<p>I know one girl who goes to SCAD. I never really liked her as a person--she had a good technique, though. I'd like to know what she thinks about Savannah, but more than likely she would not tell me her full opinion. </p>
<p>:</p>
<p>thanks MIKE912</p>
<p>My D hasn't really talked much more about SCAD. I think her biggest concern is if she changes her mind about ART she will have to leave the school. At a LAC she just has to switch majors. </p>
<p>Off to more campus visits this summer. Lots of decisions to make this fall!</p>
<p>SCAD. Ew.</p>
<p>I talked to an artist who did some graduate work there. </p>
<p>You know what brought up the topic of SCAD? A series of self portraits -- he depicted himself flying away from Savannah and SCAD. He said he was absolutely miserable.</p>
<p>Hi,</p>
<p>I've taught at SCAD in the Industrial Design department for about three years; if you have any questions that are specific to Industrial Design, I would be more than happy to answer them. Just let me know. </p>
<p>Jon</p>
<p>To anyone contemplating sending your child to SCAD: Please send them somewhere else.
The pretty brochures, and pretty town, do not compensate for the poor quality of the school's programs.
SCAD's main concern is getting as many pupils as possible into the programs. The 'professors' are there to retain students. Training is secondary.
The academic standards are nonexistent. They DO have some competent professors, but they are in the minority, and likely to leave.
Check out the Chronicle of Higher Education to see that SCAD routinely advertises forty or more positions per year. The turnover is high since competent professors who can find work elsewhere, generally do after a year or so of the madhouse.
Savannah is a lovely town that deserves a much better school.
The best art schools are RISD, Ringling, and Cal Arts. Others are also recommended, depending on your interest. None of them will be in 'landmark' towns, but they will stress quality over quantity.
I taught there and it was a miserable experience. Professors who actually try to teach are stymied by the incompetents who are in the majority; you also do nearly twice the work that is required in much better schools.
SCAD was the first college I ever saw that had a Hollywood agent publicizing it. The brochures are great, the school is not. Send your daughter to a good school with a good reputation. Scad is neither.</p>
<p><<the turnover="" is="" high="" since="" competent="" professors="" who="" can="" find="" work="" elsewhere,="" generally="" do="" after="" a="" year="" or="" so="" of="" the="" madhouse.="">></the></p>
<p>If you are insinuating that the professors that stay behind are incompetant, you are off base. Care to explain the photography dept. for example?</p>
<p>There have been up to forty ads per MONTH on the Chronicle of Higher Education's employment site, posted by SCAD. The same positions come up every year in some departments. I did not say that only incompetents stay at SCAD: only that there are a lot of competent professors who can't take the working conditions and leave after a year or two. There are always a few lucky people who can work within the system.
My department had four Chairs in three years (two of them forced out by a claque who ran the department behind the scenes), and complete chaos in the course schedule. There are some excellent teachers there in spite of it all, but they are in the minority.
Another Chair has just resigned abruptly and we functioned for one entire year without a Dean.
The scad-and-us website run by a disgruntled professor appears to have been taken down; there was a lot of garbage on it, but also a lot of material that clearly came from someone inside the 'institution'.
Any academic employment board shows the same preponderance of SCAD ads. The school has a very poor reputation in academe and many professors are rightly suspicious when the same ads appear year after year.</p>
<p>The best advertisement for any college is not its brochures, but what its students have achieved. I have some superb former SCAD students working in the industry. This was a reflection on their determination to receive a good education, since all of them had to create their own programs to get the training they needed.</p>
<p>As a point of reference, the department I work in (Industrial Design) had the same chair for over eight years, and we only recently changed leadership because our chair got promoted to Dean. I would think long and hard about characterizing an entire institution negatively simply because one area - the one you happened to work in - was troublesome. It's both inaccurate and highly unprofessional.</p>
<p>Former Scad notes,"None of them will be in 'landmark' towns,"</p>
<p>What a minute: How about Pratt Institute in NY?
How about SAIC in Chicago?
How about Otis School of Art in Chicago?
How about MICA in Baltimore?</p>
<p>I wouldn't call any of these schools poor. Moreover, these are big cities with lots of job opportunities.</p>
<p>Correction: Otis School of art is in LA.</p>
<p>I went to SCAD. it was the worst mistake of my life. the posts above sums things up pretty well. Some of the so called professors knew less about some topics than their students.
Anyone can check on any of the academic sites that are mentioned above and will find lots of jobs advertised at SCAD. There is a reason for this.</p>
<p>jkolko's observation is accurate, it would be unfair to characterize an entire institution based on your experience in one department. There are numerous positions advertised for a number of reasons, the first is, and always has been, growth. The college has grown from approximately 2500 students when I attended (1997) to roughly 7000 presently. SCAD is just over 25 years old, it is still in it's growing phase and Savannah was/is ripe for economic development and expansion. Large buildings sat for years waiting for development. Many schools would love to have such affordable opportunities for expansion. As a result the college is constantly recruiting faculty because admissions rise up to 500 students per year. Also, expansion to Atlanta probably opened up another 50 faculty positions. With such expansion, there can be no question that not all the faculty are equally qualified. And yes, within some departments there have been periods when many of the faculty left for whatever reasons, some personal and some institutional no doubt. Savannah is NOT the most intellectually stimulating environment. It is a provincial little city, pretty indeed, but it is hard to live there. I believe the school anticipates the Atlanta campus will encourage a higher rate of faculty retention.</p>
<p>SCAD seems to be something akin to a pyramid scheme. Keep adding students and programs as a money making proposition only. What is the evidence of high or improving admissions standards?</p>
<p>Savannah, which I've visited numerous times, is a charming old city that ought to attract and keep people if the employment situation is right.</p>
<p>Must every school aspire to be the Yale of art schools? SCAD aspires to be an excellent art school that provides opportunities for a variety of students, polished and unpolished. It is also a private college aka, a business. Why begrudge it's desire to be profitable and at the same time serve the students. I'm sure other colleges might like to be so profitable, but facilities are not likely to be as available and easily acquired in their cities. Furthermore, the school is extremely generous in giving money back to the students by way of scholarships and improving facilities to provide the most up to date technical equipment. You will not find better facilities at any other art college, period.</p>
<p>Admissions standards are not the most restrictive to be certain, and as a result many students blossum, and many students do wash out as a result. It works both ways. I've seen undergrads and grads drop out or fail to maintain academic standards. The school gives many students opportunities they may not receive anywhere else. Is this problematic? You might say that the upper echelon students may find many of their peers to be less stimulating to work with, but there was a good balance in the class. SCAD is not an Ivy League art college, and at the moment that is not what it aspires to be. </p>
<p>Savannah is charming...but if someone is from New York, Chicago, etc...charming may not be what they are looking for, and if not...see ya. Many profs have businesses on the side, and while long distance business relationships may adequately be maintained online, it is simply more difficult to develop and nurture new opportunities locally.</p>
<p>
[quote]
SCAD is not an Ivy League art college, and at the moment that is not what it aspires to be.
[/quote]
What does it truly aspire to be and why are so many questions being raised about it? </p>
<p>Lots of art schools are private (RISD, MICA, SAIC, Pratt, etc. etc.). Nobody's begruding SCAD wanting to be profitable. But again, beyond that, what's it trying to be? It doesn't appear to be highly competitive in any field.</p>
<p>I certainly can't speak for the rest of the professors, but my interaction design students seem to be doing just fine. They have placed first and second, respectively, in the CHI student competition for the last two years running (CHI is the largest gathering of interaction design professionals in the world); they consistently get jobs at both major corporations and small, respected design consultancies (including Procter and Gamble, Design Edge, Tupperware, Ziba, Texas Instruments, to name a few), where their reviews are overwhelmingly positive; they build objects, services and systems that are beautiful, challenging and intellectually stimulating; and they seem to have a great time doing it. I receive consistently affirmative course evaluations and reviews, and have enjoyed my experience working at the college. </p>
<p>If you have an actual question about the school, rather than an unfounded opinion gathered from a few negative websites on the internet, I would be happy to speak with you via private message or email. </p>
<p>Jon</p>
<p>I would be much happier if you could provide more than anecdotal information. Give us a reference.</p>
<p>You didn't attempt to answer the question about what kind of school SCAD is trying to be.</p>
<p><<what does="" it="" truly="" aspire="" to="" be="" and="" why="" are="" so="" many="" questions="" being="" raised="" about="" it?="">></what></p>
<p>I stated it aspires to be an excellent art school. </p>
<p>At the moment, expansion may well water down the quality some, faculty and students. I had friends in photography, graphic design, historical preservation, & computer art and all have productive careers as a result. </p>
<p>BTW, I could not tell you why SCAD never pursued NASAD accreditation except that when I was there the President was going to start an Aerospace Engineering program. Maybe they thought SACS was a better fit? Also, SACS accreditation is rigorous. You cannot jump to the conclusion that academic standards are any less. Presently, I doubt they (SCAD) care to go through the rigor of having to apply for and submit to another organization. When I was on staff I witnessed that the effort going into ensuring that academic standards are documented and maintained is significant.</p>
<p><<it doesn't="" appear="" to="" be="" highly="" competitive="" in="" any="" field.="">></it></p>
<p>The school was founded in 1978 in a small provincial city. Initially, applicants were from the region, and probably did not go so far away after graduation. Other schools have much longer histories and their graduates have been entrenched as a result in major cities for much longer. Presently, I have friends working in L.A., Chicago, and NYC so graduates are now coming from farther away and moving farther away. </p>
<p>Your assertation is irresponsible. I suggest you visit this link to see if your charge holds.</p>
<p>The 2004 graduates have had a year now to find their first professional employment; why don't you see how they are doing? You might be impressed and change your mind.</p>
<p>Mackinaw notes, "
Lots of art schools are private (RISD, MICA, SAIC, Pratt, etc. etc.). Nobody's begruding SCAD wanting to be profitable."</p>
<p>Response: SCAD is different from all these in that SCAD is, or at least was when I last looked, a "for profit" school. While all of the above are "non profits." Non profit status is usually preferred because they pay no taxes and get much lower rates on postage. The only reason for a school to remain "for profit" is to enrich the owners as much as possible, which is more limited with non profits. I always suspect any school that is "for profit" even SVA even if SVA has a fine reputation.</p>