http://www.myajc.com/news/special-reports/how-scad-sells-dream/VVfRSVilHliyrTe9LAd5hN/
Oh my
From the comments section : "They need to lower the tuition, not accept everyone with a bank account, and turn SCAD into the college it could be. "
^^ That comment was from a former instructor who is obviously PO’d at perceived mistreatment. Not much comment about the focus he/she might have had on the students, which is telling. Most of these types of complaints are grounded in outrage that SCAD simply doesn’t operate using the same academic model as other schools so there is precious little job protection for faculty (dead-weight or other). Very few profs have any sort of real tenure, none is unionized, whole departments which are underperforming can be restructured or eliminated, and creative fields that become outdated similarly go bye-bye. Anyone unnerved by that model is welcome not to work for SCAD. And, just for perspective, perhaps some of them should try working for Disney and their infamous non-disclosures.
Those not familiar with academia in general may be shocked to learn that - surprise - ALL college presidents have to be very good at marketing and bringing in the dough. SCAD is still in foundation till Paula Wallace passes the reins. At that time, everyone will know whether the model is successful, or whether it was all about Paula as the article strongly hints. By the way, it’s not so unusual for members of the founding family to run the place for many years at first. Pratt Institute, for example, was continuously run by a member of the Pratt family for its first 66 years of existence. And elected its first non-Pratt to run the board of trustees only five years ago. So, obviously, it’s quite possible to have the family involved for a few generations.
My biggest problem with this article was that it was primarily a bunch of anecdotes. Any assessment of SCAD as a school - particularly to answer the question of whether the school is the real-deal or a fraud - needs to rely on metrics of performance (the same metrics used to assess any school). So where are the hard numbers comparing things like tuition, accept/yield rates, default rates and so on? You can find them quite easily on NCES, or College Score Card, or the school’s own website.
If Wallace is selling nothing more than a bill of goods, you’d expect SCAD to look pretty shabby compared to other art/design schools. But that’s not the case. It’s no RISD or Cal-Arts, but it holds its own against a decent assortment of other schools (I just picked out Ringling, SVA, MICA, SAIC, and Pratt for comparison). Consider:
ACCEPT/ENROLLMENT RATES: SCAD: 72% accept, 28% yield so more like Ringling/SVA than SAIC/Pratt/MICA.
Ringling 78% accept, 26% yield
SVA 74% accept, 26% yield
SAIC 59% accept, 20% yield
Pratt 58% accept, 21% yield
Mica 57% accept, 18% yield
RETENTION RATES: SCAD: 85% - same as for Pratt, and a bit lower than SVA (86%), Ringling (87%) and MICA (88%). Higher than SAIC (81%).
GRAD RATES: SCAD: 52% (4 year) and 67% (6 year) so mid-lower part of the group.
SAIC 42% (4 year); 66% (6 year)
Pratt 50% (4 year); 70% (6 year)
SVA 56% (4 year); 64% (6 year)
Ringling 61% (4 year); 69% (6 year)
MICA 68% (4 year); 73% (6 year)
TRANSFER-OUT RATES: Hard to come by because a few schools don’t report. I’ve no doubt that SCAD’s is on the high side but they don’t report it, and neither does MICA or Ringling (are they all high?). SVA and SAIC both report 21%. Pratt reports an incredibly low 3%.
STUDENT LOAN DEFAULT RATES: SCAD: 6.4% (2012), 4.4% (2013), 5.4% (2014). On average this is squarely in the middle of the group.
Ringling: 8.5%, 7.0%, 6.4%
SAIC: 7.2%, 7.4%, 6.1%
SVA: 6.1%, 7.5%, 5.9%
Pratt: 4.0%, 4.0%, 4.2%
MICA: 5.0%, 3.8%, 2.2%
CAREER PLACEMENT RATES: Surprisingly tough to track down! SCAD has made these stats available online for the past several years (at least since we’ve been keeping track). Percent employed within 10 months after graduation and, of those employed, the % in their creative field or related:
2013: 91%, 86%
2014: 93%, 86%
2015: 97%, 88%
2016: 98%, 88%
2017: 97%, 88%
In comparison, for Pratt: 2015 87% employed w/in a year of graduation, 94% of those in their field or related. I can’t seem to find any stats for MICA/SVA/Ringling/SAIC so if someone has those please post. A history would be best, of course.
COST AND PAYBACK: SCAD’s tuition (before scholarship) is $36,000 per year which we all know is on the low side. SCAD’s avg. cost / earnings ratio is .96 and 53% of its graduates earn more, on average, than those with only a high school diploma. Sounds low, but again it’s in the middle of the pack:
Ringling: .79, 56%
SAIC: .81, 50%
MICA: .97, 54%
SVA: .97, 57%
Pratt: 1.08, 63%
So it’s really hard to conclude that SCAD is some sort of sham marketing scheme compared to other well known and respected art/design schools. The main difference between SCAD and those other schools is that it’s about 3X the size of the next largest, and it won’t join NASAD. And I guess it also doesn’t require a portfolio for entry, as they maintain that the skills are teachable to anyone with the brains, the determination and the desire to learn them. From personal experience, I do believe that their attitude is welcoming and encouraging (as opposed to “show me the money”) - and while they take in a ton of kids each year, they graduate nearly that same number. We’ve yet to have a negative experience with or dishonest representation from the school in any way. Most of the time I’m pleasantly surprised with the outcome to whatever issue has come up. Take that for what it is, of course, which is just another anecdote.
“That comment was from a former instructor who is obviously PO’d at perceived mistreatment.”
I’m sure it was to some extent but it doesn’t mean the mistreatment of staff didn’t/doesn’t exist from higher-ups. Anybody with corporate experience knows a good administration and real support makes your job a pleasure rather than a battle.
There were multiple examples from many parties.
The entire article really was a rehash of some old/continuing stories from multiple sources that have been around for literally years. SCAD at a few points in last 10 years have lost good staff in numbers in short time periods.
It DOESN’T mean in any way that the current professors (or past) aren’t good/great instructors or don’t care about their students. The college obviously has a great rep and there is obvious quality in the work by students. That wasn’t the point.
The gist of the article points to the possibility that SCAD probably either doesn’t allow their professors enough rein to teach to the full benefit of their students and/or have lost good teachers over the years because of the present administration acting in an arbitrary manner (which was the focus of the article)…
“The gist of the article points to the possibility that SCAD probably either doesn’t allow their professors enough rein to teach to the full benefit of their students and/or have lost good teachers over the years because of the present administration acting in an arbitrary manner (which was the focus of the article)…”
Not sure if SCAD has lost more or fewer good teachers over the years than other comparable schools. From what I’ve seen at Pratt, ComD loses a few great instructors every semester. They have new projects going on, etc. It happens in this particular type of school environment as none of them are tenured and you certainly don’t want them to be, if they are to teach to industry standard (which is always updating - and by the way they also change out their computer equipment, software etc. as needed to keep current). Having some tried and true “anchors” is nice - but in some of these fast-paced industries, not sure even they should hang around too long making major decisions about the department. Someone is welcome to correct me here.
I’m very familiar with regular academia (too familiar than I’d like to be LOL) and it’s just a different animal. In most academic fields, the breakthroughs are coming out of the research institutions (universities, think-tanks, research organizations, etc.). In most design disciplines (to name just one subgroup), the breakthroughs happen in the industry and you hope that the school keeps current. No doubt there is conceptual knowledge that survives the rapid change and you hope those guys who can teach that effectively either remain or the school finds new ones to take their place. Good foundation instructors, for instance, are a must. Who they are or how long they’ve been there doesn’t seem to be as important as whether they can do their job.
There is no doubt that SCAD’s model, including how they view their faculty, is counter-cultural in the world of art schools (and certainly in the world of academic institutions). They seem to have a very simple metric: whether the students find employment in their creative field. They judge EVERYTHING by this metric, including faculty retention and even student retention. (It’s quite easy to lose your scholarship . . . . ). They also prohibit alcohol in the dorms, and if you commit damage, you and your suite-mates WILL pay. Yes, they are a tad controlling but they are quite up front about all of it. Those who love their model will come and stay, those who don’t will leave or not apply in the first place.