The New School (New York)

Parent Cafe
1

<p>Does anyone have any insight into this school? D is thinking about adding it to her short list for grad school applications, because she said everyone says it’s awesome. She asked me if I’d ever heard of it; I haven’t. Apparently their anthro department is supposed to be incredible, and she wants to try to focus on semiotics (whatever that is). After much exploration of art history and law, she’s decided on anthro and maybe/maybe not law. </p>

<p>I told her that from just a quick review of their website it didn’t really strike me as fit for her. She agrees it’s extremely liberal, and there’s no athletics - exact opposite of who she is, though maybe this doesn’t matter for grad school. But she says everyone (I’m guessing this includes professors, classmates) says it’s supposed to be fantastic for grad school/anthro. She said she’s been hearing terrific things about it for the past several years. </p>

<p>Can anyone offer any insight?</p>

2

<p>The anthro department has some real stars. Ann Laura Stoler, the Chair of the anthro department, is a big name. She was lured from the University of Michigan and is the author of some very important works on gender and colonialism.
Arjun Appadurai is an even bigger name and founded an influential journal called Public Culture. He was lured from the University of Chicago where he headed a center which had been created especially to lure him from Penn.
He must have in turn brought Ben Lee along. </p>

<p>Graduate schools don’t have athletic programs, so perhaps that should not be a consideration. Anthropologists as a group tend to be liberal. I once read a description of anthropologists as “conservative abroad and liberal at home.” This was supposed to mean that anthropologists are eager preservers of culture abroad, hence their conservatism, but that their exposure to different ways of living and thinking makes them liberal at home.</p>

3

<p>Marite, thanks for that, can you speculate as to why people like Ann Laura Stoler etc. would be interesting in leaving places like Michigan and Chicago for a place that, to me, appears to be very small and unknown? Do you think there’s some compelling reason in their compensation packages or academic freedom? </p>

<p>I do realize that grad schools don’t have athletic programs, although that’s about where my knowledge ends lol. But D is sort of a “jockette”, coaching this year, wants to continue involvement in her sport even if just a volunteer coach, and I don’t understand where she’d get her athletic “fix” in such a place, and I wonder why their grad school admissions department would be interested or see any value in a former D-1 varsity athlete. Maybe it doesn’t matter. She’s heard so many great things about this school that she’s considering applying in spite of. Does “fit” matter for grad school the way it does for undergrad?</p>

<p>Plus, I don’t understand how this school has enough money to do what it does.</p>

4

<p>LOL. The New School is not known to the general public, but it is well known to academics. The New School has been around for very long. The president is Bob Kerrey, the former Senator. The undergraduate college, Eugene Lang, got massive funding from Lang, so I assume that the graduate program also had an infusion of cash. I assume the attraction is being given a free hand to build a top flight program. </p>

<p>I’ve never heard of graduate students being roped in as athletic coaches even on a volunteer basis, etc… Admission is by departments, not school-wide, so coaches would have no say. But it is possible your D could pursue her sport independently in NYC. Or she might serve as RA in undergraduate dorms and put her interest in athletics to good use; but that would have no bearing whatsoever on her admission.</p>

5

<p>I think Anthropology-Semiotics is also called Linguistic Anthopology. If so, your daughter might be interested in [this</a> program](<a href=“http://www.utexas.edu/cola/depts/anthropology/programs/linguistic/]this”>http://www.utexas.edu/cola/depts/anthropology/programs/linguistic/). The professors are probably liberal but the location is the polar opposite of graduate school in NYC. On the other hand, UT has incredible intramural sports programs.</p>

6

<p>By the way, Latetoschool, I doubt your daughter would be interested in the program I linked above but it is a great sports alternative.</p>

7

<p>I went to grad. school with Arjun Appadurai at the Committee on Social Thought, Univ. of Chicago, and at that time, most of our faculty split their time with the New School - Harold Rosenberg, Hannah Arendt, Victor Turner, Saul Bellow, Arnaldo Momigliano. There was no place in America, HYP included, that - per student - had such an exciting and internationally renowned faculty. </p>

<p>It is extremely liberal, and there is very little in the way of dorms, no athletics. They are much more of a university on the German model (many of the early faculty of the New School were German Jewish refugees from the 1930s.) And some of the campuses are spread all over town (Mannes School of Music is also part of the New School.) But think UChicago on steroids, and without the core, and some of the best internships one can possibly imagine.</p>

8

<p>“This was supposed to mean that anthropologists are eager preservers of culture abroad, hence their conservatism, but that their exposure to different ways of living and thinking makes them liberal at home.”</p>

<p>That’s an interesting perspective—Every culture worth preserving, except one’s own…:rolleyes:</p>

9

<p>Isn’t it, though? I know lots of people, not just anthropologists, going all gaga about the pristine cultures to be found in poverty stricken countries while the locals would love to have a little nibble of the consumer culture.<br>
To be fair, anthropologists abroad are more cultural preservationists than political conservatives. As for at home, they are supposed to espouse greater acceptance of other cultures. Travel IS supposed to broaden the mind.</p>

10

<p>Wow, thank you everyone for this great information, I had NO idea. I’ll offer her some feedback and tell her to go for it. </p>

<p>Mini, can you say what you mean by “without the core”? What exactly is a “core”, and if this is an advantage, why? Does that mean the student can focus solely on anthro and not have to study other things, or (???).</p>

<p>DRJ4, she may well be interested in that program. She started down this road wanting to investigate art crime, but realizes no agency will hire her to do just that, and, she doesn’t want a masters in Art History, feels it would be too limiting, and she has no interest in museums etc. Took a few classes in anthro, feel madly in love with it, and now is closing in on a minor. </p>

<p>She wants to be - in her words “some sort of international cop”, and with one of the three letter federal agencies. So she has decided to look for graduate programs in anthro with concentrations in linguistics, semiotics, and even biomed, thinking that this will support her career intentions. She has found it very, very difficult to research school by school to find exactly what she wants, plus, she wants to be involved in her sport - volunteering to help the undergrads - if possible. It isn’t that the schools don’t have what she wants - she tells me that ALL of it is so fascinating that she is having a problem narrowing the list. Her professors seem to have advised to take the top ten schools and work her way down. Chicago is more or less 1st on her list, an Ivy or two, etc. </p>

<p>At the same time, on the offchance she isn’t accepted to any of the grad schools, she has begun application to a couple of federal agencies - they told her that she is very competitive but that it is about a six to nine month hiring process owing to the background checks; if hired, she can start work, and go to grad school two years out. Asking the federal agencies where to concentrate or recommended programs hasn’t really worked out very well for her; they all seem to say “apply right now, worry about more school later”. </p>

<p>She is taking a linguistics class this semester, she loves it, cannot stop talking about it and has been insisting I come and sit in on one of her classes. She tells me I would be absolutely fascinated. I haven’t been able to get there yet but plan to before the semester is over.</p>

11

<p>LTS, the concept of core curriculum does not apply to graduate school. Both Chicago and Columbia have a much stricter set of courses that all undergraduates have to take, as opposed to general education requirements (one from column A, two from column B, one from column C, etc…)</p>

<p>The fields your D is interested in are wildly different and different departments have different strengths. For museum studies, she should check out NYU.
If she is interested in biomed, she should look into departments that are strong in medical anthropology (Harvard has one). Globalization is now a hot field, and Arjun Appadurai is one of its important scholars. I don’t know about linguistics or semiotics as they relate to anthro.</p>

12

<p>LTS -</p>

<p>Sorry to have confused. Core only relates to undergrads.</p>

13

<p>Mini and Marite, thanks for the clarification and terrific information. I appreciate it very much. </p>

<p>I’ll tell her to go for it, and offer to fly her up there if she wants to visit the campus before deciding to apply.</p>

14

<p>LTS:</p>

<p>For grad school, campus visits are not necessary as students are not involved in the life of the school to the same extent as in college. But a top notch essay and writing sample (s) and great recommendations are essential. An applicant may also want to contact professors with whom s/he would like to study eventually (profs change interests and these are not always recorded on their websites). Another consideration is funding: how many years, how fully? research opportunities and funding for fieldwork. Are the profs accessible and supportive or are they always away? Also look into the student body. Are there classes and activities that bring them together? Or do they work pretty much on their own?</p>

15

<p>

</p>

<p>I disagree. Campus visits are very important, but should only be done once admitted to the program. This way you can meet with potential advisors and see if your work styles mesh or don’t (graduate school’s equivalence to ‘fit’ in a school). It is very important to know whether you can get along with your advisor since you will be their ‘employee’ for at least 4-5 years for a PhD program and will have an impact on your letters of reference once you graduate.</p>

<p>The way I knew Wisconsin was the place for me was primarily my advisor. He is very well-respected in the field and his track record with students (them being happy…not necessarily them staying in the program to completion) is excellent. I didn’t care for the city of Madison during my visit and things seemed a little off at first coming from North Carolina (I have loved Chapel Hill since I was a child), but I’m learning to love the city and am glad I made this choice!</p>

16

<p>Ophiolite:</p>

<p>I absolutely agree about post-acceptance visits. I was not clear that I meant pre-application visits.</p>

17

<p>Marite, thanks. Hopefully she’ll experience “post acceptance”! :)</p>

18

<p>The New School has no campus by the way, it’s in various buildings in the village - drove by a bunch of them today.</p>

19

<p>Mathmom, I’m curious, what do the buildings look like? And the surrounding area? I very rarely get to New York; when I do, it’s a quick in & out, lately mostly via Newark.</p>

20

<p>They look like office buildings, but easily recognizable because they all had banners saying “New School + whatever department they housed.” The area is Greenwich Village busy and lively, with lots of great restaurants. (Why we were there.) More upscale and less hip than it used to be.</p>