PasswordAdmissions

Hi, New here, but with extensive knowledge of MFA programs and MFA admissions, esp. the most competitive schools. What is said above about rankings and location in particular is right on. The USNWR rankings are absurd, and if you want to be involved in the contemporary art world -- not regional art scenes -- you should tailor your lists to schools in NYC or LA. Yale counts as NYC, as does Bard. Think of it this way: go to school in a place where the artworld already is, not a school you'd need to move away from to be a part of it. I would take issue with a few things on this list: - "Most successful artists did not get an MFA": this is simply untrue. No matter the metric, it's not true. This is, indeed, part of the problem: even if you don't need an MFA, you need an MFA to get into the game. Getting an MFA is about developing as a visual artist, of course. But it's also about networking and connections, on the one hand, and professionalization, on the other. The networks are not just with faculty or alumni; the first network you join is with your cohort. The kinds of students you are with is essential: a lot of time is spent in studios with your peers, not just class with mentors. And above all, these students are the ones you'll continue having conversations with when you leave; people you'll get studios with; people you'll organize group shows with. Finally, the imprimatur of a good MFA program matters with people in the market context, and in institutions. Trust me on this. Another aspect of the "professionalization" part here is that grad school is not about technical skills, materials, etc. That's assumed. It's about, in a sense, learning to talk about art, to think about it, to contextualize and frame it. The point of this is not to make you a good dinner-party guest, but to emphasize that much of what constitutes contemporary art -- particularly for artists not rooted in a traditional medium -- depends on art discourse, on conceptual and definitional premises. Then there's art history, recent and not-so-recent. And, not nothing: there's gossip, insider talk. All this is part of learning to be an artist, not just make work. That's what an MFA program of the sort I have in mind does. Debt is a huge issue; too much of it means you don't have time to be an artist, because you're too busy working to pay down debt. But with so few schools in the mix, and so few "spots" in the artworld, there's a sense in which you might have to bet on yourself and take on debt. Even the expensive programs offer "scholarships" to many incoming students, esp. those at the top of their admitted list. (This isn't actually scholarship money, just reallocated tuition.) - "star faculty": it is true to a point that the bigger the name, the less accessible they are (there are some programs where this is less the case). But star faculty are one element of a program's prestige, esp. if it is not housed in a "famous" school (like Yale, for ex.). These faculty do, in fact, form part of the networks these schools constitute; and even saying "I studied with X at Y school" has some value. But above all, this question ties into the location question mentioned above: star faculty live in NYC and LA, period. They do not live in Atlanta or Palo Alto. They live where the art world -- global significant museums, major galleries -- are. Stanford is cool if you want to do computer science and make money in the tech world. Not so much for the MFA in visual arts. Then there is the fact that star faculty serve as "models" for how to be a successful artist. Don't underrate this. I agree for the most part with most of the other points, even if I'd nuance things a bit in one direction or another. One thing I'd really emphasize to applicants is that you should be familiar with the faculty of the program you are applying to. This should be reflected in your writing, and in your interviews. Faculty read the apps, and they do the interviews. They want to know if you know what you're getting into: what the MFA does, who you will work with, whether you know alumni from the program. The more "clued in" you can appear, the more likely to think you'll be a good fit for the program and will succeed there. Even applicants who have strong work need to show they understand what game they are playing. There is much more to say about MFA fine art admissions. I would stress above all that there are the top tier programs which see themselves as connected directly to, if not feeders for, the global contemporary art world, and then there are the rest, which are largely going to supply local art scenes and above all provide teaching credentials. This is not to say that there are not brilliant teachers there, but by definition the most successful artists will be in two cities, not in Ithaca. The list of schools above is similar to the ad hoc list I have in mind, though I'd remove a few schools, add others. I hope this is useful for some of you. It's important to dispel the mystery around this process, given the risks many of you are taking. But remember, there are two kinds of risk: a. taking on a bunch of debt that makes it impossible to be an artist, or b. going to a school that's cheap but doesn't get you where you want to go. None of this is easy. edit: I wanted to add that I agree it is best not to go straight from undergrad to MFA. Lots of reasons for this. Happy to give my perspective if anyone is interested.