<p>//Especially for fine art... I think portfolios matter.</p>
<p>To consistently produce high quality art, one must put in a lot of effort and I don't think it's wrong for schools to preview what you can do in their program by way of checking portfolios b4 admission...//</p>
<p>I certainly agree, and at SCAD, Painting applicants were very much NOT likely admitted without a portfolio review, while many Historical Preservation applicants were.</p>
<p>//RainingAgain,
Why the sarcasm? Just a friendly discussion here.//</p>
<p>Because on occassion Taxguy has used this forum as an opportunity to be critical of some of SCAD's policies, and I find it ironic that he apparently now agrees with something I made many attempts to establish its validity. It's fine to be critical BTW, but when the opinion is based upon limited knowledge and a skewed perspective, then, as a SCAD grad, I am going to correct him.</p>
<p>RainingAgain, I don't agree with SCAD's policies about not requiring a portfolio . Let me make that clear. I, however, do understand, which is your point, that design can be trained to a willing, able student. HOWEVER, I do believe that by requiring portfolios, SCAD would increase the success rate of its admitted students. Maybe, as you note, the portfolio shouldn't be weighted 50% as it is with CMU or RIT,but I think it should have some consideration.</p>
<p>can be used as a supplement OR IN LIEU OF a portfolio.</p>
<p>........so there's another school that is flexible with the portfolio requirement.</p>
<p>DGB, I have no problem with a design project in lieu of a formal portfolio. I just think that something, either a portfolio or design project, should be required to show the colleges what level of drawing skill the applicant currently has.</p>
<p>//Maybe, as you note, the portfolio shouldn't be weighted 50% as it is with CMU or RIT,but I think it should have some consideration.//</p>
<p>Will you please stop perpetuating this baloney? Enough already. Do you not understand that portfolios DO receive CONSIDERABLE weight? Do you have any idea how many portfolio reviews I conducted for SCAD admissions? Do you have any idea to what degree those portfolio reviews were taken into account? Do you have any idea how many applicants I summarily rejected because of the portfolio alone? You know NONE of these answers, so please do not speak of things you know nothing about. </p>
<p>Here's the scoop; if the portfolio was below average, the student ought to have an excellent GPA, and an excellent SAT score as well as appropriate letters of recommendation. If the grades were below average, the portfolio had better be above average. I'm generalizing, but the portfolio was ALWAYS given consideration. Also, some majors leaned more heavily on the portfolio regardless, for example, painting. And others leaned on it less, for example, historic preservation. Finally, while a portfolio wasn't/isn't required, it was ALWAYS highly encouraged. I would guess 96% of applicants submitted one overall, with many majors at the 99.9% mark.</p>
<p>And people even wonder why I sound sarcastic? Geeeeezzzzz.</p>
<p>//DGB, I have no problem with a design project in lieu of a formal portfolio. I just think that something, either a portfolio or design project, should be required to show the colleges what level of drawing skill the applicant currently has.//</p>
<p>Why? If drawing can be taught, then why does it matter? And, it can be taught. Furthermore, many majors do not require drawing skills. Taxguy, you simply do not know anything about teaching art and design-based curricula.</p>
<p>Let's just call an end to this discussion about portfolios, please!</p>
<p>Art is about more than bickering and fighting on a message board. Artists who have talent--just like any person--should find their place, if they put their best forward. Rest is up to fate.</p>
<p>cheers.</p>
<p>//Let's just call an end to this discussion about portfolios, please!//</p>
<p>One more fact; statistically students with the highest GPAs were most likely to stay in school regardless of their talent. A student with superior talent, may well flunk out. At this level its about your work ethic. Talent will likely only get you through the first two years of a BFA, and possibly even less if you're a real slacker. Quite frankly, the quality of a H.S. student's portfolio is not consistently indicative of their success through a 4-year program. I saw it with my own eyes many times over.</p>
<p>
[quote]
One more fact; statistically students with the highest GPAs were most likely to stay in school regardless of their talent. A student with superior talent, may well flunk out. At this level its about your work ethic. Talent will likely only get you through the first two years of a BFA, and possibly even less if you're a real slacker.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I don't think a talented art student should have trouble getting a BFA in a program that fits her or his style. A student can flunk out for many reasons; the term slacker is an easy cop-out schools use to shed their own part in a student's failure.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Quite frankly, the quality of a H.S. student's portfolio is not consistently indicative of their success through a 4-year program. I saw it with my own eyes many times over.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I'm not an expert on stats; just speaking honestly here.</p>
<p>//I don't think a talented art student should have trouble getting a BFA in a program that fits her or his style. A student can flunk out for many reasons; the term slacker is an easy cop-out schools use to shed their own part in a student's failure.//</p>
<p>Hello? Many talent art students fail to live up to their potential because they do not apply themselves to the rigors of academia. And this ought to be true of all majors, not just art. What kind of legitimate art program isn't rigorous? The real world is rigorous; part of the responsibility of a program is to prepare students to become successful in their fields of study. Assignments need to be completed on time, and students must learn to manage their time as they may be taking 2 or 3 studio classes simultaneously. Talent has nothing to do with these issues. Also, many simply do not devote themselves to their Gen. Ed. classes properly, and their grades may suffer. Students are also faced with temptations and distractions such as drinking, partying, etc. </p>
<p>I know SCAD has many programs in place to assist students with handling new responsibilities and managing their time. There was and probably still is a First Year Seminar course which teaches them everything from managing a checking account to dealing with roommate problems to whatever. A school can only offer so much support, at some pointthe student has to listen and use it, from counseling to faculty and administrative advisors, etc. Just because a student is talented doesn't me they take advantage of these opportunities.</p>
<p>As a student you might run into a bad prof. or two, but it's up to you to do a little research and discover the bad eggs. Plus, one bad prof. certainly should not make or break a student. </p>
<p>I do think it is entirely upon the student's shoulders as to their academic success. If you can enlighten me otherwise, please do. As a Freshman, I had a rough time at the beginning...did I hold RIT accountable? No. Later when I was better prepared and more mature I returned to finish what I started. It wasn't RIT's responsibility to "nurture" me and hold my hand. There were appropriate services available that I did use, but in the end it still came down to me. And that's how I would feel about all students.</p>
<p>Please enlighten me how a school might contribute to a student's failure. I'd like to understand your opinion better.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Many talent art students fail to live up to their potential because they do not apply themselves to the rigors of academia.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>That might be true, but it is also true that a lot of schools fail to live up to their potential and/or claims. Many lack basic facilities and professors who know what they're doin'. This can contribute greatly to a student's lack of success in a program. </p>
<p>
[quote]
And this ought to be true of all majors, not just art. What kind of legitimate art program isn't rigorous?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I didn't mean to imply it should be easy. I just don't think an art student would necessarily go crazy in the process of getting an art degree a.k.a. a BFA. Nothing's easy, but some programs seem to be there only to limit the student's ability to practice their art and are not flexible at all. </p>
<p>That's why I mentioned the style of a program being important for an art student.</p>
<p>
[quote]
The real world is rigorous; part of the responsibility of a program is to prepare students to become successful in their fields of study. Assignments need to be completed on time, and students must learn to manage their time as they may be taking 2 or 3 studio classes simultaneously. Talent has nothing to do with these issues. Also, many simply do not devote themselves to their Gen. Ed. classes properly, and their grades may suffer. Students are also faced with temptations and distractions such as drinking, partying, etc.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Not a drinker/party person, so I wouldn't know about distractions or failing classes.</p>
<p>
[quote]
As a student you might run into a bad prof. or two, but it's up to you to do a little research and discover the bad eggs. Plus, one bad prof. certainly should not make or break a student.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>In a program that had 2 studio faculty, I realized that both were fairly crazy and were not teaching the type of art that I am interested in making and that I do make quite often. They were mostly about ego. Needless to say I transferred after my first semester. Admittedly, this place was not art school but it was a top LAC and supposedly had a decent art program. At least the art faculty thought they knew it all!</p>
<p>
[quote]
Please enlighten me how a school might contribute to a student's failure. I'd like to understand your opinion better.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Basically, if the school has bad faculty/program... you get a bad education. You don't get the training, awards, etc... you might otherwise have. You fail to sell your work to its targeted audience... you might not get the right job. Definitely, you are less confident about your art.. OR you quit/transfer before it's too late.</p>
<p>Personally, I transferred to avoid such a situation.</p>
<p>//Basically, if the school has bad faculty/program... you get a bad education. You don't get the training, awards, etc... you might otherwise have. You fail to sell your work to its targeted audience... you might not get the right job. Definitely, you are less confident about your art.. OR you quit/transfer before it's too late//</p>
<p>My perspective did not take LACs into account. I don't think you'd have any such problems at an art college. However, I did have an outstanding art prof. at an LAC - it may be a hit or miss situation.</p>
<p>One of the profs I had at this LAC told me some profs you'll have at art school will just hate you... When I asked why, she said they just will.
"Everyone has to have someone [else] to hate."</p>
<p>Puking...</p>
<p>Since she had gone to some (no-name) art school, she thought she knew everything about art school. Tried to freak me out from going and was unfair to me overall. I was the only student that their program had practically and after I got what some would say are unparalleled offers from some of the top art schools--they did absolutely nothing but criticize me for trying to transfer mid-year.</p>
<p>I dunno... I rest my case.</p>