
By Daniel Grant
Historically, an art school was a place to study with a noted master. In time, it became an institution where one studies with a choice of teachers in numerous fine-art and design fields to obtain a college degree, then a master’s degree, and maybe even a doctorate. Evolving still further, a growing number of art colleges are now offering business degrees on the undergraduate and master’s levels for students seeking to work in management or, more generally, the business side of the arts.
The most recent example of this shift from making art to making art happen is the 14-month master in professional studies in the business of art and design at the Maryland Institute College of Art, in Baltimore, which is set to take in its first students in May. This is a low-residency program, in which students will take 30 credits, mostly through online courses from their homes (there are three long-weekend residencies—at the beginning, middle, and end of the program). Students will study such strictly business subjects as traditional and social-media marketing, contracts and negotiation, finance and accounting, taxes, and public speaking.
Like many other independent art colleges, the Maryland Institute has a career-services office and provides professional-practices classes for students who want to learn what it is to be in the business of selling something. But, said David Gracyalny, dean of the School for Professional and Continuing Studies, “students found these classes to be an introduction to what they didn’t know. They learned enough to realize they were unprepared, but they hadn’t learned how to prepare themselves. What was missing were the skills to be small entrepreneurs, and that’s what we designed this program to train them in.”
The Maryland Institute program is intended for designers who seek to work in the corporate realm and fine artists who are looking to manage a nonprofit art gallery or organization or just their own careers. In contrast, the four-year business-of-art-and-design full-time undergraduate program at Ringling College of Art and Design, in Florida, which took in its first students in the fall of 2008, is aimed strictly at the design field. Students take a mix of liberal arts, studio art, and business courses (including accounting, economics, finance, marketing, psychology of marketing, statistics, strategic planning, and “entrepreneurship”) toward a bachelor’s degree that will put them in a position to “manage a design firm, work as a curator or administrator at a museum, open a gallery—any number of things,” said Wanda Chaves, director of the Ringling College program.
Chaves said the program grew out of the recognition that the people with business backgrounds didn’t understand how to work with creative types, while artists were generally unschooled in how to manage an organization. In the design and entertainment fields, “corporations and artists are often butting heads,” she said. “It’s left brain versus right brain. Artists don’t always work in a linear fashion; they don’t want to send e-mails to people down the hall; they may not get that every day past deadline you’re losing money.” A manager who understands both worlds is more likely to understand the value of a well-run business while providing artists freedom and a flexible environment.
At almost every college and university art program, students take a variety of introductory studio-art courses, declaring their major by their second or third year. At Ringling, applicants seek admission directly into the business-of-art-and-design program, and they begin a set curriculum from their freshman year.
That is not to say they are segregated within the college. Students in the business-of-art-and-design program take the same liberal-arts courses, apart from the business classes, as other design and fine-arts students at Ringling. They experience the same processes, frustrations, and critiques in their studio-art courses as other students. However, the studio courses are taken only with advertising-design majors and not the fine artists and illustrators, because they aren’t expected to have as strong an art background. “You can’t assume they will compete with students who have been doing art since the age of 4,” Chaves stated. “That wouldn’t be fair to our students or to the teachers.”
Higher GPA Standards
In fact, students looking to enter the business-of-art-and-design program are not required to submit a portfolio when they apply, but their high-school academic record needs to be better than those of most of their fine-arts and illustration counterparts. The incoming grade point average of the business-of-art-and-design student tends to be better than 3.0—or a B-plus—while the overall average of other students at Ringling is 2.5, or a C-plus. “We look for applicants who took math and had good grades in math, because our business courses are not watered down,” Chaves said. “We don’t want to accept students who won’t be successful.”
Ringling is not the only art college with a business-degree program, although it is only one of two in the United States that offers that on the undergraduate level. The other is Parsons the New School for Design, in New York City, whose design and management program began in 2004. Raoul Rickenberg, an assistant professor at Parsons who earned a B.F.A. in sculpture from the Rhode Island School of Design and later an M.A. and a Ph.D. in media studies and communication from Stanford University, stated that the program attracts a “broad range of students.” They include some who received a bachelor’s degree elsewhere but are looking for “an integrative approach” to design and business, some who “want to go to art school and see this business program as a way to sell the idea to their parents,” and some “who are interested in the arts and want to be involved in them. They may not have the technical skills themselves and don’t see themselves as designers. We teach these students that they are designers, working in a different medium.”
Parsons students in the design and management program often work in teams, sometimes even with illustrators and designers in other programs at the college. “They learn what kind of research a photographer might have to do, and how long it takes,” Rickenberg said. And their papers are not simply handed in and graded—as they might be in a traditional business school—but discussed and evaluated in a class critique. Cameron Tonkinwise, chair of design thinking and sustainability within the Parsons School of Design Strategies, described this as a “studio-based learning environment.”
Master’s Programs
Most other art-college business-degree programs are on the master’s level, primarily aimed at designers working in companies where they have “hit a ceiling. They want to get hired in upper-level positions or be more successful in their current roles, but they need to be able to articulate the value of their skills in a way that management can understand,” said Nathan Shedroff, chair of the M.B.A.-in-design-strategy program at the California College of the Arts, in San Francisco. The two-year low-residency program began in the fall of 2008, and two-thirds of its students have undergraduate degrees in one or another area of design.
Shedroff, who earned an undergraduate design degree at Art Center College of Design, in Pasadena, and an M.B.A. in sustainable management from Presidio Graduate School, in San Francisco, noted that, in most businesses, “design is seen as tactical, rather than strategic, and isn’t integrated into overall planning. It is difficult for designers to convince their peers in management that they have something to offer,” because they lack an understanding of the “language, processes and concerns of their business peers.”
He said a significant difference between a business-school curriculum at an art college and one at a university is the more hands-on approach that is encouraged for design students.
“We place a big emphasis on learning by making and doing in our program, and that’s an approach that comes from the design traditions. Traditional business schools have their students create Word, Excel, and PowerPoint plans and that’s it. Our students go out into the world and engage real customers, build prototypes of their solutions, improve their work based on critique, and often present their solutions in more innovative ways than PowerPoint decks.”
Critique, Shedroff said, is a concept specific to art programs and “only designers, artists, and architects learn to handle critique as a way to improve their work. Most others never have this experience so they come to view constructive feedback as negative feedback.” Artists and designers “learn to go into the process knowing that their work won’t be—and can’t be—perfect the first time. That’s a process most others aren’t familiar with and it’s a different expectation that leads to better innovation.”
Art schools and business schools have found common ground through a broadening of the meaning of design. A design is not just a picture of something to be made but “the experience of how people move through space,” said Andrew Taylor, director of the Bolz Center for Arts Administration at the University of Wisconsin in Madison. For example, students at the dual degree master-of-design/M.B.A. program of the Illinois Institute of Technology design not just the waiting room at a hospital but the intake process; the “emotional experience of being in a hospital” is on the figurative drawing board, the institute says. In Andrew Taylor’s words, art-school business programs are producing “artists of social space.”
2 Different Destinations
There are far more university-based arts administration programs exist in the United States and Canada—most are members of the Association of Arts Administration Educators)—than hybrid art-school business-degree programs, but Taylor noted that there is a growing overlap in what is taught in the respective programs. The main difference is where graduates tend to go.
“Traditionally, most arts-administration programs prepare students to work in nonprofit and cultural organizations,” Taylor said, while art-school business graduates are more apt to work in the for-profit realm, such as running design and architectural firms.
For instance, Pratt Institute, an independent art school in New York City, has a two-year arts-and-cultural-management graduate program “designed to prepare arts and cultural professionals to assume leadership roles within the fields of philanthropy, nonprofit, public and private sector arts, and cultural agencies.” In contrast, graduates of the Parsons program primarily become business managers for, or partners of, design firms, Tonkinwise said, adding that some have become “strategic design” consultants for manufacturers.
Similarly, the M.F.A. in design management offered by the Savannah College of Art and Design, in Georgia, has a for-profit emphasis: “the needs of the marketplace,” with a “focus on the bottom line,” said Tom Gattis, chair of the program. “Design thinking,” he said, evaluates “the context in which design decisions affect products and services used by consumers.” The approach also complements “traditional linear analysis, case studies and planning methods that business schools teach, in a way that will foster innovation.”
The ideal graduate of these art-school business-degree programs can think visually and communicate in the language of business. The older struggle to convince artists that art is a business has been replaced at these schools by the aim of giving business a more creative edge.
But what seems most remarkable is simply the fact that one may now go to an art school and never do any actual art.
“That’s true,” Rickenberg, of Parsons, said, “but now you learn the art of doing all sorts of things, including business.”
Daniel Grant is the author of several books on the arts, all published by Allworth Press, including The Business of Being an Artist (4th edition, 2010), Selling Art Without Galleries (2006) and The Fine Artist’s Career Guide (second edition, 2004). He has been a features reporter at Newsday and The Commercial-Appeal, a contributing editor for American Artist magazine, and a regular contributor to ARTnews magazine and The Wall Street Journal.
(A&A illustration derived from photos by Flickr users Jekert Gwapo and Poitin Jimmie)


12 Responses to Special Business Degrees Mark Shift From Making Art to Managing It
Matt Leichter - February 17, 2011 at 7:00 pm
As always I enjoy Dr. Vedder’s research.
This makes for a good longitudinal study but it’s retrospective not prospective. I’m curious what the ROI of an elite school would be, say, over the next 20 years based on market analysis and job growth projections. If the jobs won’t be there, or the elite degree was overpriced, or both, then the problem is significantly worse.
11121641 - February 18, 2011 at 10:11 am
A dear friend of mine, one of the first people I knew to die of AIDS back in the early 1980s, had a PhD from Harvard in Classics. He was a Latin scholar. His day job was as a self-employed bookkeeper, skills he picked up in a community college setting when his Harvard PhD proved worthless on the job market.
cdleephd - February 18, 2011 at 11:39 am
“That very likely is because the persons entering the most competitive schools are smarter and more disciplined than those going to the less competitive schools.” This presupposition is the basis of a lot of flawed research. The Chronicle’s January 25th article entitled “At Elite Colleges, Legacy Status May Count More than Was Previously Thought” helps to debunk the idea that our colleges are meritocracies. “Brown and Cornell Are Second Tier” reported on January 7th discusses how prestigious firms attempt to hire graduates of prestigious schools almost regardless of the student’s individual achievement. They go on to say, “There are exceptions, but only if the candidate has some personal connection with the firm.” With the assumption that prestigious firms pay more, this might be an explanation for an income gap.
So, a reasonable conclusion is that if you are born ahead, you stay ahead, regardless of how smart you are or how hard you work. A very smart kid born to a graduate of an elite school may not be smarter than others, but he gets admitted anyway. Then he gets a job a better firm, though other kids outperformed him in college, learn more, and might be brighter than he, because he is ‘connected’ and/or he went to the elite school.
All things being considered (even without considering the fact that mounds of research indicate that your socioeconomic status is a better predictor of college admission than most other factors), it is even more appalling that the author would offer the unsupportable notion that “smarter” kids are “more disciplined.” There is plenty of evidence to refute both ideas. Let alone the notion of free will. The smarter kids might not go to elite colleges because they choose to go to other colleges where the live, attend where they can afford to go, attend where their parents went to school, choose BYU instead of Harvard for religious reasons, etc.
I would expect more from researchers than pundits who want to wage a war of words to advance their political positions. I am totally shocked that in the 21st century we are still making assumptions about intellect and ability based upon one factor—college admissions. When for centuries elite colleges have replicated themselves by preferring WASP males from ‘good’ families–the families like the ones of those who make such decisions.
hhopf - February 18, 2011 at 11:50 am
First, I would suggest you report median rather than mean values and report the variance (interquartile range). A few individuals with very high earnings will skew the data (and the variance would be interesting in the less competitive schools, where perhaps the highest achievers do just as well as the highly competitive grads). Secondly, it would be useful to stratify by SAT/ACT scores or some other measure of pre-college achievement. There was a paper a few years ago (can’t find the reference, sorry) where they looked at students accepted into the most competitive schools (I think the Ivies, possibly fewer) and compared those who went there and those who went elsewhere. There was no difference, suggesting that it is the student rather than the institution that makes the difference. As the product of two Ivy institutions (undergrad and grad), I think there is a benefit of the increased cost (and with financial packages, as pointed out recently in these pages, it isn’t as big as it looks)– being surrounded by highly competitive students, being connected to successful alums, being expected to excel. On the other hand, I think the reason for applications going up is misunderstanding of the data more than reality.
jffoster - February 18, 2011 at 12:08 pm
I suspect there’s more to this particular story and some pieces missing. Otherwise, with a Ph D from Harvard in Classics and being a Latin scholar, it’s a wonder industry didn’t snap him right up.
11182967 - February 18, 2011 at 12:17 pm
It’s good to see Richard Vedder doing some really useful research. My one quibble with the article would be the addition of the judgemental term “too” before “much” in the penultimate line of the second pargraph. Vedder could have made his economic point without riding a hobby horse.
These results could very well have been referenced in that other article today about research which confirms things we already know. The really interesting research would consist in determining why these results occur. Most of us would speculate, I suppose, that elite institutions provide opportunities for the creation of connections among the elite which lead to better jobs at better pay. Is that what does it? We all know about legacies and arguments about various forms of affirmative action, but it would also make sense for the elite to carefully admit a certain amount of carefully vetted (Vedded?) “new blood” through the filters of elite institutions in order to avoid too much inbreeding. Is that what happens when choices are made about the admission of particular female or Black or Hispanic or Applachian students to the elite schools?–a bunch of guys who graduate with the “gentleman’s C” wouldn’t help you make the US News list these days (unless one was in charge of creating list, I suppose). Is there a correlation between the numbers of graduates of elite institutions in positions of political influence and the the decline of ostensibly public support for non-elite, public higher education?–are the elites carefully narrowing the opportunities for admission to their ranks? Are the higher earnings really deserved on the basis of the value of the work done or merely prizes that graduates of elite institutions give to each other in affirmation of their own (self-) importance–tokens of status: I’m valuable because I’m paid a lot, not I’m paid a lot because I’m valuable. Keep the data coming, Vedder–there could be some really useful research projects in the offing.
mbelvadi - February 18, 2011 at 12:38 pm
Another really big factor that seems to be missing is students’ family wealth. We all know that it’s true that it “takes money to make money” and also that wealthy students’ families are going to be better connected socially/politically/job-hunting-ly, and thus coming from a wealthy family very likely leads to higher earnings for the degreed offspring regardless of which university they attend. Combine that with the known skewing of wealthier families to the most elite universities, and you could end up statistically with family wealth being a major confounding variable to the attempt to correlate elite-status of the university with the lifetime earnings of the graduate. Obviously I’m making lots of assumptions about what the data WOULD say – my point is that if you’re going to do quantitative analysis in this zone, you need to see what the data DOES say in this regard.
vschwar1 - February 18, 2011 at 12:38 pm
The paper to which hhopf refers is by Dale and Kreuger, “Estimating the payoff of attending a more selective college”. It was published in the Quarterly Journal of Economics in 2002 (vol. 117:4). This paper does argue that there is no substantial difference in future earnings when you control for SAT/ACT scores. Thus, equally capable students seem to do as well no matter where they attend school. Interestingly, the one group for whom attending an elite school helps is minority students. It is likely that the increased earnings of higher achieving students is based on a combination of intellectual talent and family/social connections. For students from minorities, going to an elite school probably helps establish the social connections necessary to get ahead in the hi-earning world.
drj50 - February 18, 2011 at 2:26 pm
There was also a study several years ago of (if I remember correctly) students accepted at the University of Pennsylvania who chose instead to attend Penn State. The study found no difference in later earnings between the those accepted at Penn who attended Penn State, and those who actually attended Penn. The authors concluded that what mattered was what the student brought to the school and not what the school provided (educationally or in reputation) to the student.
Another study (again, if I remember correctly) found that while there appeared to be no difference in later earnings for most students who attended an Ivy, there was a measurable difference in earnings for ethnic minority students. The authors attributed this to the enhanced social connections that the experience provided.
Sorry that I don’t have citations for either study.
sand6432 - February 19, 2011 at 1:13 pm
The rise in applications to elite schools is surely an overdetermined phenomenon, attributable to multiple causes whose relative influence will not be easy to sort out. Other factors include the relatively recent move toward a “no loan” system by some of the most elite schools like Princeton and the adoption of the common application, which makes it much easier for students to apply to a large number of schools.—Sandy Thatcher
teachfordamasses - February 20, 2011 at 1:31 pm
Sigh. Harvard-bashing, again. As an alum, I prefer to do my own bashing, thank you, based on actual knowledge. While there are many things wrong with Harvard, the idea that sheer admission makes the outcome difference at the end is not well-informed. It’s not even, in my opinion, social connections made, family wealth, the quality of teaching, Nobel-status of faculty, facilities, etc. There is one huge factor that people rarely acknowledge: the quality of the student body, not with respect to “making contacts”, but with respect to the 24-7 learning that takes place among students. They are well-read, motivated, smart, focused, intense, multi-talented, seriously intellectual–about the most impressive group I have ever been among, including my PhD cohort at Famous-State U that followed. Being at Harvard (and this is certainly true of other top schools) was an every-day, almost every-waking-minute exercise in the development of arguments, critical analysis and mind vs mind gladiator combat. Maybe it’s not like that now and it’s as Gen X (or NeXt) as other places, but back in the day, although there were some slackers (they were a tiny minority), it was your peers–in nonstop serious discussion of every topic–that made the difference. I’ve never experienced anything remotely like it since (including three additional respected universities as a faculty member.)
toltonrpace - September 6, 2011 at 11:03 am
This is great to hear! I’m glad to see more schools taking this initiative. I am an alumnus of Emory University and I happened to work there as Asst Dean of Admission & Director of Multicultural Recruitment (’05-’07). At that time, I was the lone African-American on the recruitment part of the staff and I just happened to be bilingual (Spanish/English). I actually championed the hire of a Latino/Hispanic Recruiter and for us to look at launching “Emory en Espanol”. I’m proud to say that we did hire the aforementioned recruiter and I helped to lay the groundwork for translating our Admissions site and printed materials into Spanish! Within the next year, “Emory en Espanol” went live and the Latino/Hispanic recruitment efforts continue to date :-)