<p>I agree with timkerdes.
Above you mentioned painting AND sculpture. Of your choices, only SAIC will put no restrictions on you if you want to bounce back and forth between the two.</p>
<p>GARHIAGOG <em>frustration grumble</em> haha yeah…now that you guys talk about that…that kills me the most — the ability to take sculpture and painting at the same time —</p>
<p>BUT…after long long long hours of thinking, running around in circles, and smashing my head into the wall…I just decided to go to RISD. Honestly, I’m kind of a “laid-back” person and I really need that kind of rigorous atmosphere/faculty/professors that will really push me and thats the kind of feeling I got from RISD. What I wasn’t sure about was that at SAIC, I would have to kind of do things on my own…and I’m not exactly sure how that’ll work out… </p>
<p>On the issue concerning my interest with sculpture, I also noticed that there was a “winter session” in RISD where I could take sculpture class anyway…I asked a recent RISD grad about this, and she confirmed that this was so- that you could take a pretty good amount of classes outside your major, which is a plus. Even though the financial aid/scholarship was awesome from SAIC - I sort of sound cheesy saying this- but I looove nature and quiet areas. One thing that was repeated quite often was definitely the fact that RISD is in the “middle of nowhere” …but the risd grad told me that since there isn’t a lot to do in the area, there is a strong sense of community and there isn’t necessarily nothing to do at risd…But I think it all depends on each person, because I heard of some students who transferred because they couldn’t take the area of the school (felt claustrophobic I guess). </p>
<p>Even though someday I would love to experience and work in a city, I don’t feel comfortable actually living in one, and it’s nice that if I go to RISD, I can actually have/go to a place i can escape to (nyc). </p>
<p>I’m still not exactly 100 percent sure about my choice…there’s a lot of conflicting advice I got haha but you guys ROCK. <em>thumbs up</em> </p>
<p>what I didn’t really like about SAIC and what I heard from others was that even though SAIC is well known for it’s painting/fine arts department, it’s actually the graduate programs that are good? And I’m still not too sure about the conceptual part, I want to learn technique too because I think it’s important to develop technique first, and combine it in a unique way when approaching conceptual work. And once again, I think I would do well in an environment like risd where there is more competition, (but not hating on saic!) I heard that the atmosphere there is more relaxed compared to risd, and that it is very easy to sort of “float around” for four years… </p>
<p>You guys were so awesome and I hope that this thread helps a lot of students out too! Timkerdes you rock, and I thank you so much drae27 for your input!! you gave me a lot of advice and things to think about…If I could not afford the tuition for RISD, I would have definitely gone to SAIC…but thankfully thankfully I am able to afford it and I’m not exactly sure yet of what my future would be like, but If I were to go to a graduate school later, I don’t think it’ll be that bad to have RISD as my undergrad school… 
You guys rock seriously…I’m known -based on what my friends say- to be VERY indecisive when it comes to ANYTHING and quite impulsive at the same time so if one thing turned me off about another school I would immediately choose that school, but this thread made me think more carefully a lot 
</p>
<p>Thank you guys soo much!! <em>cyberhugs</em>! Soo much of your advices was really helpful, this is kind of like my <em>secret</em> awesome college guidance counseling area…haha </p>
<p>Peace out!</p>
<p>Just so it makes you feel better about your decision, I disagree with the statements that as a underclass student at SAIC you would be able to move between disciplines and "regardless of where you go you’ll be exposed to technique. " and I am stating this just as a simple statement of fact, I have nothing against the school. I think it has some strong points but from the experiences of students I know who have gone to SAIC the first year is totally focused on concept and there is very little in the way of traditional technical / technique instruction. </p>
<p>Also getting into sculpture classes beyond the very basics can be quite difficult and not available until upper years so they may say that you can “float” between disciplines but there’s a limit to equipment access even though they have that really really impressive sculpture area. I think this is one reason the graduate school has the higher acclaim than the undergrad. Graduate students come with their own set of skills and techniques and have obviously advanced wherever they were.</p>
<p>This may end up being true at RISD also, most of these art schools now have those foundation years which may or may not be focused on technical instruction. It would be helpful perhaps for upcoming students if you weighed in on what you discover at RISD. With the costs of these schools and the current economy it is imperative that art students really weigh and judge their decisions as carefully as possible. Coming out of art school with a heavy debt load will really impede your ability to make art after graduation.</p>
<p>Good luck and let students know how it’s going next year.</p>
<p>I posted a response yesterday but it didn’t go through.</p>
<p>First…congratulations on your decision. Yesterday I had written that you didn’t have a bad choice in the bunch and that while I had been rooting for SAIC I am happy very for you about RISD (my son goes there!). But artsmarts post intrigues me. I would love to hear more from other SAIC students about what is and isn’t possible at SAIC. They certainly do a big sell on the ability to work across disciplines pretty freely. My younger son almost just chose it for that very reason.</p>
<p>As for RISD most of what you write is true…great professors, strong community, rigor and access to nature if you want it (RISD Farm!!)</p>
<p>Foundation year at RISD is a mix of technical and conceptual work. It all depends on your teachers. I do think they try to mix it up so that if you had say a pretty classical drawing teacher first semester, you might get one who is trying to shake students up a bit the second semester.</p>
<p>What you heard about wintersession is also true and it very well may be that your major allows for more opportunity to explore other departments in the fall and spring semesters than say an ID or architecture major. My son was able to take ceramics in his first year, an architecture offering in his second year, a furniture offering in his third during wintersession while being an ID student. During those classes he had full access to whatever studio facilities he needed. Next year he will have finished up so many of his requirements for ID that he will be able to look at other disciplines if he wants to. The only thing that frustrated him about wintersession is that it went from 6 weeks to his first tow years to 5 weeks this past year. I think it had something to do with lining up a bit more with Brown’s semester schedule.</p>
<p>All the best to you!!! Yes…please check back in the future and let us know how things are going.</p>
<p>Hey guys! I’m kind of embarrassed to say this… but after much consideration, I actually chose Pratt. I was extremely close to choosing RISD but after thinking really hard, I think I really need the resources NY has to offer…going to museums, seeing galleries…I get inspired a lot by looking at what artists do. RISD’s strong programs and professors was the selling point for me, but at the end of the day, I want to be a fine artist and I probably will get my masters at some point in the future. I’m not exactly sure about the fine arts department at pratt, but there are a lot of working artists at NY so I doubt that the quality of professors at pratt would be sub par compared to other schools. And because I received a lot of financial aid + scholarship, I don’t think it’ll be that bad. </p>
<p>If I really didn’t like pratt after attending, I could always transfer to RISD. And even though my grandparents may be paying for my education…the hefty 250k with the additional expense of possibly attending grad school would be …a lot… </p>
<p>haha I’m FINALLY sending in my school deposit and the May 1 deadline is passed so this would be the “final” decision 
</p>
<p>Thanks for sticking with me! and yes, I’ll update you guys later on how I like Pratt!!!</p>
<p>Bye!! :)</p>
<p>:)
You are keeping us entertained. As I said…you really didn’t have a bad choice in the bunch. Go forth young padawan…</p>
<p>artsmarts</p>
<p>I would like to know how what your saying is a fact? </p>
<p>Different schools define technique differently. The way I consider technique encompasses more than rendering accurate spatial illusions. For example, mixing glazes/scumbles, building panels, making paints by combing pigments with various vehicles and materials, making various kinds of textures and marks through material manipulation, building palletes, creating underpaintings and other prep work, and proper ways to combine mediums in an archival manner all refer to technique. Are you saying that there is a school that doesn’t teach these things in its painting department? Perhaps there may not be an official techniques in painting class, but being exposed to teachers who are working artists means being exposed to different techniques, as you can always question them about material usage. Furthermore, you can ask shop technicians about these things at pretty much any school that also has facilities.</p>
<p>Also, here’s a link to Saic’s painting department.Just click on “portfolio”. The first half consists of mfa student work, the second half is undergrad. As I see it, there is no less technical facility demonstrated in their work than at Risd, as an example.</p>
<p>Also, as I see it, taking only one studio class outside of your major a year, or one class in a wintersession is not very interdisciplinary at all. Especially for a subject like painting, which has much less disciplinary boundaries than design fields do.</p>
<p>[SAIC</a> - Painting and Drawing - School of the Art Institute of Chicago](<a href=“http://www.saic.edu/academics/departments/ptdw/]SAIC”>Best Painting & Drawing School - Develop Your Artistic Practice at SAIC)</p>
<p>Well…
where to start Tinkerdes.
First of all I think “technique”'s definition is broader than the simple rendering of accurate spatial illusions. Including some of the very things you followed with in the next section. I believe I touched on the topic more completely in an early post using the phrase traditional instruction. But I would offer that there’s a difference between actual instruction and some sort of exposure to technique because you are in the same classroom as a teacher who is a working artist, a sort of osmosis assumption of learning. Some of the “better” artists in my acquaintance are also the worst teacher so working artist doesn’t necessarily transfer to good teacher.</p>
<p>You seem to assume that I am not a fan of SAIC and that is simply not true. In fact I have noted that I think the school has many strong points. However my caution, and perhaps this has changed since in recent years, is that the foundation year and the school in general at least in the past has been very strongly focused on conceptual art. </p>
<p>There has been much discussion of this in the past on this site and it was the experience of people I know who attended the school. And there is nothing wrong with this but it is not the experience some are looking for so I think it is important that this be mentioned. I’ve observed some excellent teachers at SAIC but the general focus is on conceptual art. And I must admit that I am not a big fan of foundation years in general but that’s perhaps another thread. </p>
<p>I never once said anywhere that the work of paintings of students at SAIC demonstrated less technical ability than those of any other painting department. In fact, I agree that the work of the upper level undergrad painting students can be quite strong as evidenced by those examples in the link you provided.</p>
<p>But can we not agree that the focus and scope of teaching can vary from school to school? Not better or worse but certainly different. And that should be mentioned. These schools are horrendously expensive and information should by definition, inform. I’ve also repeatedly said on this site in posts that your school experience while enhanced by your choice of school is also what you yourself make of it by working working and working some more. You are not guaranteed success in your work by your choice of school but rather by the effort you put into your work.
Yet, I do not underestimate the importance of making the best choice you can, someone who is looking for a more traditional approach in instruction might become disheartened in a school where the focus is on concept, and vice versa. So it’s not unfair to mention these things.</p>
<p>“First of all I think “technique”'s definition is broader than the simple rendering of accurate spatial illusions. Including some of the very things you followed with in the next section. I believe I touched on the topic more completely in an early post using the phrase traditional instruction. But I would offer that there’s a difference between actual instruction and some sort of exposure to technique because you are in the same classroom as a teacher who is a working artist, a sort of osmosis assumption of learning. Some of the “better” artists in my acquaintance are also the worst teacher so working artist doesn’t necessarily transfer to good teacher.”</p>
<p>Asking teachers about a process is one of the ways to gain knowledge in techniques and materials. Another way is to question technicians. From my experience, asking nicely how to do some kind of technical process has been just as effective in actually taking a class in the process. I think the difference is that you may have to ask versus having technical process built into curriculum.</p>
<p>“You seem to assume that I am not a fan of SAIC and that is simply not true.” </p>
<p>Thats not true, I don’t think I suggested this at any point. You said that your position was a fact. I just asked “how so?”.</p>
<p>“In fact I have noted that I think the school has many strong points. However my caution, and perhaps this has changed since in recent years, is that the foundation year and the school in general at least in the past has been very strongly focused on conceptual art.”</p>
<p>You see, my skepticism of painting at Saic being overly conceptual vs formal comes from my hesitance to believe that the conceptual crop of artists study painting seriously when they can do video,photo, sculpture, or performance. Painting is closer to printmaking in terms of process, materials, and technique than to the other disciplines I listed. Being invested in painting means being invested in form and process.</p>
<p>“There has been much discussion of this in the past on this site and it was the experience of people I know who attended the school. And there is nothing wrong with this but it is not the experience some are looking for so I think it is important that this be mentioned. I’ve observed some excellent teachers at SAIC but the general focus is on conceptual art. And I must admit that I am not a big fan of foundation years in general but that’s perhaps another thread.”</p>
<p>I would like to know why your no fan of foundation year (personal curiosity) but I suppose that may be too tangential. Now, I don’t know much about SAIC as a whole but I do know about its painting program and from what I do know, painting is technical at Saic. I cant speak for the other programs at the school. Also, having a conceptual foundation year is irrelevant in the end isn’t it? Since painting is something students study no earlier than sophomore year. So whether a school is conceptual or not doesn’t really factor into painting instruction.</p>
<p>“But can we not agree that the focus and scope of teaching can vary from school to school? Not better or worse but certainly different. And that should be mentioned.”</p>
<p>Of course, I don’t think we ever disagreed on such a point. However, I just think the distinction between a conceptual school and a technical school is marginal in terms of the discipline of painting - and I am someone who is coming from a technical school to a conceptual school. I think the biggest difference between Saic and other schools would be their policies as well as how the curriculum is structured. Painting is technical anywhere in the same sense that printmaking is highly technical anywhere. There’s just no way to really circumvent technique in painting as opposed to other disciplines.</p>
<p>“I think the difference is that you may have to ask versus having technical process built into curriculum.”
In my opinion when you are paying the sorts of tuitions that are being charged you shouldn’t have to ask for some instruction in technical process. And asking nicely shouldn’t even come into the picture. Also you stated “you will be exposed to technique regardless of where you go” and I don’t believe that is a concretely true statement. There are many schools, art schools or university art departments where this is a real weakness. That is what I was referring to as “a fact.”</p>
<p>And I don’t really believe that for some students having a conceptual-focused foundation year is irrelevant. At least not in terms of losing a year of instruction. And I guess that’s my point, the reason painting isn’t something students study until the sophomore year is because they are required to spend a year in foundation courses. If the courses are useful that’s one thing but I’m not convinced they are all that useful whether at SAIC or anywhere else.</p>
<p>“I think the biggest difference between Saic and other schools would be their policies as well as how the curriculum is structured.” I’m curious as to what you mean exactly by this and I think it would be of great interest to parents and upcoming students.</p>
<p>Just a second thought for all you college age students. Timkerdes, you refer to taking a class in a certain technical process. I am of a certain, a-hem, age (that means I’m pretty old) with an art degree and a lifetime of work in the arts, mostly graphics and commercial oriented but started out as a fine artist. I’ve been thinking about this and my thought is, feel free to dispute this, is that your generation has spent a lifetime in schools with open classrooms and most of you were probably taught with self-discovery methods. It may not seem that odd to you to have to ask about certain technical points or issues, not odd that your instructors are more focused on the thinking about art and less into instructing you on how to actually operate that video camera or gesso that canvas. And maybe that’s not the case at your school but hear me out anyway.</p>
<p>But please remember that while you applied for acceptance to these schools, they are also your clients in a sense. You are paying them for the privilege of attending. In fact you are paying them a lot of money. </p>
<p>I read today that just since the 1980s tuitions have risen 6 fold, so if that is applicable to most of these art schools that means that at the time most of you were being born tuition was around $6,000 a year. The actual cost of living has not gone up anywhere near that amount. So tuition increases are very askew. It is to the point that most of you will come out of school regardless of what you’re studying with debt, some with extremely heavy debt loads. These schools owe you a very substantive and complete education. Do not be afraid to have as high expectations of them as they had of you when you did that portfolio review. In fact have higher expectations and don’t be afraid to demand that curriculum be very inclusive and teachers have a lot of knowledge to impart about their subjects. </p>
<p>Just a general statement as personally I really really feel for today’s students with the expenses of these schools. So remember the administration is relying on you financially and so while you’re thrilled to be accepted you also have a right to ask a lot of the schools.</p>
<p>Sorry for getting all philosophical there but this is advice from a parent and an artist. I think that it’s great that you have this forum to share information and try to get a more comprehensive view of each school. And Timkerdes, I really am curious as to whether you have heard or found (if you are a student there) that the interdisplinary possibilities do exist early on at SAIC. From what I’ve heard that doesn’t start becoming much of a possibility until Junior year in some areas. I think there are some parents and students here who would love to know what you’ve found.</p>
<p>Hey guys!</p>
<p>Just thought I would update everyone on how things are for me! And looking back- i really appreciate that everyone tried to help me out. Well, I’ve definitely come to the realization that Pratt was not the right school for me. Right now, I am making plans to instead ‘transfer/switch’ to a BA fine arts program in London. What i’ve come to the realization is, for all prospective students out there it is <em>vital</em> that you choose a school that you can picture yourself actually ‘happy’ in. Do not compromise, really research the program- get to really understand the structure of the way the university teaches- and take a look at the students’ work as well. I made the mistake of not properly researching about the program structure, I just assumed that art schools were generally all the same. Timkerdes was definitely right! Pratt is a school known for design- not to say that their fine arts program is not good…but its not as invested in compared to their interior design/industrial design/architectural programs and the truth is, I was disappointed by the works here. This may sound extremely judgmental, but what I need as an artist is an environment where I can feel inspired/challenged by and to be honest- there is a lot of mediocre art in general at Pratt. There are definitely a few talented students here and there, but in general not so much. But none the less, Pratt is definitely generous with their offers of scholarship- a lot of people i’ve met here have in fact received a lot of scholarship money- but I am blessed to have a family that has the resources/money and is able to provide for my education so money issues are not really a problem for me- otherwise I would have had to stay at Pratt because of the scholarship.</p>
<p>This is turning out to be a long explanation! But all in all, i’ve come to the realization that ultimately, only you know what is best for you and what you truly desire - more so than anyone else. When I was still a senior at high school, I became bombarded by all of these choices and I sometimes let the opinions/desires of others to weigh more than my choice. My heart was set on going to RISD, and my intuition told me that surrounding myself in a environment that is both challenging creatively with healthy competition among some of the most talented artists -being one of the most selective art schools out there- would fit for me. But now i’ve come to the realization that europe is where I have always wanted to study the fine arts- and I believe its not too late for me to consider taking this chance. </p>
<p>Nonetheless, if you are a student seeking to study design whether this is through product design/interior/ or even architecture- Pratt is definitely a choice you should consider. Being that it is in NY, it’s actually not too difficult to search for internships especially after freshman year and this school invests a lot of their focus/money to interior design and architecture especially. However for Fine Arts, I would not recommend this school as highly- I realize that fine arts can be very subjective at times and difficult to teach, but I discovered that Pratt is not challenging enough in terms of its program and structure in teaching. And personally, for me, I am the type of student that needs to be challenged all the time- whether this is through rigor in structure or through competition among peers and there is definitely not a lot of that at this school- its really more of a situation where you have to really ‘make things’ happen yourself if that made any sense? </p>
<p>Well I hoped I helped anyone out there who happens to read this thread- I know a lot of students out there are preparing to apply to colleges now- Good luck! </p>
<p>Thank you so much for the update!!! It’s got some really helpful information.</p>
<p>no worries! Glad it helped. If anyone has anymore questions I’d be happy to answer! 
</p>
The kind of art you plan on pursuing makes a difference and should influence what art college you select.
For Fine Arts majors:
1 is Yale; #2 is a tie: SAIC and RISD; (no #3); #4 is U of California— Los Angeles; #5 is Virginia Commonwealth; etc.
For Graphic Design majors:
1 is RISD; #2 is Yale; #3 is MICA; #4 is Carnegie Mellon; #5 is Virginia Commonwealth; etc
For Photography:
1 is Yale; #2 is SAIC; #3 is RISD; #4 is California Institute of the Arts; #5 is University of New Mexico; etc.
For Industrial Design:
1 is RISD; #2 is Art Center College of Design; #3Carnegie Mellon University; #4 Cranbrook Academy of Art; #5 is a tie: California College of the Arts and Pratt Institute; etc.
WRWHRI, where are you getting these stats? Yale College of Art is grad school only so not really applicable for BFA
The stats look like they are based on the USNews 2012 rankings and those are specifically grad school. Although difficult to find rankings specifically for BFA programs, it’s reasonable to look at the MFA ranking as a proxy. There should be some spillover unless the instructors, the location, or the philosophy of the BFA side of the major is somehow different.
And the schools certainly tout the USNews rankings when they are recruiting for their BFA programs.
There are other, more current, rankings out there on the internet for interior, industrial, architecture, graphic, fine arts, and animation (to name just a few majors) which can also help give some perspective, especially as one starts to zero in on some choice schools. Rankings carry a lot of influence - the schools clearly pay attention to them, for instance - and many rankings are heavily weighted by what the alums are doing (i.e. are they working, and where are they making an impact). However, while a fairly useful tool in assessing the quality of a program, the ranking is only one piece of the search puzzle. Choosing an undergraduate program is a process based as much on intangibles - quality of student life, location, campus (or lack thereof), etc. - as on statistics. The best art college for you is the one in which you believe you will thrive.