Reputation Vs. Cost

[tiredofwaiting]

Hey there,

I know that this has come up in different topics, but I'm having a difficult time making this decision. I was wondering how much cost was factoring into other people's decisions, especially when schools with better reputations can often be more expensive.

I've been accepted into three program thus far: Washington University in St. Louis (WUSTL), University of North Carolina Chapel Hill (UNC), and SUNY Buffalo. WashU has a better reputation than the other two. It's not one of the top ten, but it's pretty high up there. I got a small scholarship from WashU but still I would get out of school in heavy of debt if i went there. I probably wouldn't have to take out loans to go to Chapel Hill... I'm on the wait list for full funding at Buffalo.

I really like both WashU and Chapel Hill. The question is will I be missing out on opportunities if I go to school with a lesser reputation. I'm especially interested in future teaching opportunities. I would probably be a TA at Chapel Hill... pretty sure i'm not getting a TA position at WashU, so I may get more teaching experience at Chapel Hill, which seems valuable.

Is it worth it to pay for a school's name or reputation?

Wondering if anyone else is dealing with this right now.

[Curious12345]

I had to realize the same question, I think all reputations have a cost. I think it is the person that will determine how much you will "need" that reputation to proceed you. Sometimes it is good to come out of left field if you are truly driven. If you aren't, then ya, you might want to have that "yale" on your resume.

[va. woolf]

reputation and prestige go a long way with the top art programs - just the connections and the world that is opened to you are going to be different than a less well known program. i think that once you are out of the top ten art programs, i'll even stretch to the top fifteen, reputation almost starts being a non-factor because it becomes 'even'. this is not to say that there are not great programs that are not the 'top' programs, but that the reasons that 'justify' you paying what you pay at some of the better ranked schools don't exist as you go down the rankings list. so unless a school has a really bad rep, which would ultimately hurt you to be associated with the program, you should be more worried about cost and future debt load for a degree that could essentially be worthless. i hope this makes sense and doesn't sound harsh, but i think that's the reality we're all facing in pursuing MFAs.

Edited March 14, 2011 by va. woolf

[I Paint Faces]

On 3/13/2011 at 9:27 PM, tiredofwaiting said:

Hey there,

I know that this has come up in different topics, but I'm having a difficult time making this decision. I was wondering how much cost was factoring into other people's decisions, especially when schools with better reputations can often be more expensive.

I've been accepted into three program thus far: Washington University in St. Louis (WUSTL), University of North Carolina Chapel Hill (UNC), and SUNY Buffalo. WashU has a better reputation than the other two. It's not one of the top ten, but it's pretty high up there. I got a small scholarship from WashU but still I would get out of school in heavy of debt if i went there. I probably wouldn't have to take out loans to go to Chapel Hill... I'm on the wait list for full funding at Buffalo.

I really like both WashU and Chapel Hill. The question is will I be missing out on opportunities if I go to school with a lesser reputation. I'm especially interested in future teaching opportunities. I would probably be a TA at Chapel Hill... pretty sure i'm not getting a TA position at WashU, so I may get more teaching experience at Chapel Hill, which seems valuable.

Is it worth it to pay for a school's name or reputation?

Wondering if anyone else is dealing with this right now.

Yeah I'm struggling with this too because although I have a few more to hear from, right now I'm deciding between University of Washington and University of Massachusetts, Dartmouth. I really liked U MAss when I visited they have new facilities (within the past 10 years) and the staff seemed really friendly and supportive. It seems like a fairly structured program, but also very suppoortive, whereas I've heard that University of Washington is more intense and the faculty are much less hands on. Additionally, University of Washington is much more expensive, but is supposedly 26 on the best schools for painting MFAs whereas U MASS is not even on the list. I'm going to visit U Washington at the end of the month and I really hope I can get a clear idea about whether that school is right for me and worth the extra money. The problem is that I think I could be happy at either... I just don't know how much I should weigh reputation though because I think to a certian extent its really what you make of the experience, but I also don't want to feel like I turned down an amazing opportunity.

Good luck with your decisions!!! and I suggest getting some students emails and asking them why they picked that school and if they are happy there. Also, try to visit them all if you haven't and can (I'm lucky to have a friend out in Seattle, but lots of schools let you stay on campus)

[tiredofwaiting]

Thanks for your input. It doesn't sound harsh... more realistic than anything.

reputation and prestige go a long way with the top art programs - just the connections and the world that is opened to you are going to be different than a less well known program. i think that once you are out of the top ten art programs, i'll even stretch to the top fifteen, reputation almost starts being a non-factor because it becomes 'even'. this is not to say that there are not great programs that are not the 'top' programs, but that the reasons that 'justify' you paying what you pay at some of the better ranked schools don't exist as you go down the rankings list. so unless a school has a really bad rep, which would ultimately hurt you to be associated with the program, you should be more worried about cost and future debt load for a degree that could essentially be worthless. i hope this makes sense and doesn't sound harsh, but i think that's the reality we're all facing in pursuing MFAs.

[truthbetold]

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.

Edited March 14, 2011 by truthbetold

[jjmfa]

I agree with this. Outside of the top 10-15 (I'd say 11) it is sort of a level playing field. I know one of the "Ivy League" of private art colleges sends a lot of undergrads to one of the Ivy League Universities and then hires them back as faculty. It is a very scratch my back and I'll scratch yours system. You may find that some of the schools a little further down the list sort of cross pollinate each other too. They may even resent the elitist attitude of the the top tier. So if you don't mind teaching at a state school and receiving state employee benefits, it probably won't hurt you to go to one. The private schools are trying to protect themselves to justify their high price tag by making sure their grads are hired, even if they have to do it themselves. That doesn't create the anything goes atmosphere that a good art program should have.

there are a lot of public/state schools ranked highly (vcu, tyler, univeristy of ca, ut austin–not all are super expensive private schools

[colbz]

well what schools have bad reputations? (out of curiosity)

reputation and prestige go a long way with the top art programs - just the connections and the world that is opened to you are going to be different than a less well known program. i think that once you are out of the top ten art programs, i'll even stretch to the top fifteen, reputation almost starts being a non-factor because it becomes 'even'. this is not to say that there are not great programs that are not the 'top' programs, but that the reasons that 'justify' you paying what you pay at some of the better ranked schools don't exist as you go down the rankings list. so unless a school has a really bad rep, which would ultimately hurt you to be associated with the program, you should be more worried about cost and future debt load for a degree that could essentially be worthless. i hope this makes sense and doesn't sound harsh, but i think that's the reality we're all facing in pursuing MFAs.

[tiredofwaiting]

Yep, that is some reality going on there. Thanks for all the info. I'm hoping mostly for artistic and personal growth during my time as an MFA student, but I can't pretend that amazing gallery representation isn't part of my dream... all of our dreams I'm sure.

but I guess as far as planning for reality goes... being able to pay for school would be nice.

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.

[truthbetold]

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).

[truthbetold]

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.

[Curious12345]

With all that is being said, a lot of you are acting like going to a top tier school is a guaranteed spot at a top gallery or at a top teaching position. Don't you think that maybe Yale picks the talent and the talent takes them to these places? or maybe these people wanted to be the best and along with getting into Yale they went with the best gallery representation as well? I think a lot of people in this thread are discounting the people involved, by no means does just going to Yale mean that you have a better chance to be represented by Mary Boone. Ya, they have 3 Yale grads now, but that could be because of talent, drive, or whatever else comes along with creating things. I think if you want it bad enough, you will get it. Maybe these people wanted it that bad, I honestly think that the antiquated way of thinking of location or proximity is quickly being lost in the globalized society we are creating. My representation can be on any coast in the world, printed and hung within mins.

[truthbetold]

@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.

Edited March 14, 2011 by truthbetold

[inscho]

@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.

I agree....I spent 15 minutes trying to type something similar....but you put it much more eloquently than I....

Edited March 14, 2011 by inscho

[truthbetold]

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?

[truthbetold]

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

Edited March 14, 2011 by truthbetold

[Beladinah]

A few years ago, I read Donald Thompson's book "The $12 Million Stuffed Shark: The Curious Economics of Contemporary Art" in which he, as an economist, looks at the art market and tries to understand how it works. (I'm sure many of you have already read this one too.) How do people come to put a monetary value on a work of art? It basically came down to values being based on intangibles as opposed to the intrinsic quality of the work. For contemporary artists (as opposed to modern artists and those that have come before, where time has proven the worthiness of the work) value in contemporary art is lifted by certain things, among which the school the artist attended plays a role. It's not the most important role, but the right school certainly helps. Personally, I think so much of contemporary art is so confusing to the general public that they look to others to identify what's good (they don't trust their own eyes). They look to the gallerists and buy from reputable galleries. They look to the schools the person attended and assume that since the school is a top school, the artist's work is top quality too. Do I think this is actually the case? No. But the school you attend will definitely be a part of whatever "brand" you can build for yourself. If the reputation of one school far surpasses the reputation of another school and you have a chance to go to the "better" school, don't discount the value of that. I haven't come across anything that quantifies how much value you get from the school - wouldn't it be great if there was an equation you could use to make these decisions easier?

Is it worth going into mountains of debt? I'd be hard pressed to argue that going into mountains of debt to attend any art school is a good economic investment. I mean really, can we find a way to spend $40-50 grand on an education with less of a guarantee of financial success than with a fine art MFA? Maybe an MFA in creative writing is an equally idiotic way to throw money away. And to those of you who have been given $$$ so that you DON'T have to spend this much - congratulations - you've got the best deal out there!!

But we do it. Why? Because it's NECESSARY. We love what we do. It gives meaning and purpose to our lives. We can't imagine doing anything else. If we could, perhaps we should. And we all harbor the hope that what we do might actually pay the bills eventually. Just go into it knowing what your monthly loan payments will be.....

Good luck everyone!!!

[wannaknow]

Also, I think it is worth saying; if the program that would be the best fit for you and your work, where you will be challenged and evolve in your practice is more expensive than a school to which you are less enthusiastic and less appropriate for, you have to consider the pros and cons. What is the purpose of being committed to a program (even if it is FREE) that is not a great fit for you, does not challenge your praxis or allow for intense grwoth in your work? I mean arent we going through all of this to be better artists?? Because if the point is soley to make art, much in the way we have been, then it would be significantly cheaper to rent a studio space... WE are doing this in the hopes of coming out of an MFA with new perspectives and a better understanding of our art making process as well as establishing connections that will allow us to get our feet in the door; so why even go if its not to a program that will allow you to do this. I dont necessarily think that rank has everything to do with this however, because in 10 years when we hit our strides as artists the ranking may be very different, so it becomes more about finding a program with faculty and connections that are appropriate for YOU!!!!! It is a very personal thing, but for me if you are not completely sold on the program, then you wont be making the best owrk you can make anyway!! The environment you are in and the people in your community DO have an effect on your work and it is crucial to be in a place that allows you PERSONALLY to thrive or it wont matter how good you are, your work will not be the best it could be. Find a program that is well respected, challenging and that you are totally jazzed about then important progress with naturally happen. Good luck making decisions on how much money to spend.... but consider what you really want out of grad school... I want to leave a better artist with better connections... if that means going to a program that is a little more costly then so be it. I dont want to be at a school that may be free but is too comfortable, and will not give me everything that I want out of the next two years.

Edited March 15, 2011 by wannaknow

[twentyeleven]

This entire application process, as many of you have noted, feels like–and often is–a crapshoot. Why are you accepted to one school and rejected by another? Why is it that last year you were wait listed and this year, not even an interview? How can a highly ranked school accept you and a nothing school reject you? For most of these questions, there are no clear-cut answers and in fact, it's largely situational. Similarly, life beyond school–as a working artist–will be just as much a crapshoot. You can do things to improve your odds of success (such as attend a reputable art school and make connections), but in the end there are no guarantees. Emphasis: no guarantees. I doubt that every Yale, RISD, and SAIC graduate to walk the earth has gone on to have enormous success or even gallery representation. Perhaps most do, and certainly more so than some little known school with a tiny program, but remember that attending an 'Ivy League' art school is still not a golden ticket to success.

You'll have a leg up for sure. For some people, that could make or break a career. For others, particularly those relentlessly driven individuals who are both dedicated but intelligent about their pursuits, their success might come in other (slower) ways. School is a large factor, but not the sole factor. Character, commitment, personality, and, of course, quality/marketability of work also play into it. The fact is that most of us will not succeed in the big-NYC-representation sort of way. The market is huge and always on the brink of saturation. Remember, you're competing with a world (literally) of artists, old and new, some of whom are very established. And, as with fashion, technology, etc, there are trends in art. Perhaps you'll find and lose success because you went from being 'in' to being passé. Perhaps you'll become jaded and realize that the kind of art that sells is no longer the kind of art you want to make. Or, perhaps your entire idea of 'success' won't even include galleries in major cities, but making art and sustaining life. Why should that be dismissed as a lesser form of success? Many people go their whole lives hating their jobs and being forced to sacrifice what they love just to make ends meet–I'd count myself lucky to just do what I love and be able to survive. Anything else is icing on the cake.

Here's a question I have to many of you who are torn: if you only wanted to go to a big name, reputable school, then why did you even apply anywhere else? There must have been some qualities about this lesser-known school that really resonated with you or you shouldn't have applied to begin with and you wouldn't have this decision to make. Take some time to look beyond name value and rank and really concentrate on the faculty, facility, and current caliber of student work. Can you get a pretty good, albeit not the best, deal for less and if so, is that worth a debt-free life? Are you in it to become a marketable, clamored-after artist or to make the work you want to make? What, in short, does pursuing an MFA mean to you? Knowing these answers might help you prioritize and decide because only you can answer them!

I know I've been playing devil's advocate, but I really have nothing against big name, highly ranked schools and I often think the investment is actually worth it–to an extent. I grew up in a frugal family and I know that I don't want a future mired in debt–it really can destroy your life–but some debt is certainly ok. Obviously if you're good enough to be accepted to any top tier school, you have some components of 'what it takes' to make it as an artist. If you don't get that leg up that goes with attending a Yale or RISD, are still driven enough to make it happen? If you do go, are you confident in your ability to leave school and start selling yourself/your work right away to start paying off loans (because it really is both that you'll have to sell). I say think long and hard about how much debt you can and are willing to assume–maybe there's a middle ground you can bargain your way to (don't forget about counter-offers!). Or, you might find that a fully-paid experience elsewhere is worth the extra struggle to catch up to your Columbia, VCU, etc peers. Or, you might feel confident that borrowing a ton of money is just simply the way to go. In the end, it's up to you. Just be sure to make your decision on more than one factor alone.

[tiredofwaiting]

wow! thanks for all the really great responses on this topic. This is obviously something that many of us are dealing with. I personally didn't apply to many of the top programs simply because i don't want to make art in a big city. My work deals with natural themes and uses natural materials, so an urban metropolis would be a less desirable place for me to create. I was also looking for a small interdisciplinary program. In other words, I did a lot of self-selection. Hopefully this attitude will pay off. After much thought, I am ready to go to the program I feel most strongly about, although it will not be a conventional choice. But I am ready work my ass off...

I really appreciate other people here referring to alternative definitions of success. We have to keep our personal goals in mind.

Edited March 15, 2011 by tiredofwaiting

[twentyeleven]

On another note, isn't it funny how the majority of the best schools aren't located in NYC? It's pretty spread out–from Rhode Island to Virginia to Connecticut to Chicago. So while going to a NYC school like Pratt, Parsons, SVA won't carry the same prestige, you'll have a different leg-up; location. Another reason why you can't decide on one factor alone... You have to find the best combination of factors for you!

[shark]

is rca considered to be a better school than bard? is there a way to see how come or is it just based on gallery representation?

[sarah J]

On the one hand: big schools give you great networking, great visiting artists, great environment (hopefully) to create and grow.

On the other: I have friends who went to big schools (mica, pratt, etc) and regret the huge loans/are not making very much art because of them.

And on one more hand (3 now!) I have friends who have somehow started remarkable careers without any MFA at all. (but they did loads of residencies: LMCC, skowhegan, ISP, AIM, etc)

So it seems to me that though the schools can help a LOT, its the work and the commitment that matter the most. IMO art is a long distance marathon, not a sprint.

My question is if going to a lesser known school can be detrimental to your CV..

Certainly if the school is not a good fit it can be detrimental to your work.

thoughts?

Edited March 16, 2011 by sarah J

[Beladinah]

@Sarah

I agree with all your points especially the idea that art is a marathon and not a sprint.

To the group:

I think it would be a great service to the discussion if someone could post how the rankings are set (I don't have the publication-I've just seen the lists). How do schools get top rankings? What are the elements of the measurement? Who ranks? How often do schools go up and down on the rankings?

Also, I wonder who cares the most about the rankings - us as prospective students or others (gallerists, academic institutions, curators, collectors)?

Edited March 16, 2011 by Beladinah

[twentyeleven]

@Sarah

I agree with all your points especially the idea that art is a marathon and not a sprint.

To the group:

I think it would be a great service to the discussion if someone could post how the rankings are set (I don't have the publication-I've just seen the lists). How do schools get top rankings? What are the elements of the measurement? Who ranks? How often do schools go up and down on the rankings?

Also, I wonder who cares the most about the rankings - us as prospective students or others (gallerists, academic institutions, curators, collectors)?

I agree; good points, Sarah.

As for the rankings, this is what I found on the USN website:

Fine Arts Ranking Methodology

The master of fine arts program rankings are based solely on the results of a peer assessment survey. These rankings, completed in 2008, are based on a fall 2007 survey of art school deans and other top art school academics, two per school, at 220 master of fine arts programs in art and design.

Respondents were asked to rate the academic quality of programs on a scale of 1 (marginal) to 5 (outstanding). Scores for each school were totaled and divided by the number of respondents who rated that school. The response rate was 39 percent. Surveys were conducted by Synovate.

[see our Best Fine Arts Schools rankings.]

The lists of schools, individuals surveyed at each school, and specialty concentrations were developed in cooperation with the Department of Art and Visual Technology at the College of Visual and Performing Arts at George Mason University in Virginia.

The specialty fine arts rankings are based solely on ratings by educators at peer schools. Art school deans and other top art school academics, two per school, were asked to nominate up to 10 programs noted for their excellence in each specialty. Those receiving the most nominations are listed.

Rank Not Published means that U.S. News did calculate a numerical ranking for that school/program, but decided for editorial reasons that since the school/program ranked below the U.S. News cutoff that U.S. News would not publish the ranking for that school/program on usnews.com. U.S. News will supply schools/programs marked with Rank Not Published with their numerical rankings, if they submit a request following the procedures listed in the Information for School Officials in the About the Rankings section on usnews.com.

Schools/programs marked as Rank Not Published are listed alphabetically. Schools in the fine arts ranking that is based solely on 5.0 peer assessment score are number ranked down to a peer assessment score of greater than or equal to 2.0, Schools with scores beneath 2.0 are listed in alphabetical order as Rank Not Published. Schools in the specialty rankings, which are based solely on nominations from school officials, are numerically ranked in descending order based on the number of nominations they received as long as the school/program receives seven or more nominations in that specialty area. This means that schools ranked at the bottom of each specialty ranking have received seven nominations.

Unranked means that U.S. News did not calculate a numerical ranking for that school or program. The school or program did not supply U.S. News with enough key statistical data to be numerically ranked by U.S. News. Schools or programs marked as Unranked are listed alphabetically and are listed below those marked as Rank Not Published.