Status is stupid
It's not always about where you go, it's about what you do
Every now and then, my email finds its way onto recruiter mailing lists and such—must be through LinkedIn or something, I dunno—but the other day, I got an email from a recruiter I’d actually been in touch with in the past, outlining a job description that made me audibly chuckle.
No matter the industry you’re in, we’re all privy to the ‘ridiculous tier’ job description—the “wizard with *insert hyper specific skill here*” or the “This is an entry level position, but candidates with 8+ years of prior experience will be given priority.” Skimming job descriptions has always been a hilariously painful part of the job search process, but this one currently takes the cake.
This very kind recruiter I’ve worked with in the past for Graphic Design related positions, reached out to ask me if I had anyone I could refer for a specific position she was sent:
There were a few things about the bullet points that made me itch a little, but there were two bullet points in particular that felt unfair, and honestly kind of rude.
Not sure if you’ve picked up on which two those are yet, but feel free to re-read.
Nothing about this job description caught me off guard per say. The technical skills and basic requirements make sense and feel generally applicable for the role and agency this position is for. What stood out to me though, is the hierarchy of the description I was sent, and the first two bullet points that, who knows, could completely dismiss any of the other skills one may have if they don’t fall into the notion the first two bullet points infer.
That notion being that one has to have, preferably, a, b and c in order to be of extreme value to d, e, f and g.
There is nothing wrong with this notion, in theory, but when used in a job description, or should I say, assumed in a job description—in an art/design position nonetheless—it just sounds ridiculous.
I would like to make it clear that yes, I do agree, in some careers like being a doctor, an engineer or lawyer, where you went to college and how well you did will probably hold more weight in your candidacy for a position—but in the arts? Seriously?
Ironically enough, despite typically needing at least a BFA to land an art job nowadays, most of my favorite artists and designers (well-known and not) didn’t go to a “highly accredited” art school, or didn’t even go to school for that matter!
What makes an art school stronger? Is it the amount of money you pay? Is it the elitist designers involved in the program holding onto the outdated prestige they’ve been accredited with because of that one thing that one time? Or is it all just a name game by those in more powerful positions who say so?
I’m not going to sit here and shit talk other art and design programs because at the end of the day, we are talking about going to school for art. Not that there isn’t value in doing this, there sure as hell was for me and I don’t regret my art/design education by any means, I loved and benefited from it greatly, but again I say, is this person being serious?
I’m a big advocator for the “it’s not where you go, it’s what you do” ideology when it comes to higher education, or I guess any opportunity for that matter. But after reading that job description, I thought it was also ironic that I, an individual who did not go to a “stronger” design school, was being asked on behalf of a recruiter that knows me, if I knew anyone because of my strong design background.
?
Good work comes from many places. I’m not irked because someone thinks otherwise—I’m well aware that those kind of preconceived notions do exist and typically never change—I’m irked because it seems like this person assumes the strongest portfolios will likely only come from said schools, and is making a note to actually say this in their job description.
I have nothing against Parsons, SVA or RISD (I also wondered why Pratt wasn’t in this line up). I’m aware of their prestige and enjoy certain aspects of these school’s programs for certain reasons, so I of course will give credit where credit is due. That being said, it is 2022—why are we still placing extreme emphasis on the “15 Top Art/Design Schools” articles that are usually paid for and curated by people who have no actual hands-on experience with a program? As a hirer, if I was truly looking for the best talent to fill a position, that person could, quite literally, come from a plethora of educational backgrounds… right?
There is some fantastic student work that comes out of the schools whose names typically get tossed around. Though, like most art/design schools, it’s usually only a small few out of an entire class who give a program a name for the next crew of hopeful creatives. The exceptional few that come out of these schools, in my opinion, already have a natural talent and passion for what they do, and have now learned the technical skills to continue to grow in their field(s) of speciality.
This outline can be applied to any art and design program, including the one I studied at the Fashion Institute of Technology. Where people go and what they do is always going to be a purely subjective experience—it’s like giving a kid a piece of paper with crayon and asking them to draw a tree. One may draw a detailed stump, perfectly crisp leaves and even a small hole for a birds nest to reside, and the other may draw a long line as a stump with a cluster of triangles, squiggles and wide V’s at the top to represent leaves and birds. The tools are the same, but the outcome is unique to the individual and the person who’s “judging” it.
ALSO, I could really get into this bUT—97% of kids don’t even know what the hell is going on when they’re applying somewhere and a majority of the time, they make their decision based on word of mouth, connections and financial factors (the other 3% act like they know and then usually have a mental breakdown after they realize they don’t—which is okay that’s part of life—it’s not like anyone in general has a solid idea of certain things anyways, but still).
To close this out, I will also admit that when it comes to deciding if I want to get an MFA or not (even though it’s a running joke to get an MFA to some people, this lowkey includes me), I will more than likely be entertaining, and be willing to pay for more reputable programs like Yale’s or RISD’s for the specific structure and opportunity for connections. This judgment also comes from my own loose idea of “future plans,” and knowing creatives who have come out of their programs/people I’ve chatted with one on one to get the scoop—this was all on my own accord though, and is a purely subjective overview so again, it’s really up to the individual.
Status is stupid because it takes away from who a person is and why they do what they do—a degree or specific accreditation will never replace natural talent and a love for creation. It could of course add to this, but there’s a lot more to the art and design industry (or any profession for that matter) outside of the “highly accredited” few.
Y.E.S.E.M.I.L.Y.