<p>My son recently changed his major to "Art Practice," which is another way of saying Studio Art. He is at a top 30 University, mostly known for more academic majors and for preparing students for graduate school. As the discussions of his future educational goals come up, he has mentioned wanting to go on to get an MFA. I only checked out one school's website and it seemed to me that he would need a BFA to get in for graduate school. Son thinks all he needs is a good portfolio, along with good grades in his undergraduate art classes. I feel like the major, although targeted to his interests, may not be academic enough to keep doors open for him later. My question is this: do any parents have experience with the Studio Art type of major as it relates to future endeavors?</p>
<p>He would not necessarily need a BFA to apply to grad school however he will need to attend a post-bac program to prepare his portfolio for grad school admission</p>
<p>Can you give me an example of what you are talking about? I am ignorant of this process.</p>
<p>MFA programs in studio art are very selective with admission in some schools as limited as openings for 5-10 new students. Admission is so limited because of studio space as schools only have a finite number of spaces. In addition to competing with BFA graduates, you are competing against artists who have delayed grad school to concentrate on developing their own artwork in their own studio space. The goal of post-bacculareate programs is to offer students the opportunity to develop a more competitive portfolio for graduate school as well as TA opportunity and continued studio and exposure to visiting artists and the professional art world.</p>
<p>Thanks! Plus they get to do more art, which is what they want to do anyways! I will try to search for some programs.</p>
<p>I can certainly recommend the post-bac program at Brandeis, as my d has just finished a one-year post bac and is beginning grad school in Sept. MICA-Maryland College of Art offers post-bac program that you might consider also.</p>
<p>In general BA's or BFA's are the procedure for application to an MFA program. And as noted the portfolios are incredibly important.
The slots in MFA programs are limited for various reasons including space. But its not unknown for artists to work off site for various reasons. </p>
<p>However do not attend an MFA program on the rationale of doing more art. There are obviously much cheaper manners to attain that end. </p>
<p>And in the BA/BFA paradigm its incredibly important to check how well a school teaches technique. Doing 'ones art' is fine gods know artists will do anything to have that condition. But at the point where making a actual living at it all enters into the equation technical abilities are incredibly important. Patrons and clients expect it, and its a necessary aspect of the bread and butter arts such as landscapes, portraits, murals and etc. Digital helps also, but that's a specialty in itself and usually directs more to the graphics design arena than what is considered traditional fine arts. </p>
<p>Also to consider is the manner of school in which the MFA is being considered. Some are very overtly avant garde, which is fine in the time ones wandering about with the installation artists, goats hung on the wall and whatever. But these type of activities tend to be somewhat irrelevant once in actual practice in the field. Ironically the only people who generally get to continue those particular tricks are those fortunate few who land grad school teaching posts-which is a very small percentage. And if they can continue to believe the institutional avant garde stuff is really appropriate. </p>
<p>In general, if considering an MFA (or for that matter a Bach) program make very sure they have good supplementary curriculum in art history, gallery management or art marketing. This is imperative because the MFA is sold as a ticket to a collegiate teaching post, but in reality a very small percentage of those who obtain these degrees end up in that arena. And of that percentage many are adjuncts.
But with some good grounding in the aforementioned supplementary fields there is work available in galleries, cultural centers and what not. </p>
<p>But if your progeny seriously wants to pursue art as a career he needs to think it out carefully. It is a tough trade, and much of the career sunshine and roses implied by art profs and programs may not be there and MFA programs are notorious for gilding the lilies. </p>
<p>What traps artists in a career sense is they have a bad habit of thinking only of their art, and not necessarily what to do with it all. And alas, at times art programs don't exactly direct students into paths which work in a career context. MFA's are ok, but as an end in and of themselves these don't really work all that well. Often those who make it with an MFA are those who gain experience above or outside the MFA. And may need to take career paths very different from whats told to them inside the safe (and very insular) aire of the college art studios.</p>
<p>Thank you for that great advice! Yes, son intends to make a living doing "art," but understands the need to intern or learn other skills in either management, marketing, or development. Since he isn't one for business courses, I have advised him to try and intern for any marketing or development position he can get, in addition to the internship for graphic design that he will be doing this summer. Unfortunately, his original major will not help him in any practical way. He and son #2 are starting their own design business this summer so they will get early reality checks if no one buys what they are selling. Gotta love their willingness to try, though! Son #2 is applying for an internship at a museum on campus this year. They both want to keep their options open for the possibility of grad school, though sometimes those creative types aren't exactly the ones who want to jump through the hoops of academia.</p>
<p>The creative types not wanting to jump through the academic hoops is one of the ironies of it all. They want to do art so much (and at times ego is involved) that the other courses tend to be misplaced. That's one of the reasons many do not make it. About 30% with bachelors degrees get into graduate school and often its the miswended problems in academic courses which cause the trouble.
Very good he's getting some practical experience. Graphic design is a very competitive field. And more so since it went almost exclusively digital, it used to be the venue of an ad firms prior to the digital era. In the past the ad firms were the employers or the competition-pretty simple equation. Now lots of gypsy operators with home setups. Some little more than hobbyists, others quite successful.
And if he's going into commercial design, possible that an MFA may not be all that relevant or necessary. Nice to have but MFA's or PhD's used to be mainly intended to kick the door down for collegiate teaching positions. But even with that the placement rate for such is about 10%.
And really a good graphic artist can make more than a professor...just have to get used to the lack of sleep, ordering out eating, caffeine and more caffeine and lots of deadline pressures.</p>
<p>A friend of mine was a studio art major. She went on to get an art history masters at Yale.</p>
<p>Now she works in an office doing completely unrelated work, because, it was the the best she could do.</p>
<p>Kind of sucks the wow factor out of it all, doesn't it?</p>
<p>The wow factor under those conditions does tend to die of experience. And it is a very tough trade as indicated by the fact your friend who went to a good school ended up in another field. Those who got to lesser institutions tend to have even more problems getting it to work. And of course the whole problem is compounded by the costs of it all, which for MFA's (or Yale degrees) can be quite excessive. </p>
<p>It's one of the aspects of the whole situation that concerns me deeply. The universities have granted large numbers of art degrees but so few of those who obtain these degrees make it in the field. And the usual institutional evasion around the problem is the 'lifelong learner' nonsense or how valuable humanities degrees are for flexibility. Problem is that's not why people chose to get those degrees nor does it say much for the overall credibility of these programs if thats the best defense that can be stated. </p>
<p>Obviously the manner which art/art history/art education is taught really needs some drastic reforms. Perhaps much more stringent standards on MA/MFA thesis, which would require some serious research and writing rather than the usual drill which is often little more than a padded artists statement.
And perhaps service learning components wherein the artist has to move out into the community and get some experience in negotiation, and all the practical aspects needed to execute artwork outside of the studio...</p>
<p>Something needs to change, because although colleges can continue to enroll artists (who have that drive or essential core to their being and so will do anything to create)...these programs will become little more than a social sham if the end result for the students continues to be so diffuse.</p>
<p>Atana, good point about the cost of such programs. My friend with the art history graduate degree is going to be paying for for AGES!</p>
<p>Well it certainly is a problem. And to some degree academe has abrogated its moral responsibility in regards to these degrees. These degrees either should be credible or selective enough that getting one has some credence or perhaps these programs should be abolished or curtailed. </p>
<p>It may all be about numbers but in this case the numbers can't balance out the moral problems lurking in the account books. </p>
<p>No doubt the edudebt industry loves the situation because a MFA can cost almost as much as a MD or Juris doctorate, but its improbable the end pay gets even close. And I don't have access to the stats but I'd bet the edudebt predators make a fortune from defaults and enhanced fees resultant from the loans necessary to get an MFA. From an rational assessment the default rates have to be higher simply because of the lessened chance of applying these degrees for their intended end. And I'd doubt these degrees cross over all that well into other fields. </p>
<p>And culturally its disastrous because we lose people who could define the culture and teach others the value of art, lit, music and etc. Perhaps yet another reason that many other countries do not emulate the American model in higher education. </p>
<p>But it's very rare for academics in the humanities to say much about this issue. Which is unfortunate insofar as some discourse could mean much in reforming these programs and even pointing out the moral inequities which are inherent to the trend of American higher education selling its soul to the loan companies. Sometimes the worst condition or the most extreme case provides the best example for change...</p>
<p>Well, as the parent of humanities majors, there are plenty of degrees out there in addition to art that do not necessarily lead to good paying jobs. I remember looking through the average salaries for various majors on the UC Berkeley website and being shocked at how little many could expect to make upon graduation. They also list the types of jobs their graduates get and not many are in the same field as their major. This probably goes to the question of why people attend college: is learning for the sake of learning a good enough reason or should one focus on future earnings as a top priority? I do think more transparency and practical experience could only help.</p>
<p>"there are plenty of degrees out there in addition to art that do not necessarily lead to good paying jobs. I remember looking through the average salaries for various majors on the UC Berkeley website and being shocked at how little many could expect to make upon graduation." </p>
<p>Quite true, and although there cannot be a clear way for academia to correct for actual salaries in particular professions it could be well past time to address the growing imbalance between costs of education and actual benefits. If that balance isn't restored it's inevitable that many will have to make the pragmatic decision to avoid higher education. At least higher education as this country currently organizes it. </p>
<p>And because that imbalance is so marked in the humanities that is already the first field of study to be noticeably and quite adversely affected. Creative people do tend to be diffuse sometimes in certain logic, but that economic imbalance has become so very evident in regards to humanities studies that even the dreamers who habitually gaze to heavens floor can't ignore the distress at their feet. </p>
<p>"is learning for the sake of learning a good enough reason or should one focus on future earnings as a top priority?" </p>
<p>Very incisive question. I wish I could say that the life of the mind & etc were enough to be their own reward. But learning simply as a state in itself or as its own justification cannot be justified in our current system which tends to emphasize profit be that its own or that of secondary entities. Unfortunately in our current system those who do possess that genuine love of knowledge too often learn how much it costs. And our society loses something essential because we have allowed higher education to become such a thing. </p>
<p>"I do think more transparency and practical experience could only help." </p>
<p>Yes, higher education as a system has become macro-parasitic because of the manner in which its funded. And more transparency is desperately needed before academia (art programs and otherwise) loses that essential trust and bond with the people.</p>