top ten PhD programs in art history according to you....

[pastette]

To those in the know (Condivi or anonymousbequest), what do you think about Penn, CUNY, Chicago and Northwestern? I'd be interested to get accounts of these schools from insiders. Of course sub-specialties matter (CUNY really now seems to be only a place for modernists.) What could you say about modernist offerings?

Edited March 1, 2015 by pastette

[Burr]

Can anyone offer insight into the rankings for Asian art--East Asian art to be specific? Thanks.

 

Not so sure about rankings, but you might want to take a look at South Asian art... and perhaps at this list of dissertations relating to Japanese/Korean art. It might give you an idea re: currently available advisors. After that, maybe cross-reference that info with the "Jobs at Grad" data at phds.org for a general "reputation" overview.

[condivi]

To those in the know (Condivi or anonymousbequest), what do you think about Penn, CUNY, Chicago and Northwestern? I'd be interested to get accounts of these schools from insiders. Of course sub-specialties matter (CUNY really now seems to be only a place for modernists.) What could you say about modernist offerings?

Well, I'm not a modernist, but all are pretty good schools. Overall, I'd say Chicago probably has the best reputation now, then Penn, Northwestern, and CUNY, but that does depend on subspecialty. Beyond that, a lot depends on where you want to be and how you like the dept and the profs. They're not the best of the best, but if you do very well at those schools--publish, write a great dissertation, etc--you should be OK.

[almonds120]

Well, I'm not a modernist, but all are pretty good schools. Overall, I'd say Chicago probably has the best reputation now, then Penn, Northwestern, and CUNY, but that does depend on subspecialty. Beyond that, a lot depends on where you want to be and how you like the dept and the profs. They're not the best of the best, but if you do very well at those schools--publish, write a great dissertation, etc--you should be OK.

you wouldn't consider Chicago the best of the best?

[condivi]

you wouldn't consider Chicago the best of the best?

I would consider it just below Columbia, Princeton, Harvard, Yale (in no particular order). It is one of the best programs, and gaining in reputation, but people with degrees with the schools I mentioned still dominate most of the country's AH departments. 

[anonymousbequest]

Agreed (not surprisingly) with condivi. Chicago and Hopkins are just below HYP, then there's a decently large second tier with Ivys like Brown and publics like Michigan, with some great options (if you can afford them) like CUNY.

[neongolden]

Agreed (not surprisingly) with condivi. Chicago and Hopkins are just below HYP, then there's a decently large second tier with Ivys like Brown and publics like Michigan, with some great options (if you can afford them) like CUNY.

 

Part of your remark speaks, by the way,  to an old perception of CUNY. Studying their used to be a huge financial problem, but they now offer full teaching fellowships to at least 7 of their ten PhD candidates.

See http://www.gc.cuny.edu/Page-Elements/Academics-Research-Centers-Initiatives/Doctoral-Programs/Art-History/Program#F&F

[GhostsBeforeBreakfast]

Actually, they cover full tuition for 10 students, seven of which get a $25,000 teaching fellowship tacked on. Since 2013 they've only accepted a maximum of of 10 students. I think they took eight last year. Of course, this isn't the end of your financial burdens. If you're not from New York, understanding how to afford housing may be a struggle for you and this is where a financial problems can come into play, especially if you're not offered the fellowship.

Edited March 2, 2015 by GhostsBeforeBreakfast

[MaytheSchwartzBeWithYou]

I'd like to add that while I'd prefer to get into a "top-tier" program as much as the next art historian (mostly because of bias - real or perceived - toward scholars from lower-tier schools), school rankings really AREN'T everything, particularly if specialists in your sub-field are few and far between. In such cases, working with someone who practices and publishes in your research expertise is just as important, if not more important, than attending a top-ten school.  Attempting to convince a POI your specific research interests will align with theirs when they really don't, just because you both happen to be modernists with marginally similar interests, will likely not get you into a PhD program.

 

Would I like to list Princeton or whatever on my resume? Sure, why not. However, I had a mostly excellent experience in my Masters program at a state school, and much of my publishing/awards/conference experience and skill-building was directly a result of my committee chair's expert guidance. A majority of the time, I was the only Masters student among PhD candidates. Rankings aren't everything.

[oh_la_la]

I've said this before on this forum, but the MOST IMPORTANT thing when it comes to getting a tenure-track job is the quality of your dissertation and the research profile that you have crafted for yourself.  I was recently on a search committee and we conducted interviews at CAA.  We interviewed candidates from Ivies whose research was not nearly as compelling/ground-breaking as candidates who came from institutions that would probably be considered "second tier."  So I contend that it simply does not matter all that much.  Write a dissertation that will be interesting to people inside AND outside of your field.  When we were going through the pile of applications for our tt job, we honestly did not care one bit where each candidate received their PhD.  FYI.  I work at a respected liberal arts college with an R1 profile. 

[anonymousbequest]

I've said this before on this forum, but the MOST IMPORTANT thing when it comes to getting a tenure-track job is the quality of your dissertation and the research profile that you have crafted for yourself.  I was recently on a search committee and we conducted interviews at CAA.  We interviewed candidates from Ivies whose research was not nearly as compelling/ground-breaking as candidates who came from institutions that would probably be considered "second tier."  So I contend that it simply does not matter all that much.  Write a dissertation that will be interesting to people inside AND outside of your field.  When we were going through the pile of applications for our tt job, we honestly did not care one bit where each candidate received their PhD.  FYI.  I work at a respected liberal arts college with an R1 profile. 

 Great advice, just do consider the resources you will need to write that brilliant dissertation. You need a great advisor/mentor, rigorous training, a supportive departmental culture with exciting faculty, encouragement to present your work at conferences where you can get feedback from others, and you need money. If your package offers funding through teaching and/or your department doesn't have a great track record with fellowships in your field (CASVA, Fulbright, etc...) it will be that much more difficult to maintain the momentum necessary for concentrated work on your dissertation. Discussion of late has emphasized job placement (as it should ultimately), but you should also consider outside fellowship placement in your calculus of whether a department is a "top ten" according to your needs. Many of the criteria listed above can be found at Ivies, but can also be found elsewhere. I was actually surprised when I looked at my own program just now, there are quite a few of us from schools we've been batting around as in the "10-20" and most are indeed among the younger faculty. I still contend that the path of an art historian now is horribly difficult with much less hope for any kind of successful outcome that just a decade ago, but if you must go be as forearmed as possible. 

[Gundohinus]

^^ Amen. It's exceedingly difficult to write that stellar dissertation if you are working extra jobs to make ends meet, if you cannot afford to travel to pursue or present your research, if your advisor has not published enough him/herself to give you sound advice about how to frame your work for a wider audience, and if you are not surrounded by a cohort of excellent, challenging young scholars to push you in creative ways. People can and do, of course, turn out great work in smaller/less famous environments, and sometimes (too often) people in the top-tier programs wind up feeling crippled by the pressure and dropping out. It's all really a matter of fit, and individual preferences. But in general there certainly is a strong correlation between institutional resources and quality/success of dissertations. 

[adynata]

"but I'd put Santa Barbara and UNC over Michigan and maybe Stanford right now. Rutgers, Maryland, and CUNY are still safeties but are what you make of them."

 

You are joking, right? In terms of faculty numbers, awards, citation numbers, impact and prestige of publications do you really think Santa Barbara and UNC are even remotely in the league of Michigan, Stanford and CUNY?  No disrespect, but just to call out some examples do you honestly think Cary Levine (who is an excellent scholar) attracts the same attention as Joselit/Bishop?  As wonderfully briliant as he is, Peter Sturman does not equal the critical mass of the *five* Asianists at Michigan (which just made a hire in Latin American now making it the third largest art history department in North America in terms of tenure-track faculty)? Or what of the Pam Lee/Nancy Troy/Richard Meyer triumvirate -- I have no doubt that those three alone probably attract more grad applicants per year than UCSB and UNC combined. Rutgers and Maryland have some really great up-and-coming faculty that would make it hard to call them safeties -- Rutgers got a record number of applications these past two years that had their acceptance rate at less than 10%.  I would hardly call that a safety.

[thankyoubasedgod]

For modern and contemporary art I would say that Stanford has the best programme (Pamela M. Lee, Richard Meyer, Alexander Nemerov and Nancy J. Troy). At worst it is second to Columbia (Alexander Alberro, Kellie Jones, Noam Elcott and Rosalind Krauss).

Edited March 4, 2015 by thankyoubasedgod

[anonymousbequest]

"but I'd put Santa Barbara and UNC over Michigan and maybe Stanford right now. Rutgers, Maryland, and CUNY are still safeties but are what you make of them."

 

You are joking, right? In terms of faculty numbers, awards, citation numbers, impact and prestige of publications do you really think Santa Barbara and UNC are even remotely in the league of Michigan, Stanford and CUNY?  No disrespect, but just to call out some examples do you honestly think Cary Levine (who is an excellent scholar) attracts the same attention as Joselit/Bishop?  As wonderfully briliant as he is, Peter Sturman does not equal the critical mass of the *five* Asianists at Michigan (which just made a hire in Latin American now making it the third largest art history department in North America in terms of tenure-track faculty)? Or what of the Pam Lee/Nancy Troy/Richard Meyer triumvirate -- I have no doubt that those three alone probably attract more grad applicants per year than UCSB and UNC combined. Rutgers and Maryland have some really great up-and-coming faculty that would make it hard to call them safeties -- Rutgers got a record number of applications these past two years that had their acceptance rate at less than 10%.  I would hardly call that a safety.

I think we are talking about different things here. First, touting a 10% acceptance rate seems like a very unsophisticated, US News and World Report way of ranking programs where differences in fit can be subtle and personal (the "according to you" portion of the title of this thread). 10% simply means that there were a greater number of applicants than spots, it is not a marker of quality. Let's take the acceptance rate argument over to Manhattan. The IFA had a 27% acceptance rate for 2013-14, 17 points more than Rutgers. However, the IFA takes a ton of "self-funding" MA students (100 in residence!), which skews their numbers. In nearly every other marker, including your and the NRC's statistical approach, they come out better than Rutgers. We've also seen a bump in applications due to the Great Recession and other societal factors, so I don't think more applicants correlates to better program either. I might hazard a guess that Rutgers has become attractive to more applicants because it has been less selective. I'm not trying to knock Rutgers or their faculty, as I said I think the program can be fine for some. 

 

And second, about your criteria. There is correlation between citations and awards and NRC-type rankings, but it would be interesting to see how that correlation translates to graduate success. I won't name names in a public forum, but as you undoubtedly know being an academic superstar and a good mentor who fosters long-term intellectual and professional success do not always go hand in hand. You mention at least one quite difficult advisor, for example. It seems to me that the point of this thread is to discuss different options for prospective applicants who are trying to chart the best course for themselves in a discipline where it is difficult to understand how all the players and the programs fit together. I don't think your method of looking at statistics is very helpful, after all that's how we got the controversial NRC rankings that started this discussion. But you and others might disagree and that's fine too.

[Blueberry_Muffin]

Would those in the know be willing to share their thoughts regarding the top programs for a student with a Ren/Bar focus? 

 

Also, on an unrelated side note, does anyone know anything about Bard's PhD program in decorative arts, design history, & material culture? I am kind of intrigued-- does it have a good reputation?

 

Thank you in advance! 

[poliscar]

I think some people are overestimating the impact of retirements at Berkeley. Yes, Clark/Wagner are gone, but part of the strength of the program comes from its interdisciplinarity. Outside of the very prominent scholars within the department, doctoral students at Berkeley have been able to work with (often as co-chairs) scholars like Judith Butler, Martin Jay, Wendy Brown, Pheng Cheah, Trinh T. Minh-ha, Linda Williams, Anton Kaes, etc. While the clout of T.J. Clark was very significant in getting Berkeley grads jobs, I would hazard to guess that committees stacked with other academic powerhouses also had something to do with hiring. Needless to say, this is still possible at Berkeley. You can bet that a job candidate who has worked with Julia Bryan-Wilson and Judith Butler, for example, will be very desirable. The same can be said about numerous other combinations, and considering that this is standard practice at Berkeley, I don't see them being any less of a powerhouse in the years to come. 

[neongolden]

Would those in the know be willing to share their thoughts regarding the top programs for a student with a Ren/Bar focus? 

 

Also, on an unrelated side note, does anyone know anything about Bard's PhD program in decorative arts, design history, & material culture? I am kind of intrigued-- does it have a good reputation?

 

Thank you in advance! 

 

I think it does have a pretty great reputation in the somewhat narrow field of design history. It's known to offer lots of opportunities for hands-on study of objects. Perhaps not unlike the NYU-IFA, which is not far away.

[suenana]

I'm not sure why there is so much missing information regarding UCLA art history PhD grads, but I just wanted to add to the mix that UCLA has been doing quite well with job placement. There are UCLA art history PhDs now teaching at University of Minnesota (x2), University of Oregon (x2), Emory, Northeastern University, University of Houston, Pepperdine, Loyola Marymount, MICA, Alfred University, Clemson U, San Francisco State U, Santa Clara U, UT Arlington, UNC Charlotte, Carleton College, and ETH Zurich. And there are UCLA grad curators at the Hirschhorn, the Studio Museum, LACMA (x2), and the Dallas Museum of Art. I'm sure there are others out there, but those are the folks who immediately come to mind.

[Giverny]

The Art History Newsletter no longer exists, which means that the simple, online NRC rankings list is no longer available.  The fully scored rankings are available on the Chronicle of Higher Education's website (http://chronicle.com/article/NRC-Rankings-Overview-History/124737/), and the easy AHN list can be found through Archive.org (https://web.archive.org/web/20120516074401/http://arthistorynewsletter.com/blog/?p=5204).  I hope this is helpful!

Edited August 10, 2015 by Giverny

[aglaea]

On 3/8/2015 at 3:40 PM, poliscar said:

I think some people are overestimating the impact of retirements at Berkeley. Yes, Clark/Wagner are gone, but part of the strength of the program comes from its interdisciplinarity. Outside of the very prominent scholars within the department, doctoral students at Berkeley have been able to work with (often as co-chairs) scholars like Judith Butler, Martin Jay, Wendy Brown, Pheng Cheah, Trinh T. Minh-ha, Linda Williams, Anton Kaes, etc. While the clout of T.J. Clark was very significant in getting Berkeley grads jobs, I would hazard to guess that committees stacked with other academic powerhouses also had something to do with hiring. Needless to say, this is still possible at Berkeley. You can bet that a job candidate who has worked with Julia Bryan-Wilson and Judith Butler, for example, will be very desirable. The same can be said about numerous other combinations, and considering that this is standard practice at Berkeley, I don't see them being any less of a powerhouse in the years to come. 

Yeah right, if they'll work with you! These superstar professors have so many advisees already that they reject advising requests all the time. Also, Linda Williams has retired and is not accepting any students. 

When they do agree to work with you, they have little bandwidth for actual advising, and try to slow the students down. Several of these are notorious for drawing out the qualifying exam and prospectus processes for years, such that their students are in their 5th or 6th year before they begin writing their dissertations!

[betsy303]

I would say this list is relatively reasonable. https://web.archive.org/web/20120516074401/http://arthistorynewsletter.com/blog/?p=5204 However, as the astute poster above remarked, I would probably change the 10-20 grouping a tad. Places like UW-Madison, Michigan and Stanford, also have some fairly top notch history and English departments, PACKED with eminent scholars. For that reason (along with some newbies at some of those places), I'd place them above a place like Santa Barbara (so sad what is going on with the UC funding situation). Granted, this assumes they are willing to take on new students, participate in advising committees, etc. CUNY and Stanford also have some rockstars in 20th century. I wish there was something divided into sub-specialities-- i.e 20th century, places dealing with visual culture/visual studies, middle ages, etc. 

[Joan Callamezzo]

5 hours ago, betsy303 said:

I would say this list is relatively reasonable. https://web.archive.org/web/20120516074401/http://arthistorynewsletter.com/blog/?p=5204 However, as the astute poster above remarked, I would probably change the 10-20 grouping a tad. Places like UW-Madison, Michigan and Stanford, also have some fairly top notch history and English departments, PACKED with eminent scholars. For that reason (along with some newbies at some of those places), I'd place them above a place like Santa Barbara (so sad what is going on with the UC funding situation). Granted, this assumes they are willing to take on new students, participate in advising committees, etc. CUNY and Stanford also have some rockstars in 20th century. I wish there was something divided into sub-specialities-- i.e 20th century, places dealing with visual culture/visual studies, middle ages, etc. 

IMO that list is pretty dated, plus Harvard is way too low and Berkeley is way too high. The fact that Berkeley always comes out on top of this lists makes me really question what kind of matrix they are using. Berkeley has great placement, but a very precarious funding situation, that is not competitive with Harvard, Yale, Columbia or IFA. 

[aartsy5050]

If its any help, my undergrad advisor said in terms of a more holistic department: first comes the big ivies (i.e Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Columbia), then the almost ivies and Penn (NYU, Berkeley, Chicago, Stanford, Duke, MIT, Northwestern), then public ivies (Berkley, UCLA Michigan, Wisconsin, Chapel Hill), then a few other places like CUNY or Bryn Mawr. He said to be aware though of the precarious UC funding situation, especially at a place like the newer programs of UCSC or even UC Santa Barbara. Granted this doesn't take into methodological or specific specialities within these programs. Also, it appears some of these programs will be taking on big rounds of retirements within the decade. Likewise, some (perhaps most notably at the "public ivies" seem to be hiring some new up and comers). Just that I would pass it along.

Edited December 23, 2015 by aartsy5050

[pedestal]

On 3/4/2015 at 10:27 AM, anonymousbequest said:

I think we are talking about different things here. First, touting a 10% acceptance rate seems like a very unsophisticated, US News and World Report way of ranking programs where differences in fit can be subtle and personal (the "according to you" portion of the title of this thread). 10% simply means that there were a greater number of applicants than spots, it is not a marker of quality. Let's take the acceptance rate argument over to Manhattan. The IFA had a 27% acceptance rate for 2013-14, 17 points more than Rutgers. However, the IFA takes a ton of "self-funding" MA students (100 in residence!), which skews their numbers. In nearly every other marker, including your and the NRC's statistical approach, they come out better than Rutgers. We've also seen a bump in applications due to the Great Recession and other societal factors, so I don't think more applicants correlates to better program either. I might hazard a guess that Rutgers has become attractive to more applicants because it has been less selective. I'm not trying to knock Rutgers or their faculty, as I said I think the program can be fine for some. 

 

And second, about your criteria. There is correlation between citations and awards and NRC-type rankings, but it would be interesting to see how that correlation translates to graduate success. I won't name names in a public forum, but as you undoubtedly know being an academic superstar and a good mentor who fosters long-term intellectual and professional success do not always go hand in hand. You mention at least one quite difficult advisor, for example. It seems to me that the point of this thread is to discuss different options for prospective applicants who are trying to chart the best course for themselves in a discipline where it is difficult to understand how all the players and the programs fit together. I don't think your method of looking at statistics is very helpful, after all that's how we got the controversial NRC rankings that started this discussion. But you and others might disagree and that's fine too.

Hopkins doesn't seem to come up often in top 10 posts. Is that just because it's small? What do people think about this program? How would you compare it to Northwestern, NYU, Chicago, Stanford? A wide range, admittedly.