<p>to get Smith to approve a program for study abroad? I'm only a first-year, but I'm already sensing a (mild) issue...</p>
<p>I know for a fact that I want to go away for a year, and I'm nearly positive that I want to go to London. My intended major thus far is art history, and I don't really see that changing. Problem #1: There are only two options for full-year study abroad in London, and these are the School of Oriental and African Studies and the London School of Economics... neither of which have any programs that really relate to art history (SOAS does a little bit, but I'm not really interested in studying Asian or African art, at least not exclusively). Problem #2: None of the schools approved for semester study offer art history programs, either.</p>
<p>So yeah. Dilemma. Basically, provided I'm able to make a convincing case for a particular program (probably at either the Courtauld or University College London, more likely the latter), how difficult would it be to get it approved?</p>
<p>One of the most important prerequisites for Art History (working and grad school) is mastering at least 2 foreign languages. Unless you are already multi-lingual, you should consider this before choosing another English-speaking country for your JYA. Smith’s programs in Germany and Florence are excellent, and focus much more on your intended major.
Moreover, if you intend to study at the Courtauld for instance, you would have to be accepted there first, as they have no specific agreement with Smith, and you would probably be paying double fees.
I think you should talk this over with the Smith Art History department</p>
<p>I don’t have experience getting study abroad programs approved, but I was told that being an “approved” program meant that Smith had sent multiple students to that program and they had good experiences, and the college would recommend the program to other students based on those good experiences.</p>
<p>It doesn’t mean that you can’t go on your program - Smith just doesn’t have as much knowledge about that specific program. And there’s always a first person to begin the process of getting a study abroad program on the approved list.</p>
<p>If you’re pretty set on doing one of the programs you mentioned, I’d talk to the study abroad office about what the approval process is and how to apply to the program (though I’m not sure that you’d have to pay double fees. I have a feeling this is wrong, but I can’t back it up).</p>
<p>I also don’t know anything about art history, so I can’t comment on lost in translation’s advice - but she has given pretty good advice in other areas.</p>
<p>New one-off year abroad experiences are approved fairly often…thinking about the young woman who recently did a year in Siberia. I suspect you just have to provide a lot of documentation. I think between talking to the Art History department and the JYA program office by whatever its formal name is will get you started. And good on you for getting started so early…</p>
<p>Being an approved program actually means a little bit more than just having had students go there and having a good experience. It means Smith knows how to transfer the credits from that school and primarily that Smith thinks that the courses there are of a strong enough caliber to qualify for Smith transfer credit. </p>
<p>As for getting approvals, for Europe, it’s actually pretty difficult. My friend who was an Art Major wanted to go to Parsons in Paris to do her art studies and was denied, even though the JYA office admitted it was a good option for her, probably the best for her academic plan, and that the Smith Paris program wouldn’t provide her with the same opportunties. Especially if there are already programs operating in that city or country, the office tends to be pretty relcutant about giving new permission. </p>
<p>Have you looked at the other study abroad programs in England? If NONE of them offer Art History, you might have a shot. And you should seriously, seriously consider studying outside of London anyway. I did the SOAS program for a semester and let me tell you, my friends who did programs in other parts of England were much happier and had a much better experience. SOAS itself was great, but London was not so much. Expensive, crowded, dirty, hardly any campus atmosphere or student to student camraderie. Good museums, fun to see the sights when people came to visit, but I would strongly recommend doing a program in another part of England and taking multiple trips to London for the cultural sites. </p>
<p>If you’re fixated on London, my only advice is to have a back-up plan. And be prepared to provide copious amounts of documentation on your plan of study, the school/program you want to attend, etc.</p>
<p>Thanks for all the information, everyone! I figured it would be difficult to get a program approved for Europe since there are already so many. There are other options in England that offer art history (York is actually pretty well-renowned, I think), but I’m sort of disappointed as none of them are full-year programs.</p>
<p>Okay, actually, that’s not totally true so I’m sort of confused–if anyone could help me on this point I’d be really grateful. A lot of the universities’ websites say they have full-year study abroad programs, but Smith says they’re only semester-long… does this mean that you’re only allowed to go for a semester despite the school’s offerings or what? Haha, these are probably things I ought to ask the study abroad office, aren’t they? Well, anyway.</p>
<p>I’m taking French at Smith, so I’m eligible for a year in Paris and Geneva, and there are programs in other countries that sound quite interesting, so all isn’t lost if my dreams of shiny London glory don’t come true. My heart is not necessarily set on it. The only thing I am set on is going away for a full year, which unfortunately means that neither Florence or Hamburg are viable options anymore, since I haven’t taken any classes in German or Italian. Boo.</p>
<p>I would stop by the Study Abroad office and ask. Don’t email them, physically go there and ask because otherwise you will never get an answer. It could be that the study abroad website is not updated (common problem). Or it could be that due to the semi-strange way UK universities are structured, they only allow one semester programs versus whole year programs. Anyway if they already have a program, it might be easier to get approved to do a year long at an existing program than to do a whole new program. </p>
<p>Just remember, with the study abroad office, always a little patience. They are by far the least organized, most beaureaucratic, least informed, most frustrating office to work with, with the exception MAYBE of the Fellowships office. So just bear down and perservere.</p>
<p>KK, fwiw many students do two one-semester programs. D split between D.C. and Budapest. A good friend split between Rome and Oxford (Classics, but I bet a similar combo would be great for Art History).</p>
<p>Getting a two-fer isn’t necessarily a bad deal.</p>
<p>===</p>
<p>Btw, I second S&P about the Study Abroad office. Due to a glitch, they showed D as being “unenrolled” for one semester, which caused her student loans to kick in for payment. Got it sorted out…but. And, now that I think of it, I’ve heard that it’s happened to others on a split-year program, so if you do do two-semesters, make sure they’re on top of the paperwork.</p>
<p>I’m currently applying for study abroad in England next year, so I have a basic idea of why the programs are semester long vs. year-long. </p>
<p>Basically, at the end of last year due to budget cuts, Smith decided to make all study-abroad options in English-speaking countries semester only (i.e. programs in the UK and Australia), since programs in England are the most expensive programs for Smith to send students to. </p>
<p>Smith’s argument to changing English-speaking countries to semester-only was that “they understood if going to a foreign country that didn’t speak English, a student would need a year to master the language. However, since students already know the language English-speaking countries a semester is efficient.” Personally, I think this theory is flawed since even though Smithies can speak the language in the UK and Australia, the culture is entirely different…</p>
<p>Anyways, LSE and SOAS are currently exceptions to this policy. LSE is due to the fact that the program only runs year long, and they do not take students for a semester. SOAS, although they offer a semester long program, the spring semester program is shorter than the Spring Semester at Smith (SOAS runs 12 weeks while Smith runs 13), and if you go to SOAS during spring semester you often times come in the middle of their classes (their classes are mainly year-long, though spring registration is allowed). Based on these two things SOAS was made a year-long program.</p>
<p>I’m an Econ and East Asian Language double major, so I’ve asked about both schools at the Study abroad office. I should also note that at the presentation of Study Abroad for the Econ major they SEVERELY discouraged us from going to London. Although it might not hurt to try to petition, I doubt they would pass it due to financial reasons…</p>
<p>That makes sense in the case of SOAS. Also, a lot of students go to SOAS to further their language training, and the language courses there (the good ones) are a year long. And like LSE most of the really good SOAS courses are 1 year long. I went for a semester, and took some interesting classes, but my Arabic class was abysmal and confusing, and a few of my other classes I had to join either in the middle, or in the second of the series, without having taken the first. </p>
<p>The upshot though is that if you only do a semester at a UK university, you don’t have to take the comprehensive exams at the end of the year. For most UK students, they have to take exams at the end of the year that cover the material you earned in the past fall and spring and account for most of your grade. Semester students don’t have to take them though, usually they just have to do some papers or sometimes take a short exam, which makes things a little bit more fun because you can learn a lot, but without the stress of end of year exams.</p>
<p>Whoa, thanks for all the information. I agree that the theory is flawed, but I guess that’s life… or just the consequences of budget cuts? Really, thank you all so, so much for the insight. I’m glad I learned all this sooner rather than later! That said, I’m starting to rethink the whole London thing… there are plenty of places that sound just as cool, but where I can go for the year and where I can study art history without any real issues. So who knows.</p>