<p>I just noticed that University of Cincinnati ( which has a very reputable design program) and Wash U St Louis does not require any portfolio for admissions. In fact, University of Cincinnati doesn't even suggest a portfolio as optional. Wash U St Louis,which is a terrific school, only uses a portfolio once you are admitted to the university based SOLELY on SAT and GPA. Why would any strong art program not require a portfolio or at least make it optional? In fact, why would a program with a strong art program not use a portfolio in its admission's process? It does't make sense.</p>
<p>Taxguy, unless I'm mistaken, in some cases where admission is to the university and not to a program or a major, nobody is guaranteed admission to the major unless they prove through a portfolio later that they have what it takes. It could still be a decent program if they have the portfolio screen at a later time.</p>
<p>At many universities, students aren't given the right to choose just any major after admission. They have to maintain a certain GPA or pass certain courses in order to quality. For example, at my own university students aren't admitted to the Business School, but rather to the university. While they have a right to major in any of a couple of dozen different fields in the core social sciences, humanities, and sciences, if they want to major in business they have to be admitted based on their college-level performance once they arrive here. That would be analogous to what happens with some universities putting off admission to studio art til a later date.</p>
<p>Tell me about it, taxguy. I was denied admission at Wustl and I have reason to believe my portfolio was never even reviewed. Why do I say this? I received no letter of note from the School of Art at Wustl and when I finally nagged my slides out of Wustl, they came back exactly as they had went. Not a single slide had been messed with. Er.</p>
<p>It wasn't until I started digging up info. about transferring possibly to WashU that I found out there was a supplemental art form--which obviously wasn't easy to find. Another strike against me (if anyone is going to apply to WashU, you might want to remember this) was that in the first choice box I put the School of Arts and Sciences and in the second choice box I put the School of Art. So, if they had even wanted to review my portfolio, they probably didn't because they saw that it was not listed as my first choice. They moved on to the next applicant solely based on my academics (which weren't too shabby).</p>
<p>Still, I would say that if they are genuinely committed to fostering "serious scholars and artists" on their campus, then they should look a little deeper than the ACT/SAT and what not. I'm almost left feeling as though I am pathetic for still wanting in. :</p>
<p>Taxguy, at our state flagship U, you are admitted as an art major, then over Christmas break after your first semester, you download about a 15-page test - short essays, spatial problems, 3 or 4 drawing assignments, etc. to work on and mail back by the first week in Jan. Tests are reviewed and a SMALL number of applicants are admitted to the BFA program. If you don't make it then, you get a chance to do it again your soph. year Christmas break...but a max of 2 tries to get in. If you don't make the cut after 2 tries, you may stay in the school of art as a BA candidate in studio art....or change majors completely.</p>
<p>Beachy and Machinaw what you say is true for some colleges. Some college, such as Towson University, require a portfolio or a test after freshmen or sopomore year. However, a number of top colleges don't require any portfolio ever! University of Cincinnati is one of those schools.</p>
<p>College-ish ,as to Wash U St Louis, I actually called admissions and was stunned by their response. It is their policy to judge applicants SOLELY on SATs and GPAs. They then are requested to optionally submit portfolios,which will be used for art or design placement ONCE THEY ARE ALREADY ADMITTED. In other words, WASH U St Louis doesn't use the portfolio in its initial admission in any way. They will use it once you are already admitted however, which is very odd. This is why College-ish you got the response that you did. I was actually surprised that Wash U St. Louis admitted this info to me.</p>
<p>Seems to me like they think they can make an artist out of just about anybody. meh.</p>
<p>"Seems to me like they think they can make an artist out of just about anybody. meh."</p>
<p>In fact, that's exactly what I believe (with a slight variation: sub in 'designer' for 'artist'). I certainly believe that anyone can learn to think visually and solve problems in a creative, unique and user-centered manner; additionally, I care less about a proven portfolio for high school seniors and more about an illustrated commitment and passion about <em>something</em> (could be sports, art, computers, music... something!). I'm certainly not going to reject someone simply because they came from a state (or country) that didn't value art and design and therefore didn't give them many oppourtunities to practice these skills. </p>
<p>I've found that I can teach just about anyone to <em>do</em>, but I'm at a bit of a loss about teaching the apathetic to <em>care</em>.</p>
<p>Jkolko, I am certainly in sympathy about teaching motivated people. However, I always believed in the saying, "You can't make a silk purse out of a pig's ear." No matter how motivated the student, I can't imagine that they can be taught to do quality art or design well enough to get a job IF they don't have the talent! Moreover, I would imagine that the greater the talent at the time of entry, the greater the end product when they finish school and the easier it is to teach them.</p>
<p>I don't think you can make anyone into a good artist or designer any more than you can make them into a good musician. It takes more than practice. It takes raw talent, and an eye for certain kinds of relationships. You can make more people "appreciate" good design, but most can't be designers. It's the same with many other fields. Practice 4 hours a day with the best coaches in the world but your chances of making the NBA are slim.</p>
<p>I might add, though, that when my daughter interviewed at CMU, the asst. chair of the art department told her that very occasionally they do admit students who are outstanding on the SAT side of things but have a lousy portfolio, with the idea that this person can bring something different to the program.</p>
<p>Machinaw notes, "
I might add, though, that when my daughter interviewed at CMU, the asst. chair of the art department told her that very occasionally they do admit students who are outstanding on the SAT side of things but have a lousy portfolio, with the idea that this person can bring something different to the program."</p>
<p>Although I can somewhat understand this, what I can't understand is making this type of person the rule and not the exception. Wash U St Louis makes this the rule!</p>
<p>wow, this thread is somewhat discouraging. </p>
<p>what ever happened to you can be whatever you want to be as long as you believe (and work hard, lol)?</p>
<p>Wannagotocornell, no one ever said that you can't be what you want. My original question was why would some universities with strong art programs not require a portfolio or weight it in admissions?</p>
<p>Also, as to being what you want, we are all constrained by our telents, abilities and determination.</p>
<p>I'm not familiar w/ WashU --but do know a little about UC. What I've been told is that they do not look at a portfolio for admissions, because they feel they can train the individual who is motivated. Typcially you do not have students applying to DAAP who are not interested in design, art, architecture or planning, in the first place, so the liklihood of admitting students with "no" talent is probably rare. And if it happens, my guess is that they do not stick with the program, as any design degree typically takes an incredible amount of time and effort, even for those with innate talent. I cannot imagine anyone staying with such a program who is not already skilled or at least motivated to to learn the skills!</p>
<p>I must admit, I was shocked when I first heard that no portfolio is required for art, although I honestly don't see the need for some of their programs such as architecture, urban planning, etc. I asked the same question...how can they see artistic "talent" in grades and tests? Perhaps these schools also look at other factors, such as the students' EC's?</p>
<p>On the other hand, I have learned to appreciate that some schools do not require portfolios. It turned out that my d. is in a high school that has an extremely limited art program (as in only two art classes offered). There is no way she could compete with the portfolios that I've seen from other students who have incredible resources and guidance at their disposal. Yet, I believe she is creative, interested, and does have some talent -- if only she could be guided. So, if she ultimately does decide to enter a design field, my hope is that there are programs available, that look at more than the skills you've already mastered -- and at least try to see the interest, motivation, and creativity, that might be found in other ways.</p>
<p>You can be what you want and believe in your dreams. But it can be a terrible feeling when you did just that and are actually good at it but are still denied for someone less experienced over what really is a non-reason. That's what my gripe is with WashU's policy, wannagotocornell.</p>
<p>Kjofkw notes,"There is no way she could compete with the portfolios that I've seen from other students who have incredible resources and guidance at their disposal"</p>
<p>Response: Well, if some kids have amazing portfolios, shouldn't that give them an edge? For example, we certainly give an edge to those with higher SATs and GPAs under the belief that these are better prepared and more "talented" kids academically. I think that most people would agree that both SATs and GPAs are simply a snapshot as to how qualified a student is at a point in time. Why shouldn't schools ask for some demonstated level of artistic competance? If your daughter has the raw but undeveloped talent, shouldn't portfolios be required to show this and also to show who has the raw but developed talent as well!</p>
<p>Frankly, I don't see much difference between requiring portfolios to demonstrate artistic talent and skill development and requiring SATs for evaluating non artistic talent and skill development. In fact, not requiring a portfolio for an art and design major is incomprehensible to me. I would bet that any artist of any type would agree that SATs are not an indicator of artistic talent. This also,by the way, applies to musical talent, and to voice and theater.</p>
<p>A Case Study: CMU Architecture</p>
<p>I have a cousin who is in the Architecture program at CMU, which I believe is considered like a top 20 program. I am going to be auditioning for the Drama school at CMU next year, so I've been talking to him about the school alot, etc. When I was visiting the campus last Spring, I picked up a copy of the Student Newspaper. Inside, there was an article about the fact that Architecture program had no artistic/technical review, and unlike the other art programs at Carnegie (drama, music, fine arts...), only GPA/SAT are reviewed to admit students into the program. The article also stated that the Architecture program has the lowest retention rate of all the majors at the university; the first year is a MAJOR "weeder" year. The article stipulated that this low retention rate was because there was no portfolio or artistic review to be admitted into the program. Perhaps the philosophy of the Arch dept. is that the only real way to test the artistic and technical ability of students is to put them through the program. I would think that there isn't much opportunity in HS for architecture study and practice, which is probably true with design. It just seems that the opportunities arent as abundandt as those in music or theatre or painting. So although it is bad for the students with great scores but low artistic ability, the program feels that they can only find the talent by putting students through the first year. Not exactly my idea of great admissions strategy, but apprently, it's what is done.</p>
<p><<my original="" question="" was="" why="" would="" some="" universities="" with="" strong="" art="" programs="" not="" require="" a="" portfolio="" or="" weight="" it="" in="" admissions?="">></my></p>
<ol>
<li><p>Because many high schools have art programs that are not well taught or suffer because of cutbacks. Some talented kids simply aren't exposed to an environmentthat nurtures their talent and skills.</p></li>
<li><p>Because grades, letters of recommendation, academic standing, and statement of purpose may speak well of students and their commitment to succeed.</p></li>
<li><p>Many of the design arts can be learned. You don't need to be "artistic" to earn a reasonable living in some design vocations.</p></li>
</ol>
<p>RainingAgain, in your opinion, which of the design arts can be learned by kids who have no talent? Here are a couple of examples, but I think you have to be careful about implying that everyone can learn the artistic side of things.</p>
<p>Some design fields have what you might say are purely technical components. There's a lot of that in architecture, if you emphasize the engineering and materials side of things as opposed to design. So you may make it in some programs with such an emphasis, but perhaps not in others.</p>
<p>In film, animation, graphic design and so on there are aspects for the computer and technical wizard to master that even the best artists may never master. But again a given program may not emphasize the technology but rather the design side of things. I have a brother who works in animation at WarnerBros. There is no purely computer geek who can do his job; but in addition to being fundamentally an artist with great drawing skills, he is a master user of programs such as Adobe Photoshop. It practically knocks me off my chair when I see what he can do.</p>
<p><<rainingagain, in="" your="" opinion,="" which="" of="" the="" design="" arts="" can="" be="" learned="" by="" kids="" who="" have="" no="" talent?="">></rainingagain,></p>
<p>That is not what I said.</p>
<p><<some design="" fields="" have="" what="" you="" might="" say="" are="" purely="" technical="" components.="" there's="" a="" lot="" of="" that="" in="" architecture,="" if="" emphasize="" the="" engineering="" and="" materials="" side="" things="" as="" opposed="" to="" design.="" so="" may="" make="" it="" some="" programs="" with="" such="" an="" emphasis,="" but="" perhaps="" not="" others.="">></some></p>
<p>I guess you just answered your own question.</p>
<p><<moreover, i="" would="" imagine="" that="" the="" greater="" talent="" at="" time="" of="" entry,="" end="" product="" when="" they="" finish="" school="" and="" easier="" it="" is="" to="" teach="" them.="">></moreover,></p>
<p>Actually...you might find that the talented never "learn" because what they do comes to them by intuition. Less talented, but committed, students may actually learn better, and quite possibly may be better able to articulate design theory because they had to go through the process of learning how to design</p>