<p>i just want to know the standard of art schools like
cooper union, risd, scad, etc</p>
<p>do they really look at our grades and SAT scores that much
or really focus on our portfolios and hometests?
i know someone who got into cooper union with low
sat score and gpa but still got in probably b/c he'd done an amazing
job in hometest...</p>
<p>so would my hometest and portfolio really get their attention
regardless of my grades?</p>
<p>I can't answer that question, but if you haven't already, you can check the admission stats with regard to GPA and SATs for these schools on collegeboard.com, just to get an general idea of this info for most of the admitted applicants.</p>
<p>Some school do look at the academics more seriously than others. For example, RISD definitely has higher academic standards than SCAD. As far as portfolios, the weight on that varies as well. At SCAD it's not even required but schools like CU and RISD have some very specific requirements.</p>
<p>An undergraduate portfolio is not required at SCAD because academic performance is a very good predictor of success, especially in design. Students who do have good academic habits in H.S. tend to perform well in college. Many other schools or visual arts programs do not require portfolios as well. </p>
<p>SCAD - like most schools - does not require students to declare a major, and with nearly 30 from which to choose, historical preservation to performing arts to painting to CGI effects, there is probably something that suits the aptitudes of nearly any student. A great portfolio however is probably going to open more doors than anything else, even if a student's academic performance is below average. While most 4.0 GPAs look the same, great portfolios stand out to greater degree because they are personal and unique. SCAD does require portfolios from graduate applicants.</p>
<p>SCAD also does admit more students because it has more seats to fill. There is no doubt that money has driven the college's expansion, and while the overall effect has been to dilute the talent level, many students who might not get into other institutions are offered the opportunity to pursue their interests. Think of going to SCAD as buying a low-end BMW.</p>
<p>My only negative comment about the school is that faculty burnout appears to be a problem. Feedback from faculty friends indicates that little time is left for personal development and research because of administrative responsibilities and course load - but now I am going off topic.</p>
<p>I think RainingAgain is right, although I find it hard to believe that I now agree with him.</p>
<p>Many design schools, such as University of Cincinnati, have found that a top notch GPA is more indicative of success than having a top notch portfolio.They believe that design can be taught if the student is driven and smart. This seems to be the case, as reluctant as I am to believe this.</p>
<p>Admission for fine art programs, however, are treated differently. There, they usually require a portfolio,which has a lot of weight.</p>
<p>Should design schools require portfolios? I really can't say anymore. Last year, I would have argued strongly against any school that didn't require a portfolio. Watching the results of some schools that didn't require portfolios, my opinions on this seem to be changing.</p>
<p>I dont know though, while i think basic rules and fundamentals of design can be taught, i feel like theres still a certain degree of talent required. You can't teach someone how to design well, only how to design safely. I mean, no one taught david carson to be a good designer and its not because stefan sagmiester had a 4.0 GPA did he think to start writing type onto skin. I think ones GPA are indicative of two different things, Your GPA/SAT scores show a persons responsibility, maturity etc. while a portfolio shows a persons talent, being good at art doesnt equate determination and a desire to learn. And while i think some schools place a heavy influence on the portfolio and another on academics, wouldnt most schools want the best of both?</p>
<p>slang, while I do understand what you are saying, design does take different skills than fine art. My wife, who would never have gotten into a top art school because she had no portfolio, was one of the top interior designers in her field. There are a number of others who I have met who would have been in the same situation.</p>
<p>Also, there are a lot of kids with talent who didn't have strong art programs in high school or didn't have the money to take courses or tutors in order to beef up their portfolio. Requiring a portfolio does discriminate against this kids.</p>
<p>What happens is that kids"self select" design programs, assuming they have qualified academics. Those that don't have the necessary talent and drive are weeded out.</p>
<p>isnt that what a portfolio is supposed to do? shouldn't it serve as a an example of a persons work for an admissions department to determine if a person is ready for their school? Don't admissions departments look for people who not only have talent, but kids who they think can grow? </p>
<p>also, i understand that your wife and other people who could not develop their portfolios, but that was before the internet. I am a completely self taught designer, I learned everything i know about design through reading books, research and surfing the web. There are tons of art communities online where young and developing artists can get feedback on their work, free of charge. </p>
<p>also, private art institutions arent the only place to study art, there are universities and colleges with strong art programs which do not require art portfolios or give students time to develop a portfolio and then submit it their junior or sophomore year.Students can also go the less expensive route of community college to develop their portfolios. </p>
<p>i have a friend who worked 3 jobs and went to community college to not only build up his portfolio but also so he could build his credit to take out loans and save up money to pay for college. </p>
<p>i think art schools should be highly specialized art institutions that shouldnt have to worry about weeding out kids and should teach at the highest level possible. </p>
<p>im not trying to be mean, but if im going to be paying a ton of money to learn art i dont want my education quality to lessen because other people are lacking. i also think there are many resources where a person can develop a decent portfolio without paying for it.</p>
<p>slang asks,"isnt that what a portfolio is supposed to do? shouldn't it serve as a an example of a persons work for an admissions department to determine if a person is ready for their school?"</p>
<p>Actually, no, that is not what happens. Kids prepare porfolios at various speeds. Some take years of preparation and some do it with more intensity. Some do the portolio themselves and some get varous degrees of help or supervision.</p>
<p>College design programs are VERY intense. Most of the kids who flunk out of University of Cincinnati Design school do so because they can't handle the pressure and time comittments. Having a good portfolio does NOT determine drive, time management, being able to handle work that requries a time gun etc. It also doesn't always show creativity towards a particular problem.</p>
<p>I never said that it shows time management I said it shows a persons talents and abilities I did say in a few posts up that your gpa and sats were a indication of determination and responsibility.</p>
<p>Also for clarification purposes by "ready" I mean talent wise, as in having basic fundamental design skills</p>
<p>//I don't know though, while i think basic rules and fundamentals of design can be taught, i feel like theres still a certain degree of talent required. You can't teach someone how to design well, only how to design safely.//</p>
<p>Very true, but there is nothing necessarily wrong with "safe design" which caters to the opinions of the clients and needs of the masses. There are many many viable and rewarding professional opportunities for this kind of work. Also, many students and parents are more concerned with professional opportunities than anything else, especially when they are spending upwards of $100,000.</p>
<p>//mean, no one taught david carson to be a good designer and its not because stefan sagmiester had a 4.0 GPA did he think to start writing type onto skin.//</p>
<p>Many would argue that David Carson is not a good designer because he violated the rules of design and in a sense betrayed a public trust in design to serve the needs of the masses. But this debate is unfounded IMO because Carson did serve HIS audience - surfers, alternative culture, etc - effectively. I purchased Raygun before I had an interest in design because the magazine was cool and spoke to MY interests. But Carson didn't survive long in corporate America. He had a few major clients like Pepsi, but these relationships did not last. </p>
<p>BTW, I was told Carson applied to teach at SCAD a few years ago. However he is not known for being entirely professional and responsible. Sagmeister is equally creative an innovative, but his work is more accessible to the public. Thus he remains more relevant and visible today. </p>
<p>//Your GPA/SAT scores show a persons responsibility, maturity etc. while a portfolio shows a persons talent, being good at art doesn't equate determination and a desire to learn.//</p>
<p>You may not have any idea how many very talented students fail to make it through school because they lack the ability to work within a structured environment. The college experience as defined by many institutions serves to prepare students for professional careers. If you can't get an assignment in on time, you are not going to do well as a design professional which is all about meeting deadlines. </p>
<p>//And while i think some schools place a heavy influence on the portfolio and another on academics, wouldnt most schools want the best of both?//</p>
<p>Absolutely. Both is best. Regardless, schools do salivate most over the kids who submit the best portfolios. No admissions rep is likely to call his/her peers over to their desk to share a great transcript, but if a truly outstanding portfolio came in, everyone would gather around - if they were not ridiculously busy.</p>
<p>Still, there is no reason to dismiss the aspirations of a student who demonstrates maturity and a commitment to his/her studies.</p>
<p>//isnt that what a portfolio is supposed to do? shouldn't it serve as a an example of a persons work for an admissions department to determine if a person is ready for their school?//</p>
<p>Not so much at the undergraduate level because schools believe that many facets of fine and applied arts can be taught from the ground up. That's why all programs begin with a foundations level - a remnant of the modernist approach to teaching design initiated by the Bauhaus School. While other tenants of modernism were challenged and fell to the wayside because of designers like Carson, Vanderlans, Weingart, etc, a solid understanding and application of these foundation level principles can turn pigs ears into silk and mediocre students into talented students.</p>
<p>//i think art schools should be highly specialized art institutions that shouldnt have to worry about weeding out kids and should teach at the highest level possible.//</p>
<p>I like the idea that some are, and some are not. It us simply a matter of whom they choose to serve. There should be opportunity for all types of students. Some that choose and want to do more - like yourself - may need to be a little more judicious in discovering which schools will meet their needs best.</p>
<p>//im not trying to be mean, but if im going to be paying a ton of money to learn art i dont want my education quality to lessen because other people are lacking.//</p>
<p>See above statement.</p>
<p>//i also think there are many resources where a person can develop a decent portfolio without paying for it.//</p>
<p>Absolutely, but nothing may be more rewarding than a mentor that can see what you are doing and guide you to a better destination. It does take more than one set of eyes.</p>