Post Baccalaureate in Art History? Or Dive right in...?

[Cimabue]

   Hello,

 

   This may sound silly but I am a graduating Senior for my undergrad and within the past year, due to a travel course, I am positive I want to continue my studies in Art History.  The problem is I have only taken one Art History class (granted it was onsite in Italy and France) and I'm not sure if I have the necessary background to apply directly for a MA in Art History.

   I am considering applying to Post-Bac programs to fill in the basics I may not have.  Does that seem practical? Or do you all think I would be wasting money?

  As of now I am earning a BA in an unique Great Books program similar to Thomas Aquinas College.

 

Any thoughts?

 

 

 

Edited May 18, 2013 by Cimabue

[condivi]

I think your education makes you well suited to apply directly to an MA program. A strong background in history, literature and philosophy is almost more important, I think, for practicing art history at the grad level than an undergraduate major in the subject (Svetlana Alpers says something similar in an interview in the latest Art Bulletin). In your personal statement, emphasize how much you have, in fact, learned about art history insides and outside the classroom and, just as importantly, how your other studies bear on your new interests and enrich your scholarly perspective as an art historian. If your writing sample shows you know what you're doing, and you have good grades, you should have no problems. 

[condivi]

which is also to say, by the way, read as much as you can in art history this summer! 

[Seeking]

Depends upon where you are applying and how strongly you can relate your Grad Studies interests to what you are studying now.

 

Some schools still prefer that you have at least 15-18 credits i Art History before you apply for Grad School. If you can spare the time and money, filling in the courses in Art History will make your application only stronger.

[TaraGreen89]

I don't really think you need to invest the time and money involved in getting a Post-Bac. Most colleges and universities will allow community members to take classes for credit. And if you're worried about programs not being willing to take a look at your transcript w/out more art history credits to your name, most universities (that I know of) will let you take grad. level courses for credit (with instructor permisssion)so you could do that as well, and even get a bit of a jump start on your eventual masters in Art History.

[fullofpink]

I think having a post-bac will make you a much stronger candidate for art history graduate work - and although the suggestion of doing coursework as a graduate is valid, it will honestly slow you down during your studies and it will cost a lot more to complete coursework at the grad level cost than it will if you are participating as an undergraduate (At my institution, if you are a graduate student and you take undergraduate classes, you are still paying it at graduate level price, which is roughly 3x more than undergraduate credit price).

 

Your graduate studies for a MA should be: 1) finish the coursework you need to specialize in, 2) complete your qualifying exams, 3) write your thesis. You shouldn't add a fourth step to a 2-year commitment in trying to add another year (18-24 credits=1-2 semesters of full art history) of art history knowledge to such a tight schedule. 

 

And while your one class out in the field is pretty impressive, I'm not sure how well it has endowed you with methodological/research skills for writing art history or a really wide-range of art history understanding that will help you succeed in your qualifying exams. 

 

In short: getting the experience and knowledge before proceeding any further and really confirming that this field is for you will produce not only a stronger application but will also provide you the skills that will make you not only a stronger candidate but also a stronger student. 

[gaguilar]

I also have similar doubts.  I'm a philosophy major with a low gpa from my undergrad.  So I'm filling in the gaps with art history courses from FIT and CUNY schools and volunteer work in NYC to strengthen my application. My goal is 5 art history courses and 2 language courses before 2014. I am considering Courtauld for their postbacc program as a backup, in case I dont get into my choice schools.   But I would prefer to go straight into an MA program.

[JosephineB]

Unless your undergrad record is STELLAR (as in Phi Beta Kappa, university-wide writing awards, 2 foreign languages, etc..)you will probably not be admitted to any top or mid-ranked programs with only one art history course. It isn't necessary to have a literal "major" in art history to be admitted to a grad program, but one class will not cut it. When I started my MA there were two people in my cohort with <5 art history classes and they were at a HUGE disadvantage. Despite their obvious intelligence they just did not have the background and could not keep up. 

 

Take some more classes and decide if this is really what you to do, and then apply in a year or two. 

[condivi]

Unless your undergrad record is STELLAR (as in Phi Beta Kappa, university-wide writing awards, 2 foreign languages, etc..)you will probably not be admitted to any top or mid-ranked programs with only one art history course. It isn't necessary to have a literal "major" in art history to be admitted to a grad program, but one class will not cut it. When I started my MA there were two people in my cohort with <5 art history classes and they were at a HUGE disadvantage. Despite their obvious intelligence they just did not have the background and could not keep up. 

 

Take some more classes and decide if this is really what you to do, and then apply in a year or two. 

Hmmm...maybe. I was admitted to a few top-10 MA/PhD programs with only 4 art history classes and only a BA. There were some slight disadvantages at first to not having a major in the subject, but you catch up quick when you have to. I guess the question is, how defined are your research interests, and how much do they have to do with your other coursework. If, for instance, you want to study Italian Renaissance art, and have only taken one class in the subject but have taken others in classical and Renaissance history/literature/philosophy, you'll be more than fine. If, however, you discovered an entirely new interest during your one AH course, and your record isn't really stellar, it would be advisable to take some more courses.

Edited May 22, 2013 by condivi

[poliscar]

I think people are really, really, really overstating the importance of Art History coursework, and I agree with condivi. More often than not, students are accepted to doctoral programs in Art History with BAs in Literature, History, etc. To argue that Art Historical methodology is so radically distinct from that of other fields in the humanities that one would have trouble moving between said fields, is realistically quite stupid. Obviously there's a definite Art Historical "canon" (Alberti through Gombrich, etc), but I would guess that the near majority of sources used in Art History are sources found outside of the "field." Most "Theory," for example, is based in and around literature programs.

 

Also, as a side note neither Hal Foster, nor T.J. Clark or Julia Bryan-Wilson has a B.A. in Art History. You're looking at History and Literature degrees in all three cases, and they're top-notch in their subfields. I'd assume the same would apply to other subfields, with undergrad degrees ranging from Women's and Gender Studies to Medieval Studies. 

 

Don't worry about your undergraduate degree. If you have done well, have language capabilities (French, German, Italian, etc), and have a good, field-related writing sample, you're fine. Don't do a Post-Bacc; apply to MA programs, and potentially PhD programs if you feel comfortable enough.  
 

Edited May 23, 2013 by poliscar

[JosephineB]

I think people are really, really, really overstating the importance of Art History coursework, and I agree with condivi. More often than not, students are accepted to doctoral programs in Art History with BAs in Literature, History, etc. To argue that Art Historical methodology is so radically distinct from that of other fields in the humanities that one would have trouble moving between said fields, is realistically quite stupid. Obviously there's a definite Art Historical "canon" (Alberti through Gombrich, etc), but I would guess that the near majority of sources used in Art History are sources found outside of the "field." Most "Theory," for example, is based in and around literature programs.

 

Also, as a side note neither Hal Foster, nor T.J. Clark or Julia Bryan-Wilson has a B.A. in Art History. You're looking at History and Literature degrees in all three cases, and they're top-notch in their subfields. I'd assume the same would apply to other subfields, with undergrad degrees ranging from Women's and Gender Studies to Medieval Studies. 

 

Don't worry about your undergraduate degree. If you have done well, have language capabilities (French, German, Italian, etc), and have a good, field-related writing sample, you're fine. Don't do a Post-Bacc; apply to MA programs, and potentially PhD programs if you feel comfortable enough.  

 

Yes but the reality is that many schools will not even LOOK at your application if you don't meet their minimum requirement for # of art history courses taken or western/non-western distribution. 

 

Here is the problem I see:

 

OP fell in love with art history after taking one class as a part of a study abroad program. Studying art in situ is amazing and life affirming, but it makes up <1% of what I do as an art historian. The other 99% of my time is spent reading hundreds and hundreds of pages for seminars that usually have noting to do with my area of interest, grading HORRIBLE undergraduate papers and exams, translating latin/german/french/greek, writing response papers, etc. For every hour of work I get to do on my own research, I have probably spent three on unrelated busy work. OP liked the one class s/he took, but until s/he takes more classes s/he will not know if s/he is ready to commit to the less glamorous aspects of art history that are the realities of the discipline. 

Edited May 24, 2013 by JosephineB

[poliscar]

Yes but the reality is that many schools will not even LOOK at your application if you don't meet their minimum requirement for # of art history courses taken or western/non-western distribution. 

 

Here is the problem I see:

 

OP fell in love with art history after taking one class as a part of a study abroad program. Studying art in situ is amazing and life affirming, but it makes up <1% of what I do as an art historian. The other 99% of my time is spent reading hundreds and hundreds of pages for seminars that usually have noting to do with my area of interest, grading HORRIBLE undergraduate papers and exams, translating latin/german/french/greek, writing response papers, etc. For every hour of work I get to do on my own research, I have probably spent three on unrelated busy work. OP liked the one class s/he took, but until s/he takes more classes s/he will not know if s/he is ready to commit to the less glamorous aspects of art history that are the realities of the discipline. 

You'll have to name schools, because as far as I've seen Harvard's line of thinking is pretty standard. 

"A college major in art history is a desirable but not necessary prerequisite to admission to graduate study here. The department welcomes students who have received sound training in other branches of the humanities or other disciplines, or who have engaged in practical work in museums and galleries."

Furthermore, the realities you name are realities of graduate study in general. It's a bit belittling for you to act as though the OP's interest is frivolous or lacking rigour because it's based on a study abroad experience. I think most people are fully aware that they aren't going to spend the majority of a graduate degree waltzing around Paris or Florence, whether the degree is in Art History or History or Literature. 

 

[fullofpink]

You'll have to name schools, because as far as I've seen Harvard's line of thinking is pretty standard. 

 

 

Temple - 5 art history courses  (MA) 

Udel - degree in Art History or wide range of areas across the field 

Rutgers - 6 art history courses (MA) 

NYU-IFA - 4 art history courses (PhD) 

Northwestern - Breadth and sophistication of art historical training 

CUNY - 12 credits in Art history (MA/PhD)

 

Also, TJ Clark entered the field during the late 60s/70s when Art History was first emerging as a significant field in academia, not to mention when Marxist methodology was also becoming a hot new trend as well - naturally he'd bloom. Hal Foster received his degree in English and then worked for ArtForum for a number of years before entering grad school. Julia Bryan-Wilson entered the field during the mid-90s, right before the influx of graduate school applications balloonin - in the 80s and 90s, AH departments were larger and the application pool was smaller. Today, almost all graduate admission pages will say that out of an application pool of 200, only 5 or so are admitted: that's about a 2.5% chance of getting in. 

 

Honestly, I believe the best advice to administer is prepare yourself as best you can. If you aren't feeling completely confident in your understanding of art history, back it up with more study because it doesn't hurt. 

[condivi]

Temple - 5 art history courses  (MA) 

Udel - degree in Art History or wide range of areas across the field 

Rutgers - 6 art history courses (MA) 

NYU-IFA - 4 art history courses (PhD) 

Northwestern - Breadth and sophistication of art historical training 

CUNY - 12 credits in Art history (MA/PhD)

 

Also, TJ Clark entered the field during the late 60s/70s when Art History was first emerging as a significant field in academia, not to mention when Marxist methodology was also becoming a hot new trend as well - naturally he'd bloom. Hal Foster received his degree in English and then worked for ArtForum for a number of years before entering grad school. Julia Bryan-Wilson entered the field during the mid-90s, right before the influx of graduate school applications balloonin - in the 80s and 90s, AH departments were larger and the application pool was smaller. Today, almost all graduate admission pages will say that out of an application pool of 200, only 5 or so are admitted: that's about a 2.5% chance of getting in. 

 

Honestly, I believe the best advice to administer is prepare yourself as best you can. If you aren't feeling completely confident in your understanding of art history, back it up with more study because it doesn't hurt. 

It's interesting that the really top schools--Columbia, Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Berkeley, Chicago (ICA excepted, though four courses isn't very many)--seem to emphasize number of courses less than some of these other schools (which I'm *not* saying aren't very good). What I think it comes down to, and what Harvard is getting at, is: does the student have something interesting to say about art; is their mind agile and creative; do they have a sound understanding of the historical and theoretical issues around their interests? These things can be gained, and demonstrated, from plenty of sources beside the number of art history classes taken (which, as Josephine B notes, "usually have nothing to do with my area of interest"). Also, we're talking about a Master's program here: part of the point of enrolling in one is to get more experience before applying to an MA/PhD program, isn't it? Otherwise, why not apply directly to an MA/PhD program? None of us knows how much Cimabue knows about his/her research interests or what his/her  academic record is like--these are what matter in the end; the rest are contingent factors and vary from student to student.

Edited May 24, 2013 by condivi

[condivi]

Also, I dare say that if someone as smart as TJ Clark or Julia Bryan-Wilson were applying to grad programs in AH today, they'd probably still get into a top program!

[JosephineB]

It's interesting that the really top schools--Columbia, Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Berkeley, Chicago (ICA excepted, though four courses isn't very many)--seem to emphasize number of courses less than some of these other schools (which I'm *not* saying aren't very good). 

Yes but go to Harvard's website (under the "News") section and read the bios of the incoming students. 6/9 of the incoming class were art/architectural history majors in undergrad, one was studio art. In 2010 8/9 were (the 9th person does not list her major). 

 

Those top schools also do not have master's programs. The schools fullofpink mentioned do. The schools that require ~5 courses. 

 

No one is saying that you need to be an art history major to get into a top grad school/be successful in AH. I am saying however, that you need more than one class. 

Edited May 25, 2013 by JosephineB

[em-dash]

Hi! How exciting. I think it depends on your goals and what programs you are considering -- most of the MA programs I looked at required at least 3 art history courses. I was not an art history major in undergrad, so I invested in a few courses at the local university and did everything I could to be a stellar student (within reason -- I was also working two jobs). Not only did I get a better foundation for my MA program, I gained a few more mentors who really helped me through the application process. I feel like it was worth it -- but everyone's situation is different. I wouldn't let your transcript keep you from applying -- just keep in mind you'll likely be competing against other folks with very strong backgrounds in the subject.

[flower!]

Hi Cimabue! Congratulations on graduating from undergrad.

I completed a year of postbac courses in art history after completing a BFA with 24 credits in art history. My thinking was that I didn't have the academic background to apply to MA programs with a BFA and it seems like you are coming from a more academic background.

I was told that one of the most important aspects of the application is your ability to build an argument in your writing sample—when thinking about taking postbac classes you might want to look seriously at your writing ability and maybe have someone look over papers that might be potential writing samples. If they're not up to par postbac could be a good idea—this was one of my main motivations for enrolling in postbac classes.

Also if you do enroll in a postbac program make sure to take courses that could result in a recommendation letter or paper you could use as a writing sample. Try to take multiple courses with the same professor so they can get to know you and write about you.

I valued my time as a postbac student. As long as you work hard and get good grades it can only strengthen your application.

Good luck!

[Shelley Burian]

I would be less worried for an MA program, in fact many people who don't have strong backgrounds in art history but wish to continue do a terminal masters program before moving on to a PhD or use to see if further study is right for them. From what I've seen it would perhaps be more of an issue if you were applying to track PhD programs since those programs tend to have more applicants and are a bit more leery of applicants with minimal experience in art history.