Search form

Question on Animation training and Sheridan Institute

10 posts / 0 new
Last post
Question on Animation training and Sheridan Institute

I was reading about all the rave reviews of Sheridan. When I looked that the Sheridan college Institute programs , they were one year progrms: They had one certificate progam in character animation and one in 3d Graphics.

I always found fine art skills take a lot of time to develop. Thus, how can someone be highly qualified enough to develop a killer demo reel in one or even two years of training? Am I missing something?

One year programs are suited best for students with some degree of professional ability BEFORE enrolment.
The mistake with ANY college level programme is to assume that the length of the programme determines how much it will train you how to draw professionally.
1 yr, 2 yrs, 3yrs......it makes no difference......if the student simply lacks the ability to draw at a professional or near-professional standard.
I taught at art-colleges in the Vancouver, BC area for about 10 years--all of them being 1 year programs.
At LEAST 50% of the students enrolled had poor to negligible drawing skills upon graduation, same as when they entered.

Here's the observation I discovered, and that has been supported by many other instructors I have worked with:

Take a class of 20 students at graduation.
Right off the bat, 50% or 10 of them will LACK the skills needed to get any kind of work professionally.
Of the remaining 10, 50% again, or 5, will have sufficient skills to gain at least an entry level position at a studio and remain there for a year.
This is because some of those grads will have limited skill sets or just enough difficulty producing work that the job becomes frustrating enough for them to consider ( and act upon) leaving the trade.
Of the remaining 5, roughly 50% again........or just TWO grads, will have professional enough skills, temperament and talent to continue on in the trade indefinitely.
2, out of 20.......or 10% of the class can make in in the biz.

I've seen almost whole classes hired right out of school--because the local biz needed raw talent for menial work--and I've seen several classes in a row where NO-ONE was hired, simply because their level of skill was not up to the standards the industry asks for.

So with all that in mind........if the prospective student has done a great deal of self-exploration and development BEFORE entering art-college, and if their work is at a near professional level, they will be better served by a programme of any length. This is simply because they are already operating artistically at a level that means they can focus on the assignments without struggling on their artistic development.

There are exceptions, but they are very few and far between and it really depends on the focus of the individual.

So, in my mind, its not the programme and its length, its the student who is enrolling in it that determines how qualified they are at the end of it.

"We all grow older, we do not have to grow up"--Archie Goodwin ( 1937-1998)

That is very interesting...

Ken, that was a very interesting post. Still, even for kids with strong drawing skills, can one year really make that much of an impact on developing a strong reel?I just get the hunch that there is somewhat of a time element to eduation; that is, the longer the time the better the real and better the inculcation of ideas. Perhaps I am mistaken.

The thing to remember too is that at any given time a person with one year experience is going up against people with a two or four year degree for those entry level jobs. Plus that is not including those who are gaining experience clawing up their way up the experience ladder.

ed

Department of Computer Animation
Ringling College of Art and Design
Sarasota Florida

Ken, that was a very interesting post. Still, even for kids with strong drawing skills, can one year really make that much of an impact on developing a strong reel?I just get the hunch that there is somewhat of a time element to eduation; that is, the longer the time the better the real and better the inculcation of ideas. Perhaps I am mistaken.

I've seen student films come out of three year programmes that were utter crap, and I've seen brilliant, professional-level films come out of one year programmes, so the quality of ideas isn't dependant upon the length of the programme.
If the student has strong skills, what the schooling is doing is fine-tuning their procedures/methods for industry. Its using equipment, learning jargon, organizing materials and procedures for the job.
If the student has weak or mediocre abilities then they have to apply double effort to not only take in the lessons in class, but to also develop their own art skills. This applies to programmes of ANY length, and I have seen student graduate with weak/mediocre abilities.
This is because they have met the academic standards of that programme but still have not attained the artistic skill level the studios require.
I cannot think of any school that offers instruction that can teach a student how to draw, especially a student with very weak or negligible ability.

See, one of the myths that sucks in some folks is that animation is a career that you can "train" for, like a lot of other trades.
This is true only to the point that the student already has developed a certain level of talent on their own. Animation, in almost all respects is largely a performance craft.
Just knowing the technical aspects isn't enough to gain a career, because the artistic side ( performance) is where the talent has value.
Part of the reason that only 10% make it is that a sizable portion of the unsuccessful 90% enrol because of the "glamour" of animation--and the marketing hype of the schools.
An unfortunate outcome of the rise of the number of animation schools is that a great many of them compete against each other by making it seem like anyone can become an animator.

Oh yes........I HAVE indeed encountered individuals that sought to become animators who expressed NO INTEREST in art skills ( and they wanted to be 2D animators too !) and just thought it was a interesting or "sexy" business to be involved in.

To my mind.......with all the effort, time, and capital that is going to be invested in the development of a young talent into an animator.....I wipe aside ALL the baggage of choosing which schools and programmes and simply focus on what are their abilities are like at this time, how soon they'll be seeking to get into school, and what their self-discipline is.
By and large, most of the education out there tends to be fairly consistent in quality. A school of any rep tends to turn out at least some students that can make life-long careers in the craft.
Therefore the variables that determines whether or not a career is attainable, or successful lies in the students themselves.

"We all grow older, we do not have to grow up"--Archie Goodwin ( 1937-1998)

Question for you Ken Davis

you mentioned that animation is a LOT about talent and less about the training. Would chances of being hired go up significantly if the schools has a strong weed out program at admission? For example, Ringling requires a portfolio. Is there admission weed out enough to pretty much "guarantee" that students who does wlll in the training, and works hard, should have a good job upon graduation?

you mentioned that animation is a LOT about talent and less about the training. Would chances of being hired go up significantly if the schools has a strong weed out program at admission? For example, Ringling requires a portfolio. Is there admission weed out enough to pretty much "guarantee" that students who does wlll in the training, and works hard, should have a good job upon graduation?

No, in reality, a portfolio review is NO guarantee. This is because most of these schools are businesses that seek customers (students) from all quarters.
Very few schools offer any kind of actual serious screening with portfolios, the requisite of presenting a portfolio is a façade employed to "legitimize" the school's programme should it come under scrutiny or criticism.
The actual screening is the student's ability to pay for their tuition, not their artistic ability.
( It used to be that some 3-year programmes like those at Sheridan would "ask" some students not to return in subsequent years, as a way of weeding out weaker students. This is a practise that died off a long time ago, and even back then was no guarantee of keeping these "weak" artists out of the biz. I know of a couple of "famous" animators and cartoonists that were weeded out of school this way, but went on to have great careers regardless)

I mean.......c'mon......evaluation of a portfolio and artistic talent is completely subjective and there are NO set standards to gauge talent by.
It's far easier to close the door on someone if they cannot cough up the $20,000 to $30,000 or if they fail to get the student loans to pay for their tuition.

If there's any reviews, its passing the work under the nose of a couple instructors and getting a " Ya, they can do this" or a "nah, they should try something else".
I've undergone both aspects of the review myself--once many years ago when I applied at a art college. I had two instructors sniff at my work with great disdain, and I was turned down.........initially.

A week before the program was to start, I got a notice that, lo and behold, there was a slot open for me and I could race down to the school and enrol right then.
I wasn't impressed, and never bothered with the school again.......and truth be told, never needed to. I took the self-taught path and have had what I think has been a successful career because of it.

Conversely, I've also been asked to "review" portfolios for a school (as an instructor), looked over 12 portfolios for an upcoming class and rejected 6 of them. The class launched with 12 students anyways , including the 6 who I thought shouldn't have enrolled.

Also bear in mind that skill isn't even much of a measure in determining success either.
I had a young man in one of my classes who was the son of a very prominent animation team--a very well-regarded and talented couple. This young fellow inherited his parents talent, was an exceptional artist himself and literally had a clear path into the industry.
But.......he lacked discipline.
Despite his skill and background, he dropped out of the programme not long after and went off and did something else.
And to add contrast, a couple of students in that same class with marginal abilities buckled under, developed and excelled, producing great student films, and have had remarkable careers after graduation.

So the school itself isn't necessarily going to be a measure of the student's career outcome.
No studio recruiter worth their salt is going to consider the school or degree in hiring, simply because the paper pedigree from a school is worthless, if the artist lacks talent and the ability to produce work at the level that the studio needs.
As I said before, a student can meet the academic standards of a programme (of which there are NO common set standards, anywhere in the world), graduate and STILL be unable to secure work--simply because they lack the talent. A student can be rejected by school A, can walk across the street and be accepted by school B, complete their programme and rocket to stardom and success, even if school A has the world-renown reputation for excellence.

My advice (without knowing the artistic level of the student) is to find a school with a acceptable rep for turning out alumni who are working in the biz, and that you can afford, and letting the student have at it. The rest is up to them.

"We all grow older, we do not have to grow up"--Archie Goodwin ( 1937-1998)

Ringling Computer Animation department reviews every portfolio in an effort to get the best possible students we can get. That doesn't mean we get every student we want but it helps.

But a portfolio is no indicator of what that student will do when he or she is pushed as much as we push our students or how they will act once they are out on their own without mom and dad looking over their shoulder.

It's always up to the student to raise to the occasion and make the best of the education that is given them.

ed

Department of Computer Animation
Ringling College of Art and Design
Sarasota Florida

Thanks for the replies

Ken Davis notes,"Very few school offer any kind of actual serious screening with portfolios, the requisite of presenting a portfolio is a facade employed to "legitimize" the school's programme should it come under scrutiny or criticism.
The actual screen is the student's ability to pay for their tuition, not their artistic ability."

Response: That was VERY illuminating. I always thought that the portfolio reviews did weed out those with little talent,but I guess that I was fooled into thinking that. Also, I fully understand that a lot of success is based on attitude. I have always said that attitude determines ones altitude for success.

I have seen this in my daughter who just had ordinary SATs and very decent ,but not spectacular porfolio. However,due to her tremendous work ethic and project planning ability was one of the top students in both high school and in her design program. She was also loved at every coop she has been to and was offered a full time job at almost all of her coops. Thus, I do agree, attitude can make a HUGE difference. It is too bad that there is no way to measure attitude at admission.

Ken seems to have had some less than excellent experiences at one year programs. Ed Gavin is assuring you that Ringling takes portfolios seriously and is trying to get the best students available.

The long and short of it is that some schools - more often shorter programs- want to fill seats. That doesn't mean that other schools aren't interested in much more than collecting tuition $.

My advice is to visit year end shows. Look for the level of average students who are graduating, not the few top people.

When you have short listed the schools she plans to apply to, ask to be put in touch with recent graduates and current students.

I hope your daughter finds the program that's best for her.