<p>"Art" is a major that I have never investigated before and so this past year my youngest son has lead me into "unknown" territory. We have visited a variety of schools he is in the process of completing his final three applications. (As most parents can understand, I am nervous that we may have overlooked his "perfect" match - - My son is the type that has become more excited with each visit, making this process even more complex.) Through all of our college visits and reading, the one school that doesnt seem to get as much attention as I might expect, is SVA. I know opinions are very subjective and personal, but I would be very interested in hearing other peoples impressions of SVA and how it is regarded. (primarily for graphic design and photography)</p>
<p>You might want to do a search for SVA. There were a number of comments about it.</p>
<p>Reputation wise, it is a good school for most majors. However, it has no campus, and dorms are several blocks away from the main buildings. We did have one kid posted here who attended SVA and who I believe transferred out. I believe this kid was the daughter of unsoccer-mom. You might want to check out her posts.</p>
<p>If graphic design is of interest to your child, you might want to check out Pratt Institute and RIT too. At least these schools have a campus.</p>
<p>RISD and MICA would be good choices too as would Syracuse University. University of Cincinnati would be a very good choice too. It has a very strong reputation for its college of Design, Art, Architecture and Planning but also has guaranteed paid coops for 6 quarters for most DAAP majors, which substantially augments a resume.</p>
<p>This should give you a good start.</p>
<p>Check out SCAD as well; <a href="http://www.scad.edu%5B/url%5D">www.scad.edu</a>.</p>
<p>From a previous post of mine:</p>
<p>I have just returned from a weekend visit with my daughter at SVA and thought perhaps I would take the time to update impressions.</p>
<p>For academics, please refer to my post in the thread about Art Schools with Strong Liberal Arts.</p>
<p>Art Classes: My daughter has had nothing but good things to say about her teachers. They are all excellent and appear to her to be quite committed. Despite each studio course being six hours in length, classes often go beyond that time period and continue offsite to museum, galleries, and other sites in the city. She doesn't feel there is as much commitment to excellence among the students. I think that this is because foundation classes will often have variety of majors many of whom see no reason for drawing, painting, and sculpture classes in much the same way she has no use for her digital media course this semester.</p>
<p>Facilities: This is one of her biggest complaints. The logistics are somewhat of a nightmare. Her dorm is a 20-25 minute walk from the classroom building. You cannot take the subway across town and taking the bus would be more time consuming then walking. There are no lockers available nor is there private or even semi-private studio space for freshman. As a result all materials, canvases, etc. get lugged across town. It is winter in NYC and it has been very rainy this year. When not rainy, it is cold. She is bundled up for her long walk and then gets to the studio where the it is often too hot. The buildings are old and lack in any modern amenities. </p>
<p>Dorms: The are three dorms. The one where most freshman are housed is fairly new, but completely lacking in charm. The are six to a suite (three doubles), a small common room with a table for four, a kitchen, and two bathrooms. There are no quiet study rooms or studios in the dorm. I think for $10,300 for the dorm there should be more recognition of the special requirements of art students. </p>
<p>Campus: There is none. Just buildings on city streets.</p>
<p>Cafeteria: There are a couple of cafes in the main administrative building and the main classroom building, but they are expensive and mostly, I believe, where commuters eat. She will grab a bagel or slice of pizza from local restuarants and cooks her own dinner back at the dorm.</p>
<p>School Spirit: Again, there is not much in the way school spirit. That, however, was never on the list of things my daughter was looking for anyway.</p>
<p>Hand-holding: Forget about the warm fuzzies. You are on your own and you will need to be a very independent kind of person or you will need to become one quickly. </p>
<p>She has mentioned transferring, but most of what she is looking for probably doesn't exist in one school and she has done nothing about applying to other schools. Her ideal school would probably be RISD with all of her academic classess taken at Brown, but physically located on the upper westside of
NYC. </p>
<p>FOLLOW-UP NOTE - FULL DISCLOSURE; DD transferred to Smith College where she is a sophomore Art Major with plans for JYA in Paris.</p>
<p>BTW, something to think about is whether the faculty are largely adjunct or full-time. At institutions like Pratt or SVA the faculty is largely adjunct, and as a result the programs can lack continuity between classes. Profs come and go one or two days a week but rarely interact with others. Colleges with full-time faculty may offer more cohesive programs because the faculty are more likely to interact and work together to build a program.</p>
<p>But on the other hand, adjunct faculty are frequently the ones you learn the most from, and get the best connections through. Because they're out there working before and after classes, they'll be on top of the latest stuff in the industry, and be of great assistance when you graduate and need a job. The best schools have found a good balance between the stable full-time faculty and the exciting, informative adjuncts.</p>
<p>D is in foundation year at MICA. </p>
<p>Her favorite teachers commute from NYC, either returning that night or the next day. In a six hour studio class there is enough student/teacher interaction. </p>
<p>I could see how, in the latter college years, a cohesive faculty that is around campus regularly would be attractive.</p>
<p>//But on the other hand, adjunct faculty are frequently the ones you learn the most from, and get the best connections through. Because they're out there working before and after classes, they'll be on top of the latest stuff in the industry, and be of great assistance when you graduate and need a job. The best schools have found a good balance between the stable full-time faculty and the exciting, informative adjuncts.//</p>
<p>Why would you presume that full-time faculty don't have significant contacts within the industries. Many faculty leave 20 to 30-year careers behind to become full-time educators. I know a number that developed business relationships and friendships with many significant contemporary designers and agencies. I know a SCAD professor who brought a group of students to visit Milton Glaser in NYC last year. I met a film prof who can name drop with anyone. </p>
<p>I am not saying that adjunct faculty cannot be great profs, but that the continuity and consistency of a program, class to class, may suffer. Also, adjuncts may have less time to answer e-mail, offer extra help and extended office hours, etc. At SVA and Pratt for example, adjunct faculty are largely told they can do whatever they want in the classroom. There can be some benefit to this I suppose, but also some drawbacks as well.</p>
<p>BTW, Milton Glaser, a giant in G.D., was an adjunct at SVA for years, probably at the graduate level.</p>
<p>I'm not saying they don't, I apologize if it came accross that way. I've just found in my own experience that adjuncts tend to have more active contacts, and be more career-oriented in terms of information and help they give their students. This is not all that you want out of school, certainly, but in design professions where students typically don't go through business classes and sometimes come out of college with no clue how to get a job, it can make an enormous difference for the student.</p>
<p>Not meaning to diss on full-timers at all. As I said, I think the key is balance- full time and adjunct faculty each bring something different to the table, and it would be a shame if a program was populated by too few of either.</p>
<p>I would favor a more stable core of faculty to assure good curriculum planning and development as well as to assure quality control to the core of the curriculum -- leavened by a good supply of adjuncts. The adjuncts can be very good teachers, no question; but they can be hard for students to find if they need to see them between weekly studios. I think it can be useful for the sake of continuity for students to have a majority of their contacts/classes with regular faculty.</p>
<p>Through our search, it seems that many of the programs we have visited have a combination of core faculty and adjuncts. I truly agree with Mackinaw and I am not as concerned with the part-time/full-time status - - but am more interested in the consistency of class offerings and the availability of the instructors. When my son attended Pratt's pre-college program, his two favorite instructors taught at both Pratt and SVA. We were given the impression that this is very common. Likewise, when we visited RISD, we met two instructors that regularly taught at both RISD and other institutions.</p>
<p>As I appreciate all the information/opinions provided on the list, I do have a question about the different programs' accreditations. As we are from the Atlanta area, most "locals" warn to stay away from SCAD as it is not "fully accredited." Which accreditations are "most" important? (I would assume the national accreditations are the most important, but are there others?)</p>
<p>Happy Thanksgiving!
(I'll be even more thankful when the decisions are made and finalized!!)</p>
<p>SCAD is accredited by SACS ( <a href="http://www.sacscoc.org/index.asp%5B/url%5D">http://www.sacscoc.org/index.asp</a> ). It is not accredited by NASAD. Why? I do not know. However, I can state with absolute certainty that SACS standards are rigorous. The college has never pursued NASAD accreditation. Again, I do not know why. It means very little actually. What matters is the quality of the education; academic standards are established by SACS and pedogogy is administered by faculty. The faculty of SCAD have terminal degrees and come from RISD, Yale, RIT, SVA, Pratt, and everywhere. Many even taught at RISD, SVA, Pratt previously. I think SCAD is an excellent design school. Fine art? It wouldn't be my first choice, but it wouldn't be my last either. Overall I'd say it can be an excellent choice. I might go for RISD first for design on the East Coast, but SCAD also has the best facilities they say. The only drawback I can say about SCAD specifically may be that they are not as picky about letting students in because they have many seats to fill. It's the biggest art college in the US. Which is not to say that highly talent kids do not attend, just that there may be a broader range of skill and talent.</p>
<p>It does not matter that SCAD is not accredited. Accreditation is irrelevant. There is no licensing test for graphic design and photography--your son's final portfolio is what will carry him into his career.</p>
<p>Your friends have misled you. </p>
<p>What sort of career does he imagine for himself? Get online and view as much student work as possible. </p>
<p>Also, classroom visits are important.</p>
<p>Let's clarify that SCAD is fully accredited, by SACS. SACS ensures the highest academic standards. Duke, The College of William and Mary, Clemson, Georgia Tech, and Georgetown to name a few are accredited by SACS. Does anyone question their academic standards, facilities, quality of education and faculty?</p>
<p>Yes, SCAD is accredited by the organizations that accredit colleges and universities. HOWEVER, many of the top art schools and art programs have an additional accreditation by NASAD (National Association of Schools of Art and Design). This accreditation is meant to ensure minimum standards for art programs that the general college accreditors don't necessarily examine. Many of the top ranked programs in the US are NASAD accredited such as Univ. Of Michigan, UCLA, Pratt, RISD,CMU, Corcoran,Cooper Union, Parsons, Cal Arts, Otis, Cincinnati. Ohio University and Ohio state and a number of other top program. See this URL for a complete list: <a href="http://nasad.arts-accredit.org/index.jsp?page=Member%20Lists%5B/url%5D">http://nasad.arts-accredit.org/index.jsp?page=Member%20Lists</a></p>
<p>SCAD, however, isn't NASAD accredited, which is very strange for a school of its size. It really does make the school stand out in a negative way.</p>
<p>//This accreditation is meant to ensure minimum standards for art programs that the general college accreditors don't necessarily examine.//</p>
<p>Like what? You are the self-professed expert. Tell us.</p>
<p>RainingAgain - are you affiliated with a particular school? Any there other posters that have direct "professional" affiliations? </p>
<p>I obviously brought up a touchy subject - - as a new poster, I am sorry about that.</p>
<p>RainingAgain is either a current or former instuctor at SCAD.</p>
<p>RainingAgain, go to the NASAD website. They state, "
The granting of accredited Membership by the Commission on Accreditation signifies that an institution has successfully demonstrated compliance with the procedures, standards, and guidelines of the Association. Integral to this voluntary process is ongoing, regularized self-evaluation and peer review. </p>
<p>Accreditation, in practical terms, is a stamp of approval, a sign that an institution ascribes to, believes in, and has met an external set of basic criteria for the programs it offers. In some cases, accreditation assists in the transfer of credits from one institution to another. In all cases, it indicates that threshold standards are adhered to in a fashion that provides a base of academic strength and operational integrity. "</p>
<p>As to standards, here is what NASAD states"
" </p>
<p>What standards are used for accreditation reviews?
The standards are developed and approved by the accredited institutional members of NASAD in consultation with other art and design professionals and organizations. As published in the Handbook of the Association, they provide a basic framework for the accreditation process, thus allowing objective analysis of an art and/or design unit including all curricular offerings in art and design. They serve as the basis for dialogue (a) within an institution as it prepares a self-study in preparation for an NASAD review, (b) between an institution and the Association (the visiting evaluators and the Commission), and (c) between the Association and the public as a whole. </p>
<p>The Association does not attempt to develop detailed formulas, plans of course work, or other inflexible specifications which might impinge on the freedom of an institution to develop individual programs. Instead, NASAD has developed standards and associated guidelines which are specific enough to ensure a certain level of educational quality, but are not so restrictive as to stifle experimentation, innovation, and individuality of program content. </p>
<p>The NASAD Handbook contains standards and guidelines for degree-granting programs in art and design in the following areas: </p>
<p>Basic Criteria for Membership
Operational Standards
Requirements for Admission to Undergraduate Programs
General Standards for All Undergraduate Degree Programs in Art and Design
Types of Undergraduate Degrees
Specific Guidelines for Two-Year Degree-Granting Colleges
General Standards and Guidelines for All Undergraduate Professional Degree Programs in the Visual Arts
Standards and Guidelines for Specific Professional Degree Programs
Professional Combination Degrees in Studio and Art History
General Standards and Guidelines for Liberal Arts Degree Programs in the Visual Arts
Baccalaureate Degree Programs in Art Education
Baccalaureate Degree Programs in Preparation for Advanced Professional Study
Baccalaureate Degree Programs Combining Art/Design with an Outside Field
Graduate Degree Programs in the Visual Arts and Design
General Standards and Guidelines for Graduate Degree Programs in the Visual Arts and Design
Guidelines for Admission to Graduate Study
Standards and Guidelines for Specific Initial Graduate Degree Programs
Standards and Guidelines for Specific Terminal Degree Programs
Visual Arts in General Education "</p>
<p>This should adress post 16.</p>
<p>Taxguy likes to propagate misinformation; I am a former employee, not a professor. I also have a significant other at the college who keeps me in touch. Taxguy has posted lots of relevant information here, but he likes to wage a campaign against SCAD for some reason.</p>
<p>//This accreditation is meant to ensure minimum standards for art programs that the general college accreditors don't necessarily examine.//</p>
<p>Taxguy, I asked you to specify how standards for an art college might differ for those of a "regular" college. We know that NASAD is specific toward art colleges. The issue is how unique are these NASAD criteria when compared to similar criteria used for other colleges? Are they counting paintbrushes in classrooms? Are they looking at faculty exhibitions? How would this be different from assessing facilities and faculty credentials at another college where petri dishes and articles published in scientific journals are relevant. </p>
<p>The bottom line is, what is so unique about teaching art, versus teaching in general in terms of accreditation. Since you feel lack of NASAD accreditation is a negative, I assume you have done the research to come to this conclusion.</p>
<p>Instead of posting this...
//General Standards and Guidelines for Graduate Degree Programs in the Visual Arts and Design //</p>
<p>Tell me how those criteria might differ from this...
General Standards and Guidelines for Graduate Degree Programs in Botany</p>
<p>Thanks in advance for your efforts.</p>
<p>I have no affiliation with either school other than cursory association within the design profession and I do know one current SCAD fashion student. taxguy, you malign the school unfairly, IMO. It's not a negative--except in the minds of prospective parents who aren't in the profession. The NASAD accreditation is irrelevant for graduate school and for job placement. Period. Full-stop. End of story.</p>
<p>For example, the current student that I know had a drop dead internship this summer in New York City--as a rising junior. She has the opportunity to go to Paris but is passing on it because her SCAD courses are so good.</p>