Help me Decide, your opinions please!

College Majors Visual Arts and Film Majors
21

<p>If nothing looked wrong I want to believe you that they have updated their equipment (I did read it in reviews, don't remember where now...) I will try and find out more though, getting in touch with a current SVA student. If that does clear up then I can bump it up in my choices, because its tuition is considerably cheaper as many have said (but now one has to compare and see if that little extra money is worth it sigh....) And the adm. director said that have an entire building dedicated to photography (like 7 floors) which was impressive.</p>

<p>Does anybody know which is more well known for Photo - SVA or Parsons?</p>

<p>Thanks so much for all the info.</p>

<p>EDIT : Found this on SVA's website : "We recently gutted and renovated the photo department, adding new studios, darkrooms, two digital labs, and acquiring Canon D30 digital cameras, Omega D-5 enlargers and the newest Hasselblad systems. In addition to ongoing updates in technology and equipment, "</p>

<p>So I think that answers my question =)</p>

<p>But also while reading I found their enrollment rate is pretty low...
Admission: 2,530 applied; 1,745 admitted; 661 enrolled
Compared to Parsons...
Admission: 2,394 applied; 1,094 admitted; 488 enrolled</p>

22

<p>hey azhar,</p>

<pre><code> Hope your exams went well, just clearing up some information about Art Center, while they say on college board the admissions rate is high, thats cause it takes into consideration everyone who applies, and because the average freshman is 23 years old, many of the applicants have spent years developing their portfolio. When I talked to the tour guide(person on the admissions board) he said they only accept about 10% of kids out of high school.
</code></pre>

<p>peace,
scott</p>

23

<p>Oh yeah.... you seem to be right scott....
Well , I can't edit that post now, damn. </p>

<p>Thanks Scott. Exams went much better than expected. Last set to go in March then I'm done =D</p>

<p>Hey don't forget to tell me when schol. results come out.</p>

24

<p>Either way, all three schools (if not the others) are fantastic schools for your concentration. If I were you, decide based off location, strength of the program, art opportunities and money. Those factors seem the most important if you're pursuing photography.</p>

25

<p>I am very confused. Why did you not consider Rochester Institute of Photography (RIT)? Based on just tuition, fees, and room and board, it is less expensive than the other schools you mentioned, plus it gives a lot of merit aid. In addition, it is deemed better in photography than just about any other school in the US including SCAD, Ringling, Pratt, Parsons and even RISD. Thus, why didn't you apply there?</p>

26

<p>Taxguy: I'm not the OP but I would guess it's because of RIT's isolated location. Most of the schools on his list are in big cities. A lot of his work is street photography that fuels off the vibrancy of Mumbai, so I can see why he would want to stay in a large city. RIT is EXCELLENT if you want to be a commercial photographer, but not quite so much if you want to do something as location-specific as fine art street photography. </p>

<p>Again, I'm not the OP but this is just my theory as to why he might not have applied to RIT.</p>

27

<p>taxguyyy...... in every thread I have ever started you have mentioned RIT over and over and over lol......... let me explain,</p>

<p>Thank you Patois because that is one reason. </p>

<p>Firstly (and the do all and end all), I didn't hear of RIT when I was applying. Nobody mentioned it. So I never knew. So I didn't end up applying. So I can't go (I'm in India so its very hard to get good advice about art schools here and I only found this forum after I applied)</p>

<p>So maybe I should consider applying now? But I won't....</p>

<p>Secondly, RIT's photo programme may be rated the best, but I want to go to an art school. Not an art college within a university. My choice there.
Thirdly, with RITs high acceptance rate (it accepts photography students without a portfolio sometimes) I think I would be surrounded be point-and-shoot junkies. No offence, I'm sure RIT has some fantastic people there, but I think there would be a higher concentration of serious fantastic talent around me in an art school which looks at portfolio (and not just an essay). Plus I want to go courses in Graphic and Web design as well.</p>

<p>I like my choices now (love, in fact) and don't feel the need for another.</p>

<p>I don't want to argue with you so please lets just forget about RIT, if you have any advice regarding the schools I have applied to and am considering, I'd be happy to hear it. Sorry if I appear rude or anything, I don't mean to be, you have been helpful to me several times before, and I don't intend to show any disrespect or rudeness towards you, you're a cool guy, taxguy =) (rhymes!)</p>

<p>Taxguy, you think you're confused, look at me lol.</p>

<p>Patois, it seems you have seen my work, thank you =)</p>

<p>Oh and thanks for your advice asdfjkl1!</p>

28

<p>Azharc, first RIT does have openings,whether it be in protography is another question.</p>

<p>Secondly, If you want suggestions for art schools, definitely consider SAIC. They have a terrific reputation for photography.</p>

29

<p>SAIC was another school I missed out when applying. But I read here at CC in another thread that the degree is more of a conceptual one, not to my fancy.</p>

<p>Thanks for the thoughts Taxguy =)</p>

30

<p>
[quote]
But also while reading I found their enrollment rate is pretty low...
Admission: 2,530 applied; 1,745 admitted; 661 enrolled
Compared to Parsons...
Admission: 2,394 applied; 1,094 admitted; 488 enrolled

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Actually, those enrollment rates are pretty darn close. If you work out the numbers, SVA has a 37.9% enroll rate, and Parsons has a 41% enroll rate. A 3% difference shouldn't even give you a pause.</p>

31

<p>Parsons is 45% actually. But you're right it is close. It <em>looks</em> like a bigger gap.</p>

32

<p>hmmm, wonder where my math went bad... must've made a typo into the calculator, because now I'm getting 44.6%.</p>

<p>Oh, that's it, one of my brief dyslexic moments. I must've used 448 instead of 488.</p>

33

<p>Haha loi (yes, loi - laughing on the inside - <a href="http://www.nomorelol.com%5B/url%5D"&gt;www.nomorelol.com&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/p>

<p>Just an off-topic thought, anyone knows where I can find the Parsons catalog in PDF online?</p>

34

<p>My job is near SVA/ Parsons.
Are you planning to live in the dorm?
In the area, East 25 to 28 street on and around Lexington Ave is bit like little India. Restaurants, spice and candy shops.
Just some food (really) for thought. If you go out to Queens, there is bigger little India, subway ride away and to live, rent is much cheaper than Manhattan.</p>

35

<p>Yeah I am planning to live in the dorm...
Oh really? Thats awesome... I'll read about it and see if its a better option to not live in the dorm... more importantly, if its cheaper.</p>

36

<p>Azharc, you're saying that SVA JUST RECENTLY got some 30ds for the photo department? Damn, I am not impressed. One of the best art schools in the country just got a hold of some cameras that are nearly obsolete now. That's not good man, especially considering that the 40d came out a few months back and completely blew the 30d out of the water. Do they have a complete list of equipment anywhere?</p>

37

<p>Call the department and ask, they wouldn't have that information online since it's probably constantly updated.</p>

<p>A thought on the 30d's:</p>

<p>They are <em>NOT</em> obsolete, you have to consider where the funding is going in the department. New cameras cost a lot when bought in bulk, and departmental funding is usually per semester. They probably prioritize. What is more important, securing the amount of chemicals needed to support the photography program as existing, OR getting NEW cameras that may have one to two different functions but are generally the same as the SLR predecessors?</p>

38

<p>Yes azharc, Jackson Heights is like being back in India, basically. So, I have a feeling that you would be very happy there..</p>

<p>I get the feeling that to get the whole art school experience, it's better to live in the dorm. Either way, most freshman live in the dorm the first year.</p>

39

<p>Patois, I know that they have other costs to consider. And yes, the 30d is quickly becoming obsolete. All DSLRs are constantly one upping each other. The 5d is going to become much cheaper soon because a new version is coming out. It's just the way technology works.</p>

<p>I can also see how darkroom expenses could add up quickly. I know that you will definitely disagree, but I don't think film should be such a big component of the programs. However, I've never even shot 35mm, but it really seems like a hassle. If that's what you're into, great. By all means do it and have fun. But from reading the photo curriculum of many schools, I can see that film still seems to dominate.</p>

40

<p>If you've never shot film and you want to go to art school for photography you should really, really, really learn wet processing and darkroom skills. It's a whole different skill set than digital photography. It is more demanding than digital photography, on many levels. Wet processing and the darkroom is a large part of what makes photography an art and not just applied design. Trust me, once you get in a darkroom (which your portfolio will need, regardless of where you apply - sans SCAD or RIT - at least for the next decade, anyway) you will understand why photography is considered a process oriented art form. Digital removes much of this process, which is why a lot of photographers dislike it. This is why you do not see many fine art photographers completely swayed into the digital realm. Sure, there are some who use the concept of digital media and include it in their photography. But there really is something to be said for having a TRUE command of the medium in all respects. And that is why film is here to stay. </p>

<p>I'm aware of how technology works. Honestly, one DSLR six months older than another does not make the predecessor obsolete. Obsolete would be like, the original DSLR. Or if the highest model they had was a rebel. That would be closer to being "obsolete".</p>

<p>If anything, I'd say SVA is smart to wait until there is a large leap in technology to buy a new set of equiptment rather than add on every new bit and bangle that comes out.</p>