Exceptional Applications

[Herbie]

"There is no formula."

 

After applying to MAs (if I recall, I was admitted to 5/7) and having a chat with my wonderful advisor, I would say that an "exceptional application" is primarily a strong statement of purpose, supportive letters of recommendation, and a solid academic record. 

 

So far, I've gone from a state college to a private university. I now how 2/4 admits with full funding in PhD programs. Since I chat with my advisor often, the general interest is a statement of purpose that compellingly frames your interests, methodologies and research experience and thematic resonances your work shares with POIs. 

 

I would also suggest prior contact, e-mail (or whatever) with a professor to toss out your general interests. If they have enough time, they'll briefly comment and give a degree of indication as to whether your interests can feasibly fit with the department.

 

There are so many cases: people who get in with perfect GREs, great GPA, great statement & there are individuals who get in with decent undergraduate grades, suitable GREs, but a damn awesome SOP and letters of rec. It's like applying for fellowships--- when someone is reading the only piece that makes you stand out as a human -- you want to grab their attention! But don't be too fluffy (re: embellishing). 

 

 

I do have to say that I approached SOPs differently for my PhD. You want to give them an indication of your dissertation direction, but not enough information where it seems you're determined to do one thing and maybe they cannot foresee wanting to work on that project. 

[BuddingScholar]

So far, I've gone from a state college to a private university. I now how 2/4 admits with full funding in PhD programs. Since I chat with my advisor often, the general interest is a statement of purpose that compellingly frames your interests, methodologies and research experience and thematic resonances your work shares with POIs. 

...

I do have to say that I approached SOPs differently for my PhD. You want to give them an indication of your dissertation direction, but not enough information where it seems you're determined to do one thing and maybe they cannot foresee wanting to work on that project. 

 

Chulianne:  You make some very interesting and important points here.  Last November, I exchanged a few emails with a potential POI and she basically told me the same thing.  Afraid of sounding stupid, I avoided asking what do they consider "too broad" or "too narrow" as research interest.  I did struggle with this question, and as a result, I am afraid I ended up being too broad.  Would you mind giving us a good example of what a "perfect" description of "interests, methodologies and thematic resonances..." looks like?

 

Other people are more than welcomed to contribute here also. Perhaps those who have already gone thru, and are done, with this may not mind sharing with us a phrase or two from their original SoP.  Pardon me if I am asking for too much.

 

[fullofpink]

It is, of course, a very dangerous and life-threatening thing to ignore the cannon.

Yes,  a cannon can knock your legs off! [The Patriot, anyone?] 

 

The canon, eh. It's ok. Sometimes it's fun to spruce things up! 

 

It's also very important for art historians to engage and disengage with the canon, as fit. 

[nodens]

So, exceptional applicant here. I'm an advanced graduate student who participated in both a terminal MA and a MA/PhD sequential program. I dropped by to see if my school had notified acceptances yet (usually means showing them around and getting free lunch) and saw this thread. I have to admit, there's a lot of ego and what I perceive as naiive hubris going on in this thread. Seems to me that quite a few of you are overthinking things or can't see the forest for the trees. Even applicants with publications and MAs in hand are babies. No one believes or cares that you will revolutionize the canon or even produce innovative research at this stage, or even in your first year or so. What many programs care about is that you're a good fit with a foundation capable of development and that you won't waste their time or money. As an advanced undergraduate, or even a MA candidate, you're a big fish in a small pond and sometimes ego can get in the way of looking at the application process simply.

 

If you're asking, "who the hell does nodens think she is," here's some self-vetting. I was accepted to both MA and PhD programs on my first round of applications. In each case I received funding, including from my MA institution which is not generally in the habit of funding MA students. I was accepted to state schools, a private and an Ivy. When I applied to PhD programs I was accepted to my first choice immediately with no tuition, six years of funding and health insurance. I have also applied to several fellowships and received them. At this point I consider myself an exceptional applicant when it comes to graduate work.

 

The most successful approach I found to applications was to treat them seriously as applications to entry level jobs and think about them like apprenticeships. When you consider them this way, the process becomes intuitive and less complicated. This is essentially the post I wish I had found when I applied to graduate school for the first time. I haven't listed my points in order of importance.

 

1. Don't perform abysmally on the GRE. That being said, doing so-so won't kill you. You're an art historian so you had better score highest in verbal and writing. I was in the 16th percentile of the quant section. No one cared. As for GPAs try and do the best you can. People with higher GREs than me didn't get in and some did. These particular issues are worth having your letter writers address if possible.

 

2. Pick your very best writing sample. If possible have a professor at your current institution (or past) look over it with full knowledge that it's part of a graduate school application. When I applied to my MA my writing sample did not cover a topic that fell within the purview of my subfield but it was my absolute best writing. In my experience the writing sample holds more weight if you are applying to PhDs. 

 

3. Get at least one letter of recommendation from someone important. Not just any old professor but someone with a respected name and, if possible, acquaintances at your school of interest. I realize that this isn't always possible and involves a good deal of networking. This has been a crucial element of my success. You want big deal people to think you are a big deal and tell others about you. Networking seems to be the most underrated part of graduate education among my peers and I still don't understand it. Like pretty much every other career, art history is as much who you know as what you know. 

 

4. Write a statement of purpose that explains why you are a good fit for your POI, the department and last but not least, the entire SCHOOL as a whole. This means doing serious research. Don't just talk to POIs. Read their work and fully understand their methodologies and arguments. Find links to your own interests or writing. You don't just want to say, "we are both interested in X." You want to demonstrate that this person's research is essential to your own. Your next step is to research other members of the department regardless of whether they're in your subfield or not. What are their interests and methodologies? How can they be useful to you in your graduate career? For example, if you're a classicist with an interest in say, phenomenology, then it's worth seeing if faculty in other concentrations like modern/contemporary are working in that mode even if your main POI is not. If your POI is too, then all the better. Finally, you should be able to speak to how the school in general has resources for you. Do departments encourage interdisciplinary work? Is there a collaborative program that you could make use of? When I applied to my MA institution  I made a big deal out of an interdisciplinary seminar track that encouraged global perspectives. I didn't end up working on globalism or exchange but my knowledge of the school's projects in a broad context helped in getting me accepted.

 

5. For god's sake come in with confident reading ability in another language. Reading ability in two is even better. Even those of you who work on mostly english-language material. In my first round I had reading ability in 3 languages all in heavy rotation in scholarship in my subfield. When I applied for my PhD I had reading ability in 4. I can't tell you how many of my peers I saw stumble over language exams in their first and second years. Coming in prepared makes you desirable.

 

6. Really make sure your POI isn't retiring or going on sabbatical. Seems like a no-brainer but you'd be surprised.

 

And that's my basic advice. How to behave once you're in graduate school is another kettle of fish. I can tell you that "rebelling" or "resisting" advisors and department chairs is exceptionally foolish. Of course think for yourself and make your own decisions, it's your life. But in art history jobs are scarce. You want everyone in your department going to bat for you. You want their approval in matters of funding, research support and career placement. Don't come in with a big ass ego and make enemies. I've seen way too much of that too.

[Herbie]

Chulianne:  You make some very interesting and important points here.  Last November, I exchanged a few emails with a potential POI and she basically told me the same thing.  Afraid of sounding stupid, I avoided asking what do they consider "too broad" or "too narrow" as research interest.  I did struggle with this question, and as a result, I am afraid I ended up being too broad.  Would you mind giving us a good example of what a "perfect" description of "interests, methodologies and thematic resonances..." looks like?

 

Before I give a very simple & general example, I do want to say that when you write your statement of purpose and want responses or something, really rely on one person. Too many hands in the pot ruins the dish, because everyone wants their own flavor. 

 

Mmm, so, I mean generally people approach SOPs as just statements. The purpose is important. So, when someone says something along the lines of: "I am interested in race and identity," that doesn't say anything. I mean, it alerts readers, but it doesn't answer that question of "why."

 

1) I am interested in race and identity in the field of the history of art. 

Boo! Bad sentence. It's fairly simple, but doesn't say why you are interested, what about race and identity interests you, and why the history of art.

 

2) I am interested in how race and identity affects the creative process of an artist because of -x-.

Very simple sentence, not jargony, is declarative and substantial.

 

So what I suppose is best is to avoid declarative sentences, vary your vocabulary, show your understanding about whatever major issues you expect to explore in your graduate studies... for the methodology, I mean you can indicate the interpretive tools you normally use: formalism, semiotics, critical theory, etc. You don't have to explain them, but relate how they have been advantageous to your studies.

 

I'm sorry I'm not providing sentences from my SOP. I remember buddying up with someone in person and finding it hard to alter my language after reading someone else's. 

 

 

 

 

Also, I have no clue what has happened to this Art History forum since 2011, but the quips, side-talking and accusations are so underhanded. I'm sorry that people who sincerely just want a support group have to scroll through petty arguments. (from other threads I've visited today in the forum). 

[Autonomista]

Funny how I always seem to agree with the person being down voted on these things, why is that? I agree with Prospectus and throughly enjoy her comments. To everyone else, most art history professors actually see problems with the field and want students who are going to change it. They want students who not only write and research well, but they want people who are going to critically question everything from the political economy to the injustices of the visual art industrial complex. Question these professors, the programs, the white person dominated art world, neoliberalism, race, class, gender, and language inequalities. Question how art history is recorded and written.

 

Why is there such a disproportionate number of white people applying to art history PhD programs in the US, Canada, and Europe? Does that have to with the fact the visual arts has historically been for whites? We are art historians, I bet someone can tell us why there are more women in art schools today and less female celebrity art star artists in the art world. Why is social practice full of a bunch of self-hating white bourgeois missionaries carrying out do-gooder projects in order to gain currency in the art world? Why do Hal Foster and Rosiland Krauss practice International Art English so much? Don't they know that it perpetuates the racial division and minority cliques within the visual arts? Who came up with the idea of art fairs and biennials and who really cares for them outside of being seen looking at art with... fill in the blank big shot?

 

You are going to get accepted if you question your world, the art world, and the institutions that influence the visual arts. You have to speak truth to power and question the present. .

 

HalFoster,

 

WOW!  This is the stuff of good art history and GREAT scholarship.  This is what programs should be looking for.  That school that you got rejected from (**I also got rejected too**) made the wrong decision.   I completely agree with everything you say in your post and shame on anyone for voting it down.  Museums are also full of white bourgeois missionaries carrying out their charitable work and I hope that the work of great art historians can expose this ridONKulous state of affairs.

[Herbie]

How can I make this a productive conversation?  TL;DR version at the bottom!

 

Why are more whites applying to programs? I'd say the best response to this is the simple fact that white people are generally still the 'majority' by ~70 percent. Should this matter? Well, that brings up a lot more issues regarding educational opportunity, funding, familial support, no more subsidized loans, school acceptance rates, etc. But should this matter for art history? Regardless of their class, I'm almost certain that there have been major moves towards being a more integrative field; pointing out the "problem" is so easy, figuring out a "solution" is not. And if museums are considered businesses, should we immediately assume that they have to cater to everyone? Well! Their educational programming certainly implies this, but how tenuous is it?

 

RE: Northwestern: the critical race/gender backbone of Northwestern's HAA department never once stood out to me as a "damn the white bourgeois at museums." In fact, I think they're asking the targeted questions about simply what demographics support the art world: there are plenty of non-"white" (quotes, because I'm tired of blanket statements) collectors who don't ever publicize their collection --- and when they do, you get a more democratic sense about art collecting and museum interests -- here's looking at all the work Driskell's done with the Cosby collection! Huey Copeland's discussion with Kobena and Eddie Chambers on Muse's database (Kobena's response is Art History and the Dialogics of Diaspora) rarely bring up this almost stodgy accusation of a "white world" and simply focus more on the terminology used to qualify good things in the art field. 

 

 Atlanta's done several grassroots "fairs/biennals" that've been tremendously attended by "non-whites." If you're looking for institutional fairs, well, the answer is self-evident -- and we know they don't do anything more than shift and show us the future current of art collecting tastes. Museum of Houston's doing amazing things -- so much money in Texas ya'll.

This is why I love the history of art so much. It's the "history" thing that really matters. No one is talking publicly about non-mainstream artists/collectives/symposia/conventions? Do you want specific people to, and who? Why? Why have AFAM colleges severed their colloquia previously offered on targeted art history talks? Is it because they now realize that targeted events don't reach the areas they want to argue against? Is it because of funding? A solid, archival and balanced interpretation of art as art at the time of speaking of art as art is such a wondrous task..... cue Winklemann background romance music.

 

Working at a museum, I have to say that institutional critique only gets so far sometimes (there's even an AH book about it! Alberro and Smithson!) because the curators have similar interests about the art history field. They have to deal with more bureaucracy since they work on the inside. It's unfortunate. Even x-targeted museums like the SMH or AFAM in Cali, or the Jewish Museum (the Jewish museum is AMAZING) deal with the tastemakers, the taste-wanters and the cynics. 

 

Actually, I am going to cut myself off now. Too long of a response.

 

 

 

 

TL;DR version:

 

You can question everything, but accusations will CERTAINLY only give you so many bridges to cross! I mean, you could be poor and angry and old, then die and people will find your posthumous work interesting pieces in a seminar.. here's looking at a good 60% of foundational critical theorists!

 

The end.