Fall 2017

[fresh2death]

34 minutes ago, mnzxcdmn said:

What if I got a scholarship? They are offering $18,000 to me. I also got into Columbia so it's U Chicago vs Columbia now.

From what I've heard it's better to do an MA program that is more specific (Art History, instead of "Humanities") if you plan to continue onward to the PhD. You also have to consider that the cost is $53k and COLA in Chicago, for a one year program that isn't an Art History program. My friends who did the program left feeling very unsatisfied (they did a 2 year degree in 1 year) and like they had to fight for attention. I can only speak to their experiences though. I was rejected from the Art History PhD program at Chicago last year and accepted to the MAPH with a $25k scholarship. I consulted those who I knew had been in the program and ultimately turned it down because of what I had heard. 

[lizzzdine]

2 hours ago, fresh2death said:

From what I've heard it's better to do an MA program that is more specific (Art History, instead of "Humanities") if you plan to continue onward to the PhD. You also have to consider that the cost is $53k and COLA in Chicago, for a one year program that isn't an Art History program. My friends who did the program left feeling very unsatisfied (they did a 2 year degree in 1 year) and like they had to fight for attention. I can only speak to their experiences though. I was rejected from the Art History PhD program at Chicago last year and accepted to the MAPH with a $25k scholarship. I consulted those who I knew had been in the program and ultimately turned it down because of what I had heard. 

 

 

From what I heard, some current grad students in Columbia's PhD program actually did UChicago's MAPH before and seemed happy about it. But I am also debating. Any advice is welcome. 

[smileytree]

14 hours ago, mnzxcdmn said:

I got into two of these and am currently trying to make a final decision. Which one did you choose? We may end up at the same school!

Congratulations and glad to know that I'm not the only one facing this (happy) dilemma! I'm also offered 18k scholarship by Chicago, but no funding from Columbia. I have heard that Chicago MAPH is a very rigorous program in terms of the quality of coursework, and am not opposed to the idea of a Humanities degree with a focus on art history. I guess one of the biggest differences between the two is that Chicago MAPH means one very intensive year of coursework and research, while Columbia's program has two years with a summer in between. I am still debating but obviously I need to make a decision very soon. Do you have a preference now?

Edited March 21, 2017 by smileytree

[modmuse]

Does anyone have a strong opinion about doing an Art History MA vs. a Curatorial Practice MA, as far as doing a PhD later on goes? The Curatorial Practice program is way smaller, and the professors are people who work in the field first and foremost, and teach secondarily (so they have connections for jobs in their museums, etc). But, I feel like a more traditional Art History MA would be better for a future PhD (and it's a much more affordable program). I don't know which to pick!

[skydancer]

1 hour ago, modmuse said:

Does anyone have a strong opinion about doing an Art History MA vs. a Curatorial Practice MA, as far as doing a PhD later on goes? The Curatorial Practice program is way smaller, and the professors are people who work in the field first and foremost, and teach secondarily (so they have connections for jobs in their museums, etc). But, I feel like a more traditional Art History MA would be better for a future PhD (and it's a much more affordable program). I don't know which to pick!

Hi! I had this same dilemma, and I'm sure there are tons of opinions out there. I've heard that a curatorial MA can help for some people but can also be seen as limiting, since you can acquire a lot of curatorial knowledge through work experience.  It seems to be preferable to acquire deep knowledge of the period of art history that you would want to curate.  Then, maybe find a program that is strong in curatorial studies and take classes in that department, find internships, curate a show with artists from the school. Pick an MA where it's possible to do an "unofficial minor" in curatorial studies!

I've chosen the MA in Art History at UBC* partially for that reason - they have a critical curatorial studies department at which I can take classes, opportunities to work with galleries around Vancouver and on campus, and still offers an absolutely amazing array of faculty who are strong in my areas of interest and a department culture of strong engagement with critical theory. 

(*For those who were interested, Williams was not very helpful except for basically saying admission was possible but unlikely. UBC upped their offer, they had a deadline, and I love them! I'm done!)

[c123]

Did everyone already hear from the master programs at Columbia and UPenn? Should I be worried that I haven't yet?

[clink]

Hi all!

I've been lurking on this forum for a while now, and since I've finally got some decisions in, I though I'd ask for advice. So far, I've been very lucky to get accepted for 4/5 of my schools: Tufts, the Courtauld, Birkbeck College at the University of London, and York University. I'm still waiting on a decision from Oxford, which is making me crazy.

Basically my dilemma boils down to this...Tufts is giving me a 50% tuition scholarship and I love the chance to spend two years figuring out what I want to do next and all of the opportunities I'd have for work experience/internships and building up my academic experience. What doesn't excite meare the faculty or the courses they've offered for Spring 2017. The only professor I'd really be interested in does work in museum history/theory, even though I'd really like to keep pursuing work in nineteenth-century British art and visual culture. Not quite a match, but it could probably work. I'm also a little concerned about the living costs of Boston for two years.

The Courtauld is my next option, and I'm excited about my course and the professor leading it--she does interesting research and has links to the Yale Center of British Art and Yale is where I dream of doing a PhD. I've already studied abroad in London twice and at the Courtauld for a year in 2014. I'm lucky that I would get an alumni discount because of that, but I'm worried it would almost be too...repetitive? It's a prestigious name and I loved my time there, but would it be better to broaden my horizons? And is it better to have a great name in the field or something that translates more broadly?

Oxford sounds pretty amazing overall, but it won't give me much in terms of work experience and I'm not entirrly convinced my interests jive with the department. I do like its emphasis on visual culture and interdisciplinary research, so I'm thinking I could make my niche t. Without funding, it would also be a hefty tuition fee to pay, so it makes me wonder how worth it the name really is for the price tag since I don't expect any funding at all (let alone to really get in...)

Lastly...Birbeck and York are both fairly well-established within the UK, but my guess is they'd have zero impact in the US....but they offer the academics I'm most interested in and most aligned with my interests. There are some really great Victorianists at Birkbeck and York has course modules taught by Tate Britain curators. They also have either the cheapest tuition and/or living costs. So prestige vs academic fit and cost??

Sorry this is so long, but any advice would be amazing. Congrats to everyone for all of their acceptances! 

 

[igotangels]

For those commenting about the Columbia vs. Chicago vs. Bard...I was asking many of the same questions. Ultimately, given my focus on modern and contemporary, I've decided to attend the MODA program. I spoke with a few current students who did not feel like they had to fight for the attention of the professors and have been blown away by the scholarship and opportunities at Columbia. I'm not sure how this would be different in the regular MA vs. MODA. After looking at the courses taught over the past years at Bard (curatorial studies) and Columbia, Columbia seems offer more rigorous art historical training. 

Also, I did some digging and realized that tuition at Columbia is 24k per semester the first year and 9k per semester the second year, due to the whole "residents units" thing. It took me months to figure that out.

I have two friends who did the Chicago MAPH program. I don't feel like it paid off in terms of their next steps. One went on to a second MA (not funded) before PhD. Another took quite some time to get a position as a studio assistant for an emerging artist. 

[modmuse]

22 hours ago, skydancer said:

Hi! I had this same dilemma, and I'm sure there are tons of opinions out there. I've heard that a curatorial MA can help for some people but can also be seen as limiting, since you can acquire a lot of curatorial knowledge through work experience.  It seems to be preferable to acquire deep knowledge of the period of art history that you would want to curate.  Then, maybe find a program that is strong in curatorial studies and take classes in that department, find internships, curate a show with artists from the school. Pick an MA where it's possible to do an "unofficial minor" in curatorial studies!

I've chosen the MA in Art History at UBC* partially for that reason - they have a critical curatorial studies department at which I can take classes, opportunities to work with galleries around Vancouver and on campus, and still offers an absolutely amazing array of faculty who are strong in my areas of interest and a department culture of strong engagement with critical theory. 

(*For those who were interested, Williams was not very helpful except for basically saying admission was possible but unlikely. UBC upped their offer, they had a deadline, and I love them! I'm done!)

Yeah, I'm having a super hard time deciding. I'm a curatorial intern at MoMA right now, and was an associate director of a contemporary gallery for 3 years. I'm not sure more curatorial experience is going to boost my application for both jobs or PhD. The Art History MA is at one of the CUNY schools, and has the option of taking classes with the PhD cohort after the first semester; it's both cheaper, and very enticing for that reason. BUT the curatorial practice program is way smaller (like, 12 students total vs. 90), and the professors are actual curators first and foremost, and I know at several students who are graduating already have curatorial assistant positions through the connections they've made.

TL;DR - No idea whether to prioritize connections or a more "traditional" course of study. It's really a tough choice!

[igotangels]

I also wanted to add that I've been working on a spreadsheet of where mod/con curators or directors went for school. This helped me as I have been deciding where to apply/where to attend. I looked mostly at museums I'm interested in working. 

Fascinating that for modern/contemporary at least, less that 20% have doctoral degrees. 

In order of most frequent: NYU, Courtauld, Columbia, Bard, Hunter, and Williams. Another consideration is how many students these programs have per year...

https://www.dropbox.com/s/ii0568y5n50yysg/Modern%2FContemporary Curators (3).xlsx?dl=0

Edited March 22, 2017 by igotangels

[baddie]

35 minutes ago, igotangels said:

I also wanted to add that I've been working on a spreadsheet of where mod/con curators or directors went for school. This helped me as I have been deciding where to apply/where to attend. I looked mostly at museums I'm interested in working. 

Fascinating that for modern/contemporary at least, less that 20% have doctoral degrees. 

In order of most frequent: NYU, Courtauld, Columbia, Bard, Hunter, and Williams. Another consideration is how many students these programs have per year...

Modern%2FContemporary Curators.xlsx

I'm curious to see this spreadsheet, though gradcafe says:

The page you are trying to access is not available for your account. 

 

[modmuse]

52 minutes ago, baddie said:

I'm curious to see this spreadsheet, though gradcafe says:

The page you are trying to access is not available for your account. 

 

Same, please re-share!

[igotangels]

Oops! I'll try via dropbox:  https://www.dropbox.com/s/ii0568y5n50yysg/Modern%2FContemporary Curators (3).xlsx?dl=0

@modmuse @baddie

 

Edited March 22, 2017 by igotangels

[modmuse]

4 hours ago, igotangels said:

Oops! I'll try via dropbox:  https://www.dropbox.com/s/ii0568y5n50yysg/Modern%2FContemporary Curators (3).xlsx?dl=0

@modmuse @baddie

 

Thanks for this! It is interesting to see in black and white, although if I were putting this list together, I think it would look a bit different. For example, a sizable chunk of the people you listed from MoMA are curatorial assistants. So, while they do have a lot of influence on the exhibits, at the end of the day the ones writing the exhibition proposals and really making those choices all have PhDs. I think to consider them full-blown curators is incorrect and you may end up cutting yourself at the knees jobs-wise if you choose to not pursue a PhD only because the entry-level curatorial positions don't require them. Just my two cents (from someone hell-bent on not doing a PhD until I did my internship, and quickly realized I would definitely need it to feel competitive in the market). I don't know, maybe all the PhD preaching finally got to me.

Edited March 22, 2017 by modmuse
verbage change

[MaytheSchwartzBeWithYou]

1 hour ago, modmuse said:

Thanks for this! It is interesting to see in black and white, although if I were putting this list together, I think it would look a bit different. For example, a sizable chunk of the people you listed from MoMA are curatorial assistants. So, while they do have a lot of influence on the exhibits, at the end of the day the ones writing the exhibition proposals and really making those choices all have PhDs. I think to consider them full-blown curators is incorrect and you may end up cutting yourself at the knees jobs-wise if you choose to not pursue a PhD only because the entry-level curatorial positions don't require them. Just my two cents (from someone hell-bent on not doing a PhD until I did my internship, and quickly realized I would definitely need it to feel competitive in the market). I don't know, maybe all the PhD preaching finally got to me.

I think modmuse is right - scientifically speaking, I'm not sure how accurate any conclusions you could draw from this list might be. Your list includes all types of positions (some which don't really require PhDs to obtain, though you may run into some trouble competing for higher-level jobs without one), and there is also no indication of how long someone has been in the field. Competition is really fierce right now, so out on the job market you'll be competing with people who DO have PhDs, even if you decide not to get one.

Just my humble opinion! :-)

[rheya19]

On 3/21/2017 at 1:51 AM, smileytree said:

Congratulations and glad to know that I'm not the only one facing this (happy) dilemma! I'm also offered 18k scholarship by Chicago, but no funding from Columbia. I have heard that Chicago MAPH is a very rigorous program in terms of the quality of coursework, and am not opposed to the idea of a Humanities degree with a focus on art history. I guess one of the biggest differences between the two is that Chicago MAPH means one very intensive year of coursework and research, while Columbia's program has two years with a summer in between. I am still debating but obviously I need to make a decision very soon. Do you have a preference now?

I had a friend that did the UC MAPH. Since you only have those 9 months (three quarters) you really have to know exactly what it is you want to do going into. If you have a clear project in mind and a plan of action to complete it, the program can be very rewarding. If you are not positive what you want to do with your research, then you're probably better off doing a two year program.

[igotangels]

@modmuse @MaytheSchwartzBeWithYou

Thanks for the replies! I totally agree that the research is skewed – partly because it's nowhere near finished and also because I chose institutions/positions I am interested in. A case can definitely be made for both paths. 

[arboreal05]

On 3/21/2017 at 9:25 PM, clink said:

Basically my dilemma boils down to this...Tufts is giving me a 50% tuition scholarship and I love the chance to spend two years figuring out what I want to do next and all of the opportunities I'd have for work experience/internships and building up my academic experience. What doesn't excite meare the faculty or the courses they've offered for Spring 2017. The only professor I'd really be interested in does work in museum history/theory, even though I'd really like to keep pursuing work in nineteenth-century British art and visual culture.

 

Isn't Jeremy Melius at Tufts? He works on 19th century British. 

[clink]

13 hours ago, arboreal05 said:

Isn't Jeremy Melius at Tufts? He works on 19th century British. 

Yes, he is! His interests diverge from mine, but he's definitely one of my POI.

[amandap292]

Hello! 

I applied to Penn, Williams College, and Columbia for a Masters in Art History. I was accepted to Penn, and rejected from Williams. I'm waiting to hear from Columbia. Has anyone heard yet? I want to give Penn my decision, but I want to wait until I hear from Columbia. 

I am a University of Michigan grad currently on a gap year, and my areas of focus are 19th-century French art and Islamic visual culture.

Best of luck to you all! 

[amandap292]

On March 21, 2017 at 0:28 PM, cindy123 said:

Did everyone already hear from the master programs at Columbia and UPenn? Should I be worried that I haven't yet?

I heard back from Penn on March 9th, and I haven't heard back from Columbia yet either. Good luck! 

[JuniusBattius]

I was accepted to UNC with full funding!

So excited. Now, to configure everything for a move!

[skydancer]

21 hours ago, JuniusBattius said:

I was accepted to UNC with full funding!

So excited. Now, to configure everything for a move!

Congratulations!!! It must feel absolutely incredible to get such wonderful news at the penultimate hour! 

[JuniusBattius]

3 hours ago, skydancer said:

Congratulations!!! It must feel absolutely incredible to get such wonderful news at the penultimate hour! 

Oh my gosh, yes. I was feeling so hopeless, especially after a personal tragedy the day before! I am so stoked to enter this academic climate.

[mnzxcdmn]

On 3/20/2017 at 11:38 AM, fresh2death said:

From what I've heard it's better to do an MA program that is more specific (Art History, instead of "Humanities") if you plan to continue onward to the PhD. You also have to consider that the cost is $53k and COLA in Chicago, for a one year program that isn't an Art History program. My friends who did the program left feeling very unsatisfied (they did a 2 year degree in 1 year) and like they had to fight for attention. I can only speak to their experiences though. I was rejected from the Art History PhD program at Chicago last year and accepted to the MAPH with a $25k scholarship. I consulted those who I knew had been in the program and ultimately turned it down because of what I had heard. 

Thank you for the kind response. Very useful information. But Columbia was too damn expensive and I got rejected by Boston, so I am in Chicago now. I will take these words with me and try to get the most out of this short experience. Best luck to myself and also to you.