![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Feb. 15th, 2003 02:01 pmSo I've been doing a lot of whining lately (oh, for the past five months), about school and chemistry and just blah blah blah.
Because of this whining, I determined that I should apply to some art schools so that, if nothing else, my whining would have some backbone. Either I wouldn't get in, and I could give up the angsting about whether or not I was good enough, or I would get in, and I could open up that whole can of worms.
I applied to three schools, (the animation program at Sheridan, FIT's illustration program, and UC Berkeley’s' art school) and today, I heard back from one of them. It seems that I am not of the caliber required to attend UCB.
They sent me a letter along with the form "We can not accept your application at this time" which was nice of them, because, frankly the hours I spent on this portfolio are not wasted if I get some commentary back. However, all they managed to accomplish was to confuse me.
Here is a dirrect quote "Although your portfolio is beautiful, and your art work is of professional quality, your transcripts show a lack of focus. ... You indicate that you are currently studying biochemistry, and we feel that to succeed in our program, you would need a better foundation in the formal study of art."
I, quite frankly, don't know what to make of that. So I'm good- but not formally trained? What? Do they usually get students who have years of art school? Or art majors who transfer to their program? They mention my transcript, which if I am not mistaken, shows fourteen credit hours in art (all A's) and by god the art!nazi wrote me a letter of recommendation. If that's not the foundations of formal art study, I don't know what is.
Regardless, UCB really was a backup, if the other two (two of the most prestigious art schools in the hemisphere) didn’t want me. I knew that they get their answers out sooner than most schools, and I was hoping that I could use that as some kind of judge. This, though, this doesn’t help me at all.
Bother.
Because of this whining, I determined that I should apply to some art schools so that, if nothing else, my whining would have some backbone. Either I wouldn't get in, and I could give up the angsting about whether or not I was good enough, or I would get in, and I could open up that whole can of worms.
I applied to three schools, (the animation program at Sheridan, FIT's illustration program, and UC Berkeley’s' art school) and today, I heard back from one of them. It seems that I am not of the caliber required to attend UCB.
They sent me a letter along with the form "We can not accept your application at this time" which was nice of them, because, frankly the hours I spent on this portfolio are not wasted if I get some commentary back. However, all they managed to accomplish was to confuse me.
Here is a dirrect quote "Although your portfolio is beautiful, and your art work is of professional quality, your transcripts show a lack of focus. ... You indicate that you are currently studying biochemistry, and we feel that to succeed in our program, you would need a better foundation in the formal study of art."
I, quite frankly, don't know what to make of that. So I'm good- but not formally trained? What? Do they usually get students who have years of art school? Or art majors who transfer to their program? They mention my transcript, which if I am not mistaken, shows fourteen credit hours in art (all A's) and by god the art!nazi wrote me a letter of recommendation. If that's not the foundations of formal art study, I don't know what is.
Regardless, UCB really was a backup, if the other two (two of the most prestigious art schools in the hemisphere) didn’t want me. I knew that they get their answers out sooner than most schools, and I was hoping that I could use that as some kind of judge. This, though, this doesn’t help me at all.
Bother.
