of specialty, approach, and culture.

Though one way to do this is to meticulously research the focus of the faculty, I'm also interested in informally crowdsourcing from this community regarding the various specialties and strengths/weaknesses of given departments, as well as particularities, quirks, or green/red flags. As we know, there isn't a centralized, up-to-date system for info on art history grad programs (no?), but it would be interesting to build an informal atlas of what programs are known for. 

Some of us are international students who might not have the strongest overview of US academic culture, while others are already enrolled somewhere here, so I'm really curious about what you all think..

For example, through the grapevine, on this chat, and from friends, I've heard...

IFA NYU has an in with the Met, so that's a good place to go if you want connections there

Columbia is very intense and competitive, profs are hands-off (?)

I've heard that CWRU is also geared toward training curators, but there are some less-than-ideal departmental dynamics (heard that from browsing here).

Yale is interdisciplinary in character and aims to train both curators and future faculty

Kansas is unbelievably good for East Asian Art; Minnesota is the same for South Asian Art History

The Cal schools have all had funding problems that don't match cost of living (still true?)

Stanford's program is geared much more toward modern/contemporary and film studies and only wants interdisciplinary scholars

 

Happy to be contradicted on any of these, and would love to hear what else you've heard.