PhD in Art History or... MFA in Creative Writing?

[everran]

Hello friends,

 

I have begun applying to Art History PhD programs well beyond the first ten, as given here: http://arthistorynewsletter.com/blog/?p=5204. I am sorely worried about hiring potential.

 

I read somewhere on GC, If you're not admitted to a Top Ten program, don't go!

 

Here's my problem! It's possible for me to do an MFA in Creative Writing (poetry).   Does anyone have a hunch which degree would fare better on the job market? If I took this route, I suspect my chances of being admitted to a more prestigious school are higher....

 

Thanks for your opinions!

[Dr. Old Bill]

I can't speak to the Art History Ph.D., but I can tell you from literally scores of professors and fellow poets that the MFA is all but worthless when it comes to the job market. They're rarely funded, and are offered by a large number of institutions. So in theory, so long as your material is solid, you could probably find an MFA program that would admit you. But when you come out of it, your job prospects are going to be almost exactly the same as they were when you went in. Honestly, the best way to gauge this is to simply pull up a bunch of colleges at random -- community colleges, state colleges, low-level liberal art colleges etc. -- and see how many professors there are teaching with just an MFA. Or I could just save you the time and tell you: not many.

 

Having said all of that, I seriously have no idea about the marketability of a Ph.D. in Art History. It be statistically just as useless as an MFA. Having said that, if there are fully funded Ph.D. programs you could conceivably get into, then you've at least got a few years of income on the path to a doctoral degree. And if it's a true passion of yours, then it might just be worthwhile.

 

For what it's worth (perhaps not much), I'm a fairly "successful" poet, if success as a poet means having a bevy of publication credits, a few poems anthologized, poems solicited, Pushcart Prize noms etc. Almost all of my "success" (again, it's such a strange term for this discipline) came before I even started working on a BA, let alone having an MFA in hand. Oh, and after getting my Ph.D. in English, I'm hoping (perhaps even expecting) to teach creative writing some day. I just plan on taking as many creative writing courses as possible during my program. Some English Ph.D. programs are more amenable to this than others, but again...if you look at creative writing professors at the good colleges, you'll see almost all of them have a Ph.D. Sometimes an MFA too, but usually not just an MFA.

 

Hope some of this is helpful.

[everran]

Thanks for your thoughtful reply, Wyatt.

 

What if I were to get an MFA prior to the PhD? Would that make any sense? Waiting a few more years (i.e., whilst in the MFA program) might help me to better prepare for the doctoral application process. 

[Dr. Old Bill]

I'm normally tempted to say that no education is useless education...and indeed, if you're planning on spending a life doing a lot of writing, getting the experience of formalized workshopping and structured feedback etc. can probably be very valuable on that front. However, I'm honestly not sure whether or not an MFA will be at all helpful to your chances at getting into a Ph.D. program. It's entirely possible that I'm misinformed, but the sense I get (for good or ill) is that MFAs are generally not seen as academic degrees as such. They're sort of in a category of their own. Since there's typically no (or not much) academic research or writing required in the process of obtaining an MFA, there's very little interplay between the graduate work of an MFA vs. an MA or Ph.D.

 

Literally all of this comes down to your expectations of the respective degrees, however. There are some excellent reasons to pursue an MFA. Usually those reasons include improving one's writing in a structured environment, or having access to, and discourse with, successful authors (and burgeoning authors) in their own right. But if you're going in to an MFA program thinking that it will improve your chances of getting into a Ph.D. program, you'll probably want to do some more research and talk to more professors before you commit to that path. I can only tell you what I've heard, gleaned, and observed, and that's that an MFA doesn't hold a lot of academic / scholarly value. But as the saying goes, your mileage may vary.

[queennight]

Hello friends,

 

I have begun applying to Art History PhD programs well beyond the first ten, as given here: http://arthistorynewsletter.com/blog/?p=5204. I am sorely worried about hiring potential.

 

I read somewhere on GC, If you're not admitted to a Top Ten program, don't go!

 

Here's my problem! It's possible for me to do an MFA in Creative Writing (poetry).   Does anyone have a hunch which degree would fare better on the job market? If I took this route, I suspect my chances of being admitted to a more prestigious school are higher....

 

Thanks for your opinions!

 

Also another note - both a Ph.D. in Art History or an MFA in Poetry are incredibly niched environments. (I say this with deep empathy, as I'm interested in doing a Ph.D. in English Literature, which is also often attacked as an art.) You have to ask yourself the question of what you are willing to put up with - if you can see yourself moving from town to town as a lowly adjunct (nothing wrong with that, it's just an incredibly difficult life bordering on the poverty line, but I have a lot of respect for individuals who manage to pull through it - that's pure passion) then go ahead and try for the Art History Ph.D.; yet I'm not certain that an MFA in poetry would necessarily even place you at a level where you would instantly get a job. Most creative writing professors have been published for years after working as authors in their area - if you check out most creative writing programs, take a look at the professors and see what their qualifications are.

 

I have a lot of sympathy, as I'm going through the exact same struggle right now with English Literature; I simply don't know if it's worth it to complete a Ph.D. if I didn't get into a strong program. My back-up is in a completely different discipline (I also applied to Law schools) - it might be worthwhile taking a few days to consider what other issues/topics/potential work interests you. An MFA, as Wyatt wrote, is a great idea for someone who is interested in being a poet/author - but isn't necessarily the go-to program for somebody looking for a job. It simply provides the environment necessary to really sit down and finish your work. Especially if you are interested in poetry, it is incredibly risky to assume that you will be hired afterwards (let's be honest - fewer and fewer people outside of academia nowadays read up and coming poets).

 

That being said, the market is so insane for humanities hires, that you always could get lucky. Here's a link to Miami University's Assistant Professor posting for a Creative Writing specialist: http://www.scholarlyhires.com/Search/Job/4016-3?utm_source=Indeed&utm_medium=cpc&utm_campaign=Indeed . It's a tough call to make, and I wish you all the best of luck!

 

Here's some more links for MFA jobs (from a simple google search that I quickly did), hope that it can help: http://www.indeed.com/q-Mfa-Writing-jobs.html

[lyonessrampant]

I don't have a lot to add other than to say that there are funded MFA programs, and if you do the MFA, you should do a fully or at least mostly funded program.  The MFA program at my university is fully funded (tuition + stipend + health insurance) and you TA lit and creative writing, teach composition, and teach a stand-alone course in your area (poetry, fiction, or non-fiction).  I've heard (and again who knows how accurate this is) that top English programs who tend to prefer to accept people without MA (i.e. direct from BA) do like the MFA as a way for a potential student to develop writing without getting too stuck in a particular methodology or theoretical stance.  I remember back when I was applying that the student profiles of schools like Harvard, WashU, and Brown showed very few with MA degrees but quite a few (still not a majority, though) with the MFA degree, particularly from places that fund their MFA students.  However, this is the lit route.  I'm guessing you mean an arts MFA.  I don't know much about that approach. 
 

As for Art History, I've met several art historians at conferences from schools like UNC, Duke, and NYU who aren't getting jobs.  There aren't many art history jobs and the competition for them is pretty fierce; I think it is even statistically more fierce than English, for example.  If what you want to do is curate at a museum, you might want to do museum studies programs instead.  Much better employment statistics and you could still do research on art.

[ProfLorax]

Also another note - both a Ph.D. in Art History or an MFA in Poetry are incredibly niched environments. 

I want to take up this really important note and go into a different direction. The MFA and the PhD are radically different degrees. While research and scholarship are often tangentially related to the MFA (mostly through required coursework), the core focus is on practicing and producing art. Conversely, research and scholarship are the core of a PhD program, though I argue that creativity can certainly be a part of scholarship. Look at the curriculums of the two programs: which is more appealing? Do you want to write a 300+ page dissertation on Art History, advancing a claim that no one else has? Do you mind spending five (or more) years attaining a degree? Do you not hate the idea of comprehensive exams? If yes, a PhD is the way to go. However, if the idea of writing and reading poetry all day and workshopping excites you way more than spending years in archives or museums or art collections, then perhaps an MFA is better suited for you. 

[qwer7890]

From queennight: "...if you can see yourself moving from town to town as a lowly adjunct (nothing wrong with that, it's just an incredibly difficult life bordering on the poverty line, but I have a lot of respect for individuals who manage to pull through it - that's pure passion) then go ahead and try for the Art History Ph.D..."

 

As an art history PhD candidate... I'm not so sure where this impression that job prospects with a PhD in art history are all that different from job prospects with a Ph.D. in English Lit. If anything... because people with PhDs in art history often siphon off into two viable career tracks that involve rigorous research and in-depth scholarship (curatorial and academic) there are more options.

 

From lyonessrampant: "if what you want to do is curate at a museum, you might want to do museum studies programs instead.  Much better employment statistics and you could still do research on art."

 

This isn't the case at all -- for major curatorial jobs, especially outside of contemporary art, a PhD in art history is pretty much a prerequisite these days. And even for curatorial positions in contemporary art, an MA in Art History from a rigorous program like Williams, Bard, or Tufts is necessary. An MA in museum studies won't cut it. 

[qwer7890]

I should add quickly... when I say "An MA in museum studies won't cut it." I mean, an MA in museum studies won't cut it for curatorial positions at major museums.  There are plenty of positions within museums that involve lots of rewarding research and engagement with art objects for which an MA in museum studies is the appropriate degree.

[mikers86]

Yay generalizations!

 

If you are seriously considering the MFA, then I urge you to find a program that is funded and allows you to actually TEACH courses, either FYW or Creative Writing classes. They do exist and make you more "marketable" on the academic market. Again, no guarantee of a non-contingent position, but having that teaching background can potentially open up more opportunities. I'm not sure getting the MFA prior to applying to Art History PhD programs is super helpful, either. Depending on length of the MFA program, that delays your time working on the doctorate, which can be quite lengthy depending on the individual. Say 2 years for the MFA, and maybe 5-6 for the PhD? I'd say if preparedness is a concern, see if you can take a grad class in Art History at an institution and use that as a stepping stone.

 

As for the Top Ten statement, there is no guarantee someone from a Top Ten will get the job over someone who doesn't have a doctorate from those programs. Do those top programs give you a slight advantage in earlier rounds? Possibly. But it's all about what each individual job committee is looking for in a new hire, which may or may not be a graduate of those elite institutions.

 

If job security/hiring potential is what you're after, then perhaps neither an MFA or PhD in Art History is right for you. Neither degree explicitly fares better on the academic market because demand for each is different in any given year, and Alt-Ac positions also vary widely.

[queennight]

From queennight: "...if you can see yourself moving from town to town as a lowly adjunct (nothing wrong with that, it's just an incredibly difficult life bordering on the poverty line, but I have a lot of respect for individuals who manage to pull through it - that's pure passion) then go ahead and try for the Art History Ph.D..."

 

As an art history PhD candidate... I'm not so sure where this impression that job prospects with a PhD in art history are all that different from job prospects with a Ph.D. in English Lit. If anything... because people with PhDs in art history often siphon off into two viable career tracks that involve rigorous research and in-depth scholarship (curatorial and academic) there are more options.

 

From lyonessrampant: "if what you want to do is curate at a museum, you might want to do museum studies programs instead.  Much better employment statistics and you could still do research on art."

 

This isn't the case at all -- for major curatorial jobs, especially outside of contemporary art, a PhD in art history is pretty much a prerequisite these days. And even for curatorial positions in contemporary art, an MA in Art History from a rigorous program like Williams, Bard, or Tufts is necessary. An MA in museum studies won't cut it. 

Sorry - I don't know if I was clear enough. Whether you do a PhD in art history or english lit and are aiming for an academic job, there's a high potential for spending a couple of years slogging away as an adjunct. (I have a lot of respect for the art history discipline and am a massive fan of art in general, particularly contemporary performance. Didn't mean to come off as rude!) It seems to be a side effect of going down the academic track, no matter what humanities discipline that you go into; it's a rough job market out there no matter what your area of specialty seems to be - history, criminology, art history, english literature, sociology, the list goes on and on.

[xolo]

I'm in a humanities field so I'll post my somewhat related musings.  Spanish departments are just starting to recognize that not all PhDs are going to get jobs, or at least not going to get good tenure track jobs that end at Professor with no qualifying adjective around the title.  I felt I had to put on my SOP that I intend to teach but I really don't know what the prospects are for that. It seems good statistics are not easy to come by. My real interest is research.  In the case of Spanish, I was thinking about starting with Latin American studies but found that Spanish departments don't necessarily welcome someone who demonstrates a lack of focus by moving between programs (something to think about if you want to go the MFA --> PhD route).

[BeatrizBear]

 

As for the Top Ten statement, there is no guarantee someone from a Top Ten will get the job over someone who doesn't have a doctorate from those programs. Do those top programs give you a slight advantage in earlier rounds? Possibly. But it's all about what each individual job committee is looking for in a new hire, which may or may not be a graduate of those elite institutions.

This is pretty important. Just because a school is a top ten school, that doesn't mean that it's the best school for your specific research interest. If you're interested it in a particular subject and everyone in the department is doing something unrelated to your interest then it's not worth it to go there. Also, when getting hired, depending on the department they'll want someone with a specific background. For instance, I specialize in Latin American literature. If the department was looking to hire someone that specialized in Golden Age Spanish Literature, I'm probably not going to get the job regardless of how highly ranked of a school I went to. Keep this in mind. Also keep in mind that many things change in a short frame of time within that department. They could hire someone new or someone could retire or leave. They could get budget cuts and such things. For instance, Boston College is still listed on the rankings for Spanish programs even though they cut their PhD program in Spanish. So just take rankings with a grain of salt.

[cloudofunknowing]

I'm someone who did an MFA in Poetry and then jumped onto the PhD track. There's some crossover, granted, since I'm pursuing my PhD in an English department, but my field/concentration (medieval/early modern English lit) is quite different. Though I can't speak to other universities or specific departments, I'm by no means an anomaly in mine, though my doctoral work is perhaps the farthest afield of those who entered with an MFA in my department. (Also, I know several PhD students in other departments at my university who have creative writing MFA's.)

 

People have already spoken about the dismal reality of the job market. If you want to see the stats for creative writing positions - including adjunct and visiting positions, not just tenure-track - I recommend going to the AWP website. (Forewarning: it's not good.) Generally, the saying goes that to have a snowball's chance with CW teaching positions, you need to have the following (not necessarily in this order, but definitely both): extensive publication history in a specific genre and teaching experience, whether that means experience teaching composition and/or workshops. While "publication history" can and might mean publishing in the higher-end literary journals whether print or online (print is still often deemed as being "better" than online, though not by everyone), the "extensive" part in reality means having a book published. Position postings will often specify whether they require someone to have a book published in order to be considered; also, if they don't specify that one must have a book, keep in mind that there will be many applicants applying who do have (at least) one book published. The final caveat about teaching creative writing at the college-level, especially if we're talking about teaching in an MFA program as opposed to undergraduate teaching, is that it's increasingly becoming common to require or, at least, strongly prefer someone with a PhD in Literature and Creative Writing. Having a PhD in Lit/CW is by no means a guarantee of a job, however, because since CW is often thought of as a studio field, one's creative work (and the success of one's work) is often viewed as being the most important part of someone's candidacy.

 

I, for one, elected to pursue a PhD in a separate - but disciplinarily adjacent - field in the interest of marketability. Ie, "I can teach British literature from Beowulf through Milton, cultural studies and queer studies pre- and postmodern; I'm also a poet, have published hither and thither, and have experience teaching poetry workshops in community and academic settings." Who knows if it'll pay off in the end, but the ideal gig would be a teaching position where I am able to do both things as opposed to only one. I'm sorry that I can't speak to what the Art History field is like in terms of job prospects. And while I'd caution you from looking at creative writing in academia with anything but a realist's spectacles, I'd equally caution you not to foreclose the possibility of doing one and then doing the other. There are many MFA's in creative writing that encourage interdiscplinary work between different kinds of media - I'm specifically thinking of the one at Chicago's Art Institute, for example - that allow and encourage for a great deal of cross-pollination between the verbal and the visual. That kinda thing might be right up your alley and would, I think, "make sense" to Art History adcomms were you to pursue an MFA and then go on to pursue a PhD.

[ProfLorax]

One more thing! Perhaps you are putting the cart before the horse? Why not apply both to MFA in Creative Writing programs and PhD in Art History programs? Know all of your options before deciding between the two fields?

 

You learn so much more about how these programs work and the job potential after getting accepted. Once you know your options, you'll have time to really investigate the job/school placement rates of a particular program and see what school/degree/program would be the best fit for you. 

[Dr. Old Bill]

You learn so much more about how these programs work and the job potential after getting accepted. Once you know your options, you'll have time to really investigate the job/school placement rates of a particular program and see what school/degree/program would be the best fit for you. 

 

Would you mind elaborating on that, Proflorax? I've heard/read this same sentiment a few times, but never with any details...yet it's something I'm quite curious about. The post-acceptance, pre-admittance limbo region isn't talked about much. What kind of info is imparted after acceptance?

[mikers86]

Would you mind elaborating on that, Proflorax? I've heard/read this same sentiment a few times, but never with any details...yet it's something I'm quite curious about. The post-acceptance, pre-admittance limbo region isn't talked about much. What kind of info is imparted after acceptance?

 

Where they keep the wine and the departmental secret handshake. You don't learn how to perform the sacrifice to tenure track job committees until year 4.

[ProfLorax]

Would you mind elaborating on that, Proflorax? I've heard/read this same sentiment a few times, but never with any details...yet it's something I'm quite curious about. The post-acceptance, pre-admittance limbo region isn't talked about much. What kind of info is imparted after acceptance?

When I was applying, I was looking for programs that had faculty who did work I was interested in, were well-regarded, and guaranteed funding for (at least) five years. However, once I got accepted, new questions emerged because my whole position had changed! I was no longer thinking of the program as a website that I bookmarked for future reference. When I had to think about the actual reality of attending a specific programs, a whole host of new questions emerged. And I think that's how it should be! Cast your net, see what comes up, then evaluate the programs against each other. 

 

Also, you find out so much about programs after acceptance, especially information that is individual-specific and not available from a website: teaching load, benefits, stipend. You may find out what courses will be offered in the Fall and Spring and the most recent job placement numbers. And since you are now contemplating living somewhere new, you may have questions about the location. What is the cost of living? How does the stipend stack up against CoL? What are the summer funding opportunities? Can I find members of my community (LGBT, ethnic, political, etc) in this new location? Can my partner find a job here? These are the sorts of questions that are best left, I believe, until you really know what your options are. At that point, you're forced to rank and evaluate programs against each other, and at this moment, new priorities may emerge based on the actual options that lie before you. 

[lyonessrampant]

It's also at that point when you may find out that the prof you thought you wanted to work with has new research interests and isn't wanting to take on a bunch more students but some other person you didn't know about could be perfect for you.  You'll get more information about interdisciplinary Centers across the university (as well as funding opportunities that may come from them).  You'll actually meet people and get a sense for whether you like these profs and grad students with whom you'll be spending a lot of time.  There are lots of things that come post acceptance, but these in addition to the ones already mentioned come to mind.

[unræd]

It's also the time when you can actively press programs on points that might otherwise give you pause about attending.

 

A school that's given you an acceptance has done so because the department really wants you to attend, and apparently (so I've been told by two profs and a DGS) admitted students don't quite realize that, or are often reluctant to follow that thought to its conclusion. They feel just so pleased to have gotten an acceptance from the department that they get all dewy-eyed and "awww shucks, it's an honor just to have been nominated!" and miss out on the actual horse trading that can be involved.

 

An example: a prof was telling me about the last time he was on the admissions committee, a couple of years ago. There was this student they were all really keen on, and the prof and the DGS were meeting with the student at the welcome/preview weekend thing. The DGS kept trying to get the student to explicitly ask for more money, and apparently the student just didn't realize it. "What could we do to encourage you to attend Big State U?" the DGS asks. The student gives some general, job-interview-esque answer. The DGS says "No, really--what can we do?" The conversation continues, with the DGS asking in ever more farcical and obvious ways, and with the student still failing to grasp what the whole point of the conversation actually was.

 

I'm not saying to walk in and be like "More monies, please." But if you have concerns about a program, mention them. Maybe you're concerned about funding, but maybe you just want to ensure you'll be able to do more interdisciplinary coursework and have it count for your requirements. Either way, that's the time to ask the department questions about those kinds of things!

[Dr. Old Bill]

This is all very illuminating. Thanks folks...and sorry to Everran for hi-jacking your thread!

 

I guess the primary goal is to get accepted to any of the programs you are applying to. That's a given. But when you have more than one acceptance, I suppose you have to look at it as leverage. I've never been particularly good at seeing the leverage side of things (it sort of dovetails with my disdain for ulterior motives, oddly enough), but like many of us, I have a few special considerations for where I attend...and more money or other benefits could be a major factor.

 

A couple of years ago, I had a neighbor who was accepted to two law schools. I remember him bragging about how he was going back and forth between the two of them, trying to eke out as much funding as he could. I recall being slightly horrified by this at the time, but I guess it really is in one's best interest to at least try to negotiate. Interesting to chew on (well, after I get a couple of acceptances --if that is to be-- that is).

[mikers86]

(Not to put the cart before the horse) Depending on the program you may not have any leverage. It could be the case that the offer is a one size fits all deal to level the playing field between students. It may be the case that you get one offer at the very start of acceptance season but don't receive another offer until mid-March, after you've already visited the first program. But questions like "are there opportunities for summer research funding" or "are there opportunities to teach FYW in the summer" and more of that variety are quite useful. Usually it isn't posted online for general applicants but more for those in the know.

[unræd]

(Not to put the cart before the horse) Depending on the program you may not have any leverage. It could be the case that the offer is a one size fits all deal to level the playing field between students. It may be the case that you get one offer at the very start of acceptance season but don't receive another offer until mid-March, after you've already visited the first program. But questions like "are there opportunities for summer research funding" or "are there opportunities to teach FYW in the summer" and more of that variety are quite useful. Usually it isn't posted online for general applicants but more for those in the know.

 

Yes--I certainly hadn't meant to suggest that newly admitted students should swagger in and demand more money, or that there is even always necessarily room for that kind of discussion! I only used the funding example because that was the specific one given to me by a prof when he gave me a sit-down about the need to be proactive in articulating your needs and concerns with programs post-admittance. 

 

And like you say, for most of us the cart is practically lapping the horse at this point.

[Dr. Old Bill]

And like you say, for most of us the cart is practically lapping the horse at this point.

 

No way. I'm getting into Yale, graduating in five years, then getting a tenure track job at Princeton right away.

Edited October 22, 2014 by Wyatt's Torch

[qwer7890]

Another thing: at admitted students' days, you meet a whole group of people who have done the application process just as successfully as you have, really for the first time. It's often a good time to have frank conversations with peers--both other prospective students and first and second year students in the grad program--about the application & decision process. Once you're admitted, current students tend to be more forthcoming about why they chose X program over Y... and if you're facing the same (or similar) decisions, this can be extremely clarifying/illuminating.