I got rejected from UCLA, last night.
I was caught REALLY off guard. My sculpture portfolio is very strong, and I have worked on a lot of high profile, beautiful public artwork. So, I looked up the types of art that comes out of UCLA. Suffice to say, if I would have been aware of the kind of art UCLA outputs, I would have never applied. I should have looked into the professors long before. Honestly, if I would have been accepted by UCLA, I still would have looked up their arts program, and would have definitely decided against attending.
I think the best place for a serious artist who enjoys making fine art, wants to teach it via an MFA, and is influenced by the masters, should probably attend an art institute like Cranbrook, California College of the Arts, San Francisco Art Institute, etc... and what-not. Seems like the UC System really leans toward the esoteric, ivory tower, SJW type of thing. Stuff that is emotionally out of reach for the common people.
I applied to UCLA on a whim because I'm a Southern Californian living in NorCal and I didn't really think it out. I'm gonna make an effort to put out applications to art institutes, in the fall, so I can nail down that MFA and start teaching at school.
If you got into UCLA, make good art, please. Don't get brainwashed into making absurd, ugly garbage just because your instructors think that you need to "push the envelope" and make it "visceral" and "bleeding edge." Make beautiful public artwork that poor people and little old ladies in the community can come to and identify with and enjoy. Make art that reflects what matters to the people. Make artwork that the people want, and love.