truthbetold

Sorry about the rejection, inej. Hmm, still "To date, no decision has been made on your application." on UCLA Sculpture application status. Perhaps this will prove a good sign...

@ECM is there any advantage to accepting sooner -- e.g. more funding or...? if so then yes, by all means accept. otherwise you have time. but i wouldn't hold out for columbia, unfortunately, not that it is the official word but as you said it seems to be true that columbia has made their calls. what i can say is that they are usually the last school to send out letters (they don't do so until some time in -- usually late -- april). congrats! ucla is the yale/columbia of the west coast, you could say. i know of someone who picked ucla over yale last year for painting. good luck. ucla is still silent on the sculpture front....

Yes, folks depend too heavily on the rankings... they are for the intellect, not the gut. I know there is a sense of impending dread for some folks about not getting in anywhere, or not getting in to one of their top choices. I feel it, too. So I would say to everyone not satisfied with their options: there's always next year. Just because you get in does not mean you have to go, as terrifying as it may be to walk away (here that gut instinct becomes crucial, as you don't want to regret it, and you can't ever question it later). But it would have to be accompanied by a hussel, by starting to work towards app deadlines for next year now, by really stepping up the risk in one's work. To balance this boldness: the idea that it is easier to create opportunity from opportunity than from nothing. In other words, if you let go of the bird in your hand you have to have confidence in your ability to catch birds -- or in your resolve to learn how to catch birds. It takes some folks more than one attempt to get in to top schools. Lots of folks apply to schools before their work is ready or before they are ready. In this sense I'd echo again to previous commenters' statement about it being a long distance run. As long as you are making work, reading, talking to other artists, you are making progress.

@twentyeleven, nice share. i can see this being helpful for many trying to make a decision. With or without automation, this sort of self-generated ranking still depends a lot on having accurate knowledge/data about the programs (and not relying just on US News). Above all, when making a decision, since it has not been said in this thread: trust gut feelings. This means you must visit any school you plan to attend.

As for the sprint VS long distance run... I would argue that there are 2 races here. First is your "personal journey" as an artist. Second is your career as an artist. Both races have to be run simultaneously with equal zeal. An artist may be way ahead of the pack with the personal aspect, but back at the starting line with the career. There are others who have barely started training for the personal aspect and find their career way out in front -- but this is more rare. Both positions are uncomfortable. @sarah J, While the schools you mention may be big schools, I wouldn't say that MICA or Pratt are the top schools for one's career. Be clear about the different between a big school and a top school. And it is true that the loans hurt. Only a couple schools are possibly worth loans. Also remember that some schools have big stickers with little funding, others have big stickers with lots of discounts to those accepted. Sometimes you get what you pay for, sometimes you get a bargain, sometimes you get ripped off. As to whether a school can be detrimental... it depends on who is looking and why they are looking. Some people look for artists who are already vetted to help make decisions and others are just snobs flat out. Many just don't care -- they look at the work. Skowhegan does not care where you went to school and it immediately raises you to elite status and networks you. Other residencies you mention are a good way to build one's profile, network, visibility, and help you keep making work. Best advice: take the US News rankings with a grain of salt. And develop your own ranking system based on what is important to YOU. And what you want that equation to equal. Then try to balance that equation to find the right schools. Sorry if this is to mathy... Let's suppose that since everyone is trying to figure out the equation that there is one, for say "successful NYC based artist" (one goal among many that people may have). I will throw out one, so let's just say you have: Formula for "Successful NYC based artist": your_work + network + je_ne_sais_quoi = degree of success There are some coefficients to this equation (and possible debt) if you go to grad school: (school)work + (school)network + school_debt + (school)jenesaisquoi = degree of success If the school you are considering has a neutral effect it'd be 1, if it has a positive affect it could be anything above 1, a negative affect anything below 1 (e.g. creates a mountain of debt). These coefficients or multipliers will vary depending on who you are in school with, who is faculty at that time, your specific financial package, etc. A good way to start to figure out these things it to look at the data: alumni. So let's take School A vs School B vs School C. School A, a "big" school (4)work + (2)network + (-6 for debt) + (1)jenesaisquoi = degree of success School B, a "bargain" school in/near NYC (4)work + (6)network + (-1 for debt) + (1)jenesaisquoi = degree of success School C, a "top" school in or near NYC (5)work + (7)network + (-3 for debt) + (3)jenesaisquoi = degree of success These are somewhat arbitrary numbers based on my thoughts, but you get the idea. i am basically justifying my opinion that a "top" school is your best bet, otherwise go for a "bargain" school should. And expect to be disappointed by the outcome of going to a "big" school. Just my opinion... but also from what I hear from alumni. @Beladinah All the info is online: http://grad-schools....e-arts-rankings http://www.usnews.co...ethodology-2012 Students care the most about the rankings because it gives them something tangible in what otherwise seems like a chaos of variables for an infinite number of schools. Gallerists, curators, and collectors all know the value of Yale and Columbia, yet not all have heard of VCU, the #1 sculpture school. Cranbrook and MICA are ranked 4th overall -- yet look at the gallery representation i posted earlier. Not a Cranbrook or Mica grad in the list, while every gallery had a Columbia grad or two -- a much lower "ranked" school. Last Greater New York show at PS1 was full of Skowhegan, Bard (5), Columbia(12) alums. There are several Yale alumns, but not sure how many total. I don't think there were any Cranbrook or MICA grads (based on Google search). There were grads from other places too! I just don't know where off the top of my head. http://www.bard.edu/...ting_id=4466428 http://arts.columbia...-new-york-44265 Again, take the US News rankings with a grain of salt! I realize this is very NY-centric, but that is the perspective I can offer to everyone. And I encourage others to offer a different perspective.

For comparison, I just picked a random LA gallery to see where those folks were schooled: ACME http://www.acmelosangeles.com/ TOP programs: UCLA x 5 CalArts x 3 RCA - London MID(not really as sure about reputation of these programs?): USC Art Center OTHER: Claremont U of Cincinnati Pratt ...rest had no info or BA only

The rankings are questionable, in many ways. and of course gallerists are not choosing artists based on them. And it is true that the best artists don't make the best teachers, and vice versa. Only a certain, smaller, subset of folks coming out of even those top programs (already a small subset) are making great work (or will make great work). And by no means is all of the great work out there coming from the top programs. It should be noted that a lot of folks don't hit their stride until 2-10 years after grad school. So looking at open studios (god knows what kind of crap you'd see in mine) when folks are often experimenting and thesis shows (a lot of cringe-worthy art at the top programs!) only tells part of the story. What are they doing 2, 5, 10 years out?

@racuerex, Yes, the folks who go to Yale or Columbia set as a specific goal that they WILL go to a top school. Some already have a leg up even before applying, but all had to work towards that goal as hard as they can (sure some of this is also talent). Causation or correlation? Some of both! As I already said, there is no guarantee that going to one of those schools will be the hook up. You are right, it is not because of the name per se. it is more because of the type of artist those institutions attract: and subsequently what they do while they are there and after. Attending the top schools shaves time off of clawing your way up and stacks the deck a little more in your favor. You get networked, you get the stamp of approval, you probably also get more devoted peers and top faculty (who are working, respected artists... which it should be noted are already showing at NYC galleries), leading to a better conversation. And yes the art scene is now international. So this idea of location, does indeed mean that now artists from anywhere are in the mix, which means you now compete with London, Amsterdam, Berlin, Tokyo, Beijing, Sao Palo. Wherever you are showing, someone still has to SEE whatever it is that you are doing. Which means you have to have access to an audience (of critics, curators, established artists, etc)! And the "top" schools help tremendously with this. Otherwise you will have to find another way to gain access to that audience. It can be done, but you will be the underdog. i am not saying top 10 or bust and I don't want to discourage anyone! But everyone should be aware of the trade off and of the real dynamics here.

UCLA Sculpture: I called and they said they are "very close" for sculpture and expect letters to go out sometime this week. There is no formalized interview process, so it is somewhat up to department's discretion.

Also, @tiredofwaiting, notice that, although the pattern in this random selection seems to mainly be Yale (9) / Columbia (7) (note that Columbia's program is smaller) and secondarily CalArts (4) / Hunter (2) / SAIC (2) / UCSD (2) / SVA (3) / RCA (2) / RISD (2) / Bard (2) ...someone from Washington University is represented by Mary Boone. Again, a different selection (from NY, in LA, or elsewhere) may yield different results. I'd be curious to know.

It is important to consider your personal definition of success and your personal goals. Your actions will likely follow in accord with those - consciously and unconsciously. Not everyone is seeking gallery representation in NYC (nor do "top" schools guarantee it).

Further realism… Let's take 1 measure of "success" to be New York gallery representation. It might look a little different on the west coast. Yes there are others, but bear in mind you are not getting a Masters of Fine Arts in Teaching degree. I've picked a few galleries at random, but try some others and let me know what you find. I loosely separated the artists they represent into categories: having an MFA from a top program, top/mid, a mid level program -- yes I know this is somewhat debatable which goes where but don't miss the point being made! -- or some other path. Note, that this "other" is often something like the Whitney ISP, or getting a BFA from Cooper Union. I don't know much about international programs so I usually had to put this under other. ------ Salon 94 http://www.salon94.com/ TOP: Yale x 2 Columbia x 2 de Ateliers (MFA like 2 year prog in Amsterdam w/ high status) TOP/MID: SAIC Hunter (Jules de Balincourt, not listed on the site) UCSD x 2 MID: CCA OTHER: Syracuse SVA, in NYC one other from Whitney ISP, A couple others artists are BA only, international or dead. ----- Mary Boone http://www.maryboonegallery.com TOP: Yale x 3 Columbia x 2 TOP/MID: CalArts x 3 Hunter SAIC MID: Rutgers OTHER: University of New Orleans (this is Peter Halley, head of painting at Yale… leaving though) Otis Washington U the rest are international, only have a BA, or are dead! ------ Sikkema Jenkins http://www.sikkemajenkinsco.com/ TOP: Yale x 3 Columbia x 2 RISD x 2 (painting only) RCA - London TOP/MID: CalArts Bard OTHER: SVA x 2 U of Ill Chicago NYU (MA not MFA?) The rest were international, not at all listed (why not?), or have no MFA (one from Cooper - no need for MFA) ------ Horton http://hortongallery.com/ TOP: Columbia Yale RCA - London TOP/MID: Hunter x 2 VCU (painting… sculpture would be top) Bard OTHER: SMFA Alfred a couple international and a BFA in there ----- You can draw your own conclusions, I think.

@kimpusity Via email? Did anyone else apply to UCLA sculpture? Any word? I've not heard a peep and it seems all other departments have been in contact with applicants.

no word from UCLA sculpture

@d1450516, to my knowledge vcu sculpture does not conduct interviews (at least they have not in years past). there's only 6 admitted each year, so they may make phone calls before sending the letter... but i think they are still in the final phase of their process. the letters will be decision letters (not interview letters). columbia has definitely contacted folks already for interviews. to my knowledge, everyone who is accepted interviews. someone earlier in this thread said they got a ucla rejection letter for new genres last year on march 11 (after having gone for an interview in feb).

@bertyruss, vibe counts for a lot... @helec2003,visit any school before accepting if at all possible. otherwise your decision will be all the more difficult. cranbrook is a really unique place and also you have one primary faculty member; both need to be a good match. chicago will give you an "art scene" connection.

for overall i know it is: 1000-1200 applicants; 60is interviewed; 26 accepted. for sculpture/new genres (combined review process) i think it is: 22-24 interviews; 10 accepted.

columbia interview for sculpture in late march -- contacted via phone yesterday

post marked mine on the 8th and received post card last week

I have been assuming Yale MFA apps were due before tomorrow at Midnight, but now I am worried that they may be due tonight at midnight b/c of confusing wording. On the site it says: "APPLICATION DEADLINE: ONLINE APPLICATIONS FOR PROGRAMS BEGINNING IN THE 2011-2012ACADEMIC YEAR MUST BE UPLOADED BY 12 MIDNIGHT EST ON JANUARY 5, 2011." http://art.yale.edu/Admissions That would technically be tonight at midnight, right? But on the online application itself it says: "Applications must be submitted online before January 6." https://apply.art.yale.edu/apply/ Which is it?! Thanks.