<p>I'm going into my senior year of college, and I'm starting to research grad schools (well, Ive been researching some for years, because I'm a huge nerd like that) and I've beginning to think about whether I should go right to grad school, or take time off before going back to school.</p>
<p>I'm going to study either graphic deisgn or illustration at the graduate level, I'll have my bachelors in visual communications, minor in art history. I also have two associates in Multimedia Design and Advertising design.</p>
<p>I would love to teach at the college level some day, probably part time, so a masters is required, and I'm even considering possibly getting my PhD some day in contemporary art theory, or something related.</p>
<p>So if you've applied to grad school/gone to grad school, how did you make your decision on when to go? Im 26 now, so I consider that a factor, as I'll be almost 27 when I graduate with my bachelors. </p>
<p>Is it better to get work experience before going to grad school? Any advice from anyone would be great :)</p>
<p>My decision was possibly easier than yours - I had a Psych undergrad degree and knew I would need to go to grad school. I chose to go straight through - from undergrad to grad and finished my PhD at 27. It did enable me to get a great internship during grad school and then a great job so that path worked for me. </p>
<p>I would think that in your field, your decision might be impacted by your perceived marketability when you finish undergrad. The general job market is pretty poor right now so you might want to forge ahead with grad school. Or your field may have jobs available and if you can get into a good company, you may benefit from them paying for your grad school after you are there for some amount of time.</p>
<p>I don’t know how it works if you go later on in your life, but for me, having great grades in undergrad allowed me to attend grad school for free. (full academic scholarship and research assistantship that paid a stipend for my living expenses.) I don’t know if those situations are still available since I graduated back in the dark ages.</p>
<p>I would also suggest that if you aren’t married and/or don’t have kids yet, it is much easier to continue with the graduate degrees now. I would have found it extremely difficult to go to grad school if I had all of those other responsibilities at the same time.</p>
<p>Yes, I am not married, or really dating and no kids, and I do factor this into my decisions. I think most of me wants to go to grad school and get it done. I feel that maybe after that, I can have a better chance of “settling” somewhere, instead of having “well I still need to do my masters” in my head.</p>
<p>If you are headed for academia, and you are already 26, I would say go now. Work experience will not make you more desirable to grad schools or to academic employers afterward; they tend to look purely at your academic talent. A PhD will take you 5-6 years and you don’t want to be middle-aged before you start on the academic career ladder (well, lots of people are, but it’s harder for them to get to the top because they’ve started later). Also, if you do ever want kids, you shouldn’t presume that you can have them easily after the age of 35-40. By that time, it’s nice to be semi-established in your career–you will have much more flexibility if you have some money and some standing with your employer.</p>
<p>I graduated from college at 20, went immediately to grad school, finished a PhD at 25, had tenure by 32,and then started a family (two kids). I had an easier time doing both the career bit and the family bit than many of my friends.</p>
<p>I went right after undergrad. I took had a psych undergrad degree, and I knew I would need some kind of graduate training right out of the box - I just didn’t know what kind, and whether to get a professional degree or a master’s or to go straight to doctoral programs. Well, I decided that since I wanted a doctoral degree I might as well go straight through, so I applied to master’s programs as backups and gunned for the PhD program. And here I am.</p>
<p>Now I sometimes regret it - if I had gone the MPH route sure I’d be in debt, but I had a 1/2 tuition scholarship at a top 10 MPH program in my field and I’d be looking for a job right now, instead of looking towards 3 more years of a doctoral program, at least. Not that I think I’ll regret having done the PhD, but I am unhappy in school right now and I want to get my life started. I also know almost for certain that I don’t want to be a professor, so I’m starting to wonder if it was even worth it for me to go (even though most of the non-academic jobs I want still require or prefer PhDs). On the other hand, I’ll have a PhD from an Ivy League university in 3-4 years and I’ll be under 30, with plenty of time to live my life.</p>
<p>It’s a trade-off. A lot of your friends will be working, making more money than you (maybe not much more, but probably more), buying houses, getting married, and having kids. And you’ll be…doing a PhD. If you’re the kind of person who can patiently wait for delayed gratification while working away, and especially if you love the research more than anything else, it may be a good choice for you. Also, if you’re going to do a master’s, go ahead and do it. A master’s is only 2 years and 2 years flies right by.</p>
<p>katy, in your situation, you may want a MFA instead of a PhD. It’s the terminal degree for the fine arts and graphic design.</p>
<p>As for which degree to pursue, decide what is your ultimate career and which degree it requires. That should answer your question. I am glad I pursued a master’s degree first (I will have 2 master’s degrees and still be in my mid-20s). If I ever decide to pursue a PhD after 2-4 years of work experience, I will have a better understanding of what I like research-wise. I am also in a field where work experience matters a lot.</p>
<p>I second tenisghs. I’ve gotten to know the art field a bit through connections and my art professor. Let me tell you my observations.</p>
<p>Exactly what kind of art classes do you want to teach? If you’re looking more into studio art, then the MFA is the better choice. You will build a portfolio and gain deeper understanding of how to use a variety of mediums and create a range of artwork, in which you can apply your experience and knowledge to the students. The MFA in academia allows you greater flexibility in producing your own pieces in a way that academics use research to write articles and books as their “body of works.” If you don’t want to write, then go for the MFA.</p>
<p>If you want to study history, do little studio work, mostly research and write, then a PhD/MA in art history is the better option. It’s more academic and research oriented than a MFA.</p>
<p>My two studio art instructors had MFAs. They never saw the need for a PhD when the departments mostly looked for their portfolios and ability to teach studio art. The art history professors have PhDs (sometimes MFAs if they got them before the PhD) and don’t do a lot of teaching in the studio unless they’ve done a lot of work in that particular medium.</p>