<p>I'm creating my list of school to apply now, and the degree I want to apply is MFA.</p>
<p>My background is graphic design,
and what I've made now is some posters, flash animaiton,
typography and even photography, so many different directions. </p>
<p>I want to pursue further study at this area, maybe step into the web interaction,
interaction installation or the user interface design.</p>
<p>Here is my first list, but I'm not sure if I've made the right decision.</p>
<p>I choose them for the impression of the website, the portfolio and the courses they offered.
If anyone know something about these school or other good school, could you tell me?
You may offer the information about the course, the professor, the style, what they focus on,
and whether it is easy to find jobs.</p>
<p>I don’t know anything about MFA programs, but at one point I did apply as an undergrad transfer student for a bunch of art schools because I thought I’d do graphic design.</p>
<p>I tried to find the best GD programs out there and I came up with these schools:
RISD
pasadena art center
U. cincinnati
MICA</p>
<p>I think other notable ones I found were pratt, SAIC, SVA, RIT</p>
<p>I did apply to SAIC, but for me I didn’t like the fact that they really pushed individual expression. I think pratt was more industry based, focusing on a lot of the technical side of art (it was my first choice school), and if I remember right, they expect that in your portfolio as well, as opposed to other more “fine-art” schools like SAIC or MICA. </p>
<p>if you wanted to go to a school with a lot of connections and job placement emphasis I’d definitely look at U cincinnati or art center first. they’re known to be schools that focus on current industry trends and I know U cincinnati even had required internships.</p>
<p>keep in mind though, I applied as an undergrad so I’m not sure how differently MFA’s work</p>
<p>Thx so much!
I know pratt is famous, and how about Parsons, have you checked it?
It seems that parsons also have good connection with the industry and in my point of view, I prefer Parson’s students’ work. I am interested in its Art and technology as well.
I want to know how do you think of it.
Also I like MCAD’s portfolio and I am attracted by their free chance to take BFA classes when pursuing the MFA.</p>
<p>I know so little about U cincinnati and I will go and have a look at their website.
Thank u!</p>
<p>you really should consider a low residency program like the one at lesley university. programs like that really give you time to actually do your work instead of like traditional mfas which are just undergrad school dragged on for a couple more years. traditional programs are great–you get a community, a studio, lots of feed back and then when you’re done it all vanishes–you’ve got a degree but are totally on your own. low res. programs actually prepare you to be an independent artist because you already are one. check it out–full time programs cost at least three times as much and deliver so much less.</p>
<p>Hey ossie5,
Thx so much!
But I’ve never heard of Lesley University, I guess I will do some research on it.
Still, I don’t know what you mean by saying “low residency”, since I am a Asian, I have limited ability to understand something, so sorry. Could you please do some explanation??
That would be so helpful!</p>
<p>“Low residency” means that you do most of your work and classes online, and then attend brief, intense periods of time (usually twice a year) on campus. These residencies, or periods of time on campus, last 7-10 days on average. Since you are in Asia, it would mean that you would have to fly to the US and back twice a year, or for however many residencies your program requires. The residencies are usually filled with lectures, workshops, and meetings with your advisor.</p>
<p>Low residency programs work best for those who are working full-time or who already have credentials in the field but wish to have the degree to further their career. If you are coming directly from undergrad, you are likely to be disappointed in such a program since you get to know your fellow students only during the residencies and online, not on a daily basis.</p>
<p>i disagree with the idea that low residency programs don’t work for younger students–yes maybe someone who wants grad school to be a continuation of the infantilizing environment of residence in a college might be a little disappointed but as a preparation for working independently as an artist, a good low residency program will do more for anyone than the best traditional program. i have seen it happen with over and over with people who have finished both kinds of programs. full residency gives you a studio a community and an audience–when you graduate you are stranded. low residency–you have your own working studio, you build independent research skills and work habits, and you build a local community and audience while enrolled and guided by your professors-- and when you graduate you continue to work and be productive.</p>
<p>it will be a while before people give this new model of education the respect it deserves.
i believe that for graduate art education it will eventually become the standard approach. natural selection takes time.</p>
<p>I’m very familiar with low residency MFA programs, not in art but in creative writing. I never said that they don’t work for younger students but that they work best for those who have obligations that make it difficult to be on campus or to relocate. STudents who are coming directly from undergrad are usually disappointed (it can work for them, but they have to be ready for a different environment) because you’re left to your own devices most of the time. The structure of that classes give are missing, and students often don’t interact as well online. The two learning environments are VERY different.</p>
<p>But you’re right. Low-resdency programs don’t have the respect that traditional ones do. And they often aren’t as good in placing students in careers because 1. employers don’t respect them as much and 2. there is no on-campus recruiting because the campus is only temporary. Those already with credentials going into such a program generally have better outcomes in employment.</p>
<p>“Low-resdency programs don’t have the respect that traditional ones do. And they often aren’t as good in placing students in careers because 1. employers don’t respect them as much and 2. there is no on-campus recruiting because the campus is only temporary. Those already with credentials going into such a program generally have better outcomes in employment.”</p>
<p>i am not talking about job placement–getting an mfa to get a job is not something i would recommend to anyone. if you are getting an mfa it had better be for your growth as an artist</p>
<p>as to whether traditional grad school in the arts is infantilizing–of course it is --just because you are being abused doesn’t mean you are not being treated like a child.</p>
<p>“STudents who are coming directly from undergrad are usually disappointed (it can work for them, but they have to be ready for a different environment) because you’re left to your own devices most of the time. The structure of that classes give are missing, and students often don’t interact as well online. The two learning environments are VERY different.”</p>
<p>being left to you own devices while having intelligent mentoring is how one becomes a functional independent creative artist. the loss of class structure may disappoint some students–that does not mean that it might actually be better for them in developing into independent creative artist–which should be the only goal of an mfa program. i don’t think the traditional mfa does this for most people who attend them. why else do so many --most–mfa grads stop making art after they get a degree?</p>
<p>as to the claim that–quote—"that they work best for those who have obligations that make it difficult to be on campus or to relocate. "–of course they are good for such
students because other wise they could not do graduate work at all, but that is far besides the point i am making. i will say it again–the traditional mfa can be a great way to spend a couple of years but that has nothing to do the question “are those two years going to help you to be an independent creative artist?” sure, it works for some people–but i believe that for most it it is actually detrimental. .</p>
<p>Both kinds are two year programs. If you want to come to the US to study, I suggest the traditional route. Ossie5 suggests the non-traditional, low residency program. You’ll have to decide what’s best for you.</p>
<p>I used to work in the Multimedia Department and this is a great school. Collaborative work environment, urban setting, inspiring faculty. Check 'em out - uarts.edu.
Good luck!</p>