Some insight into getting into a PhD program

[EllieOfAquitaine]

Hello all,

I applied to five programs this fall/winter (a mix of MAs and PhD). My end goal is to be a curator (for the glory and wealth obviously ). I have some strikes against me:

1. My UG degrees are in History and English with a minor in Biology

2. I have spent the last 3 years working in software development

3. I have had very little formal art history experience--all of my academic scholarship was in medieval history

Thus far I have gotten into U Chicago's MA for Humanities and Rutgers art history MA program. I was rejected from U Chicago, NYU and UW's PhD programs (I don't blame them in the slightest). I am waiting to hear back from Tufts and UW's museology program.

As PhDs are basically mandatory for any sort of curator work, I was wondering what the best course of action would be for me to take in regards to my school choices. I also realize I am at an extreme disadvantage as I do not have an UG degree in AH. While I know U Chicago has a great reputation, I am hesitant to go there as it is only a year. If I did go there, I would essentially be applying to schools again next fall and I am not sure a year at Chicago will make all that much of a difference for my application. (Or maybe it will?)

If I go to Rutgers, I'd be doing the standard masters. I am under the impression that Rutgers is not as highly ranked as U Chicago (am I wrong?)

I also had a question about museology programs in general. Would getting a masters in Museology help in gaining admittance to a PhD program? Financially, it's the cheapest option for me (assuming I get in). The program is great about getting people internships at local museums. I could also tailor my studies to be art history based.

Any guidance would be GREATLY appreciated

Also, as a side note, I learned about my admission to Rutgers by checking the site. I then got a short letter saying that I got in. I haven't heard anything about funding, the program, etc. That strikes me as rather odd. Has anyone else had this experience?

[Whippet]

If you search the boards for Chicago MAPH, you'll come across some discussion on it. The basic impression I've gotten is that it's a cash cow for the university and some professors do not view the program favorably. That said, UC boasts that a huge percentage of MAPH students go onto PhD programs. Chicago is an incredible city, and while Hyde Park is a little isolated and surrounded by not so great areas, it's a beautiful campus and you'd have access to incredible resources.

I'm not familiar with Rutgers, but with its proximity to NYC, I'm sure they have plenty of connections with the museums there. Doesn't hurt to ask before you commit.

I'm currently attending grad school for Museum Studies. It's definitely not for those who want to be curators and I think any program would be honest about that. Most curatorial positions at large museums (even assistants nowadays, heck, even some internships I've seen) are requiring at least a MA in a specialized field and proficiency in at least one foreign language. Smaller museums (and typically non-art) will accept a variety of related, advanced degrees, but these positions usually require you to have significant museum experience.

While I did not look at UW's program, I will say most Museum Studies programs are very generalized. Now if you had applied to joint programs for Art History/Museum Studies, then that would be different and I think would be comparable to other Art History programs. I believe UW-Madison may have a program like this and I know UDenver has an MA in Anthropology with a concentration in Museum Studies.

[aojumper]

I was in a similar situation. Not an AH major, but wanting to be in the field. I got into a terminal MA program at a good, though not elite, school. I graduated at the top of my class and built my resume extensively during the program. Have gotten one acceptance to an excellent PhD program at a private university in the northeast (don't want to be too specific here!). I am waiting to hear from 3 more schools, but regardless, I'm on my way to the PhD. So it can be done.

I would advise the full MA program - not museum studies. Was told - hearsay, here - that PhD schools (and even many art museums/curatorial depts) could care less about museum studies degrees b/c they are general and administrative in their focus. PhD programs want the best AH undergrad majors, or someone who'd done well in the terminal AH masters; I'm sure there are exceptions of people coming from other disciplines.

Also, by doing the MA, you will know quickly whether this is a field you want to continue in. During my program, several people dropped out during the course of it, because the work was rigorous and they found that they weren't as passionate about art history as they thought. A few MA-level papers/theses will do that to you! Also, I worked my tail off playing catch up in the MA program, since my peers came into the program with a much better foundation in the discipline. I did a lot of extra reading to establish background information regarding the most mundane and obvious art historical topics that would come up.

Lastly, I'd disagree with your assessment of Rutgers. I think it's a very respectable school, and if you excelled there, I would expect you to be a solid PhD candidate. Just my opinion. Good luck!

Edited March 17, 2012 by aojumper

[EllieOfAquitaine]

Thanks so much for the feedback!

So I have been reading up on people's take of the Chicago MAPH. It seems like the sort of environment you either really like or absolutely hate. Also the phrase "cash-cow for the university" repeatedly came up in people's posts. I don't particularly relish the idea of being a cash cow for someone else.

With that in mind, I have been weighing the pros and cons of both schools. Given that I do not have a formal background in art history, I would like to use my masters as an opportunity to really establish a strong background in art history (it sounds like aojumper did just that, so it can be done! ). I am currently leaning towards Rutgers as it seems like it would allow me to build more a foundation in art history. I'd love to hear from others who came into art history as non art history undergrads (as well as anyone with experience in the museum/curator track).

[OnceAndFutureGrad]

Hi EllieOfAquitaine. It sounds like we have some things in common. Forgive me for making this anecdotal, but I promise to explain. I got my BA in history and medieval studies with a cert in Irish studies (year abroad), and then my MA in medieval studies with an art history major. While I've done a lot of difficult work I've actually only taken 5 undergrad and 4 grad courses in art history, 3 of which were not medieval.

Nonetheless, I'm beginning a PhD on a four-year university fellowship this fall. I did not pay for my masters - the medieval studies department was an offshoot of English, so we all had plenty of work teaching first-year comp, whatever our major. But it made every difference in distinguishing me from other applicants, I believe, and certainly got my feet very wet in graduate-level work. Learning the lingo, presenting at conferences, seeing up-to-the-minute trends in scholarship, and enjoying graduate-level interaction with professors all greatly improved my ability to convey myself in person and on paper to my potential schools. I was able to acknowledge my risks (poor foundation knowledge) and balance them with my benefits (graduate-level work experience, broader background than most, interdisciplinary knowledge, etc.).

I think it is very wise that you want to use your masters to establish your base in art history, and having the opportunity to do so - even at a cost - is far better than going two steps backwards and taking undergraduate courses to sort of throw on another major post-graduation (if such a thing is even possible). It's about the trajectory of your studies rather than the solidity of your coursework, and if my experience is anything to show, having an atypical path may be a benefit - at worst, it's not uncommon.

A student who has cast their net wide and come down onto a discipline after several years of work in other fields is going to be more sure of it, in my opinion, than most students who graduated high school with a major in mind.

[Eggleston]

As someone who did their undergrad at UChicago, and having been in some mixed ug/grad classes and solely grad classes alongside MAPH students, I can definitely vouch for the quality of the coursework and interactions with professors that you'll experience if you come here and take full advantage of what the program has to offer. My impression has been that some of the philosophy department faculty don't view MAPH and its students as favorably, but that certainly isn't the case in the art history department. You begin conceptualizing your thesis as early as the end of fall quarter (which ends in December), and from there it's a fast track to completing it, under the guidance of both faculty and current PhD students who act as your preceptors. The program is ideal for people who didn't have much undergrad coursework in their intended area of PhD study, and want to build a solid foundation to switch fields.

As for whether it would "make a big difference for your application," having MAPH on your CV could serve as affirmation to other peer institutions that you have what it takes to do rigorous grad level art history work even without an undergrad major, and at a fast pace. Recent art history department 'rankings' (whatever they're worth to you) have placed UChicago in the top 3 programs in the nation. Also, what is your concentration within art history? Are you probably going to continue with medieval? Aden Kumler, the medievalist in the art history department, is awesome and teaches some really exciting grad seminars.

That said, you are very right to bring up the fact that if you choose UChicago MAPH (which is only a year), you'd only be about a third through the program by the time you'd be submitting PhD applications for 2013-2014. It's possible, but not ideal, and even "discouraged" according to this page on the program's website. I have a friend who has also been accepted to MAPH for this year (for Anthropology, switching from Philosophy in undergrad) and she's certain that she's applying to PhDs this fall. So it's definitely possible, just maybe not what most people would advise you to do. You start your MAPH Core 2 weeks before UofC's fall quarter even begins, so in early to mid-September- which would give you some time to develop relationships with professors early if you 1) really hit the ground running and 2) choose your fall classes very carefully.

I don't know much about Rutgers but it sounds like a very solid program, and the fact that you'd be there for 2 years might really appeal to your desire to take a tad more time before applying to PhDs. Given that you haven't had much art history coursework yet, just as you brought up in your latest ^ post, it also might be really beneficial to take classes across a wide spectrum of media/time periods, etc. just in case you end up becoming really excited about a subject and shift your area of focus. And of course, you can't beat the proximity to New York.

All in all, I suppose that however much I love UChicago and tell people to come here , I'd probably go with Rutgers in this case because the 2 year length of the program plays into your desire to "really establish a strong background in art history." The art history classes I've taken at Chicago have been outstanding, but Rutgers would give you a lot more time to hone your specific interests, which would be good to eventually showcase in your PhD applications.

[losemygrip]

As the grizzled veteran around here, let me ask: what makes you think you want to be a curator? You don't mention any actual experience with art. What's your background in art?

If you were admitted to the Rutgers MA in art history, good for you. Given your lack of an art history background, that's a credit to you. However, by that same token, why are you jumping into grad school in art history without really having any background in it? How do you know you'll like it?

I probably would have advised you to take undergrad art history courses for a year before graduate school. This would have improved your chances for graduate admission as well as given you a chance to make sure you liked it.

That said, assuming you are successful with an art history MA at Rutgers, that will be a good stepping stone for you. There are several arts administration masters programs that are good--I've had a student be very successful out of Seton Hall with an MA in arts administration. She was offered 2 jobs in Manhattan (one at MoMA) as she was graduating, but they were entry level, so she couldn't afford it. Still, considering the huge numbers of people dying for museum jobs in NYC, I thought that was impressive and said a lot for the program (and her).

I understand Delaware is now offering a curatorial track PhD. That might be an option after Rutgers. But in any case, I'd say you need to get some real experience in the field before you proceed too far with this.

[anonymousbequest]

Losemygrip makes some excellent points, to which I will only add a couple of thoughts.

If Rutgers admitted you for the MA, it does suggest that they think you can do the work, which is good. I'd probably recommend going there, and then applying for the PhD there and other places. All things being equal, you are looking at two most likely unfunded offers, but 2 years to gain an understanding of art history may be better than one intensive year. Rutgers is a fine school with some excellent professors, but it can get overshadowed by the more prestigious names in its neighborhood. I wouldn't worry so much about the reputation of the school right now. Museums also tend to be more of a meritocracy than academia, because they don't need to attract paying undergraduates or shore up US News rankings with statistics of how many of their staff went to Ivies.

It is important that before you broadcast your desire to be a curator to your POI or department you find out whether curatorial work is an option they think is worth pursuing. A number of programs and professors discourage students from becoming curators, because if their goal is to replicate themselves curators are infertile. This is changing but be careful.

Best of luck.