OK, the questions you pose are legitimate. But the problem is that measurable answers to your questions, such as comparing educational expectations with actual success in the profession or practices, rely on social structures and marketplace realities that are uncontrolled by the (art)educational system. One could argue that the educational programs should therefore be adjusted to the real world contexts and markeptplace. That is what many other educational programs do. They gain or lose popularity and worth depending on the marketplace needs and opportunities.
The USSR did exactly that with arts education programs. Art practices became limited to utilitarian design or state-sponsored propaganda art. Until recently, the same was true in China and in other totalitarian type countries. Hitler did the same thing. The U.S. tried the same thing in the 30s and 40s but it fell apart when artists continued to make art that critiqued the social myths. Further, people became queasy when the American State sponsored art began to look too much like Hitler-type art. Some educational programs, particularly the arts, are intrinsically aimed at vexing the status quo, going beyond what already is established, to continually renew or alter or dump aesthetic values that encapsulate existing social mores and aspirations. Thus there is little in the existing social structure or marketplace that would embrace the sort of art that most high quality art programs aim to foster. Ironically, democracy enables these sorts of critiques but also resists them. If an art program is measured by how many of its graduates obtain good jobs outside of academia itself, then either the art program -- like computer graphics -- is matched to the markeplace or it is not measured by what it aims to do. in the performing arts, music may be a bit different because jobs in the field tend to rely on skills that conform to established norms, like musical notation and instrument use. This may be similarly true for theater grads, including film, etc. But the visual arts are mainly preparing people for very entrepreneurial activities. There is little in the marketplace or in society at large that accomodates the visual arts. As a result a follow up study odf visual arts grads, say at 5 or 10 years out, will likely show a huge drop-off of people still active in the field. Of course, in the arts, there are no -- zero zero zero -- proven paths to success, if by success one means marketplace, earn a living, support. If success is recognition in the field, it's even more iffy and relies a lot on personal demeanor, self-promotion, luck, and the artistic equivalent of "timing the market". I don't know why all educational programs are expected to be rated by their utility in the marketplace. I suppose it's just the American madness for materialist values as the root of all. You might find a sociologist willing to apply for a big grant to measure the effectiveness of art programs. It would take millions of dollars. The results would likely quantify what we already know. Oddly, the least "successful" program might be the best. I'm sure such a study would not greatly change the system. In fact, there are already a diversity of art programs to choose from, meeting any expectation. In actuality, most art schools prosper by offering marketplace education in computer related practices, video, arts administration, art therapy, art journalism, etc. The hard core artists, the painters, anti-painters, etc., are usually the fewest enrolled. They want to succeed, I'm sure, but they know the odds are very slim. Perhaps each thinks of himself or herself as the next Andy Warhol or Jeff Koons or the lucky one embraced by a bigtime gallery. No one sets off in a entrepreneurial field to fail. Better yet, they will be artists, no matter what. They are the real winners. WC
