Serious Play was the latest in a series of bi-annual conferences hosted by Art Center College of Design in Pasadena, around the theme ‘Stories from the Source.’ It is part of an initiative from the top brass to position Art Center as a forward thinking school in competition with schools like Carnegie Mellon, Stanford D and others, equipping students with cross-disciplinary tool kits for the world of tomorrow.
As stated by Richard Koshalek, President of Art Center, Serious Play is an important event that strategically places Art Center within the global community of design and education. And as he quoted Erica Clark (the other person responsible for the ‘Stories from the Source’ Series), “isolation breeds irrelevance.”
Well, as a student of Art Center, and as a participant in the conference, I have a story, from the source. Art Center is in danger of becoming highly irrelevant to the very world it is trying to influence. This conference, along with Art Center’s ‘Sustainability Summit,’ is an example of Art Center continuing to present two separate faces to the world. While touting its desire to be a leader that prepares students for the world tomorrow, Art Center lacks any understanding of what that world will be. Or at least, lacks the legs to walk the path it loves to talk about.
Anyone who attended the Sustainability Summit was lucky enough to drink from glass cups and eat off ceramic plates for the dinners and snacks provided throughout. They also had the option of some recycling bins to place recyclable trash accumulated over the few days. Unfortunately, the people attending the three-day summit had more options to recycle and be responsible than the students who attend Art Center on a daily basis. The Art Center Cafeteria still uses Styrofoam plates, in spite of numerous efforts by select faculty and students for two years to change this. We know how to change this. We also know how to reduce the amount of waste we generate. And we know how to substantially improve our recycling rate beyond the standard 50%. Money has been cited as the limiting factor to this, but I can respect that only so much.
Student tuition has been raised 5% consistently over these past two years so that Art Center can “remain competitive,” or so the little letter I receive in the mail states. Well, I’m glad someone in Art Center was able to find the $385,068 in 2005 to pay Gehry Partners to design our new “advanced technical center.” A facility that has yet to break ground, and will not be finished before any attending student graduates. With a net loss of $128,955 reported in 2005, it’s not surprising that the 2008 Car Classic got cancelled. For that much money, we could hire an entry level Senior Officer who advises solely on Sustainability, and one-day work their way up to our President’s $439,950 2005 compensation. I haven’t seen the latest Form 990 from Art Center I’ll be naively optimistic and hope that these prices have been adjusted to remain “competitive.”
I’m not saying that it is as simple as cutting our president’s salary in half. I respect that he was worked hard to get where he is, and this is his earned compensation. I could simply not pay my tuition, as the popular thing to do now is “vote with my wallet.” That would take me out of their conversation completely (though one in which I feel I am already ignored to a serious degree). That option is comparable to walking away from the negotiation table before everyone has been invited. We have to affect change in our immediate spheres of influence. We have to be willing to make an effort. And I would very much like a return on my investment so far.
I want a degree, I want it to come from a place I respect, and will continue to respect in the future. I fell in love with Art Center before knowing its problems. The face that I fell in love with still exists, there’s just a bit more to her than I first realized. True to that love, I want to help out, if only my partner would admit to the problem and make an effort her self. Art Center is infamous for being demanding and destroying the relationships of its student body, but I think this is one relationship I can do something about. I just need a little help myself figuring out how to do so. And then maybe together walk the talk, hand in hand.
Information from:
Art Center Waste Stream Analysis 2007
Art Center 2005 Tax Form 990
Art Center Tuition Raise Information Letter
1,352 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 801 – 1000 of 1352 Newer› Newest»Yes I was. I was in the back sitting with a student that I know.
Questions were asked at the forum.
A simple analogy to explain my overall impression of the forum is this; you are lost and you ask someone for directions,you have to take their word that they are pointing you in the right direction, and you wouldn't know until you reached that destination if they were right. We are still looking for the final destination.
Ophelia
Errol Gerson's comments on the petition are very interesting. Here's the best part:
"7: In order to get some perspective on the financial planning at Art Center, I ask Art Center to provide the following data for comparison purposes;
7.1 For the past 10 years what are (i) the number of employees (ii) the number of faculty and (iii) the number of students?
7.2 For the past 10 years what was the level of spending (per student) (i) For the total cost of employees (non-faculty) of the school (total employee costs, divided by the number of students), and (ii) For the faculty of the school (total faculty costs divided by the number of students)?
7.3 For the past 10 years what are the ratios of Employees (non-faculty) to students, and Faculty to students?
7.4 For the past 10 years, what is the year-over-year percentage increase in Employee (non- faculty) costs versus year-over-year change in Faculty costs?
7.5 Access to the Income and Expense statements for the past 10 years (with detail on costs)
7.6 Is Art Center allocating a disproportionate amount of capital to Administration over Education, and if so why?
7.7 What portion of the Master Plan building costs will come directly from Tuition Revenue?
7.8 How much money has been allocated to scholarships for the past ten years?
7.9 What are the enrollment goals for Art Center for the next 5 years, and why is it that these have to keep increasing? Is the absolute pool of ‘exceptional’ young designers (to be) growing so fast? What is the current ratio of enrollment application to admissions, and how has this ratio changed over the past ten years?"
Very good questions indeed.
So, who the hell are all these people that have signed the petition and why did they sign it?
They're prospective students, new students, current students and grads. They are faculty and staff. They are filmmakers, photographers, painters, sculptors, illustrators, architects, animators, copywriters, and more. They design: cars, motorcycles, interiors, products, packaging, ads, signage, typography, toys, furniture and all the stuff that makes the world go round and round. There are even a few mom and dads in the mix. They live and work all over the earth and almost all have one thing in common – they're going to Art Center or graduated from here.
They are real people and over 800 have one thing in common. They signed this petition against Richard Koshalek’s vision and everyone that supports it.
So Richard Koshalek, your people, department chairs, directors and deans that support your vision, explain to all these people the next time you run into them why your minority views messed up their college.
STOP THE MADNESS! LISTEN!
# 817: Jun 10, 2008, Antonio Manzari, California
# 816: Jun 10, 2008, Carl Ebinger, California
# 815: Jun 10, 2008, Gaelen Cooper, California
# 814: Jun 10, 2008, Eric Gilmore, Oregon
# 813: Jun 10, 2008, U Yong Choi, Michigan
# 812: Jun 10, 2008, Bret Bunde, California
# 811: Jun 10, 2008, Lisa Revelli, California
# 810: Jun 10, 2008, Magda Keriakos, California
# 808: Jun 10, 2008, Christopher Hamillton, California
# 807: Jun 10, 2008, Chris Inkyong Whang, California
# 806: Jun 10, 2008, Ray Engle, Washington
# 805: Jun 10, 2008, Jan Sakamoto, California
# 804: Jun 10, 2008, Angela Sun, Georgia
# 803: 5:51 pm PDT, Jun 10, Pearl Suh, California
# 802: 5:20 pm PDT, Jun 10, Michael Levasheff, California
# 801: 5:08 pm PDT, Jun 10, Myung Yu, California
# 800: 5:06 pm PDT, Jun 10, Michael Herndon, California
# 799: 4:57 pm PDT, Jun 10, Stephanie O'Shaughnessy, California
# 796: 4:22 pm PDT, Jun 10, Stu Fingerhut, California
# 794: 4:18 pm PDT, Jun 10, Sonya Wang, California
# 793: 3:48 pm PDT, Jun 10, Patty Kwan, California
# 791: Jun 10, 2008, Chris Favela, Oregon
# 790: Jun 10, 2008, Colin Tucker, California
# 789: Jun 10, 2008, Libero Di Zinno, California
# 788: Jun 10, 2008, Errol Gerson, California
# 787: Jun 10, 2008, Robyn Dunbar, California
# 783: Jun 10, 2008, Douglas Slone, California
# 781: Jun 10, 2008, Erick Solorzano, California
# 780: Jun 10, 2008, Kaori Ikeda Chun, California
# 779: Jun 10, 2008, KYO TAKAHASHI, Michigan
# 778: Jun 10, 2008, Don Ryu, California
# 777: Jun 10, 2008, Nancy Wu, California
# 776: Jun 10, 2008, Tosh Bok Ji Kim, California
# 775: Jun 10, 2008, Stella Jung, California
# 774: Jun 10, 2008, Joanne Jen, California
# 772: Jun 10, 2008, Nora Grøtting, Germany
# 771: Jun 10, 2008, Amanda Loos, California
# 770: Jun 10, 2008, Jhoonho Yoon, California
# 769: Jun 10, 2008, ///Alan Astonish, California
# 767: Jun 10, 2008, Angela Tu, California
# 766: Jun 10, 2008, Ivy Kwan Arce, New York
# 764: Jun 10, 2008, Janet Hamlin, New York
# 763: Jun 10, 2008, Ursula Weissmueller, New York
# 762: Jun 10, 2008, Robert c. Maize, Texas
# 761: Jun 10, 2008, Dyna Kau, California
# 760: Jun 10, 2008, Weickmans Georges, Belgium
# 759: Jun 10, 2008, Frank Meyer, Oregon
# 758: Jun 10, 2008, Marc Van de Loo, Michigan
# 757: Jun 10, 2008, Adam Brodsley, California
# 756: Jun 10, 2008, Selcuk Gürtekin, Germany
# 755: Jun 10, 2008, James Gartner, California
# 754: Jun 10, 2008, Tammy Tan, California
# 753: Jun 10, 2008, Jennifer Freudenberg, California
# 752: Jun 10, 2008, Antonio Moreno, California
# 751: Jun 10, 2008, McNevin Hayes, New York
# 750: Jun 10, 2008, John Vincenti, California
# 749: Jun 10, 2008, Ken Tiessen, Illinois
# 748: Jun 10, 2008, Stig Harder, New York
# 747: Jun 10, 2008, Daniel Herrera, California
# 746: Jun 10, 2008, Matt Strelecki, Iowa
# 745: Jun 10, 2008, Andrew Probert, Massachusetts
# 744: Jun 10, 2008, Jennifer Razon, California
# 743: Jun 10, 2008, Becky Brown, California
# 742: Jun 10, 2008, James Kuo, Michigan
# 741: Jun 10, 2008, Michelle Loc, California
# 740: Jun 10, 2008, James Lacey, Colorado
# 739: Jun 10, 2008, Katherine Kwan, California
# 738: Jun 10, 2008, Michael Lopez, Japan
# 737: Jun 10, 2008, Christopher Raykovich, California
# 736: Jun 10, 2008, Laurie Bell Bishop, California
# 735: Jun 10, 2008, Thomas Gehring, California
# 734: Jun 10, 2008, Richard Lee, New York
# 733: Jun 10, 2008, Robin Neudorfer, California
# 732: Jun 10, 2008, Autumn Turkel, California
# 731: Jun 10, 2008, Lesli Ann Agcaoili, Michigan
# 730: Jun 10, 2008, Al Quattrocchi, California
# 729: Jun 10, 2008, Ron Tapia, California
# 728: Jun 10, 2008, Lance Charles, California
# 727: Jun 10, 2008, Sophia Lee, California
# 726: Jun 10, 2008, Francesca Murphy, California
# 725: Jun 10, 2008, Jennifer Dessinger, New York
# 724: Jun 10, 2008, Erik Olson, Michigan
# 723: Jun 10, 2008, Richard Kim, Germany
# 722: Jun 10, 2008, Bonnie Thompson, California
# 720: Jun 9, 2008, James Paick, California
# 718: Jun 9, 2008, Huei Peng Lee, California
# 717: Jun 9, 2008, Diana Ko, California
# 716: Jun 9, 2008, Hojeong Kim, California
# 713: Jun 9, 2008, Mariusz Bekas, California
# 712: Jun 9, 2008, Diane Aslanian, California
# 711: Jun 9, 2008, Kevin Cao, California
# 710: Jun 9, 2008, Tanny Chang, California
# 709: Jun 9, 2008, Michael Neumayr, California
# 708: Jun 9, 2008, Daniel Jin Suk Park, California
# 707: Jun 9, 2008, Michael Warsaw, Michigan
# 705: 5:52 pm PDT, Jun 9, Amy Tsai, California
# 704: 5:38 pm PDT, Jun 9, Nelson Shih, California
# 703: 5:26 pm PDT, Jun 9, Kirakarn Churnakoses, California
# 702: 3:41 pm PDT, Jun 9, Sean Scott, New Mexico
# 701: 3:28 pm PDT, Jun 9, Sulaeman Abeng Halim, California
# 700: 3:24 pm PDT, Jun 9, Stefano Bolis, Germany
# 699: 2:58 pm PDT, Jun 9, Mabel Ko, Oregon
# 698: 2:57 pm PDT, Jun 9, Calvin Ku, California
# 697: 2:47 pm PDT, Jun 9, Imelda Halim, California
# 696: 2:42 pm PDT, Jun 9, Kinman Chan, California
# 693: 1:18 pm PDT, Jun 9, Jimmy Kim, California
# 692: 1:10 pm PDT, Jun 9, Simon Davey, California
# 691: 1:06 pm PDT, Jun 9, Douglas Tsai, California
# 690: 12:57 pm PDT, Jun 9, Julieta Barrios, California
# 689: Jun 9, 2008, Jimmy Kim, California
# 688: Jun 9, 2008, Simon Davey, California
# 687: Jun 9, 2008, Douglas Tsai, California
# 686: Jun 9, 2008, Julieta Barrios, California
# 684: Jun 9, 2008, J. Eryn Stinzel, California
# 682: Jun 9, 2008, Vicki Chen, California
# 681: Jun 9, 2008, Teri Farrell-Gittins, California
# 680: Jun 9, 2008, Annie Luck, California
# 679: Jun 9, 2008, Kelvin Ko, California
# 678: Jun 9, 2008, Matthew Connery, California
# 676: Jun 9, 2008, Nathaniel Napierala, California
# 675: Jun 9, 2008, Kevin Swartz, California
# 674: Jun 9, 2008, Rebecca Kimmel, California
# 671: Jun 9, 2008, Zachary Atwell, California
# 670: Jun 9, 2008, Eric Chiang, California
# 669: Jun 9, 2008, Richard Lee, Illinois
# 668: Jun 9, 2008, Cliff Nielsen, California
# 667: Jun 9, 2008, Gregory Noppe, California
# 666: Jun 9, 2008, Jasmine Ellsworth, California
# 665: Jun 9, 2008, Bridget Cardenas, California
# 662: Jun 9, 2008, Kathy Hwang, California
# 661: Jun 9, 2008, Joan Horvath, California
# 660: Jun 9, 2008, Steven Robert Payne, California
# 659: Jun 9, 2008, Naga Tandjung, Michigan
# 658: Jun 9, 2008, Pei-Jeane Chen, California
# 657: Jun 9, 2008, Misty Zhou, California
# 655: Jun 9, 2008, Grace Young, California
# 654: Jun 8, 2008, Mark Ryden, California
# 652: Jun 8, 2008, Dominic Riccobene (FILM), California
# 651: Jun 8, 2008, Christian Alzmann, California
# 650: Jun 8, 2008, Jimmy Jennings, Ohio
# 648: Jun 8, 2008, Eric Miller, California
# 647: Jun 8, 2008, Chunky Vazirani, California
# 646: Jun 8, 2008, Yasu Sato, California
# 645: Jun 8, 2008, Dale Frye, Michigan
# 644: Jun 8, 2008, Robert Aikins, Michigan
# 643: Jun 8, 2008, Kimberly Wu, California
# 642: Jun 8, 2008, John Jacobs, California
# 641: Jun 8, 2008, Carolyn T. Claybaugh, California
# 640: Jun 8, 2008, Elaine Cimino, New Mexico
# 639: Jun 8, 2008, Roberto Acedera, California
# 638: Jun 8, 2008, Barbara Bunton, Texas
# 637: Jun 8, 2008, Rocco Calandruccio, Montana
# 635: Jun 8, 2008, Tatiana Kostanian, California
# 634: Jun 8, 2008, Timothy Chen, California
# 632: Jun 7, 2008, Virginia Giordano, California
# 631: Jun 7, 2008, James Chow, California
# 630: Jun 7, 2008, Sunju Yoo, California
# 629: Jun 7, 2008, Lynn Latta, Oregon
# 627: Jun 7, 2008, Marina Sulzbach, California
# 626: Jun 7, 2008, Cristina Deh-Lee, California
# 625: Jun 7, 2008, Leo Eguiarte, California
# 624: Jun 7, 2008, Raj Rihal, California
# 623: Jun 7, 2008, Joshua Hoffeld, Kansas
# 622: Jun 7, 2008, John Narciso, Texas
# 621: Jun 7, 2008, Helen Masferrer, California
# 620: Jun 7, 2008, Jamie Scott, Texas
# 618: Jun 7, 2008, Rosa Maria Zaldivar Farrrer, California
# 617: Jun 7, 2008, Patricia Chang, California
# 616: Jun 7, 2008, Shelby B, Florida
# 615: Jun 7, 2008, Sung jin Ahn, California
# 614: Jun 7, 2008, Miguel angel Galluzzi, Italy
# 613: Jun 6, 2008, Dennis Hill, California
# 612: Jun 6, 2008, Jackson Wang, California
# 611: Jun 6, 2008, Chris Rusay, California
# 610: Jun 6, 2008, Gabriel Ortega, California
# 609: Jun 6, 2008, Calvin Ouyang, California
# 608: Jun 6, 2008, Delna Balsara, California
# 607:Jun 6, 2008, Richard Adelson, Georgia
# 605: Jun 6, 2008, Amy Sheppard, New Jersey
# 604: Jun 6, 2008, Yen-Hsiang Chang, California
# 601: Jun 6, 2008, Hilary Hulteen, California
# 600: Jun 6, 2008, Le Sun, California
# 599: Jun 6, 2008, James Chu, California
# 598: Jun 6, 2008, Jason Hoover, California
# 597: Jun 6, 2008, Michael Barbush, California
# 596: Jun 6, 2008, Victoria Ying, California
# 593: Jun 6, 2008, George Schumaker, California
# 592: Jun 6, 2008, TadaHIRO Kamimura, Germany
# 591: Jun 6, 2008, Kathleen Heston, California
# 590: Jun 6, 2008, Janis Ponce, California
# 589: Jun 6, 2008, Shirley Whong, California
# 588: Jun 6, 2008, John Frye, California
# 587: Jun 6, 2008, Joe Ponce, California
# 586: Jun 6, 2008, Andy Ogden, California
# 585: Jun 6, 2008, Jeffrey Deacon, California
# 584: Jun 6, 2008, David R Esparza, California
# 583: Jun 6, 2008, Chi Jung, California
# 582: Jun 6, 2008, Pete Petersen, California
# 581: Jun 6, 2008, Loren Kulesus, California
# 580: Jun 6, 2008, Barry Malone, California
# 579: Jun 6, 2008, Vizal Samreth, California
# 578: Jun 6, 2008, Bogdan Popescu, France
# 577: Jun 6, 2008, Alexander Sasha Selipanov, Germany
# 576: Jun 6, 2008, Maria sol Caro galluzzi, California
# 574: Jun 6, 2008, Won-kyu Kang, Germany
# 573: Jun 6, 2008, Manil Kim, Germany
# 571: Jun 6, 2008, Tyler Cornelius, California
# 568: Jun 5, 2008, Deyan Ninov, California
# 567: Jun 5, 2008, Aaron Frichtl, California
# 566: Jun 5, 2008, Laura Kirley, California
# 565: Jun 5, 2008, Henry De Leon, California
# 564: Jun 5, 2008, Gregory Tada, California
# 563: Jun 5, 2008, Rita Rabinovich, California
# 562: Jun 5, 2008, Patrick Lukasak, California
# 561: Jun 5, 2008, Juan Renteria, California
# 560: Jun 5, 2008, Robert Tow, California
# 559: Jun 5, 2008, Nicholas Comorre, California
# 558: Jun 5, 2008, Brenda Laurel, California
# 556: Jun 5, 2008, J.W. Burkey, Texas
# 555: Jun 5, 2008, Mark Grossman, California
# 554: Jun 5, 2008, Eric Hollings, California
# 553: Jun 5, 2008, DIANA CHANG, California
# 550: Jun 5, 2008, Kristine Pascual, California
# 549: Jun 5, 2008, Ali Yazdanian, California
# 546: Jun 5, 2008, Eddie Lee, California
# 544: Jun 5, 2008, Johnson Truong, California
# 543: Jun 5, 2008, Henrik Tamm, California
# 541: Jun 5, 2008, Mitsuka Horikawa, California
# 540: Jun 5, 2008, Gabe Gonzales, California
# 539: Jun 5, 2008, Steven Lau, California
# 538: Jun 5, 2008, Hannah Cho, California
# 537: Jun 5, 2008, Wendy Wen, New York
# 536: Jun 5, 2008, Hovin Wang, California
# 535: Jun 5, 2008, Treb Tsai, California
# 534: Jun 5, 2008, Peilun Shan, California
# 532: Jun 5, 2008, James Sheak, California
# 528: Jun 5, 2008, Marek Djordjevic, California
# 527: Jun 5, 2008, Giuseppe Filippone, California
# 526: Jun 5, 2008, Luke Saule, California
# 524: Jun 5, 2008, Jeremy DuBois, California
# 521: Jun 5, 2008, Rachael Tiede, California
# 520: Jun 5, 2008, Colin Owen, California
# 519: Jun 5, 2008, Kerrin Liang, California
# 518: Jun 5, 2008, David Sichtermann, California
# 517: Jun 5, 2008, Gerald Sparks, Florida
# 516: Jun 5, 2008, Isaac Kim, California
# 515: Jun 5, 2008, Wansheba Townsend, Wisconsin
# 514: Jun 5, 2008, Mark West, Michigan
# 513: Jun 5, 2008, Frank Nichols, New York
# 511: Jun 4, 2008, Frank Saucedo, California
# 509: Jun 4, 2008, Oscar Li, California
# 508: Jun 4, 2008, Anonymous, California
# 507: Jun 4, 2008, Thanh Le, California
# 505: Jun 4, 2008, Fernando Montijo, California
# 502: Jun 4, 2008, Danny Resnic, California
# 501: Jun 4, 2008, Julien Egger, California
# 500: Jun 4, 2008, Steve Eastwood, California
# 499: Jun 4, 2008, Matthew Cunningham, California
# 498: Jun 4, 2008, Bruno Gallardo, California
# 497: Jun 4, 2008, Sandy Avery, Michigan
# 496: Jun 4, 2008, Juancho Hernandez, California
# 495: Jun 4, 2008, Aaron Kapor, California
# 494: Jun 4, 2008, Barbara Hughes, California
# 493: Jun 4, 2008, Son Dao, California
# 491: Jun 4, 2008, Hamzah Kasom, Washington
# 489: Jun 4, 2008, Jeff Miller, California
# 488: Jun 4, 2008, Samantha Tripodi, California
# 487: Jun 4, 2008, Wenny Lo, California
# 486: Jun 4, 2008, Angela King, California
# 484: Jun 4, 2008, Jacqueline O'Hagan, California
# 482: Jun 4, 2008, Benjamin Chiang, New York
# 481: Jun 4, 2008, Hayk Makhmuryan, California
# 480: Jun 4, 2008, Leslie Evans, California
# 479: Jun 4, 2008, Radhika Bhalla, California
# 478: Jun 4, 2008, Brian Oh, California
# 477: Jun 4, 2008, Bill Yex, California
# 476: Jun 4, 2008, Eric Schumaker, California
# 475: Jun 4, 2008, Dave Silva, California
# 474: Jun 4, 2008, Tasha Kim-Kaji, California
# 473: Jun 4, 2008, Michael Osborne, California
# 471: Jun 4, 2008, Derek Allen Ho, California
# 469: Jun 4, 2008, Luciano Bove, France
# 467: Jun 4, 2008, Nico Sala, France
# 466: Jun 4, 2008, Damon Lacey, Minnesota
# 465: Jun 4, 2008, Nicole Lascu, Canada
# 464: Jun 4, 2008, John Su, California
# 463: Jun 4, 2008, Lisa Blackledge, Pennsylvania
# 462: Jun 4, 2008, Mark Gullickson, California
# 461: Jun 4, 2008, Miki Mehandjiysky, California
# 460: Jun 4, 2008, Matthias Tkocz, Germany
# 459: Jun 4, 2008, Ulfert Janssen, Spain
# 457: Jun 4, 2008, Bettina Ihle, Spain
# 456: Jun 4, 2008, Yichan Chung, California
# 455: Jun 4, 2008, Michael Flores Jr., California
# 454: Jun 4, 2008, Sara Saedi, California
# 453: Jun 4, 2008, Eva Huang, California
# 452: Jun 3, 2008, Melissa Castellano, California
# 451: Jun 3, 2008, Brad Weinman, California
# 450: Jun 3, 2008, Arron Ingold, California
# 449: Jun 3, 2008, Julie Lang, California
# 448: Jun 3, 2008, Vinh Pho, California
# 446: Jun 3, 2008, Mark Crumpacker, California
# 445: Jun 3, 2008, Scott Langer, New York
# 444: Jun 3, 2008, Lesli Wuco-Baker, California
# 443: Jun 3, 2008, Jake Loniak, California
# 442: Jun 3, 2008, Jae Min, California
# 440: Jun 3, 2008, Nathan Lucero, California
# 439: Jun 3, 2008, Christine Kim, California
# 438: Jun 3, 2008, Elizabeth Pastor, New York
# 437: Jun 3, 2008, Shayne Poindexter, California
# 436: Jun 3, 2008, Abe Ongsysia, California
# 435: Jun 3, 2008, Thabiso Mhlaba, New York
# 434: Jun 3, 2008, Nino Senoadi, Washington
# 433: Jun 3, 2008, Chris Wu, California
# 432: Jun 3, 2008, Emmanuel Valdez, California
# 431: Jun 3, 2008, Paula Hansanugrum, California
# 430: Jun 3, 2008, Patrick Moran, California
# 429: Jun 3, 2008, Molly Krantz, California
# 428: Jun 3, 2008, Jared Rundell, Michigan
# 427: Jun 3, 2008, Dave Marek, California
# 426: Jun 3, 2008, Matt Berger, Wyoming
# 425: Jun 3, 2008, Joe Park, California
# 424: Jun 3, 2008, Linda Kim, California
# 423: Jun 3, 2008, Cassandra Marquez, California
# 422: Jun 3, 2008, Bill Barranco, California
# 421: Jun 3, 2008, Javier Verdura, Connecticut
# 420: Jun 3, 2008, Emile Bouret, California
# 419: Jun 3, 2008, Stan Wada, California
# 418: Jun 3, 2008, Jason Yeh, California
# 417: Jun 3, 2008, Alejandro Lee, California
# 416: Jun 3, 2008, Tomi Lin, California
# 415: Jun 3, 2008, Carson Pritchard, California
# 414: Jun 3, 2008, Ana Serrano, California
# 413: Jun 3, 2008, Dais Nagao, California
# 412: Jun 3, 2008, Steve Anderson, California
# 411: Jun 3, 2008, Ryan Rex, California
# 409: Jun 3, 2008, Ilwon Lee, Michigan
# 408: Jun 3, 2008, Kort Neumann, California
# 407: Jun 3, 2008, JENNIFER TSUI, California
# 405: Jun 3, 2008, Rachel Kim, California
# 404: Jun 3, 2008, Jaehak NAMGOONG, France
# 403: Jun 3, 2008, CINDY STERRY, California
# 402: Jun 3, 2008, Thomas Ward, California
# 400: Jun 3, 2008, Paul Kirley, California
# 399: Jun 3, 2008, Robin Joo, California
# 398: Jun 3, 2008, David O'Connell, California
# 397: Jun 3, 2008, Franco Corral, California
# 396: Jun 3, 2008, John Dixon, Pennsylvania
# 395: Jun 3, 2008, Jason Pope, California
# 394: Jun 3, 2008, Richard Chung, Korea, Republic Of
# 393: Jun 3, 2008, Ruben Perfetti, North Carolina
# 391: Jun 3, 2008, Nicholas Bentivegna, Pennsylvania
# 390: Jun 3, 2008, David Carp, Germany
# 389: Jun 3, 2008, Lily Ou, California
# 388: Jun 3, 2008, Jenny Chan, California
# 387: Jun 3, 2008, Pao-Jen Fan, California
# 386: Jun 3, 2008, Can Atik, Turkey
# 385: Jun 3, 2008, Williana Sarwono, California
# 384: Jun 3, 2008, Ken So, California
# 383: Jun 3, 2008, LI Ping Tsung, California
# 381: Jun 3, 2008, James Belderes, California
# 380: Jun 3, 2008, Angie Hu, California
# 379: Jun 3, 2008, Yi Chia Chen, California
# 378: Jun 3, 2008, Snow Dong, California
# 377: Jun 2, 2008, Jon Su, California
# 376: Jun 2, 2008, Gavin Alaoen, California
# 375: Jun 2, 2008, Nick Gronenthal, California
# 374: Jun 2, 2008, Diana Liu, California
# 373: Jun 2, 2008, Andrew Wang, California
# 372: Jun 2, 2008, RICKY HSU, California
# 371: Jun 2, 2008, Angie Park, California
# 370: Jun 2, 2008, Nick Arciaga, California
# 369: Jun 2, 2008, Daisuke Yamaguchi, California
# 368: Jun 2, 2008, Nathan Cooke, California
# 367: Jun 2, 2008, Brianne Shoji, California
# 366: Jun 2, 2008, Buzz Jensen, Washington
# 365: Jun 2, 2008, Raffi Minasian, California
# 364: Jun 2, 2008, Patrick Worsham, California
# 363: Jun 2, 2008, Aa Aa, California
# 362: Jun 2, 2008, Kc Cho, California
# 361: Jun 2, 2008, Art Osborne, California
# 360: Jun 2, 2008, Ricardo Beltran, California
# 359: Jun 2, 2008, Marie Bonner, California
# 358: Jun 2, 2008, Alessandro Forelli, California
# 357: Jun 2, 2008, Eric Vasquez, California
# 356: Jun 2, 2008, Michael Tam, California
# 355: Jun 2, 2008, Philipp Haban, California
# 354: Jun 2, 2008, Mag Shum, California
# 351: Jun 2, 2008, Nathan Shedroff, California
# 350: Jun 2, 2008, Curtis Evey, Michigan
# 349: Jun 2, 2008, Anne Chuakay, California
# 348: Jun 2, 2008, James Chong, California
# 347: Jun 2, 2008, Kerry Hyatt, California
# 346: Jun 2, 2008, Colin Jacob, California
# 345: Jun 2, 2008, Chiyo Benigno, California
# 344: Jun 2, 2008, Clement Mok, California
# 343: Jun 2, 2008, Timothy Huntzinger, California
# 341: Jun 2, 2008, Grace Kang, California
# 340: Jun 2, 2008, Sean Brosmith, California
# 339: Jun 2, 2008, Stephanie Kay, California
# 338: Jun 2, 2008, Lydia Chan, California
# 337: Jun 2, 2008, Scott Oshry, California
# 336: Jun 2, 2008, Shawn Moghadam, California
# 335: Jun 2, 2008, Kristy Mitchell, Texas
# 334: Jun 2, 2008, Bessy Liang, California
# 333: Jun 2, 2008, Everett Katigbak, California
# 332: Jun 2, 2008, Spencer McCoy, California
# 331: Jun 2, 2008, Lloyd Walker, Texas
# 330: Jun 2, 2008, Bonnie Lui, California
# 329: Jun 2, 2008, Kevin Wong, California
# 328: Jun 2, 2008, Sean Smith, California
# 327: Jun 2, 2008, Kaori Takagi, California
# 326: Jun 2, 2008, Jan Esteban Trondsen, California
# 325: Jun 2, 2008, Denny Liao, California
# 324: Jun 2, 2008, Tom Arbisi, California
# 323: Jun 2, 2008, Yukio Kishimoto, California
# 321: Jun 2, 2008, Tim Shih, Germany
# 320: Jun 2, 2008, Eric Lutes, California
# 319: Jun 2, 2008, Robert Kim, California
# 318: Jun 2, 2008, Chad Phillips, California
# 317: Jun 2, 2008, Sachiko Anegawa, California
# 316: Jun 2, 2008, HOSAN LEE, United Kingdom
# 315: Jun 2, 2008, Peter J Chang, California
# 314: Jun 2, 2008, David Coulson, California
# 313: Jun 2, 2008, Chen Chen, California
# 311: Jun 2, 2008, Damon Schell, California
# 310: Jun 2, 2008, Young Choi, California
# 309: Jun 2, 2008, Derek Kosol, California
# 308: Jun 2, 2008, Immy Elsa, California
# 307: Jun 2, 2008, Lim Hur, California
# 306: Jun 2, 2008, Richard Holbrook, California
# 305: Jun 2, 2008, Valerie Poliakoff, California
# 304: Jun 2, 2008, Therese Sparks, California
# 303: Jun 2, 2008, Simon Yu, California
# 302: Jun 2, 2008, Michelle Christensen Wilbur, California
# 301: Jun 2, 2008, Nicholas Green, California
# 300: Jun 2, 2008, Gregory Stoermer, California
# 298: Jun 2, 2008, Jason Wilbur, California
# 297: Jun 2, 2008, Jeff Leon, California
# 296: Jun 2, 2008, Kevin Kang, California
# 295: Jun 2, 2008, Liz Wee, California
# 292: Jun 2, 2008, James Brown, California
# 291: Jun 2, 2008, Andrew Cameron, California
# 290: Jun 2, 2008, Orrin Shively, California
# 289: Jun 2, 2008, Damien Vizcarra, California
# 288: Jun 2, 2008, Ryan Reese, California
# 287: Jun 2, 2008, Brandon Mulloy, New York
# 286: Jun 2, 2008, Paul Schmucker, California
# 285: Jun 2, 2008, Patricia Sparks, California
# 284: Jun 2, 2008, Charley Bush, California
# 283: Jun 2, 2008, JENNIFER CHOI, California
# 282: Jun 2, 2008, Jill Zwaanstra, California
# 281: Jun 2, 2008, James Van Den Heuvel, California
# 280: Jun 2, 2008, My Vuong, Nevada
# 279: Jun 2, 2008, Chiharu Kawamura, Japan
# 278: Jun 2, 2008, Dana Lowell, Michigan
# 277: Jun 2, 2008, Candice Lee, California
# 276: Jun 2, 2008, T. Jon Mayer, Michigan
# 275: Jun 2, 2008, Panisa Chindasilpa, California
# 274: Jun 2, 2008, Randall Smock, California
# 272: Jun 2, 2008, Suzanne Hunt, Washington D.C.
# 271: Jun 2, 2008, Don Herner, California
# 270: Jun 2, 2008, Tim Doyle, Michigan
# 269: Jun 2, 2008, Nargol Arefi, Washington D.C.
# 268: Jun 2, 2008, Conan Dynes, California
# 267: Jun 2, 2008, Kevin Sethapun, California
# 266: Jun 2, 2008, Erik Vogas, Japan
# 263: Jun 2, 2008, Gary Shiu, California
# 262: Jun 2, 2008, Janet Kim, California
# 261: Jun 2, 2008, Anonymous, California
# 260: Jun 2, 2008, Roel Punzalan, California
# 258: Jun 2, 2008, George Yoo, California
# 257: Jun 2, 2008, Karen Han, California
# 255: Jun 1, 2008, Evangeline Joo, California
# 254: Jun 1, 2008, Yana Kramskaya, California
# 253: Jun 1, 2008, Denice Au, California
# 252: Jun 1, 2008, Christopher Lee, California
# 251: Jun 1, 2008, Paul Hamblin, California
# 250: Jun 1, 2008, Allen Pinkerton, California
# 249: Jun 1, 2008, Kevin Benson, California
# 247: Jun 1, 2008, Benjamin Grider, California
# 246: Jun 1, 2008, Christine Lau, California
# 243: Jun 1, 2008, Alan Macey, Canada
# 242: Jun 1, 2008, Eric Toth, Michigan
# 241: Jun 1, 2008, Rebecca Blake, California
# 240: Jun 1, 2008, Jennifer Ma, California
# 238: Jun 1, 2008, Elizabeth Stromberg, California
# 237: Jun 1, 2008, Eric Burns, California
# 236: Jun 1, 2008, Karl Mead, Michigan
# 235: Jun 1, 2008, Charlie Pyott, California
# 233: Jun 1, 2008, Lidat Truong, California
# 232: Jun 1, 2008, Eunice Lee, Nevada
# 231: Jun 1, 2008, Amelia Thomas Stier, California
# 230: Jun 1, 2008, Michelle Chin, California
# 229: Jun 1, 2008, Zheng Wang, California
# 228: Jun 1, 2008, Jean-Hugues NGUYEN, California
# 227: Jun 1, 2008, Tina Lei, California
# 226: Jun 1, 2008, DURAND Clement, California
# 225: Jun 1, 2008, Jay Dea, New York
# 224: Jun 1, 2008, Andrew Strassner, California
# 222: Jun 1, 2008, Tom Armstrong, California
# 221: Jun 1, 2008, Wayne Tang, California
# 220: Jun 1, 2008, Arjun Adamson-Mohan, New York
# 219: Jun 1, 2008, Lawrence Cheng, California
# 218: Jun 1, 2008, Marian Chiao, California
# 217: Jun 1, 2008, Dina Karasik, California
# 216: Jun 1, 2008, Nikola Stefanov, California
# 215: Jun 1, 2008, Simon Ko, California
# 214: Jun 1, 2008, William Preston Sparks, California
# 213: Jun 1, 2008, Wm. Travis Lonigan, Oregon
# 212: Jun 1, 2008, Aaron Hung, California
# 211: Jun 1, 2008, David Kau, California
# 210: Jun 1, 2008, Paul Grab, California
# 209: Jun 1, 2008, Ruolin Li, California
# 208: Jun 1, 2008, Samantha Kallis, California
# 207: Jun 1, 2008, Michael Yamada, California
# 206: Jun 1, 2008, Eunice San Miguel, California
# 205: Jun 1, 2008, Jacqueline Black, California
# 204: Jun 1, 2008, Yasemin Baran, California
# 203: Jun 1, 2008, Mashanda Scott, California
# 202: Jun 1, 2008, Anna Topuriya, California
# 201: Jun 1, 2008, Kory Victor, California
# 200: Jun 1, 2008, Chris O'Donnell, California
# 198: Jun 1, 2008, Julia Kying, Pennsylvania
# 197: Jun 1, 2008, Jonathan Lau, California
# 196: Jun 1, 2008, David Petri, Virginia
# 195: Jun 1, 2008, Pamela Tu, California
# 194: Jun 1, 2008, Gino Whitehall, California
# 193: Jun 1, 2008, Tam Nguyen, California
# 192: Jun 1, 2008, Jacob Sparks, California
# 190: Jun 1, 2008, Zachary Berger, California
# 189: Jun 1, 2008, Tak Gardner, California
# 188: Jun 1, 2008, Wendy Cogan, California
# 187: Jun 1, 2008, Brianna Harden, California
# 186: Jun 1, 2008, Diana Kim, California
# 185: Jun 1, 2008, Christopher Rhoades, California
# 183: Jun 1, 2008, Elizabeth Nichols, California
# 181: Jun 1, 2008, Tom Zhao, California
# 180: Jun 1, 2008, Alexander Schaefer, California
# 179: Jun 1, 2008, Joan Hsieh, California
# 178: Jun 1, 2008, Thom Tenery, California
# 177: Jun 1, 2008, Laura Schlipf, California
# 175: Jun 1, 2008, Raymond Dang, California
# 174: Jun 1, 2008, Jessica Togasaki, California
# 173: Jun 1, 2008, Cosme Galluzzi Caro, California
# 172: Jun 1, 2008, Johana Tran, California
# 171: Jun 1, 2008, Gray Rogers, California
# 170: Jun 1, 2008, Marissa Zamora, California
# 167: Jun 1, 2008, Rustam Khasanov, California
# 166: Jun 1, 2008, Vanessa Lam, California
# 165: Jun 1, 2008, Judy Tran, California
# 164: Jun 1, 2008, Alex Galanis, California
# 163: Jun 1, 2008, Erin Johnson, California
# 162: Jun 1, 2008, Angela Che, California
# 161: Jun 1, 2008, Navneet Gill, California
# 160: Jun 1, 2008, Todd Smith, California
# 158: Jun 1, 2008, Volker Durre, California
# 157: Jun 1, 2008, Eastwood Wong, California
# 156: Jun 1, 2008, Mauricio Abril, California
# 155: Jun 1, 2008, Jeff Palm, California
# 154: Jun 1, 2008, John Bollozos, California
# 153: Jun 1, 2008, Paula Seo, California
# 152: Jun 1, 2008, Rudy Manning, California
# 151: Jun 1, 2008, Harald Belker, California
# 150: Jun 1, 2008, S. Togasaski, California
# 149: Jun 1, 2008, Linda Chung, California
# 148: Jun 1, 2008, Enoch Morishima, California
# 147: Jun 1, 2008, Shae Shatz, Washington
# 146: Jun 1, 2008, Cezanne Farris-Gilbert, California
# 145: Jun 1, 2008, Timothy Anderson, California
# 144: Jun 1, 2008, Max Groff, California
# 143: Jun 1, 2008, Nikita Bridan, California
# 142: Jun 1, 2008, Eric Holm, California
# 141: Jun 1, 2008, Iliya Bridan, California
# 140: Jun 1, 2008, Eric Ng, California
# 139: Jun 1, 2008, Brian Uchida, California
# 138: Jun 1, 2008, Alex Chao, California
# 137: Jun 1, 2008, Julie Yeo, California
# 136: Jun 1, 2008, Andrew Leahy, California
# 133: Jun 1, 2008, William Wu, California
# 132: Jun 1, 2008, Kirk Shinmoto, California
# 131: Jun 1, 2008, Benjamin Chuang, California
# 130: Jun 1, 2008, Eugene Lee, California
# 129: Jun 1, 2008, Lawrence Kim, California
# 128: Jun 1, 2008, Daniel Chang, California
# 127: Jun 1, 2008, Julia Tsao, California
# 126: Jun 1, 2008, Kristina Nguyen, California
# 125: Jun 1, 2008, Sharon Nao, New York
# 124: Jun 1, 2008, Pedro K, California
# 123: Jun 1, 2008, Brian P., California
# 122: Jun 1, 2008, Christopher Becker, California
# 121: Jun 1, 2008, James Yoo, California
# 120: Jun 1, 2008, Stephen Choe, California
# 119: Jun 1, 2008, Willy Loor, California
# 118: Jun 1, 2008, Javier Harriman, California
# 117: Jun 1, 2008, Stacey Aoyama, California
# 116: Jun 1, 2008, Michael Kim, California
# 115: Jun 1, 2008, Steven Lawrence, California
# 114: Jun 1, 2008, Polina Hristova Student, California
# 113: Jun 1, 2008, Azita Rasoli, California
# 111: Jun 1, 2008, Troy Galluzzi, California
# 110: Jun 1, 2008, Daniel C Huang, California
# 108: Jun 1, 2008, Carol Huang, California
# 107: Jun 1, 2008, Crystal Son, California
# 106: Jun 1, 2008, Hannah Lee, California
# 105: May 31, 2008, Micael Mazza, California
# 104: May 31, 2008, Dillon Sung, California
# 103: May 31, 2008, Ruby Chen, California
# 102: May 31, 2008, Jeffrey Wang, California
# 101: May 31, 2008, Gary Musgrave, California
# 100: May 31, 2008, Leslie Hung, California
# 99: May 31, 2008, Robert Fletcher, California
# 98: May 31, 2008, Ophelia Chong, California
# 97: May 31, 2008, Mark Castanon, California
# 96: May 31, 2008, Thomas Amador, California
# 95: May 31, 2008, Michelle Thies, California
# 94: May 31, 2008, Ping Zhu, California
# 92: May 31, 2008, Geoffrey Cooper, California
# 90: May 31, 2008, Mark Huang, California
# 89: May 31, 2008, Steven Wen, California
# 88: May 31, 2008, Alice Park, California
# 87: May 31, 2008, Alekist Quach, California
# 86: May 31, 2008, Tinnie Choi, California
# 85: May 31, 2008, Allen Liu, California
# 84: May 31, 2008, Christine Wu, California
# 83: May 31, 2008, Yin Chen, California
# 82: May 31, 2008, Jenn Kuca, California
# 81: May 31, 2008, Howard Brawidjaya, California
# 80: May 31, 2008, Marcus Quach, California
# 78: May 31, 2008, Joon hyung Ahn, California
# 77: May 31, 2008, Josh Kao, California
# 76: May 31, 2008, Mike Churchill, California
# 74: May 31, 2008, Ryan Ito, California
# 72: May 31, 2008, Arthur Leung, California
# 71: May 31, 2008, Denny Tsai, California
# 70: May 31, 2008, Hao Wu, California
# 69: May 31, 2008, Peggy Chung, California
# 68: May 31, 2008, Jeremy Azzari, California
# 67: May 31, 2008, Aaron Horwitz, California
# 66: May 31, 2008, Ben Mauro, California
# 65: May 31, 2008, Annis Naeem, California
# 63: May 31, 2008, Janice Ng, California
# 61: May 31, 2008, Jennifer Lim, California
# 60: May 31, 2008, Anthony Sims, California
# 59: May 31, 2008, Kurtis Schureman, California
# 58: May 31, 2008, Alexandre Girard, California
# 57: May 31, 2008, Aaron Lam, California
# 56: May 31, 2008, Max Ostap, California
# 55: May 31, 2008, Calvin Prieto, California
# 54: May 31, 2008, Patrick Hruby, California
# 53: May 31, 2008, Kim Walter, California
# 51: May 31, 2008, Eunmi Ha, California
# 50: May 31, 2008, Lili Melikian, California
# 49: May 31, 2008, Sandra Mari Nakano, California
# 47: May 31, 2008, Annessa Braymer, California
# 46: May 31, 2008, Juan Travieso, California
# 45: May 31, 2008, Carlos Mendez, California
# 44: May 31, 2008, Christian Chico, California
# 43: May 31, 2008, Enrique Barrios, California
# 42: May 31, 2008, Caroline Ahn, California
# 39: May 31, 2008, Jeremy Burgess, California
# 37: May 31, 2008, W. Lee Bolton, California
# 36: May 31, 2008, Shannon Freshwater, California
# 35: May 31, 2008, Soey Milk, California
# 30: May 31, 2008, Nicolas Lehotzky, California
# 29: May 31, 2008, Heather East, California
# 28: May 31, 2008, Connie Wong, California
# 27: May 31, 2008, Ashley Stoddard, California
# 26: May 31, 2008, Khrystyne Zurian, California
# 25: May 31, 2008, Marissa Luca, California
# 24: May 31, 2008, Jason Louie, California
# 23: May 31, 2008, Matt Lee, California
# 22: May 31, 2008, David Lee, California
# 21: May 31, 2008, Brody Albert, California
# 20: May 31, 2008, Jason Hill, California
# 19: May 31, 2008, Kelsey Dake, California
# 18: May 31, 2008, Ruth Fang, California
# 17: May 31, 2008, John Lee, California
# 16: May 31, 2008, Jana Frieling, California
# 15: May 31, 2008, Jessie Kawata, California
# 14: May 31, 2008, Nicole Dreyfuss, California
# 13: May 31, 2008, Matthew Grayson, California
# 12: May 31, 2008, Janice Kim, California
# 11: May 31, 2008, ROBERT Quintero, California
# 9: May 31, 2008, Carolina Hernandez, California
# 8: May 31, 2008, Celeste Byers, California
# 7: May 31, 2008, Darren Inouye, California
# 6: May 31, 2008, Ian Abando, California
# 5: May 31, 2008, Fabian Lacey, California
# 4: May 31, 2008, Joy Liu, California
# 2: May 31, 2008, Craig Shoji, California
# 1: May 31, 2008, Audrey Liu, California
Art Center is our school, lets take it back. More dissent, more protest! More fliers and stickers. More reporters!! If we get rid of RK then the next pres will know that the students won't tolerate the self-fulfilling wasting of our tuition. Maybe the next president should only make 300,000/yr. haha.
bring back nate! we're a trade school! nate's the only one who understood that!
At yesterday's meeting it was nice to hear Anne Burdick's passion for her work as an educator, and her anticipation of deepening her program with the move to South Campus.
Buildings and facilities are indeed critical to progressive education, and I applaud her for her commitment. Nobody opposed to the Master Plan is arguing, however, that Art Center doesn't need buildings or more space. The division is about proportions -- how much of our resources should be poured into architecture at the expense of education?
It's too bad that when Anne moves her program, it will be subtracted permanently from Art Center's larger learning environment. Five miles away, as the Fine Art grad program has illustrated, it may as well belong to another school. The vitality of interplay between undergrad and grad pedagogy has been separated from Art Center by the location of the college's fledgling Master Plan miles from the main campus.
It is time for the Department Chairs to rise above their departmental self-interests and take a stand on the future of Art Center. At least 800 others have already -- and they're not paid to be leaders of the college.
A letter of support, apparently requested of them by Richard Koshalek, has apparently been signed by most (but not all) of the chairs.
Is this appeasement? What teeth are in this letter? Is it middle-of-the-road, please-everybody? Political? Is it a statement of true leadership by the chairs in a time of crisis for the college?
Let's see it. Post it here, chairs, and let us evaluate the job you are doing on our behalf.
Yeah! More dissent, more press! Let's make our degrees worth even less!!! That's a wonderful strategy.
I am a student and I'm embarrassed by #805's comments and the LA Times article. Sharing our dirty laundry to the whole world does not help get the scholarship money you feel you are so entitled to.
Koshalek having a heart attack reading the article? More like Avery-Dennison (in Pasadena) who just gave us 2 million.
Please take responsibility and think about the repercussions of your actions.
The administration is listening. Seize this opportunity to make reasonable, measurable demands in a professional manner that reflects well on all students, faculty and alum.
Thank you.
Any other incoming students who have read this blog having doubts about starting at Art Center?
Please post what you are thinking as to make sure I am not alone.
What about Recycling this building for ACCD?
The old Ambassador College campus was to be the site of a major residential development.
By David Pierson, Los Angeles Times Staff Writer
June 11, 2008
An ambitious development project that included hundreds of condominiums, apartments and a senior housing complex on the former Ambassador College campus has been foreclosed, Pasadena officials said Tuesday.
The foreclosure encompassed most of the project's 20 acres, one of the prime parcels of land in the city. The project had the support of historical preservationists and was viewed as a key component in the development of a long dormant section of Old Town Pasadena."
Link here:
Foreclosed Ambassador Campus/LA Times
"A letter of support, apparently requested of them by Richard Koshalek, has apparently been signed by most (but not all) of the chairs."
Koshalek is digging-in for a fight, and he wants to know who his trusted allies are.
The fact that he has to request such a letter is all the reason one should need to see that his time is limited.
Take it a step further:
The real problems lie within the board itself. They're the ones who sought to hire a museum builder instead of the inspirational, educational "soul" of Art Center. The board hires the guy who then, in-turn, organizes the kind of hoity-toity conferences where they can stand around in a group with a wine glass in-hand.
When it "comes down to it", did you decide to attend Art Center because you like driving underneath a bridge each day, or the smell of modeling clay in the halls, or the campus lit-up at night? The computer lab?
No. You did not. You saw the awesome work that students are taught to create. You said "I want to be a part of that. I want to learn how to DO that".
Later, you envisioned the idea of arriving to school and driving under the bridge. It helped make your dream really cool.
THEN, you finally got here. Within a week, it was just a building. By January, it started raining, and you knew what it must have felt like to have been a crew member on a U-Boat after being depth-charged in WWII.
Art Center culture is the people and the work experience. The building is just a building.
Would I have a hard time envisioning Art Center without the hillside campus? Sure, but I'd get over it. The things I remember most about having gone to Art Center are the experiences I had with my instructors. Every time I do something creative with typography, I think about how it was at Art Center that I learned to do this. I do not think about Barcelona, conferences, architecture, etc.
It's about the people and the work.
The "architecture thing" is the curse that follows Art Center and haunts it to this day. I really wish I'd attended Art Center back in the 1960s when everyone was crammed into the 3rd street campus. The building just did not matter then. Art Center was a humble, hard working place.
Art Center: Get back to work!
EXTRA EXTRA! Read all about it!
star news:
http://www.pasadenastarnews.com/ci_9546872
SIGN THE PETITION!
GET YOUR ART CENTER BROTHERS AND SISTERS TO DO THE RIGHT THING!
www.accdpetition.com
Dear wondering student,
ArtCenter is a wonderful place. The faculty is top notch and there are a lot of opportunities for those who show sincere interest and the willingness to be self-driven and work hard.
Contrary to a lot of discussion here, I DO get excited every time I drive or bike under the bridge. The big black box can be imposing and scary, but it only pushes me to do better and meet the challenge. (Ever been to Oakley? Given that architecture it is no wonder the designers stay at the top of their game.)
But you have to know why you're there or else it is easy to get swept up by the insecure individuals whispering doubt and uncertainty in your ear. Keep your eye on the orange dot and you'll do just fine.
As for "high tuition"? Unfortunately this is the nature of private schools. There is a lot of money to be had when you get out--only you know your level of commitment and determination as to whether or not you are going to have the persistence to be successful. Success certainly won't be handed to you from ArtCenter or in life without hard (but satisfying!) work.
Hope this helps.
8:06 wrote:
"I am a student and I'm embarrassed by #805's comments and the LA Times article. Sharing our dirty laundry to the whole world does not help get the scholarship money you feel you are so entitled to."
Let's talk about scholarhsip money and Art Center for a few minutes, ok?
Many of you do not know that for decades, Art Center has awarded scholarships to VERY significant percentages of the student body. More than you might think. If you have been awarded one, you might even feel extra special for having earned one. And you *should* feel good about it.
However, the sources of FUNDING for each dollar of your respective scholarships needs to be explored. Why? Because a large chunk of these scholarhsips are supported not by endowments or exterior sources of funding, but rather by the GENERAL FUND.
Yes: Guess what a fairly significant portion of your $15,000 semester tuition bill goes to support? Yes: Scholarships for yourself and your peers.
"But Mr. Anonymous, if that is the case, then why don't they just lower the cost of tuition to what it really should cost us all to attend Art Center"
My answer: That's a damn good question. One that you should all be asking.
Essentially, the school keeps most of you in-line by making you all so grateful for even HAVING the scholarship, that you'd feel guilty for attending a meeting and criticizing the administration that awards it to you.
The administration knows this, and has known it for decades. It keeps everyone relatively placated and satisfied.
"Yeah, Art Center is really expensive, but they ARE giving me a $3000 per semester scholarship. Who am *I* to complain, and if I do complain, what's to keep them from taking my scholarship away from me?"
They are counting on such thoughts. They've counted on such thoughts for decades. They do not want you to rise and take the school back from them.
dear wondering student,
what is happening now will benefit you in many ways. transparency, student activism, administration outreach, faculty empowerment (via the students and alumni who are out there speaking for them), and the sense that when you first step into the classroom that you do have the power to get the education you paid for.
when you read the comments on this blog, you will see anger, frustration, and hope. we are all here because we love the school.
you will not find a school like ACCD anywhere in the world, that's why we are all so passionate about what is facing ACCD now.
we can all make it through this by focusing on what is most important, your education.
Ophelia Chong
Anon 8:06
So, in actuality the school awarded scholarships are basically "tuition rebates"?
9:22,
Yes. Precisely. I do see that the school has a much bigger endowment fund to work with these days, so I have no idea how much of it goes to fund your scholarships.
I was also duped into thinking that my scholarship was fully funded by an outside benefactor, when in reality, it was NAMED after the person who merely contributed a few hundred bucks during a find-raising phone marathon. All of the additional funding beyond that was always coming out of the general fund (funded by tuition revenue).
Just because your scholarship is named after someone, does not mean that all the money comes from that benefactor.
If more than 25% of the students are on scholarships (ask this question directly), then you should be asking the school why do they do not just pass the savings on in the form of lower tuition costs?
I know why. Because when you're all on scholarship, you walk around with a "high" each day. The "I'm special" high.
What many of you are actually walking around with, unfortunately, is a rebate (like you mentioned).
The fact that Art Center has to essentially issue tuition rebates to retain students is part of the sickness that has taken grip upon those who sit on the bridge.
These "scholarships" sound more like dangling carrots to me....
In response to Comment #814, I have NO scholarship. None. Zip. Nada. This is my second degree so the feds won't even give me money.
I value ArtCenter because I believe in it. I believe in hard work and that you get out what you put in.
I'm wagering that the debt I've taken on will pay off. Creditors can take away your car and material possesions, but they can't take away education and the peace of mind that comes with knowledge. This may seem silly to you, but it is completely sensible to me.
This will be my last post since I have work to do and it is obvious we have come to an impasse.
I sincerely wish you happiness in life and all your endeavors.
May I close with a familiar quote to consider and reflect on: "Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country."
http://www.famousquotes.me.uk/speeches/John_F_Kennedy/5.htm
Not dangling carrots, but rather incentives to help motivate you to do two things:
1) stay and keep paying into the kitty
2) be appreciative of what you've got.
In the workforce, in management training, one of the things they teach you is that you can help retain staff simply by taking people aside every so often and telling them that they do a great job. If they were considering leaving the company for more pay, that simple statement will probably keep them around for another year (or more).
Imagine the positive mental effect that a $2000 scholarship has on a human mind. They'll never see a dime of the money, and the school will never lose a dime. The cost of tuition is already taking the future scholarship into account.
Those that set the costs and determine how much scholarship money to give out are thinking a lot more about things than you realize.
Upper Term Illustration Student:
If you're shelling out $120k of your own (financed) money, I suppose you'd BETTER feel great about paying it.
It's going to take a LOT of spot illustrations for "Newsweek" to pay it all off.
I suppose you could start a band like Mike Shinoda did.
hmmmm.... mark up the tuition and discount it with scholarships. The only factor being you determine how big your discount is by your performance?
June 11, 2008 8:06 AM
i agree with you completely. guys, we really need to realize how much this is actually hurting the school, our degrees, our reputation, etc...
"guys, we really need to realize how much this is actually hurting the school, our degrees, our reputation, etc..."
I can answer that. Barely anyone ever asks me where I went to school. Out of 200+ job interviews or freelance meetings over the years, it may have come up in conversation 3-4 times. Usually to ask me if I knew so-and-so. My past jobs and my portfolio are the life-blood of my success in the field. Art Center gets me nowhere.
I've had alumni plate holders on my car for 6 years now. No one has ever honked or asked me about it. Not one time.
When I go to parties and am asked where I attended school, I tell them. 50% of the time I get "oh, nice" and the other 50% of the time they mention that they saw the commercial on channel 5. I then have to explain about Art Center.
I'm usually going out of my own way to promote it and save it from a sea of mediocrity. I went in assuming that it would "matter" later in life. It barely does anything.
Perhaps your experiences in Los Angeles are different. I've worked in other cities. I may as well have gone to (insert generic school here).
i've gotten the impression, though, that a lot of people are arguing that they feel the need to protect our reputation, so that our degrees mean something. and people seem to be concerned about that.
in any event, i don't know that people knowing about art center based on that l.a. times article is going to be good for anyone.
Never feel guilty about your activism.
Good point.
Is Art Center a college or a trade school? Some people are saying it's a trade school. LOL! If that's all it is, what a spendy one!
I think the Board, Richard Koshalek, many of the chairs, the supporters, donors, faculty and students see it much more than a trade school. If it's a trade school, why bother coming here?
The name is much of the problem. (That's why it's totally puzzling than another school started in the 1980s named itself "The Art Center Design College. Why else but for this Art Center?)
Yes, the roots are in the trades, but it's become much more than that.
And it's true, "Art Center College of Design" is still an unknown name to many people across the country. You may belittle RISD, but RISD is far more well know in the East. And even in Pasadena, there are people who haven't heard of it. I think that's why Richard Koshalek has been working to raise the profile of ACCD beyond the idea of its being a mere "trade school." AND to raise its profile around the country and world.
But some people here are happy to have it exist merely as a trade school known to a certain small niche.
raising the profile of the school can only be good for the school.
but is any press, ie bad press, better than no press at all?
i don't think anyone's saying that we should feel guilty about our activism. i think the point that's being made is just to pay attention about the modes through which we are doing it so that it can have the best possible outcome for all of us.
personally, i don't think this sort of bad press is doing us a lot of good.
i'm not saying to don't try to get things changed. i just agree that maybe that's not the best way to help the school.
Serious question to students:
Did you come to Art Center thinking that it was a trade school?
"I think that's why Richard Koshalek has been working to raise the profile of ACCD beyond the idea of its being a mere "trade school." AND to raise its profile around the country and world."
The most important lesson I ever learned in branding (I work in branding), I learned at Art Center from an instructor who was a design "giant".
No logo. No amount of positioning. No amount of PR. No amount of advertising will build a great brand. First, you must BE who you say you are. None of that other expensive stuff can save your butt if you are not the real deal.
Art Center is a "niche" school, limited by its size and small output of alumni. Jacking-up the tuition to monumental levels forces the school to admit mediocrity that can simply afford the bill. Art Center is cannibalizing itself through its ego and lack of intense focus on the educational experience.
Compare and contrast the application and acceptance RATES of 1975 and today.
Let the quality of the alumni speak for themselves. Let the quality of work speak for itself. The visibility will (eventually) come back. Yes, Art Center is now less visible than it once was in the design profession.
"Did you come to Art Center thinking that it was a trade school?"
No, but I did consider it a "polytechnic" college. I wanted the training AND the degree. Actually, it ws very important for my degree to be "real" and exportable for the future.
The other day I was talking with an instructor about the endowment. He said, he thought it was about 50 million, but I can't find that figure anywhere. Does anyone know? Is it cash in the bank or is that 50 million tied up in real estate? Art Center isn't real estate poor is it? If it is we are doomed.
someone earlier posted ths:
"Scholarship money is a 30 million endowment and expected to grow to 50 million under Koshalek’s leadership"
but you can check it out for yourself.
50 million is not a lot of money for an endowment.
Let's assume it is $50MM. Let's also assume it earns 5% per year (invested conservatively). That is a $2.5MM yield per year.
Divide this by 1600 students. That is a "real" impact of about $500 per semester. I certainl would not turn down a $500 discount on tuiition, but I also know that it will not have a huge impact on my debt-load either.
true. but the endowment was less than $15mil before richard koshalek started here.
Art Center has more than one problem besides the endowment.
How much of the current endowment is a result of the pre-existing endowment just earning compounding interest from itself?
Put 20k in a mutual fund and watch it double in seven years. Get some good stock market years and watch it double again in as few as five more years.
True. Did he actually "build" the endowment?
art center is more than a trade school! think ahead, people! your degree will be worth more if/when we make the investments in the college today. and that includes better facilities and shops and studios!
better facilities will lead to better recruits of faculty and students and hopefully staff. funders, are you listening?
Yes, he did build the endowment. The fundraising campaign was envisioned to raise funds for scholarships, the endowment, and the building program -- in tandem.
Yes, he did build the endowment. The fundraising campaign was envisioned to raise funds for scholarships, the endowment, and the building program -- in tandem.
"Yes, he did build the endowment."
How much "help" did the endowment get from the increased value of the markets versus injected, new capital investment.
What I'm getting at is that I "grew" my retirement investments by about the same percentages in just about the same period of time. And I did not contribute very much to them during that period.
what kind of fundraising did you do for your retirement fund? i think i need to do that myself! but then again, most of us are here for other reasons.
Using Art Centers own 990 tax records from 2000 - 2006:
Fundraising Expense $27,800,000
Related Contributions $66,000,000
Fundraising Efficiency 42%
This is NOT a high performance fundraising efficiency number. Fundraising efficiency should be closer to 20%. Art Center wastes WAY to much money in raising money relative to other non profits.
Bragging about raising endowment from $15M to $50M is a misdirection.
As previous posts have indicated $50M in endowment increase sounds like a big number to those of us that don't have money but doesn’t help much to lower actual tuition costs because of how cash flows out of endowment at low rates (~5%/yr)
In his term Koshalek has raised the cost structure of the college through all his special projects and marketing for them. He set a goal of raising tuition by 6% a year, not to reduce tuition so that he could expand. But he has not offset the growing cost structure by a meaningful endowment amount. What’s meaningful? An amount that keeps actual out of pocket student cost level or declining.
Sounds complicated. But it’s simple question of priorities
990 records
http://www.guidestar.org/pqShowGsReport.do?partner=grantexplorer&npoId=227435
I am glad that people are finally looking into the affairs of RICHARD and his posse of women who will do anything he says.
I also encourage all students and alumni to be focused on the MAIN issue you wish to accomplish. bring nate back - fine.... more importantly get rid of richard. he will bankrupt ACCD just like he bankrupted MOCA.
check the books yo!
Who the hell goes to Art Center thinking that the piece of paper you call a degree is the defining reason in the first place.
All this talk about my degree being worth this or that is making me gag. I came to this school because of high standards in education and not because of a damn piece of paper. My dad came here for the same reasons and so is my brother. SO I call bullshit on these people stressing so much the value of their degree. Your degree is measured only to the extent of how good of an education you are getting.
I was at the meeting for the last bit. All I saw was stalling and confusing the student body.
Furthermore, it is pretty blatant that education is the lesser of their concern, at least the people who were up there at the meeting yesterday.
Just by acknowledging that there is a problem with classes overflowing is already a failure in addressing the education bit. The "solutions" were pretty ridiculous too.
Even more alarming was the supposed reasons that were polled among students for getting into art center. Architecture being one of them? Please, I never received this famous poll and of the alumni and students I know I am pretty damn sure that is the least of their concerns for Art Center.
That alone just seems like a very silly way of justifying architecture for those that do not pay attention.
And I am moreso disgusted by those who keep trying to dig their heads into the sand and mouth off on the others that want things to get better.
I think that the only breakthrough that we had so far is in making people uncomfortable. What I saw yesterday was stalling, not constructive discussion.
Problems like these have been haunting Art Center for a long while, but just because they are pre-existing conditions does not mean that we have the luxury to let them be.
One last thing that I want to add to this. People seem to forget what happened last time Art Center overreached. Switzerland campus, how about we ask what happened to that.
wtf - more personal attacks, lovely. how desperate can you get? koshalek did not "bankrupt" moca. if he had, accd won't have hired him or kept him for 9 years.
it's quite the opposite.
A fundraising focus while not containing costs is inexcusable.
Salaries and inflation have not nearly grown at the same rate as your tuition costs. You attend a school that has added non-educational resources to its payroll at a sick pace.
How will Koshalek's eating lunch in Barcelona Spain help your education?
If he were running a (similarly sized) corporation (as opposed to a tax exempt organization) and he was flying around the world doing this kind of stuff, he'd be tossed out on his ear.
actually, i think most corporations/institutions/any kind of job do pay for business travel. i suppose i could be wrong about that...
Another question concerning the growing endowment... I'd be interested in knowing how much of it came from Richard's fundraising efforts versus how much education has brought through their Pro projects, etc., that Richard is taking credit for. It would be interesting to see a breakdown of sources.
why is being called a trade school a good thing? can anyone explain that?
why does everybody assume that richard koshalek invented a need for architecture at art center? it's not true. the board of trustees hired koshalek to oversee the needed addition for the campus. they sought out and hired him for that job. he's been carrying out that work; it's not an ego trip. he's working on that objective laid out by the trustees.
We are not being called a trade school, Art Center is one and it is not a bad word. It becomes a problem when you try and make a comparison between Art Center and Harvard and the likes.
Trying to be something else, is just not what Art Center is about and it's narrow-minded it has been historically Art Center's strength
The thing is the trustees support the master plan probably and they got Koshalek as president because their view coincided with his.
So its an uphill struggle for students in this case. Other avenues need to be explored.
The issue lies in the phrasing of things. I think no one is opposed to Art Center having a new functional building that will alleviate classroom space and improve facilities. But that is different from "Architecture" and that is where the line is being blurred intentionally.
I am also saddened by the blatant lie that the Gehry building is being pushed through for philanthropic reasons. In the videos from the ACSG meeting Richard made it VERY clear at the beginning that this is a question of his legacy that he wants to leave behind. This particular issue entails ego, which he denied yesterday as being his motivation for the master plan.
I agree it's not Richard the only person that's pushing with this whole deal but he does stick out from the bunch.
discovolante -
just a question: why do you object to architecture? i'm curious because you are/will be a designer or artist, yes? isn't good design worthwhile? how do you explain the value of design? please explain.
Good design is worthwhile when it's not impacting my education.
I am objecting to "Architecture" for this particular instance because it is being implemented for the image first and the expansion of facilities on a very distant last. The shack argument is not completely without merit, it is definitely more cost-effective than the master plan, albeit mildly ridiculous but certainly more reasonable.
In this case, having Gehry create a building is not making me inspired and it is making me wonder where our focus as a school has shifted. Gehry might be a prominent architect but also a extremely capricious and demanding one. Just look at the materials used in the Concert hall and Bilbao. Is that reasonable or cost effective?The answer is no.
Hope that clarifies my intentions.
In response to the Pasadena Star News article and some comments made on this blog, I would like to point out that the Education First petition does not call for an "abandonment" of the Art Center expansion plans. We understand that the school will need to expand in the future in order to remain competitive, but what we are arguing is that the current state of education at Art Center is in serious need of attention by the administration -- attention that is currently devoted to fund raising for the master plan and conferences to increase exposure of the school. With the leaderships time and energy focused on the distant future, who is here to take care of the present state of things? The indisputable fact is that Richard Koshalek's focus is being diverted away from the education of the current students.
We also call into question the need for such an ambitious expansion plan which necessitates the use of a high profile architect at a time when enrollment and tuition are ever-increasing. Keep in mind that the undergraduate tuition of $117,376 does not include housing, a meal plan, or materials which can easily amount to over $24,000 at the end of 8 terms. So, we are asking The Board to consider that Art Center is becoming an institution where the primary criteria of attendance is “can you afford to come here,” when it used to be “are you good enough to come here.”
I encourage everyone (whether you agree with it or not) to read through some of the comments on the petition. You will see that most of them are not born of a personal critique on Richard Koshalek but are rooted in a deep devotion to the school and it's tradition of excellence. The voices on that petition are of students, alumni, faculty, and staff. We are invested in Art Centers future but feel that the direction of the current administration may ruin the very future for which they are planning.
www.accdpetition.com
i think of art center as a trade school, because you learn a trade, as opposed to a liberal arts school where you study a core curriculum of history, language, arts, etc., and have a vague major such as "english," where you can branch out from there into anything from law to journalism. at art center, you learn how to be a photographer, illustrator, industrial designer, etc. it's not a bad thing. just a different type of school.
Art Center's "Golden Age" (upon which most of its reputation was founded)was when it was located on 3rd Street near downtown L.A.
The 3rd street campus was not constructed specifically for Art Center's use as a school. It was a used building. Art Center moved in and took it over.
The bottom-line is that in today's world, it's simply not cost-efficient for a teeny-weeny school such as Art Center to go around "commisioning" architecturally significant buildings.
I spent my time at the hillside campus. No south campus existed. While I may have had to wait my turn at the band saw every now and then, and I had an "assigned" lab-time for the computer lab, I do not exactly remember tripping over my fellow students. The library was more than adequate. Shop, more than adequate. Cafeteria? Not bad either. Student store? Fine. Need more classrooms? Get rid of a gallery or two.
All we really asked for was a room with some f&^%%!@ couches in it so that we could relax for an hour without having to drive back to our apartments.
a lot of people are complaining about lack of space, lack of studios, lack of enough access to technology. apparently we're not all on the same page.
to me, a trade school means that you learn the actual skills. technically you learn how to make a photo, make a model of a car, etc. that's what a trade school means to me. maybe we don't all have the same definition.
but i think we want more than just the technical skills. the reason i think we want to be more than a trade school is so that we can learn about how to apply those skills in a bigger context. to learn about things that are not direcly related to that skill set, and then to figure out how it can be applied creatively. to understand other issues so that you come up with some new way for design to interact with all these different things.
that's what i want. i want to learn more than just the skills because once you have a better understanding of other things you can be more creative in figuring out how to use my skills and design with them. if i don't learn about problems faceing the world, how can i think about fixing them?
but like i said. maybe we just don't have the same idea of what a trade school means. what do you think?
Holy crap, all you have is "space". You've got big giant caverns of space. Former wind tunnels of space. Graduate "studios" of space. Graduate galleries of space.
Perhaps space that has been unintelligently allocated"?
Right now, you have a nice, luxurious gallery sitting center-stage on Lida Street, and it bears the name of one of the blue-blood trustees.
Somehow you've added a gazillion new chunks of square footage, without a gigantic surge in enrollment. Most of you have your own computers at home now.
How is it that you can't possibly make it work?
Design THAT solution.
861 wrote:
"but i think we want more than just the technical skills. the reason i think we want to be more than a trade school is so that we can learn about how to apply those skills in a bigger context."
And this is an excellent reason why Art Center should seriously explore the idea of finding another educational institution within which to call home. Future ACCD grads need to be MORE educated, not less.
I'm willing to put MY ego on the shelf in recognition of the greater good. Are you? Do you have the guts to attend the Art Center College of Design at California Institute of Technology?
Think about how many talented, accomplished applicants would vie to be a student at THAT school. I know I'd do it. To be able to go to Art Center, but have my main degree come from a place that is considered a top-rate institution? Damn right.
how about a national partnership? california/rhode island school college of design?
My Art Center Brothers and Sisters, We must be heard! Get off your screen and SIGN THE PETITION!
Then call on your other Brothers and Siters to do the same.
WE WILL BE HEARD!
www.accdpetition.com
Art Center needs to cozy-up to the infrastucture of a more established school. Facilities, maintenance, support staff, dormatories, etc. The problem is that we're really high on fixed costs. The amount of money spent (per student) on the overall cost of RUNNING Art Center is ridiculously high. Such is the cost of being a really small school.
Art Center could ditch hundreds of non-essential (but high salaried) employees that do not directly contribute to the education of a student.
So many fixed-cost services could be shared with a larger student population that can be found in a larger school.
If any new building should be built, it should be to house Art Center's new home within an existing college.
in reply to 10:38: Is Art Center a college or a trade school? Some people are saying it's a trade school. LOL! If that's all it is, what a spendy one!
from wikipedia: A vocational school, providing vocational education and also as referred to as a trade school or career college, and school is operated for the express purpose of giving its students the skills needed to perform a certain job or jobs. Traditionally, vocational schools have not existed to further education in the sense of liberal arts, but rather to teach only job-specific skills, and as such have been better considered to be institutions devoted to training, not education
- - -
from wikipedia: Art Center built its reputation as a vocational school, essentially, preparing returning GIs for work in the commercial arts fields. It has traditionally maintained a strong "real world" focus, emphasizing craftsmanship, technique, and professionalism while somewhat de-emphasizing theory. Instructors are working professionals, for the most part, and projects are intended to map to real-life assignments.
I think the Board, Richard Koshalek, many of the chairs, the supporters, donors, faculty and students see it much more than a trade school. If it's a trade school, why bother coming here?
To learn the trade...? Design is a very difficult trade to master, not to mention channeling creativity, problem solving, people skills, etc. I firmly believe that you can spend a solid 4 years here just mastering the technical skills but you'll still need to supplement that education through other avenues. Whether it's a previous liberal arts or specified degree at a University, or merely life experiences from living (which can include years working as a professional in your field).
But that's not to say Art Center should be the all encompassing school for this type of education!
Yes, the roots are in the trades, but it's become much more than that.
What has it become? Or are you hoping it's 'going to become much more than that.'
And it's true, "Art Center College of Design" is still an unknown name to many people across the country. You may belittle RISD, but RISD is far more well know in the East. And even in Pasadena, there are people who haven't heard of it. I think that's why Richard Koshalek has been working to raise the profile of ACCD beyond the idea of its being a mere "trade school." AND to raise its profile around the country and world.
IMO, Art Center IS very well known in the design world. And if your portfolio reflects the 'un-compromised' education you're paying for (and worked for), then your future employer will very quickly learn about this school.
But some people here are happy to have it exist merely as a trade school known to a certain small niche.
That small 'niche' is the working world of design.
I think you're blurring the lines between 'world renowned' designers talking at TED conferences on their theories and the impassioned student hoping to one day see his concept art on the big screen (for example).
That CAN be the same person, but first give them the best education by the best suited faculty in an educational environment that fosters their creativity and is also conducive to hard work and professionalism. Don't compromise any of that by worrying about 'Art Center' being known by your 45 year old neighbor who works as an orthopaedic surgeon at USC. And help that person be the best! HELP THEM! Don't let them leave with bitter feelings about the school and how much of an uphill battle they had to fight just to get the education they wanted!
Also, fish from a bigger pool than the high school pond! You should keep to the well known figure of 'the majority of incoming students are 24 yrs and have previous degrees!' That first degree (or life experience) is where you get your liberal arts education and spend more time theorizing about design than applying it. You come here to learn how to apply it. If someone is being admitted from high school then they should be the exception, not the general fund boosting standard.
Then send the students out into the working world to show through their actions and their ideas how great they really are.
Keep the standards high. Keep the graduating class the top in it's field. Then when you want to 'promote' the school, just point to the alumni. Their work should speak for you. And if you've nurtured them and helped them on their journey, they'll even speak highly of the school and promote it even more.
Is it any wonder why so many successful graduates don't donate to this school? Why are they so embittered?
It's through life experiences combined with the ACCD disciplined education that helps a grad really bring something to the table.
I should also add that the Art Center model is not the norm for a design school, but it's been (at least from my pov) extremely successful for graduating top designers in their fields.
When did it become so important to change that?
And did you ever consider that a lot of the 'miscommunication' stems from the gap between what the top administration wants this school to be, and what students are signing up for when they apply here?
If you really want to show the awesome impact that Art Center has had, the school should invite 100-200 of the top (living) alumni and throw THEM a BBQ.
Then, take a picture on the front steps with Syd Mead standing next to Chip Foose, next to Michael Bay next to Tarsem next to (the list goes on). Make a poster of THAT.
(Much akin to the late Art Kane's famous "Jazz portrait" taken in harlem)
Invite the public (and prospective students) to come meet these grads and show them the school that gave them what they know how to do.
Our alma mater's reputation is the product of our alumni and the work they have done. No building can do a better job than that simple collection of grads.
Heck, I'm an alum and *I'd* be happy to come to the school and meet such an awesome collection of alumni. I might even bring my checkbook for that.
From the Star News:
"The turnout, in a college with about 1,400 students, showed that the controversy has been fanned by a few misinformed bloggers, Art Center President Richard Koshalek said after the meeting."
No blogger "fanned" me. How about the rest of you?
I saw some pretty prominent names on the 800+ signature petition. Who "fanned" them?
Mr. Koshalek, Art Center leadership has insulted my intelligence for the last time. I'm not taking it anymore.
shoji,
thanks for your thoughtful and reasoned post. from what i understand, art center is different also in the way the tuition is needed to support the school. i.e., it is difficult to raise funds for art center scholarships and endowment, because typically, most colleges and universities go to their alumni and receive gifts, donations, and major grants from them. their alums are surgeons and lawyers and business leaders... but art center grads are designers and artists, with smaller incomes...
but it is great to see all the alums writing here and posting on the petition. with all that interest in the school, how many do you think will honor that interest with REAL support to current and future art center students in the form of a donation to create a new scholarship or endow a chair...
alums, would you consider it?
Art Center's hillside campus, although itself an starchitectural homage to bauhaus modernism, is a simple a black box with white walls for a reason. This space we inhabit for 8 grueling terms was created in such a way so that our work would be the center of attention--not the shiny things our administrators bought. It was also designed this way as to not cause a stylistic over-influence which could hinder we students in finding our own creative voice.
Frank Gehry is an architect, and as such has a shallow perspective of function. As for form, he's mono-lingual and could benefit from some new style boards. I say we invite him over and have a crit, since it's our education being overlooked on his behalf.
hey, what shiny things have they bought? what are you talking about?
and do you know anything about frank gehry? his work has gone through many phases, like picasso. why are you so bitter about the idea of a gehry building? this building will be for students and faculty. have you gone and seen a concert in disney hall? it's awesome, seriously. it's a beautiful space. of course it's not exactly cheap to go there.
what is wrong with eye candy? do you do purely functional design? isn't it cool to look at too? do you aspire to drive a bare-bones car? do wear, listen to, watch only the most functional things? isn't the look important to you? seriously.
To all the alumni --
How many of you really know what's going on? Are you ready to step up and give to the Alumni Fund/Legacy Circle? Those funds will be desperately needed once Art Center's funders pull out.
to 4:13
No for a school the substance is more important.
I am frankly insulted by your comment, do you think that designers and artists are just attracted to the shiny surface of things. Do you really believe that we are as shallow as to stop at the appearance.
Not to mention that we are talking about the school here, I do not want image, the students' success speaks more to out reputation than a "cool looking building".
Additionally Gehry is known to be a architect that won't compromise his vision for the sake of functionality. What good is to us a building that is virtually useless, much like our 'beloved' South Campus.
http://archinect.com/news/article.php?id=76218_0_24_0_C
and this quite frankly takes the cherry.
"please sign the petition to help support contemporary architecture in pasadena!"
Yeah let's support buildings but who cares if the education goes down the drain. Irresponsibility at its highest degree.
My wife donates to her university. They don't even really need the money.
Art Center very BADLY needs a donation from me, but I refuse to give anything. Why? Because I have no faith in the general priorities of its leadership. I just can not morally bring myself to write the check. I even have the income level to support making such donations.
http://blogs.laweekly.com/ladaily/arts-news/controversy-surrounds-yet-anot/
"please sign the petition to help support contemporary architecture in pasadena!"
Art Center: How about you guys concentrate on helping make me a rich and famous designer, and once I get there, I'll support contemporary architecture in the appropriate situations?
If some big corporation feels compelled to donate this new building, Art Center should clearly accept it, and I'll gladly support it.
But Koshalek should focus on enriching the educational experience of Art Center and evangelizing that focus to the world. If he would just do that, they money will come, both from alumni and from donors.
4:36 p.m., that's really amazing that you say you have the money and won't give to the school. In my limited understanding of fundraising, you've got options to dictate where you want your money to go and the school is obligated legally to honor those wishes. Maybe you should think about giving some money to scholarships. that would be a real statement if alums got together to donate money to where it's most needed to help students directly. or even better, maybe someone could organize an event where alums can hand checks out directly to students and cut out the middleman altogether.
http://www.ci.pasadena.ca.us/planning/environmental/Art%20Center/Pasadena_Art%20CenterIS_6_27_07_RAvilarev%20doc.pdf
This is pretty interesting too, dated June 2007. But still relevant.
In any case, I wonder what the city of pasadena thinks about the Master Plan. Definitely going to go ask someone soon.
Dear anonymous 4:36,
You don't have to write a check or support the current leadership.
One of my best experiences at Art Center was granted by my mentor from the Dot Exchange program--an alum that guided me to the next level via an hour a week for half a term.
Time and visibility from alumni means a lot to us students.
to 4:36 pm -
if you won't even give to scholarships, why do you even care to participate in this discussion?
How about you 4:58 do you donate for scholarships?
You guys should be ashamed, this person has no obligation to donate if he feels that it's going to waste because of the decisions of the upper echelons of the school.
Is this the type of fundraising that's going on for the school? Guilt the donors?
"Maybe you should think about giving some money to scholarships."
Excellent question. I *have* considered this. But I have always felt bad about the school funding many of your current scholarships by using current tuition funds.
Perhaps they have since ended this practice, but in years past, they simply refused to answer or address specific questions about the sources of funding. With no transparency, I can't ever feel confident about donating.
And I suppose I misspoke. Actually, yes I did. I have *often* been in the position to donate (and not done so for reasons mentioned above). I'm not currently in such a position.
"if you won't even give to scholarships, why do you even care to participate in this discussion?"
Is that the cost of entry into the discussion?
Most people who choose not to donate to a cause simply send the requestors away (and ask them not to come back).
I'd LOVE to donate to Art Center. But the time is just not right. Serious change needs to start happening there before I can contribute.
I dont know why some of you want to be known as a trade school. If 4:36 is an example of fundraising prospects with alums, the schools never going to be able to raise a dime for scholarships or anything else. If I were some rich person with money to give away, I'm not so sure I'd want to give it to some trade school. If i did, I'd be handing the money over to Trade Tech. In my opinion, we shouldn't limit ourselves to the trade school label cause we are so much more than that. And in terms of architecture, have you seen Trade Tech?!? It is so damn ugly. I don't care what any of you say, ugly buildings are depressing!!! Try going to school in that environment and see how inspired you are afterwards.
don't you see there's a connection between the need to raise funds and the cost of tuition? art center needs to raise funds for the endowment and scholarships TO LOWER the cost of an art center education.
it's hard enough as it is to raise money for a private institution.
thanks for making it tougher!
So according to your logic 5:22 to lower tuition we need a Gehry building to accomplish more fundraising and that Gehry building is going to be built with donors and fundraising. FLAWLESS PLAN!
To the alum who won't give money because it doesn't support the leadership. . . your money can be earmarked to a specific fund. It has nothing to do with this particular administration. It can live beyond this administration.
discovolante,
the whole point is that the fundraising campaign will raise the monies for all three goals: endowment, scholarship, and building.
like it or not, it is difficult to raise funds for a private college, especially when the usual first source would be the alums. there is not a strong history of alum giving, going back to the days of tink adams. because art center was a different kind of school... but whenever art center needs to upgrade, enhance, whatever, there's no additional funding available.
so, the thinking is, art center needs to go to outside donors, get outside help. and yes, gehry's name and reputation as the country's leading architect is part of that. the hope is, that as donors are familiar with his work, they'll want to get involved with this school they've maybe only just heard of, this greatest secret in pasadena.
anyway, that's the thinking. fundraising is tough. and this economy is tough for most people. i wish i could afford to give as well.
How many alums who have signed the petition have given back to Art Center? Contributed to scholarships? Or provided time to mentor or give advice to a student?
How many "really care" about Art Center?
How much "care" does take to sign and complain on a petition? Well, it's a start, but really, what else is it but lip service to "Education First."
hey-most of us grad students are pretty happy here with the exception of those in grad i.d. we're getting a kick-ass education. the posters in the hall are pretty juvenile.
What great secret... I disagree Art Center is know where it should be known.
Well if we aren't paying for all of this stuff. Why in the world is there a need to increase enrollment and tuition? I just received a message on my art center mail saying that the goal for admissions is to increase further our enrollment. The question is why? If we keep enrollment lower and stricter, standards will be up and operating costs will be down. Why in the world are we making everything we can to put further stress on the system. Without counting the fact that the Master Plan is a 25 year plan. A quarter of a century.
In the meantime no one is addressing the problems that can be solved by redirecting those funds into more realistic uses.
The answers that were handed out so far have been less than satisfactory. I really do not understand where you people are coming from.
Richard I understand, he made it very clear that it was a chance to seize his legacy(ego). But you people that post oh so anonymously defending this current situation. What is your motivation and where do you come from in terms of situation.
"I disagree Art Center is know where it should be known. "
Please explain.
the 25-year master plan offers the college the possibility of future growth, but it is not mandated.
6:17
Art Center is well known in design and art circles and the industries that relate to that. This is what matters the most. Any other exposure is welcome but mostly inconsequential.
interesting.
does everyone agree with this?
Just got my financial award stuff today.
This is ALOT of money for this education that will require me to be AD/CD level not long after I graduate in order to afford the damn loan payments.
Anyone want to donate to my scholarship fund? LOL..
At any rate. I'm done arguing. I am going to go do something more useful than wasting time on this.
And certainly get more energetic about this whole deal.
Talk is cheap.
yeah, talk is cheap!
really caring about art center and doing something to give back is hard work.
ophelia,
are you out there? what are your thoughts?
From LA Weekly
“For his part, Koshalek maintains that the school's plans for the Gehry building have in no way affected its emphasis on education, and that any budget woes are the product of the down economy and a temporary drop in student enrollment. "Not a single cent of tuition money has been or will be used for the construction of the new Gehry building," he says.”
Let’s just say for the sake of argument the DRC *construction* is FREE.
How much money is being spent on fundraising for the FREE building? 22 full time people in the Development department should be raising a LOT of scholarship money.
How much money is being spent on planning and design? The Planning and Architecture office has 5 full time people in it. Why does a school with 1400 students even HAVE an architecture office (I’d rather have the classroom space back). Gehry ain’t free. That Master Plan doc wasn’t free. The balloon tests weren’t free…
How much money is being spent on pr and marketing for the architecture projects and other special projects? There are 22 people in the communications department. What the f**k are 22 people being directed to promote? I have never seen an ad promoting ATTENDING Art Center.
How much will the FREE building cost to heat, cool, and maintain?
When Dick Koshalek, commits to personally paying all costs outside of construction. Then he can have his FREE building.
"like it or not, it is difficult to raise funds for a private college, especially when the usual first source would be the alums. there is not a strong history of alum giving, going back to the days of tink adams. because art center was a different kind of school..."
what's your idea to raise more $ for the school?
Use the three basement of the South Campus and the big wind tunnel which they have plans to build out anyway and make some new space.
-Use part of it to host Professional and Executive Education for Business folks who are excited about innovation through design.
-Financial planning, Licensing and Legal issues could become a much more accessible to the students maybe even fueling greater entrepreneurship.
-Or how about leasing the land for more than Art Center Housing. Cooper Union did it in 1929 and now they have a major revenue source, the Chrysler Building land lease.
! NEARLY 1000 signatures !
sign the petition to advocate for fiscal responsibility, and ask the art center board to stop the master development plan.
http://www.thepetitionsite.com/1/educationfirst/
at the student forum art center Chief financial officer - Richard Haluschak said the school can NOT continue operating at a loss from tuition for any longer. He also confirmed that art center operated at a loss for the previous financial QUARTER. With a continued drop in enrollment forecast for the school as a WHOLE (despite a few programs doing well) it seems feasible to suggest we might be looking ahead to more quarterly losses for fall and even into next year. this is compounded by less federal loan money, and fewer scholarships available. In simple terms, we continue to lose money. so get those calculators out and start planning on which programs and people to cut, OR better yet, calculate the value of the Hillside campus (much less in this economic environment), in order to sell it to pay off art center debt.
but after that we can at least sell the "Art Center" brand for something...
to June 11, 2008 8:51 PM
So if you sell off the hillside campus, where do you plan to hold classes? Or are you saying that by stopping the further development of the hillside and using the endowment (which only goes to the DRC) to fund the school?
I signed the petition a while ago, but your argument of selling off the hillside campus doesn't work for me. I am trying to put your argument for people to sign the petition and then the Chicken Little diatribe right after.
If I was going to sell someone on participating on a petition, I would not use fear.
What I want to happen is to have the administration take a look at the cost of steel, fuel and cement; the recession we are in; China's earthquake which will now divert most of the steel and cement to Sichuan, and the number of developments now on hold in Los Angeles. The Grand Avenue project for one; the foreclosure of the Ambassador Campus property another. With all this we need to stop and take a look of what kind of debt we want ACCD to have and what we need to do now to have proper facilities for the students.
And I do have a life away from this blog. I was at the gym.
Ophelia Chong
Anonymous: An Art Center alumnus who has contributed to the scholarship fund
It is amusing to hear the debate about Frank Gehry’s architecture, but it is beside the point. Of course, Gehry is a world-class architect, whose accomplishments are undeniable and notable. If Art Center could have built a brilliant building by Gehry, particularly if entirely funded with outside donations as promised, most of us would be proud to see it on the Art Center campus alongside the classic modern Ellwood building. It was not a bad idea. And the irony is that Gehry began his career by building inexpensive studios for his artist friends and knows very well how to design low cost functional spaces, but that was not what he was commissioned to do.
However, nine years later, it is clear that Richard Koshalek could not deliver on his promise. The Gehry building is just another architectural fantasy, an expensive proposal, and the money has not been raised, and so it will never be built! And by bloating the administration (with so many high salaried friends and staff, jammed into the bridge, a huge staff by the way that Art Center never required before he arrived) and focusing his energy on architecture projects (like the irrelevant and unusable Sinclair Pavilion folly, the Power Plant, extensive travel and entertainment, Barcelona and design conferences, as well as other pet projects, Koshalek severely neglected the main mission of Art Center – which has always been to educate and prepare the next generation of designers, photographers, illustrators, filmmakers and artists. Real education spending I've been informed, has been mostly frozen for the past nine years, though tuition has sky rocketed. So the proportion of tuition that directly benefits students has shrunk profoundly.
The scarce resources and energy squandered on things like an unnecessary ongoing expensive Office of Architecture, plus expensive endless architectural fees for development of these projects, along with other Koshalek’s enthusiasms, like the so-called International Initiative Office, with it’s high salaried staff, not by the way providing something useful like study abroad for students, but rather low impact PR opportunities. None of these endeavors directly benefits the students (the design conference, for example, takes place during the semester break and is not free for faculty and students). Yet most of these pet projects are deviously placed into the education budget, in order to help mask what has been take in from education. More than ever we need financial transparency in order to evaluate where the money that comes in from tuition actually is being spent. If those numbers ever see the light of day, it will be obvious that the new debt financing in pursuit of the Master Plan has not been “entirely” funded by outside donations as so often is claimed.
In Koshalek’s tenure the tuition has bloated to such an extent that Art Center now finds itself as the most expensive art and design school in the country, when you rightly factor in the discounts and scholarships that Art Center’s competing schools offer. Increased scholarships and lower tuition have obviously not been this administration's priority, and if allowed to continue will eventually erode the excellence of Art Center’s reputation.
It’s time for a change. Richard Koshalek had a dramatic and seductive vision that he unfortunately could not deliver. In public forums he adroitly diverts criticism and is nothing if not clever at spin, rarely providing undisputed verifyable facts. And he has insured his job by removing all outspoken dissent, so that anyone in a senior leadership position who suggested education should come before his master plan is abruptly and quietly removed. So many key senior employees have been forced to leave (two Chief Academic Officers and two Chief Financial Officers, plus two highly respected senior development VPs, in other words anyone who saw where the money was going and objected.) None have come forward and talked, because they have had to sign confidentiality agreements in order to secure their severance money. Koshalek further secured his job by changing the Art Center board of trustees that he inherited and reports to (only three of the original 14 trustees remain) and replacing them with over 17 new board members that he feels he can rely on. It’s a sad situation. One fears that Art Center might not survive another five years of Koshalek.
The board should just allow his term to expire in 2009. Give him a nice farewell party. And search for a new 21st century visionary and prudent president, one who will focus on enriching the education of Art Center’s constituency – the students. It’s time for a change.
MIT Meets RISD: John Maeda Becomes President.
Posted by: Bruce Nussbaum on December 21, BusinessWeek
"In a brilliant move, John Maeda from the MIT Media Lab, is taking over as the new president of RISD, one of preeminent art and design schools in the world. I’ve know John for many years and he is one of the most brilliant minds that we have in the innovation/design space. His book on The Laws of Simplicity is a must-read."
It sure would be nice to have some exciting news to lift up art center. 5 more years of waiting for a ground breaking that has yet to happen, or for a building that "might" get done will seem like an eternity.
5:48pm said:
so, the thinking is, art center needs to go to outside donors, get outside help. and yes, gehry's name and reputation as the country's leading architect is part of that. the hope is, that as donors are familiar with his work, they'll want to get involved with this school they've maybe only just heard of, this greatest secret in pasadena.
This was a compelling argument -- in 1999. People forget that nine years has intervened, and sooner or later, the emperor's new clothes are exposed. Not to mention the quite empty pot of money NOT donated by those donors "familiar with his work."
It is not just a difference in vision, that is undermining the education of students (although Art Center is woefully behind where it needs to be in terms of providing non-loan based financial aid to students) and the future of Art Center. A very real issue to consider is a crisis in leadership. If you haven;t surmised this by now and you have been following the current circumstances at Art Center, then you are not really paying attention to the nuance of all that is happening. Leadership that breeds fear of retribution, implied coercion, distrust, scapegoating, dishonesty, lack of true transparency, and that isolates individuals essentially forcing them to work in an environment they are clearly not valued or choose to leave - no matter if it is in 'defense' of a legitimate vision, is morally reprehensible. When the president of the college walks around the campus and personally asks staff to sign the online "Vote for Art Center’s Future! Put Honesty First!" petition, allegedly started by several of his Senior Vice Presidents, something has gone seriously wrong. Trust me when I say that the view from the inside of Art Center is not pretty and certainly not pleasant. Many competent people are looking for other professional opportunities outside of Art Center, pending what actions (or inaction) the Board of Trustees takes next week. A large number of individuals - students, faculty, staff, alumni, donors, and employers (witness this petition site) - are speaking out because they have serious doubts about the current leadership and whether the President and many of his closet advisors and confidants can lead us through this crisis. I would argue that regardless of whether you agree with the president's vision and goals, Art Center is too damaged at this point to maintain a healthy academic environment or viable financial future without a change. There is far too much at stake, there really is.
Does anyone know how much tuition money has been spent on financial settlements for the six senior VPs that Koshalek forced out? The legal fees and contract buyouts must have been extraordinary.
The Senior VP of PR, Iris Gelt, Koshalek's pal, receives an unusually high salary for a PR position in an academic institution. She has done a mediocre job publicizing Art Center. Most of the PR that I've seen under Mrs. Gelt that was supposedly for Art Center, has actually trumpeted the president of the college's so called accomplishments and vision, and not many story's about the college students and faculty. In nine years there have been three times as many photos of Koshalek published, than all Art Center's past presidents combined.
Frank Gehry designs buildings for Frank Gehry, not people or the environment around it.
The President wants Frank Gehry to design a building for himself by Gehry who designs buildings for himself.
Notice a trend here?
Also, why doesn't ACCD use itself to promote itself? There IS an advertising design department that would gladly take on the task. What better way to learn than to promote the same you are learning from? The students get the experience, the exposure and the school can put the money saved back into the programs.
Why the admins have to go elsewhere for this stuff is beyond me. It's like they don't have confidence in the same people that literally pay their salaries.
New hierarchy, please.
Wow! I just saw the latest Art Center tax returns, Koshalek’s harem, Erica C., Iris G. & Jean F., must be working overtime to try and save his ass and their fat salaries. How is it that Koshalek’s girls make more money at Art Center than the well known and dedicated faculty?
The administration has become bloated. With salaries ranging from 150k - 250K at the high end. These figures are reported in the form 990 tax statements.
With a huge communications staff of 22 people, an Architecture Office with 5 people, International Initiatives there are probably some redundant positions we could remove. At those salaries removing 5 people would save more than $1 Million dollars a year and would no longer operate at a loss.
2:10 AM said:
whether you agree with the president's vision and goals, Art Center is too damaged at this point to maintain a healthy academic environment or viable financial future without a change.
This is exactly right, and I hope the trustees will take note. Art Center is deeply divided -- this process has pulled out anger and frustration that has been simmering and building just beneath the surface for nine years. Those divisions are not going away on their own.
Independent of all the other issues being discussed, Koshalek's ability to lead and heal a severely alienated community of students, faculty, alums, and donors is hopelessly compromised.
New leadership is essential to Art Center's future.
"With a huge communications staff of 22 people, an Architecture Office with 5 people"
I find this interesting. I used to work for a medium-to-large hospital network (with several different hospitals and business units within). This network had approximately 12,000 employees. It was a non-profit (just like Art Center). I worked in our communications and PR office. This included designers, writers and "PR people". Our staff was a total of seven (including our VP/Director).
I also had dealings with our in-house architects, as I dealt with signage systems. There was never a day that we were not currently building (or planning to build) some new addition or building. We had THREE architects on staff.
If Art Center has a communications staff of 22 and an architecture group of 7, then, as students, you should all be really pissed-off. As an alumni, I know that it greatly upsets ME.
Although I was employed by a hospital (many assume that money just flows through the halls), we were a non-profit (as most hospitals are), we had to adhere to the non-profit mantra of everyday fiscal behavior. And that mantra is "Spend every dollar as if it were your own".
Art Center's administrative leadership is clearly not following a similar mantra. This is ridiculous.
Sorry, the ACCD architecture group has 5 people, not 7. Sorry 'bout that.
"To the alum who won't give money because it doesn't support the leadership. . . your money can be earmarked to a specific fund. It has nothing to do with this particular administration. It can live beyond this administration."
It does not matter where I tell them to direct my donation. Art Center artificially inflates the price of tuition so that it can hand discounts back to large percentages of students in the form of "scholarships". They fraudulently inflate the price so they can offer most students "discounts" to help keep you all in line.
But what about the 19 year old kid with "upper-middle class parents" who then fails to qualify for federal financial aid, yet his parents are putting a goddamn second mortgage on their home to help him out? See, I seek fairness across the board. That kid (and his parents) deserve a break too. The day that you all sit around complaining and comparing who is the "most poor" is the day that things went wrong. And it happened long ago.
Also, in the world of ACCD scholarships, a level playing field does not exist. Do any of you from the 1990's remember the elaborate spectacles that illustration students would create to help them stand out on portfolio submittal day? Some students were taking over entire classrooms and creating "installations" so that Phil Hayes might notice them. Meanwhile, a needy kid with straight A's and a mere "portfolio" would get nothing. It became well known that in order to get an illustration scholarship, you had to do some kind of installation.
Enough already. Get a grip on the goddamn spending. Be truthful in how scholarships are funded, and make Art Center cost what it is actually supposed to "cost" to attend. Quit using RISD as a tuition benchmark. If you are using other schools as benchmarks, then you are not in the business of running Art Center (like you need to be).
What planet are you on? Institutional discounts are common at ALL colleges and universities. Art Center is struggling to raise its discount to even the middle range of other colleges. The higher the discount rate, the lower the tuition will be. That's just how it works. It's not some conspiracy to fool you about what's really going on! At least take the trouble to find out how things work before you spread your ignorance around like so many others on this blog are happy to do.
EXCELLENT! FANTASTIC! TERRIFIC! I think the strategy to blast Art Center in the LA Times, the LA Weekly, and the Pasadena Start News is a wonderful move! Now I'm certain that any prospective donor will think twice before opening their pocketbooks. I'm sure prospective students, or their parents, will think twice about coming to Art Center, and why would a good prospective faculty member step into this bed of snakes? PERFECT! I think it's a wonderful idea. BRAVO! GOOD WORK!
Well looks like we will ADD yet another big VP-level salary to the administrative payroll, with Kit Baron returning, announced yesterday June 11 by Mark Brietenberg. I'm guessing she must be in the 200K + range. And most likely hired to bump up enrollment, gain more tuition money, so art center can continue running on fumes.
It is also curious that she reports to the Dean of Humanities. We have another Task force leader Jean Ford, whom we are told is the leader for a separate Admissions and Enrollment task force. Is she redundant?
excerpted below.
TO FACULTY, STAFF, STUDENTS:
As Art Center places increased emphasis on the priorities of recruitment and retention, we are happy to welcome Kit Baron back to Art Center as Vice President, Admissions and Enrollment Management...
--
Dr. Mark Breitenberg
Dean, Humanities and Design Sciences
Art Center College of Design
626.396.2335
626.795.0819 (fax)
Mark.breitenberg@artcenter.edu
Let's compare and contrast the tales of two terminations at Art Center. That of Roland Young and Rachel Tiede.
Now, do not get me wrong. I love Roland Young. A "top three" all time teacher in my book. His class follows me everywhere I go today.
Roland regularly flirted with the boundaries of staying employed for many decades. It was not uncommon to see him remove student work from the walls and dump it in the trash. It was not uncommon to see him show up at a student party with a pretty young girl from his night class. If you were an attractive female student of his, it was not uncommon to get asked out (sometimes more than a few times). It was not uncommon for girls to complain about this line-crossing behavior. Roland lived "on-the-edge" always. And students loved his "no bullshit" simplicity. He was brilliant and tragic at the same time. This was his style for 4 decades. He was a hero and a liability at the same time.
Rachel Tiede, in contrast, worked at Art Center for 10 years. Followed the rules, and served the school very well. Friend to everyone she worked with. Spends some time away and has a baby. Comes back. Her boss gets fed-up with policy and "falls on his sword" and resigns. She merely has the audacity to comment publicly on the reason behind Nate Young's departure, and 24 hours later, she is fired.
It took Roland Young 40 years to get his ass fired (as much as we all loved him). It took Rachel Tiede less than 24 hours.
Explain that Mr. Koshalek.
"Kit Baron back to Art Center as Vice President, Admissions and Enrollment Management..."
OMG, I wish I could tell you exactly why... But this is BAD BAD BAD.
Bringing this person back is just further prooof that the administration wants to line itself with well-paid foot soldiers who will toe the line with absolute loyalty.
I'm serious, not only does Koshalek need to go, but you students must also demand the gutting of the board itself. New president and a new board. Both.
"Now I'm certain that any prospective donor will think twice before opening their pocketbooks"
Uh, where have you been for the last several decades? Everyone is still waiting for this "magic donor" to arrive.
How about installing a leadership team that inspires these big donors to donate with confidence that they won't blow the money by insisting that Koshalek drive around in a Bently?
i'm sure if any of the donors we do have are reading this, they are pleased to see how much you appreciate what theyve given to the school.
9:28 said:
"Institutional discounts are common at ALL colleges and universities.....
....The higher the discount rate, the lower the tuition will be."
Just because some (certainly far from ALL) colleges use the same deceptive tactics to fund scholarships does not mean the practice is morally correct. Public universities do NOT do this. The tuition is what it is. If you are on athletic scholaship, the athletic department pays the university BACK.
OK, so let me understand your math (let me guess, you took Math at Art Center, right?):
The more people that you end up giving discounts to (and the bigger the discount), the higher your tuition needs to be.
Art Center has jacked-up the tuition and then handed out discounts (calling them academic scholoarships) to those who best figured out the "game" once they got in.
Why not just remove the "game" from the equation and just make the tuition cost "what it costs"? Scholarships should be funded ONLY from scholarship funds. This helps us see the light better. Know why?
Because if the scholarship fund is actually woefully deficient, then you can focus efforts on getting more funds into THAT fund.
You see, the foundation of good accounting principles means that you identify and track all of your various expenses and identify strengths and weaknesses. Tuition is not supposed to be "cost of operating college, plus cost of scholarships"...Tuition is supposed to be what the institution actually costs to operate.
anybody knows that richard koshalek does not drive a bentley. lol!
some people posting on this blog are dead-set on "new" leadership, "new blood" for the school. and from the comments here, some of those very people would only want an alum to run the school.
how is that going to change the school? going back, clearly. but as people have said, this school has a built-in problem. the financial structure does not work. going back with the changes around us will not allow us to move forward.
no one wants a high percentage of tuition going toward operating costs. here is the classic political equation: cut costs all around and give tax cuts. or increase some services, while impending some cost increases and removing others. it's a matter of choices. in the mix, how do you build equity for the future?
most of the alums posting here will not step up to the plate and give back to the school -- i.e., support the school the way that most colleges and universities raise funds for the endowment. why not?
that is part of the difficulty of art center. we are not a hospital. we are not a performing arts institution. we are a private college. people are critical of the corporate involvement, but that's what helps keep the school tick.
chase it away and guess what? the dream of returning to the family school of tink adams and don kubly goes away.
where are you going to get the money to cut tuition, keep classes small while at the same time offer the range of classes desired, acquire all the new technology, build needed space?
tough choices are needed. but there's no magic bullet out there.
most college presidents are full-time fundraisers. keep that in mind.
"i'm sure if any of the donors we do have are reading this, they are pleased to see how much you appreciate what theyve given to the school."
And let's talk about that too. I'm sure the school would be happy to share the following "real numbers":
1) total number of donors for the year (corp and private) vs last 3 years.
2) average and median donation amount vs last 3 years.
3) Earmarked (by department/program) vs general compared to last 3 years.
4) How much of the scholarship dollar amounts awarded came funded from endownment vs tuition funds vs donations (compared to last 3 years).
5) transparency on the criteria used to AWARD them. IE, are portfolios given points? Are fairness proceedures followed? Who audits this fairness proceedure?
6) Precisely how many students receive academic scholarships at Art Center? Average and median award amounts. Break it down by department also.
7) If no more scholarhship funds were to come from the general (as opposed to the endowment or scholarship) fund, what are the potential per-student savings on tuition fees for the next three terms?
8) What is the actual, per-student cost of operating the school (including offsets from funding from endowment, corporate donations, state and federal aid. You get the idea. What does it REALLY cost us to attend Art Center (with no discounts).
CFO Haluschak has ALL of this data available. But will he be allowed to share it in the breakdowns by which I have requested it?
NO. He will not be. You'll never see it folks.
To 6:38:
"Does anyone know how much tuition money has been spent on financial
settlements for the six senior VPs that Koshalek forced out? The legal
fees and contract buyouts must have been extraordinary."
I know at least three of them recently settled for between $250K and
$300K. I'm sure that figure can be doubled or tripled to include
others over the last nine years.
In addition to settlements, and bloated salaries, don't forget all the
travel our administration does. How many staff went to Barcelona?
About 10 for the week of the conference, but Koshalek and others were
going over there monthly for at least a year ahead.
The announcement that Kit is coming back came with a restatement of the task force goal of more students and more diversity. Not a word or a care about how to have a bit of demand pull for the school with jobs. The first task should be to strengthen jobs.
I understand that a rep from the school was asked about jobs placement. He responded 95%. PLEASE! Can't possibly be. At least not in ID. Can anyone speak for other depts.?
The posts re tuition and discounting, etc is good to dig into. Art Center cannot do scholarships and grant because it has no endowment. Harvard, Stanford... have piles of endowment. ACCD has to do accounting card tricks to do scholarships. This is precisely why they need the high enrollment. They need the cash flow from which to goof with tuition face cost and to fund staff and a big new building.
All of this would be solved if they had an endowment. They blew it on the European campus in the '80's. Now they want to not grow it when they can because they want the building.
Koshalek saying that the building will be funded by donations only to the building is almost criminal. The school diverts donors to either not direct donations in their gifts, or talk up the building. I know of one major company donation that the school tried desperately to be given without definition. The company lawyers made sure it was gifted to specifics in education. But this is even a bit of a shell game. Like Lottery money going to education.
Keep asking questions about how donors give, and where the money goes. Keep asking what companies donate and why.
Hello everyone,
To predict the future of Art Center I ask everyone to to contribute their thoughts on how we might create it!
Disclaimer: I would appreciate if this could be thought of as a brainstorming set of notes. I probably has some assumptions wrong and I am not in anyway trying to disrespect anyone just throw out some thoughts and hope that other continue doing the same.
I understand that Friday there will be a dialogs at 3pm in the pavilion to make suggestions on how ACCD can change. I'm concerned about the way resources are allocated so that current and future students can benefit.
-First of all a thorough investigation should be done as to how the metrics for allocating resources funds for students and take into consideration the cost of education today with current technology and living expenses. Clearly there are issues but where exactly? How did it work in the past?
-From the investigation there should be a full disclosure and open dialogs of what is needed. A full disclosure of the next steps in the plan and then periodic updates with Q& A sessions. A online progress report might of prevented the current situation from erupting.
-There should be a unified mission statement in which all top level decisions can be measured against. For example " To cultivate future leaders through uncompromising excellence in design education." Maybe even a good slogan that is infectious I like the old one., "no teachers, just teaching professionals" (that are leaders!) that was our edge for years. Now what is it? Has it changed? What are your thoughts? Do agree with Richards word but not his actions?
-Fundraising efforts should currently be directed toward building the endowment and bringing in sponsors projects fuel the education. I fully support Orrin Shively's point of view in the LAtimes article on using donors money and fund raising effort to support the students . (Who knows how many opportunities we may have missed by focusing on expansion projects when our foundation of resources are so low. Even if the building was "FREE" we would still need to pour in new student to maintain it and continue other expansion efforts.
-New Revenue "advisory board" should be assembled but require approval through the CAO. (Part of this might be leveraging the real estate using it to generate revenue by leasing our properties to developers. Professional Design Immersion (Executive Education) with in the South Campus the school not just Designers but business people who are seeing greater value in design led innovation.
-Communication is a huge issue, faculty tenure or be able to be vested should be put on the table. Something needs to be done to absolve the fear of retribution. This is not necessary when there is already a open dialogs and we have a opportunity to begin that now. The decision not to have this is destroying our educational environment NOW!
-Offices that need to be super-charged with new resources. Career services and Financial aid are do a excellent job with the limited resources available to them. Lets put an initiative to empower them so that they can make our Art Center Experience regarding finances less of a burden to carry!
-Last thing, our professional offices such as graphic design office, the dot ad agency and the architecture offices need to be made know of their efforts. It's truly a mystery what they do. What are they producing? If students are involved let's here about it.
-Only 1400 Students. We do not need so many layers of bureaucracy to run this place and grow into the 21st century. (I think we have one administrator for every 7 students is this normal?) (While our student teacher ratio is at least twice that)
My final point is that there is a immediate need for ACCD to look to the future and plan. Every time I hear 21st century ACCD it's immediately followed by architecture developments. The 21st Century plan should be a educational initiative. I think that the South Campus and surrounding area could be that place in the distant future with it's accessible transportation and new (GREEN) housing the Art Center learning experience would be concentrated into a single buzzing atmosphere. ( just like in the old days when all classes stopped for a break and you could walk room to room seeing the talent of your peers and learning from them.) I actually like the idea of coming off the hill, the future is about collaboration in the community. We apparently need to work on that quite a bit though
Thanks for reading.
It's just some thoughts, dreams and visions of a future institution that I care about.
Jason Nicholas Hill
10:39 and others -
you don't get the answers you want to hear, so you keep asking questions over and over.
what don't you "get" about the fact that some donors, foundations, corporations do not give to endowment or do not give to scholarships. some prefer to give to new buildings.
in any case, the art center fund-raising campaign is ear-marked for three (3) goals: scholarships, endowment, and new building.
talk to wayne herron in development if you want more information.
I understand that the portables in the parking lot need to be removed this year. Time's up says the city of a Pasadena... seems they are in fact temporary and portable. Is this true?
So what has the administration done to plan for this? Push students further into the hallway?
So for nine years there has been no plan to deal with an obvious situation...
And will this same city of Pasadena really grant permits to build that thing? The Gehry model? Maybe it's time to talk about the wonderful building... I think the model is pretty hideous. Certainly not good design given the Ellwood building or what the realities of the world are now.
I think it's just plain ugly. I think Pasadena and the neighbors will fight it for a long time and lots of donor-lobbying-to-the-city expense. Has the city chimed in? Neighbors?
Am I missing something here? Let's just pretend money was not an issue. If the building did not say Gehry on it... said Wall Mart on it. Would you guys like it?
eric,
thanks for your concerns. there is a plan for when the portables go away. go to the architecture and planning office (opposite the library) and ask them.
10:55 - you personify why ACCD has this current trouble. Arrogance, congative dissonance and
hubris in the admin.
It is you who do not seem to hear the comments and questions. We don't understand the explanation from the school because it is too vague. I am sure that some donors donate to the building. Fine. I hear that.
But I also know that the school has attempted to have donors not designate donations or has tried to steer donations to the building. GET THAT. I know one specific high dollar donor that the school tried to keep from designating funds. I KNOW THIS FOR FACT. And I know that this donor is presently on hold for another round of donations because of the fear of their money being wasted on a building.
The school should simply make public the exact names of those donors designating to the building. They should also explain the high cost of fundraising expense. What was it, $27 mil to raise $66 mil? Line item expenses please. I'll be that dosn't include indirect admin expenses like Koshalek flying around.
We all saw the description of the Dennison donation. A bit of this and that. I wonder how this was negotiated? How it was worded. Again, I know ACCD tried to control how a major donor defined, or did not define as it were, their donation. ACCD behaved rather slippery. They pushed very hard to keep the donor from controlling the use of the donation. What took place with Dennison? What are the specifics?
Hear this 10:55. ACCD needs to regain trust given behavior like that above. Don't you dare tell me I and others am stupidly and pigheadedly asking the questions until we hear what we want to hear. And also hear this. No more million dollar donations from this company until you do. And word is of another major donor saying the same thing. I'm thinking $2mil lost. I hope you loose your job because of it, 10:55.
We are also talking about the very same group that protested and halted development from the NFL and that is way bigger than us.
I don't know if agreements were made but I hardly doubt that the Pasadena association would be happy about this.
Hey,
When are we going to to get together and take action.
I couldn't make it to Tuesday's talk due to my current internship, but I'm hearing it was a joke.
I just read something about a meeting in the pavilion on Friday? Anything else?
My home has more than adequate space for a meeting, and I'm glad to offer it up as a meeting space this weekend.
Its in Altadena, about 10 minutes from school.
"How many staff went to Barcelona?
About 10 for the week of the conference, but Koshalek and others were going over there monthly for at least a year ahead."
Now I know where "Lost" was inspired.
Flashback, 1993... Art Center "Japan". Remember folks, it's 1993. Japan is the FUTURE of design. It's all about Japan, right? The whole world has it's eyes on Japan. We need a presence in Japan to get in on "Globalism" that is emerging.
Flash forward, 2008... Wal Mart happened. China happened. Wal Mart saw the light and chose design over costs... No, wait. Wal Mart saw that the Chinese could make things on the cheap. Fuck design! Gimme cheap! Meanwhile, all of the "Art Center Design Think Tank" people in Kyoto Japan are gleefully eating sashimi and hitting the Sake bars after a long day of evangelizing design. The current Art Center President flies over to "supervise" the efforts monthly.
The above episode of LOST almost played itself out back in the 90's. And "good sense" was not what killed it. The Japanese economy collapsed, killing the president's dreams of jetting to Kyoto for business trips.
10:55 wrote:
"what don't you "get" about the fact that some donors, foundations, corporations do not give to endowment or do not give to scholarships. some prefer to give to new buildings."
And if the bulk of your fundraising staff is directed to focus efforts on building donations, that's what will likely result.
And this is the main problem. Leadership priorities that are way out of whack with what the Art Center community is saying that they want and need. So much ego comes into play, and frankly, we're sick of it.
OUR HOUSE BURNED DOWN WHILE WE WERE FIGHTING IN THE BACK YARD!
It is clear that our community is divided and looking towards the Board of Trustees to solve our problems. Both sides are vigorously working to win their side of the fight, all the while what is most important is in jeopardy. Within the college, students are angry and distracted, friendships are strained, a climate of fear permeates, trust has been broken, many dysfunctions have been identified, and worst, there exists “us vs. them”. Outside the college, our integrity, reputation and stature is in question, potential students may have doubts, friends of the college and alumni are concerned, the overall vision and direction is challenged.
WHAT’S OUR GAME PLAN AFTER THE BOARD MEETING?
Regardless of the outcome, there will exist a feeling of a “win” by some and a “loss” by others. How will we move on past this? How will the trust be regained? Friendships mended? The “climate of fear” eliminated? Working conditions and relationships improved? The concerns of faculty and staff be acknowledged and respected? Our stellar image and reputation returned? A new vision that brings us together be established? And most importantly, the core mission of the education of our current and future students is the first and foremost priority?
HOW ARE WE GOING TO REBUILD OUR HOUSE?
Next week’s board meeting will come sooner than you think. A decision will be made and life will move on. What’s our game plan after the board meeting?
Give this some thought……..
Stan Kong
Alum and Faculty
Co-Chair, Legacy Circle
This just in:
I am forwarding a petition in support of our expansion at Art Center. This petition is a counterpoint to a petition against our expansion and the building of the Design Research Complex. The Design Research Complex (DRC) is a building designed by Frank Gehry that will house studios, a new library, faculty offices, faculty development/preparation space, meeting rooms, and a large public atrium. This building will provide state-of-the-art digital equipment for the prototype studios as well as for the new library. The new studios will allow students to work in any scale, which the Ellwood building, with its fixed ceiling heights and modular regularity cannot provide The building would help propel Art Center into the 21st Century and secure its lauded place as one of the premier colleges of art and design in the world. This project is obviously dear to my heart and we would like to build up a lot of signatures illustrating support from those associated with Art Center, residents in Pasadena, and those in the larger community that can recognize the value of a project such as this one. Please log onto http://www.thepetitionsite.com/1/vote-for-art-centers-future-put-honesty-first
Your support would be greatly appreciated.
All best,
Patricia
Question for anonymous 11:04
If the arch planners have the info, and you obviously know or work for the school, then why not simply state the general plan here.
My understanding is that the space needed from the removal of the portables will come from the South campus by displacing classes in the short term until the new building is built, and that doesn't make any sense.
There is already a shortage of space in the hillside campus and the South campus seems a bit unusable. how will it work in the short term? And the new building already seems to be overbooked with classrooms, admin, galleries and tech rooms...
If you know, please post the plan here. If you feel confident, why are you anonymous?
Prove to everyone here, for just this once, that the admin can be clear, complete and concise in answering a real concern instead of trying to divert their question off of the forum.
http://artforum.com/news/
http://chronicle.com/blogs/architecture/2188/put-gehry-building-on-hold-say-alumni-and-students-at-art-center-college-of-design
Some comments on the post inviting support for the petition positive of the building plan...
The petition invite sez "The new studios will allow students to work in any scale, which the Ellwood building, with its fixed ceiling heights and modular regularity cannot provide."
Comment - Doesn't the south campus provide this now? Why is it not used as such? What could you possibly make that needed the height other than full size car models? How would this be done? Milling equipment plan? I thought the future in design was in 3D projection...? I have heard that there was a plan to move all transportation design to South at one point just because the campus would work well for full size car design, but the admin wanted to preserve it for special events - most likely to raise funds?...
Petition invite sez "The building would help propel Art Center into the 21st Century and secure its lauded place as one of the premier colleges of art and design in the world."
Comment - High ceilings and full size models are what's needed to propel Art Center to it's lauded place??... ACCD is the best school due to it's teaching, not it's building.
Petition invite sez... "This project is obviously dear to my heart and we would like to build up a lot of signatures illustrating support from those associated with Art Center, residents in Pasadena, and those in the larger community that can recognize the value of a project such as this"
Comment - Let's spend $40 million to make you happy, Patricia. Note the call to get support from anyone. Not alumni, not people in the business. Anyone. Do you think you could find a bit of support for the anti-building petition if anyone that will have to look at the new building / eyesore was asked to sign?
"Next week’s board meeting will come sooner than you think. A decision will be made and life will move on. What’s our game plan after the board meeting?"
Stan,
You are assuming that the board will even entertain such a "dialogue" with people. Their well-established track record in years past shows that they do not welcome transparency into their proceedings (ever).
We know their answer already. They will side with Koshalek, and they will re-affirm him. They might even stop to accuse you of padding the rolls of the petition. They'll call the "diversion" petition the "real" petition. Morale will be destroyed (again, as it has happened many times before).
Before we re-build the house, let's expell the source of the flames. The Art Center board of trustees has been the real problem for decades. They wanted a Koshalek and they GOT a Koshalek. Why blame him for anything? He's never been anything but what he touted himself to be.
Fire the board that thinks that a a top school can survive in the future without top academic leadership.
I remember Pat Oliver from the 1990's during the uprisings of that time period. I think she was the environmental chairperson. All this crap was going down and she'd been on the job for like a week or two. And guess what? She immediately showed her colors as an unwavering supporter of the President and any policy that he supported.
"Whatever you say, sir, sir!"
Don't blame Pat Oliver for throwing the "Hail Mary" pass as far as the counter-petition goes. Her job is rather "tied" to the future of the project. Pat's in it for Pat.
Sorry Pat. Perhaps Rachel can help you find a job. You remember Rachel, right?
Even better, Pat. If you feel so strongly for the future of the DRC, then you should offer Rachel a job assisting you. Remember, the future of Art Center is at stake!
seriously i think you all should do your research before you sart blasting people.
Patricia Oliver has been an educator and architect all her professional life and still to this day sits in on juries and student crits. Her educational career stems from leading several design departments including the ENV department here at AC. Her vision has always been to promote better design and encourage students to do the best they could. She personally championed for AC students and has personally helped them get their designs and projects into the real world. Look at many of your instructors and aask them how she has helped them when they were students.
It saddens me and a lot of people that no one on this blog seems to have any respect for anyone in this school.
Hey eric!
Per your question about why we need large scale space like DRC: "What could you possibly make that needed the height other than full size car models?"
The answer- large architectural models of course!
Just kidding folks.
Keep it up Eric you raise excellent points
In 15 years? (From an article written in 2003)
"Now that the Art Center College of Design is taking over, a space that once held airplanes and ovens may soon be filled with Cirque du Soleilp;style performance pieces, neighborhood parties, giant water tanks, epic teach-ins, and minip;monster truck rallies. It is mid-April and construction on the site, at the barely gritty southern edge of squeaky-clean Pasadena, is underway. Workers are cutting the first skylights into the soaring ceilings of the main space, sending down filtered shafts of sun. Eventually these apertures will span the roof and fill the hall with light. The five smaller buildings have been redesigned to hold studios, lecture rooms, and workshop spaces. Here Art Center will headquarter its graduate fine arts department and an extensive public education program: Saturday High and Art Center for Kids, serving students from 4th to 12th grade; Art Center at Night, for adult students; the Center for Design-Based Learning, an education initiative that works with local teachers; and the new Language Arts Program, an intensive ESL workshop. By August M.F.A. students will be able to move into their studios. By next January, the great hall will be ready for action, and Art Center will open its doors to the city and to the world.
But this is just phase one of a stunningly ambitious project that will take at least 15 years and seven phases to complete. In the end Art Center will have a new Pasadena campus for its public programs, an 80,000-square-foot museum/exhibition space, a renovation of its existing hilltop campus, and new buildings by Frank Gehry and Alvaro Siza—all designed to accommodate a more fluid curriculum and a new mandate of openness."
from http://www.metropolismag.com/cda/story.php?artid=320
I'm all pissed off that Patricia Oliver and the design office is using our tuition money to build a project we don't want. Now she's on company time using our tuition money to look for desparate votes on the blog? Did you and Richard Koshalek run out of staffers to coerce to sign your b.s. petition? Your petition is sponsored by the friends and family of Art Center? Who came up with that lie? Talk about sleight-of-hand. As a matter of fact, Richard and all the girls are on the clock spending our bucks fighting us. How many students are you going to admit to pay for this? Have you told them that's what their money is going to?
How desparate! What's next - Roadside bombs?
tonight on TLC a new show for all you talented AC people who love to fight..
..Designers Destroying Designers..
all the action all the drama without corporate interuptions (cause there wont be any after this)
more personal attacks. great going.
is this the future you want?
Im sick of being told our outrage as students is going to hurt the school.
If anything, its showing prospective students that they may have a say in their future. I hope its also showing future donors that the school they are helping has passionate and strong students who believe in their education and doing the right thing.
I think that is intensely more helpful to the future of our school. I will see you all tomorrow at the pavilion.
shprockets
1) Stop the Master Plan including the potentially ruinous financial burden that the Gehry building will place on the school through an expensive capital campaign and through permanent carrying costs for a structure that is not suited to the schools needs.
2) Make education the top priority and reduce administrative and non-education overhead expenses to reduce the cost structure of the school.
- The current structure of the school has a large and growing permanent staff of approximately 250 people, with many of those people committed to supporting non-essential special projects rather than the classroom or curriculum.
- Stated, argued, and referenced in detail on the blog, these expenses include a large staff dedicated to marketing the master plan, fundraising the master plan, and transforming Art Center into a cultural institution through elite conferences and international initiatives. ALL potentially worthy goals--but not at the expense of the core Art Center educational experience for current and future students.
3) Increase fundraising priorities for scholarship.
- Art Center’s tuition costs have ballooned to $15,000 a term. These prices are not out of alignment with other elite degrees including other design schools. However, Art Center’s financial aid through tuition discount and scholarships lags behind.
4) Keep Alumni on the senior leadership team of school.
Nate Young’s recent resignation and Mr. Koshalek’s current plans for the senior leadership have left no alumni voice on the team to ensure that valuable traditions are represented at the highest levels.
5) Keep admission quality standards high and do not lower standards to balance the budget without first reducing other expenses. As obvious as this sounds, there are real risks that this activity is occurring for the upcoming terms.
6) Don’t renew Richard Koshalek’s contract. At the end of his contract in 2009, this president will have had 10 years to accomplish his goals. Its time to thank Mr Koshalek for his service and bring in fresh leadership.
7) Reinstate Nate Young as Chief Academic Officer
Nate graduated from Art Center with great distinction (alumni understand the level of excellence and commitment that that achievement represents). He had a successful professional design career, served on the board of trustees and was in the middle of rolling out a board-approved education plan when he resigned in protest.
To anonymous 3:07
I’m pissed off at you. First of all as a disabled veteran I am completely revolted at your "roadside bomb" remark. I don’t care about your political views about the war but to reference something that kills Americans and Iraqis almost daily is completely juvenile.
How about before you arm up and sacrifice yourself to your false gods you actually sit down and try talking. It seems to me that you all want to complain but none of you are listening.
so when your ready to start posting like an educated adult maybe you should stay off the blog.
anon 3:10
you dont think this is hurting the school. really you think any student wanting to come to art center is going to read the kind of stuff that is being put on here and say oh yes now there is a place that i will be heard. really. cause i tell you what if i was looking at coming here and read this crap i would be like forget it that place to much drama for me. the whole way people have handle themselves on here is very damaging to the school.
anonymous 3:10:
it's not the "outrage" itself that is damaging to the school, but rather the way in which it was channeled. you know, getting the press involved is only going to make donors think twice about contributing to art center. that does not help at all. you are selfishly robbing future art center students of scholarship money, endowment money, and yes, even facilities money, by not being able to see past your own nose.
there are a bunch of posts on here that prove 3:27's point. they are incoming students and they all say that they're worried they made the wrong decision or they're waiting to pay their tuition until they know that things will be ok. at least as far as it goes on this blog, i don't think any incoming students see all this turmoil as a positive.
and also one other thing, i am pretty appalled at the level of sexism and misogyny on this blog and am surprised that not many other people have spoken up about it.
you know the comments i'm talking about, "richard and his women", richard's "harem", etc.
did we learn nothing from the recent democratic presidential primaries?
i know those comments don't reflect everyone's viewpoint, but it looks like sexism is alive and well at art center, a place with supposedly "progressive" student body.
you should be ashamed of yourselves.
To be fair, I think the tone that you find on this blog has been set by the very top. A very divisive leader has established a divisive, unhappy institution. There's been very little attempt to bring the college community into the process or to communicate internally the master plan. I'm not sure that Richard Koshalek's legacy will be the DRC. Instead, it will be this blog, and the uproar, the student protests, the firings, the retirings, the rehirings.
And, of course, some nicely catered conferences.
I'm a wealthy potential donor. I've sent Smithers here to to survey the landscape before I write my check.
He tells me that there is a band of hooligans on the loose. If there is one thing I won't tolerate as a wealthy donor, it's college students engaging in rebellious dialogue.
I emplore all of you to please "knock it off" or I must inform you that your tuition will probably double next term as a result of my not donating.
And while I'm at it, Mr Koshalek, that was $300, and I want all of it to go to the building fund. Make sure you send my CPA a receipt for tax purposes.
Patrica Oliver was behind "The Classroom of the Future / Prototype Space" anybody remember that mess? (It was just a few years back for all you current students) And what about the Sinclaire Pavilion AKA the student lounge? Both a brilliant waste of time, money and resources...
TIME TO STOP THE BLEEDING!
Are any of you board members hearing this call?
Fortunately we live in a country where we are allowed to disagree. Don't blame ALL of this on a student blog, or that a journalist (who has covered Art Center before) decide to pay attention as well.
Sure there were things wrong with Art Center before. But you all should be reminded that Nathan posted about the conference and other issues he saw as important. The NEXT move was Richard taking the opportunity to find a fall-guy and fire Nate Young - Chief Academic Officer. Richard's (not Doctor) plan obviously backfired, and I'm sure he hoped this would have never developed the way it has. If you want to blame anyone, blame the administration and Koshalek's behavior. As students we can organize, meet at the pavilion, and eventually stand in front of RK's office and ask him to leave peacefully. Students hold the power.
Hey can we get off the reinstate Nate campaign.
HE FREAKING LEFT ALREADY
For all you with to much wax in your ears go back and listen to Rachel herself say it on the videos at the student rally.
She says "Nate left because..."
so the first word should tell you right there that he made a personal decision and he chose to leave it doesn’t matter why what matters is he chose to leave.
That means he left AC, he left the entire faculty, he all the staff, he left all the students and he left his personal assistant Rachel. So can we just get off this?
NATE IS GONE GET OVER IT
i think the doctor comment was a joke.
"getting the press involved is only going to make donors think twice about contributing to art center"
Uh, the mailroom has not exactly been handling giant sacks of mail containing donation checks.
Also, look at the amount of alumni on the petition. If Art Center could actually TAP INTO the alumni base as donors, you current students might actually be sitting pretty as far as tuition right now. But if you were to poll a decent sample of alumni and ask them if they donate, most will say "no".
And if you asked them why, most will say they have no faith in the direction of the school and how it allocates funds. This has been a recurring issue. I heard alumni discussing this amongst themselves even before I matriculated into the school decades ago.
A lot of this angst is coming not from current students, but rather from fed-up alumni. Perhaps MOST of the dialogue.
As an alumni I can assure you that my peers and I want to GIVE. But we never seem to feel comfortable about what we're giving to. And we only need to think back to our days at school to reinforce that. Hearing about people getting fired for speaking up is not only terrible to hear about, but it opens up our past memories for us.
yeah, Nate wasn't fired and koshalek is a Dr. Or is he not? can someone confirm.
"Uh, the mailroom has not exactly been handling giant sacks of mail containing donation checks."
yeah, and we'll be getting even less now. thanks!
at the meeting on tuesday, someone erroneously addressed him as "dr. koshalek."
see 3:43
at the forum he was addressed as Richard from someone at the microphone. He said, " Um it's Doctor." Then a minute later he awkwardly stated, "No I'm not really a Doctor."
3:43, do you work in the mailroom?
do you open other people's mail? you probably should stop doing that because it's, you know, illegal.
it really frustrates me when people make statements like that based on nothing, no actual facts, just their general idea about what they've decided the situation is.
i'm not saying don't have a disucssion. i'm just saying that saying things like that based on nothing don't really contribute much.
People at senior management levels (in any bsuiness) are rarely "fired". They fall on their sword and usually are allowed to resign for "personal reasons". Most resignations at this level are asked for by their superiors.
Why? Because Art Center does not wish for a wrongful termination (or breach of contract) lawsuit. It's just how things are done in corporate America.
really you think he awquardly said im not a doctor. he was being funny.
people kept calling him doctor at the forum. he isn't a doctor so he made a joke about it. apparently it didn't really work out.
he also said he was a doctor of medicine. he was clearly joking about it.
3:48
It is well known that Art Center does not exactly have large quantities of donation cash coming in from alumni or individuals. They rely heavily on "big scores".
As a matter of fact, I happen to know about an upcoming trip where they are targeting some "big scores".
anon 3:43 said:
"A lot of this angst is coming not from current students, but rather from fed-up alumni. Perhaps MOST of the dialogue."
so, are you admitting that the initial concerns by the students were hijacked by alumni (such as yourself), using it as an opportunity to push their own agenda?
because if that's not what you're saying, that sure is what it sounds like.
3:52,
do you not want them to try to get the "big scores"? i don't see why we wouldn't want that. of course they make trips like that. all institutions do. that is how you get money. that doesn't mean that's all they do. i just don't understand what point your trying to make with that.
Ok, we get it. He is neither doctor or comedian.
COVERED.
hey 3:52
thats great cause you know what I know... I know a big @#@!@$....
want to trade info
this is where our money is going?
Barcelona....Disruptive Thinking
"In short
The event as it happened was not ideal: some of the presenters were not leading their sessions very well, not everyone had valuable ideas to contribute, the match between the theme of disruptive thinking and what was actually being discussed was absent by times, and there was not always a clear sense of direction.
It was clear that the sessions were underrehearsed, if rehearsed at all. Too often people went off on their own tangent, with a presenter unable or unwilling to pull them back on a clear path.
I also wondered afterwards to what extent I actually had heard new things, or whether the things I had heard I couldn’t just as easily have picked up in a book or a good magazine.
The answer is probably yes. But books and magazines are monologues by their nature. This was in concept and execution a series of dialogues. In the beginning of this article I described how this Barcelona event fits into a wider strategy of open collaboration, open communications and social engagement. This is not just a valuable and laudable approach, but also one which is highly relevant and timely in contemporary society. We need more of these initiatives, not less. They have to be fine-tuned and improved, no doubt, but in essence we need dialogues and collaboration between disciplines, between different parts of society, between different regions in the world. The world has become too complex for each of us to figure things out by themselves.
And that is what to me these Global Dialogues are really about.
I also hope that Art Center will deliver on its commitment to continue the conversation online, to have a continuous dialogue. The event blog is now basically dead, and there have been no comments whatsoever on any of the posts that I could find. So probably this is not the right tool - a new one needs to be developed.
What about the US?
The Art Center is an American school, its students are based in California. How can they participate in the global dialogues? In fact, many of the Art Center events are also taking place in California: the recent two-day summit on Systems, Cities & Sustainable Mobility (proceedings are already available - the next summit is in February 2009), and the upcoming Serious Play conference."
http://www.experientia.com/blog/category/education/
"so, are you admitting that the initial concerns by the students were hijacked by alumni (such as yourself), using it as an opportunity to push their own agenda?"
Hijacking implies that I am furthering my opinion at the expense of yours. I thin you owe us alumni an apology. Fight fair.
Are you in belief that your "future" diploma matters more than my existing one? If the school falls apart, we'll both feel the effects.
Be thankful that (finally) some of us alumni give a damn about what's going on back on campus. You don't own exclusive rights.
Just recently, the school reached out to ME for a favor. I must matter to THEM, right?
hey anon 3:56
we dont care about your blog. stop trying to get hits on your page to promote your vain selfishness. we only believe things found on this blog. so unless it is untruthfully and undocumented and displayed here we dont buy it
anon 3:59
no you dont matter. where would you get that crazy idea from
none of you matter. except me.
"Disclosure: Art Center paid for my trip and stay, on the condition I would write an article. They didn’t say anything more, so I feel free to write what I think."
Take note, this was a trip to SPAIN, not Pasadena.
They took YOUR money and gave it to a reporter in the hopes that they'd get a scrap of PR in return.
This is a sick allocation of money and one that demands accountability.
Who do we (the ACCD community) see about accountability, huh?
will you all stop it. this is awful. i am seriously feeling all of this anger and it is hurting me to see our campus so torn apart. why cant we talk about this like people.
3:55:
talk to ophelia, she'll give you what you seek, as I told her about it.
what's really hilarious is the idea that alums would give to art center BUT they don't like the current direction.
where were they during the first 70 (or so) years?
why was the endowment only $16.9 in 1999 if alumni support was so strong?
"why was the endowment only $16.9 in 1999 if alumni support was so strong?"
We're not talking about a sudden downturn in alumni passion for donating. We're talking about decades of arrogant ignorance of how alumni think Art Center should be allocating resources. You virtually can't get together with old friends without talking about it. I've known many people that attended many other schools, and most of them contribute. Yet ACCD alumni feel almost universally bitter about how Art Center treated their tuition dollars while they were in school.
Art Center also plundered the existing endowment to build the Lida Street campus
The (then) existing endowment. Sorry, but back then, Art Center was not well known for its business-savvy fiscal behavior.
It's still not well known for it.
are we really arguing that we wish this campus didn't exist? i'm confused now.
4:24 pm --
plundered? how do you know that? there were major gifts for this building and a major fundraising campaign at that time, possibly art center's first.
Post a Comment