truthbetold

A word about Columbia... Yes it is expensive. Note that the sticker price is not the actual price; every student gets $15,500/year and then $5000/year more if they choose to work/TA. This still makes it VERY expensive. It isn't free like USC or VCU Sculpture, but then again it isn't like those programs either. Nor is it like "practically" priced Hunter. Nor is it like the departmentally separated Yale. An MFA isn't like a driver's license (where all you need is the certification to be on the road and everyone on the road has one); it's more like the car you drive (which is somehow a reflection of you... in its style, use, and yes, sometimes, price). Columbia (and its price tag) is not for everyone, but it is an amazing program. If you just want to "go to art school" (spend a lot of time in your studio, have some visits and some critiques) it may not be worth it. If you want an education and a network then it may be worth it (to be clear, going to Columbia is not the only way to do these things, but it is a very expedient, recognized way). No other school has anything like the mentor program. Only a couple other schools can even come close to competing with the academic options available through Columbia University (though most students don't take full advantage of it). Every week there are visiting speakers and artists instead of every month like many other programs. You will be far ahead of someone who has gone to school outside of NYC and has to move to NYC (or LA) and network their way into things. I could go on, but essentially I am saying that you are paying a premium for something that is premium. I agree that taking on the cost without outside financial support (other than loans) is not a risk that everyone should take. If you will tolerate the metaphor... : You can play golf at the public course or the country club. There are good and bad golfers in each. But it should be noted that much of the business of the "art world" is done at the country club. I am not condoning or condemning this, just stating it. (And to clarify before the metaphor goes too far, I am not saying Columbia students are snotty elitists. They are not. Quite the opposite. Admission is still merit based. Nor am I saying Columbia or any other school is a 100% guarantee to get you in to the art world, that there are not other ways in, or that you want to be in it in the first place.)

also the % of acceptance doesn't really matter -- if you are a good match for a school with a 3% acceptance rate you will likely get in and if you are a poor match for a school with a 20% acceptance rate you probably won't get in. remember too that the average age for folks getting in to the highly selective programs is 27-29 years old (this info is also on petersons) b/c it takes most people that long to develop their work adequately. several folks in most programs will be in their 30s and there will be a couple babies. some 22-23 year olds go to yale, columbia, etc, but it is rare. so if you are in your early 20s and getting rejections, you can decide whether to give it some time and get in to a more selective school, or go to a less selective school sooner/younger.

things to keep in mind: these are sticker prices, and you really need to consider actual cost to YOU, which can only be estimated until you get an actual offer these tuition numbers are old and most of these schools have higher tuition now -- some will increase in the second year while you are there many schools do not post specific information about how much funding they offer schools do not offer the same amount of funding to everyone -- so can't really say it is common to get huge financial aid packages (it isn't) but some do getting in to multiple schools may give you some bargaining power (assuming the schools are similar caliber) outside scholarships exist, but most are smaller and have lots of requirements on what kind of people they fund (great for you if you meet those requirements) but the most important thing to consider is value and practicality. you get more for your money at Yale than at MICA or RISD so Yale is a better value. if you were to get in to Hunter and Columbia, the practical thing to do from a financial point of view would be to go to Hunter. but, if you get in to Columbia, most people will still go to Columbia because the long term odds of success are thought to be greater (b/c a school like Columbia is the practical choice if you want to catalyze your career -- though plenty of folks from Hunter have great careers). but if you were to get in to Hunter and MICA, you'd probably be better off at Hunter since MICA doesn't offer a proportional increase in odds of success for its higher tuition. how big of a worry it should be depends on your existing financial means, how competitive you are for scholarships (and how motivated you are to apply for them), your long term drive and your long term plans. if you want to move to berlin after grad school and just "be an artist" then you probably don't want to take on a lot of debt that will require you to have a job and make monthly payments. if you want to make yourself more competitive for teaching gigs and grant apps etc, knowing that you are making a commitment to maintaining a higher cash flow for the next 10-20+ years to pay off loans, then take the risk for the programs that ARE worth it, but not for the ones that are not. ...use your best judgement for your situation. and finally, moving to new york and getting a studio, going to free lectures (from hunter, sva, new school, columbia plus all the museums), going to openings (meeting people), going to galleries every week to see work, etc is perhaps an equally good or better investment of time and energy as applying to / going to many grad schools. especially since you'll probably have to / want to do it after you graduate anyway.

tyler may be on an upswing, and though it may be(come) a strong program, i doubt it will be taking yale's "spot"... @losemygrip, columbia grads most often remain in nyc (that's where their network is). it does seem that about 50% of them are invisible. but about 50% of them enjoy moderate success (accepted to studio programs, grants, fellowships, etc and group shows in nyc and international galleries) -- which is actually a huge percentage when you compare it to most schools. i think only usc and ucla have comparable success rates. some smaller portion of columbia grads enjoy significant success.

apply to curatorial internships at museums (no grad degree required for that level)

usc and vcu sculpture are best bets consider rutgers and tyler offers much more than 25% i think (could vary by dept) with some of the free schools out there, keep in mind that you may not get much in return for your career as an artist

like other bibles, this one is only one version of the story yale's acceptance rate for painting and sculpture may be lower since this rate includes graphic design vcu's sculpture department would have only 3% acceptance rate, making it as a department into one of the most selective programs int he country

current department heads here: http://art.yale.edu/FacultyAndStaff heard only good things about jim hodges aside from dept head questions have also heard storr isn't simply acting out his whims, but has been actively listening and responding to students

in / near new york, and your best bets based on what you said: columbia, bard, hunter near new york and cheap/offer stipend, but not as much of a "good name" as above: rutgers, tyler east coast, well worth considering -- especially for sculpture based practices -- despite distance from new york: vcu carnegie mellon has an interesting program and if you're after a good name, why not give yale a shot while you're at it, despite the walls between departments...

yes, tyler was the right choice

<br class="Apple-interchange-newline">the percentage i quoted for usc comes from peterson's: http://www.petersons.com/ select "graduate" then type "mfa yale" "mfa hunter" "mfa roski" etc then click "admissions" when i mentioned hunter's rate i was going off their website: http://www.hunter.cuny.edu/art/MFA/index_faq.htm#howmanyapply they say 800 apply and 80 are accepted (so i am not sure why there is a discrepancy w/ petersons.) info about yale comes from what they say during open house and applied more to painting/sculpture (peterson's includes graphic design in their numbers, which makes the percentage a bit higher).

Well, I will try to offer a little bit of background on "this kind of work":http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bad_Painting http://www.artinamericamagazine.com/features/provisional-painting-raphael-rubinstein/ As far as why it is currently being produced, in a grad program or otherwise, I am not so sure ....A matter of taste, I suppose. Bad painting, like realism, is also in a minority of 10-20% at Yale, from what I've observed. The only thing that has a majority is abstraction, a giant category which could be broken into further categorie. So, most programs are very diverse -- intentionally. The idea of Yale being #1 is narrow. And besides, Yale probably shouldn't be at the top of the list if you want to work in several genres. Their discussions are generally medium specific (and those departmental). I wouldn't consider USC a back up school. it is equally difficult to get into as Yale or Columbia -- about 2-3%. Hunter is a good backup school, taking about 10% of applicants.

@ECM, thanks for the share! Too funny and from what I understand, too true. I've heard that everyone at Yale is on anti-depressants. I am sure that is an exaggeration, but Tameka Norris said in multiple videos that she was depressed -- even though she was performing, she had to have source material for the performance. From what I have gathered, Yale can be pretty old fashioned. Although some students still work in performance or video, it is the exception and seems really pushed to the side. And no one really seems to have any kind of experimental practice, social practice, etc. Architecture is destiny; all the painters go in one building and all the sculptors go in another. Then, from what I understand, almost all of the conversation/concerns about work are in light of the history of/formal concerns of 1 medium: How limiting. Granted, I did not get in to Yale, so it may be the sour grapes talking here... I don't mean any disrespect to anyone who got in / is going to Yale, as that is an accomplishment and it may do a lot for your work and career. And I don't mean to dis Yale, just to point out that it is definitely a very specific conversation and attitude that is not right for everyone.

Earlier today I stumbled across an article in Modern Painters: Which Art Schools Rule, and Why? (print only, but here its at least listed in the table of contents) They surveyed working artists, rather than professors (like US News), asking them to rank schools. I am not sure how scientific the process was, but the results were: 1. Yale 2. Columbia 3. Bard College 4. UCLA 5. SAIC 6. USC 7. CalArts 8. RISD 9. Hunter 10. SVA

time will tell

I know this is going to seem really obsessive and nerdy, but I thought it may be of interest to others, particularly those facing some difficult decisions -- or those facing reapplication next year. I've been thinking about different schools for a few years now, both about where I apply and where I might go if accepted. There is definitely a waxing and waning of different graduate programs (both in perception and reality). And timing does matter -- where and when you go to school can make a career. What is the state of things in 2011? I am interested to hear what you all think and if you've read any articles that have swayed your opinions. As a starting point, I have done a little historical retracing. Here are some pieces in the late 90s about LA schools: "Too Cool for School" - Spin 1997 (scroll to page 86) "Surf and turf" - Artforum summer 1998 "How to Succeed In The Art World" - NYTimes June 1999 …There is a REALLY interesting moment in the "Surf and Turf" article: Bruce Hainley puts his money on a dark horse, Columbia's renovated program, chaired by former Yale honcho Ronald Jones. "He has his eye on LA," ventures Hainley. "He wants to steal their thunder. Maybe he will, maybe he won't. But his success will have more to do with the art world's fashion cycles than with whether there is interesting work coming out of Art Center or UCLA. It's going to be, Okay, we've heard about LA for the past five years, we want something new." …it would seem that Columbia did indeed steal some of the LA thunder (though UCLA is still holding strong and USC is the school with the Buzz in the area). Here's some of what I have read about Columbia: "Professional Grade" - Artforum 2004 "The Rise of the Columbia MFA 2005" Contemporary Magazine, Issue 76 2005 I can't really find anything more recent about Columbia. What I deduce from the first 3 articles about LA schools are that changes in administration can make a big difference! It seems like CalArts really suffered from administrative changing of the guard. The opposite can also happen; Columbia rose to prominence after it re-organized itself. The other thing I noticed is how 1 or 2 students can really shine light on a program and provide a spark. This is after all what brought Yale to the forefront back in the '60s during the first MFA boom. And more recently… Jason Rhoades from UCLA '93 (it became twice as selective as Yale for a period of time), Dana Schutz from Columbia '02 (though notable artists like Barnaby Furnas '00, Banks Violette '00, and David Altmejd '01graduated before her -- and many since). Kara Walker and Julie Mehretu did this for RISD painting in the mid-90s, I think. And as the "Surf and turf" article also suggests, these rises are often coupled, too, with the arrival or departure of certain faculty. Josef Albers to Yale, Baldesari to CalArts and then to UCLA w/ Paul McCarthy and Chris Burden. Beuys in Dusseldorf in the '60s, etc. What will happen to Yale with the departure of both Peter Halley and Jessica Stockholder? In the near and medium term, I mean. It'd take a lot for Yale to implode. I think it is still the old guard, conservative school, though, maintaing its rigid department structures and medium specific conversations, though painters make sculpture and video and sculptors make photos and do performance, etc. New department chairs could shake this up for better and/or worse. It is a very different world now vs 1999 or 2003. Columbia's open studios are not swarmed by collectors any more. (There is still plenty of market speculation in young artists though.) So without Financial support for students, which Columbia lacks, and the post-MFA sold out solo show more the exception than the rule, does this change things for Columbia? "Arts Students at Columbia Paint a Bleak Money Picture" NYTimes 2004 http://query.nytimes...756C0A9629C8B63 Alumni since 2004 are still doing incredibly well (going on to Marie Walsh Sharpe, putting lots of artists in Greater New York 2005 and 2010, etc), though obviously some are carrying (a lot of) debt or had financial/family assistance. There are still plenty of artists willing to make the gamble or with parents who can and will support them. In other words I don't think the high tuition cost alone will break Columbia's stride. Here is an entertaining debate about the economics in the comments here on that: http://howtobuyart.b...l-money-go.html I think location definitely matters. Which means New York, LA, or close proximity. That is not to say that there are not incredible grad students/artists and schools elsewhere -- VCU's sculpture department for example. But it does mean that no one is watching when they graduate and they have to then move to NY or LA and work to get attention and make connections; they are more on their own to find an audience and find their way into the scene -- which are 50% of the success equation (the work itself being the other 50%). I feel like the size of the program matters. USC's notability is on the rise (2 alumni featured in New Phototography 2010 recently at MoMA, for example) It is as selective as UCLA Yale or Columbia but with a fraction of the applicants. The program is so small I wonder if it can be a powerhouse. The other extreme might be Hunter, which produces a lot of great artists, but it is so large that the notable alumni are somewhat diluted. There's still a huge number of applications with many schools only taking 2-3% of applicants. The MFA is still hot. Sometimes things change by the year, sometimes they change by the decade. So, I am curious what you all think the HOT school(s) for the next 2 years, or the next 10 years will be -- and why? And also curious if you have seen any RECENT articles about schools from '09, '10, '11? All I've really seen is which doesn't really speak to the question: "What it means to get your mfa now" by gallerist Edward Winkelman, October 2009 http://www.edwardwin...a-now-open.html

i have to ask... what does "good" painting look like and where have you all seen it? bad painting is popular, even desirable when done well. columbia, like yale, risd, and everywhere else has a mix. i've seen several great painters come out of columbia (even within the last 6 years). and i have seen some truly terrible work at the open studios (again, not just at columbia, but yale, risd, others on the east coast). ...i think you also have to look at what students do a couple years out of the program as well. most "famous" artists are not famous because of their thesis shows, but what they do in the next few years after. with respect to career success: realistically the good work is 50% of the equation and the audience / social dimensions account for the other 50%. even if it the work is strong it still has to have an audience (a support base) to go anywhere (career-wise).

ah. perhaps look at alumni success as an an indicator...

@LeeP, have you visited all the schools? That's really helpful for deciding.

depends on which flavor of new genres you mean... look at what the alumni are doing and see which is more the direction you see yourself heading.

@mimoma, you applied to columbia? you'll get more than 25-30k debt there.

for what it's worth, many people who get in to skowhegan have applied 2,3, 5 times. notification on that goes out around april 6. word is that you need letters from someone who has a connection to / teaches at the whitney program to get in there.

columbia conducted interviews for all departments at the same time; those interviews were thursday / saturday of last week.

columbia has made all of their calls or interviews, i believe. if you want to verify, then try calling the admissions office on monday.

....which I just found out means my app was put in a waiting pool that has no ordered list, from which they will select folks if space becomes available