I had previously asked about doctoral programs in art-related fields. Beyond that, however, we all know that the MFA is the terminal degree for studio (or related) arts. From what I can tell, most universities require MFAs for tenure track positions in studio fields (rather than, say, Ph.D. for Art History, etc.). There are lots of places that have MFAs in art. Some of them, like Academy of Art University, or SCAD, offer them completely online. Herein is where my question lies: Northwestern State University (NSULA), has a low-residency MA in Art (studio). It involves in-depth classes in specific studio arts, has an art history requirement, a comprehensive exam, and even requires an exhibition thesis. They offer BFAs at the undergraduate level, but only the MA in Art for a master level. It sort of sounds like a shorter, more-to-the-point MFA, without the whole terminal part. I almost wonder why they decided to make it an MA rather than an MFA when they have BFAs on the undergraduate level. Do you think that a university would ignore my resume if I had an MA in art, rather than an MFA in art? Do you think they would realize the similarity, or would they simply see that it wasn't an MFA and look elsewhere? Is it absolutely essential to have an MFA if you want to teach college studio-based art courses? I've looked at the course listing/degree layout, and I think the MA from NSULA is a fantastic degree. I just worry that it's not an MFA. People get far too hung up on designations I think, but I can understand that universities want terminal degrees. Part of my interest in this program (aside from the coursework itself) is the cost. Most MFAs require the selling of both of your kidneys and both of your legs to pay off the debt. If art is something I want to do, am I going to have to go ahead and mortgage the farm to get an MFA or would universities be willing to work with me just having a well-rounded MA?
I'd imagine it's going to be tough to get into any tenure-track position in any discipline from here on out. That said, what is the Fine Arts equivalent of publications, which is what really matters in other disciplines. Furthemore, how respected is the NWSULA program and the professors? Where are this program's graduates teaching? I think those are more relevant questions.
There is a big difference in terms of credits and duration between a MA in art and a MFA. A MA normally has between 30 to 36 credits, and a MFA normally has more than 60 credits (at my school, most MFAs are 63 credits, although they sometimes make you take extra classes if you don't have a good portfolio in the beginning, making the degree around 72 credits). This different of the number of credits makes it kind of unlikely that a school will treat a MA like a MFA. Also, normally a MFA implies a complex practical thesis in the end (it could be an exhibition, a short movie, a animation, a game, etc.. depending on your field) and that's not always the case with a MA. In general a MA is more of a academic degree, with more theory and art history classes, while the MFA has an emphasis on studio classes. Having said that, for schools like AAU, SCAD e SVA they will probably worry more about 1) your portfolio 2) What is your experience (one of the main draws of those schools is the fact that a great percentage of teacher are working, or have worked, in big studios or famous companies. My schools has tons of current or formers Lucasfilms, Zoetrope, Pixar, etc... employees as teachers).
