SCAD rated Biggest Rip off in America?

<p>Business Insider Magazine just rates SCAD as the biggest ripoff in America giving students the "worst bang for their buck." See the following article: This</a> College Is The Biggest Rip-Off In America - Business Insider</p>

<p>Note:I am not making any opinion on the veracity or quality of this article. I am simply giving the url where it is listed.</p>

<p>Okay not that I'm defending SCAD at all but this is a little unfair. You've got an arts school with only arts graduates being compared against the Return on Investment from schools like Duke, Harvard, and on and on who graduate students in a wide variety of fields, many of which are certainly going to give the average graduate a much higher return on investment, doctors, lawyers, business majors, etc. Isn't this more a statement about the Return on Investment for arts school graduates in general. Wouldn't the stats be as bad or worse for graduates of say, a school that only graduates people in acting? Anyone thanks Taxguy this is interesting. I'm going to take another look to see where art schools in general fell.</p>

<p>And of course Anyone Thanks should read Anyway Thanks</p>

<p>Heh Taxguy just out of curiosity can you search that list and see where some of the other art schools fall or was SCAD the only art school listed. I tried but my computer got overloaded (too old an operating system) doing the scan through. The only thing I saw was Cooper but that was for engineering only and needless to say they were fairly high up on the list.</p>

<p>Artmarts, actually Seton Hill University was ranked second to worst. Among other bottom performers mentioned were Jackson State University and Meredith College and College of the Ozarks. I didn't see alot of art schools noted.</p>

<p>The problem with this article is that they don't list a lot of schools. Thus,I don't know where other art schools rank. We also don't know what methodology was used in this ranking.</p>

<p>And that was Seton Hill not to be confused with Seton Hall.
They don't seem to have a search capacity on that site.
I didn't see any other art schools so like I said this might
be a bit unfair to SCAD and be more indicative of how arts
students fair overall on return on investment compared to other

<p>What would be interesting is to see the same figures for say
RISD, Cooper Art not engineering, SAIC MICA et al.</p>

<p>I went to the website link for Payscale for the whole list. Here are some of the art schools by annual ROI and rank. Like others have said, this article doesn't mean much for art schools, but if anyone wanted a look at the list I plucked the art schools I saw. If you want the full article then just click on the Payscale hyperlink in the article. I did not post the ROI with avg financial aid factored in. This increased the ROI for some schools (RISD) and not for others (SCAD). Either way, your work will get you a job, not where you go. Articles like these give SCAD and other schools a bad name because they are more lenient on the acceptance pool and those who work do well and those who don't, don't. Regardless of this article, SCAD is still a great school, and is ranked high for majors like animation and sequential art.</p>

<p>Ringling: N/A</p>

<p>Cooper Union (Art) :N/A</p>

<p>Pratt: 6.5%, 245</p>

<p>RISD: 5.4%, 470</p>

<p>Academy of Art: 5.6%, 500</p>

<p>SVA: 5.0%, 585</p>

<p>MassArt: 3.9%, 878</p>

<p>MICA: 3.7%, 920</p>

<p>UArts: 3.0%, 1052</p>

<p>Art Institute of Pittsburg: .3% 1200</p>

<p>SAIC: 1.5%, 1207</p>

<p>CCAD: -4.6%, 1233</p>

<p>SCAD: <-12.3%, 1248</p>

<p>Thanks. This is fascinating. I'm not surprised that the schools that stress "graphic arts" and are more competitive rank higher. Really appreciate your putting in that work. It may be time to update my computer which means buying a new one. Hate to do it, we've been through a lot together.

<p>I wouldn't go to a business mag for recommendations for an art school.......just sayin'</p>

What the number mean in your list? like:
Pratt: 6.5%, 245 what 6.5% and 245 mean?</p>

<p>The % indicate ROI or return on investment, comparing the cost of the school (investment) with income earned by graduates ( return) over the number of years stated.</p>

<p>The problem is the methods they use to find the info to fill in their spread sheets.
SCAD has only been around for 30 years, and how do they know what grads are earning?</p>

<p>Income from my college classmates varies greatly, I don't know how anyone could predict the results.</p>

<p>thanks ArchDad:
So 6.5% mean the student get 6.5% of the total 4 years cost back in a year and 245 mean the student need spend 245 years to get all the money back?</p>

<p>love the comment there:</p>

<p>I went to SCAD - graduated last year with a BFA in Advertising Design. I got an internship straight out of college, and then a job, and already have a great career lining up in front of me.</p>

<p>I believe that I am talented - but that talent can only be cashed in on through hard work - work that I am no stranger to. </p>

<p>The skills that I learned through my degree program are incredibly valuable, and I learned not only how to create and execute ideas, but also how to brand and promote myself. I have also had incredible career-based opportunities, freelance, and personal projects that I would not have had if I didn't attend SCAD or another similar school.</p>

<p>Additionally, the school has a fantastic career center that really does a great job at introducing students and alumni to employers - many of whom get picked up. Also, the networking opportunities are second-to-none. I know that five or ten years down the road, I'll have any number of people I can call up if a job fits them or vice-versa. </p>

<p>I wouldn't change a thing.</p>

<p>The % indicate ROI or return on investment, comparing the cost of the school (investment) with income earned by graduates ( return) over the number of years stated.</p>

<p>ROI = (Gain from investment - Cost of investment) divided by Cost of investment </p>

<p>ROI is used to judge one investment from another</p>

<p>I graduated from Pratt 27years ago. The ROI using my actual figures is about 60%, 10x the ROI listed for Pratt for a 30year ROI</p>

<p>This article is all just estimated accounting BS, and it's not going to mean a thing to you in real life.</p>

<p>Oh btw - good news......if I estimate the next three years of earnings to give a 30 year ROI it is 82%.</p>

<p>Do you see what I mean about statistics? Garbage in = Garbage out</p>

<p>Can we assume that the ROI is measuring average income projections for someone who didn't attend any college against the projected income for someone who attended each of these particular colleges? And then factoring in the cost of each individual school to get those final percentages. I went back and tried to find the calculations used by the group that posted these figures to no avail but that would seem to be how it's done.</p>

<p>What exactly does that 82% ROI mean for you? Does it mean that you have earned 82% more than someone who would have worked for 30 years without any schooling beyond high school? Does it mean that you have recouped 82% of your education cost? What exactly is the return (on investment) in more real-world terms. If an SAIC student gets a 1.5% ROI after 30 years what does that really mean in terms of real world money? We have a student writing in right now asking whether it makes sense to take out a large debt to attend SAIC. What would that 1.5% (as an average, it's given that some will work above the average, some below) mean to someone who owes $200,000 after attending a school.</p>

<p>arch dad
"Oh btw - good news......if I estimate the next three years of earnings to give a 30 year ROI it is 82%. ...... Garbage in Garbage out."</p>

<p>So I got really curious. Arch Dad I would like to know how you came up with that figure. While it is true that these sorts of stats show averages and don't or won't reflect everyone's experience I think this information can be useful to people thinking about enrolling especially those who are considering extremely high debt loads in order to do so.</p>

<p>First of all you would have to use the same methodology to get a percentage that corresponds accurately to PayScales. I did finally manage to get some more information on how these figures were calculated.</p>

<p>First of all, the second number is the ranking overall of the schools in the study. Therefore Pratt ranks 245th, SVA ranks 585th, SCAD ranks 1248th. I don't know how many schools were in the study but obviously more than 1248.</p>

<p>Here is how the figures were arrived at and why Arch Dad I'm wondering how you came up with that 60-80% figures. </p>

<p>The schools cost of attending (investment) were calculated based on actual tuition, housing and grant awards. PayScale used a lengthy process of calculating the costs explained in their methodology section which also factored in cost of living increases etc.</p>

<p>This investment was then compared to how much money a high school only graduate makes over a 30 year period. They used the 75 percentile figure for this calculation to adjust partly in their explanation for the fact that high school only grads have actually seen a drop in income. </p>

<p>So they compared the cost of attending each school (investment) against the actual income reported by graduates of each school over a 30 year period (projected) and the 75% figure for income earned over 30 years by high school only graduates (this is how they calculated the return). So the 1.5% figure for SAIC mean that over 30 years the average SAIC graduate earned 1.5% more than a high school only graduate in the 75% percentile. The average Pratt graduate will earn 6.5% more than a high school only graduate in the 75% percentage. And so on. Now these are averages and granted to be taken with a grain of salt but Arch Dad I don't see how you could have come up with that 60% and/or 80% figure without knowing the figures PayScale used. So I'm curious how you came up with your figures.</p>

<p>At any rate Arch Dad makes a good point which is this
these are stats, that's all, they reflect the average, some will do better, some worse.
And the other item they mentioned was that they only figured in salaries and hourly incomes. They did not include incomes based on projects which for art school graduates knocks out an income base that would be larger than a business school or law school etc.</p>

<p>And yes, projected income isn't the only basis for attending school. I would venture to say that "how much will I make" isn't a calculation most art students worry over much. However, as I said, if attending one of these schools involves taking on a large debt load then this is something that should be included in your calculations. It's pretty hard no matter how dedicated you are, it's hard to keep making your art long enough to get discovered by your wealthy rich patron or art gallery owner while you're serving cocktails or some such thing in order to eat, have a place to sleep and, of yeah, make all those loan payments. And students remember unlike my generation you no longer can write these debts off if you end up declaring bankruptcy or some such thing. These loans will follow you the rest of your life, until they're paid off or you're no longer here because you've expired from exhaustion or some such thing.</p>

<p>"of yeah,"
That should be oh yeah, as in oh yeah lest I forget my student loans need to be paid also.</p>

<p>Holy cow! Taxguy, you've been denigrating SCAD least 2007. You have no affiliation with SCAD; you've never visited SCAD; and I'm sure your daughter has graduated from Cincinatti by now. Why the agenda, and why the obsession?</p>