What is your opinion? Was he right or wrong, or rather was the school wrong?
The Art institute is a for profit school so they make some money from the sell of books to students. The issue, to my memory, is common knowledge and I doubts that anything will change.
I taught at a Art Institute facility for a couple of years, and I can say that if I was put in such a position, I'd have done the same thing.
There's some good-hearted and well-intentioned staff and instructors at the AI school I worked at, but criticisms of the franchise itself are fair.
Its glitzy and well-marketed, and puts it money into that. Its a business and its "products" are the programmes it offers. I've felt all along that the money it generates could be put into making its programmes and facilities better, rather than its marketing. Perhaps things have changed at the campus I taught at, perhaps not.
On the matter in the article, my feelings are this: the instructor is hired for his knowledge and professional experience, not to be a mouthpiece for the school's own select doctrine or material.
If they want what the instructor offers, then supply them with a GUIDELINE of material for the class, and leave the instructor to it.
That was the arrangement I had when I was teaching, and it worked for both sides.
If they want the instructor to work off of a script, then they don't need said instructors and can "inbreed-instruct" using their own graduates--and some schools do operate that way. I think this matter damns the AI franchise and if they were smart, they'd reconsider.
—
"We all grow older, we do not have to grow up"--Archie Goodwin ( 1937-1998)
I think the animation teacher should not be getting fired .the Art institute is a for profit school in order to they make some money from the sell of books to students. if the sell of books to students is no use ,it is a very serious waste.it reminds me of school before some of the scene. so i am very hate this situation .
—
Happy life can't apply colours to a drawing of the render farm ï¼
The Art institute is a for profit school so they make some money from the sell of books to students. The issue, to my memory, is common knowledge and I doubts that anything will change.
I taught at a Art Institute facility for a couple of years, and I can say that if I was put in such a position, I'd have done the same thing.
There's some good-hearted and well-intentioned staff and instructors at the AI school I worked at, but criticisms of the franchise itself are fair.
Its glitzy and well-marketed, and puts it money into that. Its a business and its "products" are the programmes it offers. I've felt all along that the money it generates could be put into making its programmes and facilities better, rather than its marketing. Perhaps things have changed at the campus I taught at, perhaps not.
On the matter in the article, my feelings are this: the instructor is hired for his knowledge and professional experience, not to be a mouthpiece for the school's own select doctrine or material.
If they want what the instructor offers, then supply them with a GUIDELINE of material for the class, and leave the instructor to it.
That was the arrangement I had when I was teaching, and it worked for both sides.
If they want the instructor to work off of a script, then they don't need said instructors and can "inbreed-instruct" using their own graduates--and some schools do operate that way. I think this matter damns the AI franchise and if they were smart, they'd reconsider.
"We all grow older, we do not have to grow up"--Archie Goodwin ( 1937-1998)
I think the animation teacher should not be getting fired .the Art institute is a for profit school in order to they make some money from the sell of books to students. if the sell of books to students is no use ,it is a very serious waste.it reminds me of school before some of the scene. so i am very hate this situation .
Happy life can't apply colours to a drawing of the render farm ï¼