<p>i've got into parsons and sva for a BFA in photography.
Could anyone tell me which would be a better choice and also sinc i have enough time a list of better schools for photography.</p>
<p>Leaving aside the relative quality of the programs (which ultimately is what's important), would you prefer an organization that makes a webpage like this -- <a href="http://www.schoolofvisualarts.edu/%5B/url%5D">http://www.schoolofvisualarts.edu/</a> -- or one that makes a webpage like this -- <a href="http://parsons.edu/%5B/url%5D">http://parsons.edu/</a> ? </p>
<p>I recently visited NYC and noticed a horrible and almost incomprehensible promotional poster for SVA at a subway station (something with a squirrel and a magician on it), and someone had written grafitti on it with the comment: "This is a terrible example of visual design."</p>
<p>I would strongly favor a program that provides a strong foundation in drawing and design. I know Parsons does this, and you can also readily find out how their curriculum is organized from their website. I can't easily tell whether SVA does this because their website is such a mess. I'm sure the information is there somewhere, however.</p>
<p>I know that you didn't ask for other recommendations, but you should also look at the following schools for photography, all of whom may be better than both Parsons and SVA. They are:
1. SAIC
2. RISD
3. RIT</p>
<p>These schools have very well recognized, well rated photography programs.</p>
<p>Parsons has direct entry into photography. The photo majors do not enter the foundation program. (drawing, etc.).</p>
<p>That's not true. Of the 36 credits taken in the first year, only 6 are in photography courses. The remaining 30 credits are in basic foundation courses (drawing and painting, color, design) plus writing and critical reading. Look here:
<a href="http://parsons.edu/departments/curriculum_101.aspx?pType=1&dID=76&sdID=101%5B/url%5D">http://parsons.edu/departments/curriculum_101.aspx?pType=1&dID=76&sdID=101</a></p>
<p>i've picked up the same suggestions from a friend already at one of the colleges u mentioned in chicago.
All the same i'd prefer NYC unless parsons is much too inferior than the ones you've mentioned. Is It?
please help!!!!!! where do u think parsons stands rankwise photography wise.</p>
<p>I see - then it must be the only major, incl fashion, where you begin courses in your major right away - no?</p>
<p>I don't know about the Parsons program; however, the ones I mentioned all have highly rated grad programs in Photography, while Parson's doesn't come close in the ratings to the ones mentioned.</p>
<p>mackinaw - of the two sites you posted, which was supposed to be the "good" one? :D</p>
<p>It has always floored me how awful much of the visual stuff is that comes out of many art and design schools in the US. Umea [<a href="http://www.dh.umu.se/%5D%5B/url">http://www.dh.umu.se/][/url</a>] on the other hand, has a wonderful site.</p>
<p>jkolko, great question! I left the answer to the 'reader' to determine. Of course I have my own opinion.</p>
<p>I want to slap the individual that designed RISD's home page navigation.
<a href="http://www.risd.edu/%5B/url%5D">http://www.risd.edu/</a></p>
<p>RIT is arguably the best photo school in the U.S., hands down.</p>
<p>Agree with you on that, RA. RISD's used to be even worse (4 years ago). I like some of the independent program pages at RISD a lot better than their overall school page. For example I like this one: <a href="http://digitalmedia.risd.edu/%5B/url%5D">http://digitalmedia.risd.edu/</a> .</p>
<p>In my experience, college/university/business webpages need to be updated at least every 3 years to take advantage of new technology (but not only to load in fancy stuff) and more generally to freshen them up. And the majority of university websites have major problems.</p>
<p>Mackinaw,</p>
<p>I was just watching a Sienfeld episode call Doodles. Subplot with Kramer on the joys of Mackinaw peaches! Thought of you...</p>
<p>Thanks, M&S! I just looked this up and Wikipedia says that although Kramer may have extolled their virtues no such variety of peach exists. I do know there's a Mackinaw Bridge (in my state) and of course other forms of mackinaw.</p>
<p>by rit u mean rochester institute of technology?</p>
<p>Yes. That's the one.</p>
<p>m&s: Here's a link to a review of the Luke Swank photography exhibition now at the Carnegie Museum of Art in Pittsburgh. I encouraged you to see the exhibition; this is a very sympathetic review.</p>
<p>Mac,</p>
<p>Thanks. I'll take my daughter who has a strong interest in photog, among other fine art passions. She went to the Carnegie Saturday art program from 3rd-9th grade, so knows the museum well.</p>
<p>What about Brooks Institute in California??? Thoughts anyone?</p>
<p>Way back yonder when I attended RIT, Brooks was considered a viable alternative for photo. An RIT classmate from Hawaii transfered there for his sophomore year, and returned to RIT for his Junior and Senior. I don't recall what reasons compelled him, but ultimately he chose the frozen wasteland of Rochester, NY over the more agreeable conditions of So Cal.</p>