Talk:Art Center College of Design
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
Forgive me but most private art schools like Art Center College of Design run at about $12,000 a semester. I don't disagree with what was said about the money but perhaps it would be a bit more fair if all the articles about expensive private art schools explained just how expensive they are.
The list of "notable alumni" is growing, which is a great thing. However, I notice that about half of the entries are "redlinks", meaning there is no article by that name. Having an article is the rough gauge of notability used around here. Now I have Google-checked a few names and some are certainly notable and deserve articles here. But it is also likely that there are also entries for people who are not yet notable. If there are any editors of this article that would like a good project I suggest that this list is place to start. Rather than creating a whole "stub" article, simply recording the most notable achievement (major prize, one-person show, famous work,) of the person after their names would be a start. After a decent interval, I'm likely to come back and delete the remaining redlinks. -Will Beback 06:54, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
- I was tempted to do some redlink weed-whacking myself awhile back, but every red link I gooogled appeared to be someone who was at least borderline notable, and a few were certainly notable and deserved Wikipedia articles. Annotating the list is a very good idea. BlankVerse 07:19, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
- It should be noted that Roland Young isn't the singer but the AIGA lauredate graphic designer. I corrected that wrong link multiple times now. (siebenviertel)
Adding costs/fees is a good idea, but this should then be applied to all vocational schools. Thoughts?
- I don't think so. The number probably changes every year. It'd bne like listing the class schedules - just not encyclopedic. If it were somehow noted as being unusually expensive or inexpensive then that'd be different. -Will Beback · † · 23:05, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
I deleted a few of the comparisons to other schools. on top of being incorrect, they seemed more like a PR-department's justification than a description of the school. -User:siebenviertel · † · 22:55, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
gpa to enter
My daughter was admitted this year - her GPA is around 3.8...I think they place more emphasis on portfolio than GPA at this school —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.8.131.52 (talk) 20:27, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
Keep in mind it is an "Art School". There seems to be a higher emphasis on performance and paying tuition. Academic achievement is placed more on your portfolio. Basically, it's a hazing school. It's not a place where you can contemplate your navel. If you feel your son or daughter is still searching for themselves, I don't think Art Center is the place to go. This is basically a school for highly focused individuals......who don't mind getting head phucked.
If you wonder what are the repercussions of this hazing mentality, all you have to do is read this blog: http://futureofartcenter.blogspot.com
http://images.businessweek.com/ss/07/10/1005_dschools/index_01.htm Art Center has a habit of touting their monopoly and reputation. I find this is not so. Art Center use to have a motto, "If you don't like it here, go somewhere else." Of course, the people that use to say that don't work at ACCD anymore.....if you read this blog: http://futureofartcenter.blogspot.com/
http://howdesign.com/article/youngcreatives/ Also, the teachings of Roland Young, who made the entire class, including myself, eat grass on our first day of art school. He was communicating to us how we are subservient to authority and took us outside of the classroom to this bed of grass. As we were talking, he told us “rip some grass off the ground.” We did. He then told us to “eat it.” No one budged. He then screamed “EAT IT” and all of us shoved the grass blades into our mouths. Roland taught us the necessity of concept and its marriage to well-crafted execution. Prior to Roland, most of us were blindly emulating pre-existing styles and trends without regard to meaning or relevant communication. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.108.40.206 (talk) 16:26, 2 February 2011 (UTC)