<p>Does anyone know why SVA is a for-profit school? I have narrowed my college selection down to four schools (SAIC, Art Center College of Design, Ringling College of Art and Design, & SVA for a BFA in Photography) and I like almost everything about the school except for this detail. I have always been told to not attend a for-profit education system. Does the art industry still hire people that have attended SVA? Do their students get accepted to Grad/MFA/MA programs? How great is their financial aid office/staff? How selective is their admissions department as a for-profit school? Can anyone get in? Is their Honors Program worth it? Any other advice about this school or other schools would be very appreciated! Thanks!</p>
<p>We visited SVA last year, and definitely found some differences between for-profit and not-for-profit schools. SVA seems to limit the amount of credits you can transfer in more than the other schools we visited. It seemed like transfer students would lose at least a year if not more of their transfer credits. This wasn’t just my daughter’s experience, but also that of other students we talked to. It definitely gave the impression that they were in it for the money with wanting students to take so many classes at SVA. Of course, this would not be an issue for you unless you are a transfer student.</p>
<p>The other clear message was that if you are not a student in a specific department, you can’t use their equipment because you aren’t the one paying for it. Some other schools let non-photography students check out equipment, but not SVA. This is not an issue if you don’t have an interest in trying other areas of art.</p>
<p>My daughter is majoring in graphic design. Every school we visited had a large, professional quality print shop. Not SVA, they showed us where the printer is. The student lounge area was in bad shape. We didn’t see the dorms. Other areas of the school seemed to have nice facilities.</p>
<p>We also found their admissions staff to be cold and uncaring. There was one potential film student in our group they absolutely swooned over. They ignored the rest of the tour group. Before the tour left, one potential student came in for the tour a week earlier than he was scheduled for. Even though our group was small, they refused to accomodate him and told him to come back next week. My daughter and the other transfer student had to absolutely beg to see an admissions counselor. My daughter had tried to set up an appointment in advance, but was told there was no need for an appointment, that one would gladly meet with her during the tour. Not true. </p>
<p>I will say that the student work we saw in the galleries was amazing and the school is accredited, so I would have no concerns with being able to get into grad programs.</p>
<p>I believe that all four schools that you listed are for-profit schools. Any private school not connected with state systems is almost always a for profit institute. So I am curious if I am misunderstanding your post. If you think that SVA is the only for profit of those 4, I believe you are mistaken, they are all private, for-profit schools.</p>
<p>And now I see that I was wrong. Somehow SAIC and Ringling are listed as private, non-profit institutions. But that makes me wonder how they receive that non-profit status. I guess somehow they are registered as schools and not businesses for tax purposes perhaps. SAIC gets it’s non-profit status through it’s connection with the Art Institute according to their own statement, Ringling, I don’t know. So the next question would be why you were told to avoid for profit schools. Perhaps a concern over whether they would be accredited or not. Also there certainly are for profit schools set up that aren’t trustworthy. But SVA has an excellent reputation and is accredited. At any rate, I find this interesting, as I always think of these private art schools as for profit so I guess I need to look into what the legal requirements to be a non profit are. They certainly charge enough tuition to make tidy profits. And I don’t see anything particularly altruistic about their mission statements, lofty as they are. So perhaps my personal definition of non profit is a little outdated. Hmmmmmm</p>
<p>I was curious so checked out the non-profit issue. SVA is still owned by it’s original founders apparently who began the school in 1947. Ringling’s original founder is gone now so it is not owed by an individual, SAIC has always had it’s link to the museum which allows it to fit under the definition of non-profit. However one thing about all these schools that makes the non-profit status curious. Usually if a school has non-profit status, according to different web sites, the tuition will be close to that of state-run institutions. I think all these schools are more expensive than their state-run institutions. At any rate, I doubt that SVA would fit within the caution you were given for avoiding for profit schools. It’s reputable and well regarded. I suspect it’s only reason for being for profit is that it’s newer and the original founders still are involved in the running. But it’s accredited and it’s about the same price as the others, perhaps even a little less expensive, I don’t remember now from our school search.
But thanks for posting this, I learned something interesting to me because of your question.</p>
<p>artsmarts, I think you are mixing up some ideas. It’s not at all true that a non-profit school will be the same price as a state-run school. Harvard is a non-profit institution, and it most definitely doesn’t charge the same tuition as a state school. The profit status of a school has nothing to do with who founded it, or when - it’s a tax issue. Most colleges are non-profits - according to the National Association of Independent Colleges, 27% of post-secondary schools are for-profit. <a href=“http://www.naicu.edu/about/page/about-us-higher-education-and-private-nonprofit-colleges”>http://www.naicu.edu/about/page/about-us-higher-education-and-private-nonprofit-colleges</a>. Academy of Art University, The Art Institutes and School of Visual Arts are all for profit. They are schools who have a goal of making money, so it’s wise to consider that fact as you select a school. For-profit schools aren’t necessarily evil, but they do care about making money.</p>
<p>I would offer that a lot of schools that are private and have non-profit tax status are also very very focused on making money, so I’m not so sure that assuming non-profit status would guarantee a focus on educating and not the bottom line would be a correct assumption. I got that description of tuition being usually more close to state schools from a definition of non-profit schools. Don’t know how accurate it is but in fact if the schools that were originally mentioned in this post have been given non-profit tax status than I wonder how true it is as they all have very high tuition rates. And I also find it quite difficult to believe that they are not keeping a close eye on their profit margins and bottom lines. Therefore I’m not so sure that dismissing or not-dismissing a school because of tax status is that great an approach. </p>
<p>There are a lot of different concepts getting confused here.</p>
<p>First there is private vs. state schools. Private don’t usually get state support. Thus, they tend to have higher tuition than that of state universities.
Non profit vs for profit determine tax oriented status. Non profits don’t pay tax. They also get much better rates for postage and advertising. They usually give much better financial aid. For Profit are schools that try to make a profit for their owners. They tend to be much more efficiently run that non profit who don’t care as much about profits.</p>
<p>With the above said, as a general rule, students should stay far away from most “for profit” schools. They usually try to cut expenses at the cost of lowering educational benefits to the student. After all, they do want to make a profit for the greedy owners. However, this line gets blurred a LOT. Some non profits tend to give less in financial aid and tend to be very greedy. However, some for profit schools are well run and seem to care about their students. School of Visual Arts tends to be a more well regarded school than their “For Profit” cousins. I have rarely heard complaints about the quality of their educational offerings, although I have heard complaints about their cheapness regarding financial aid.</p>
<p>All in all, I wouldn’t worry about SVA as far as it educational quality or quality of its faculty. However, if they give you no aid,which is very probable, and you don’t have a lot of college funding by your parents or savings, you might be better off going elsewhere.</p>