Editor’s Note: As this year’s commencement season rolled around, initiating increasingly unmanageable debt-careers, something interesting occurred in Los Angeles which many of you have no doubt followed. An entire class of graduate students at USC Roski decided to collectively drop out, in the middle of their pursuit of an MFA. Citing corporatized priorities of the administration, never clearly communicated to the students and driving the historically esteemed program away from the very reasons they had decided to pursue their degrees there in the first place, all seven art grads formed a collective called MFA NO MFA and stated “We, the entire incoming class of 2014, are dropping out of school and dropping back into our expanded communities at large,” adding “Let’s not forget about the larger system of inequity that we paid into to try to get our degrees. USC tuition has increased an astounding 92% since 20011, compensation for USC’s top 8 executives has more than tripled since 20012, and Department of Education data shows that “administrative positions at colleges and universities grew by 60 percent between 1993 and 2009.”
The USC Roski story has been widely covered, but its far from over. The Artist as Debtor is following its development as an important and bold model of resistance.Today, faculty are releasing a joint letter together with their former students, touching on the growing solidarity between indebted students and precarious art professors facing a market-positive revolution within higher education which is replacing the value of deeper learning.
Roski Faculty, Students Call on USC to Prioritize Quality Education Over Profits
On Friday May 15, 2015, the first-year MFA class at USC’s Roski School of Art and Design dropped out in direct protest of the University’s refusal to deliver the funding and curricular promises made to these students.
The students’ decision to take this important action did not come as a surprise. For years, the University has been following a nationwide trend, shifting resources and focus away from the execution of our core educational mission and towards bloated administrative salaries, lavish infrastructure projects, and a business model of education.
We believe the University should honor its commitments to its students.
In their public statement, the first-year MFA class references the low pay and instability faced by non-tenure track faculty as a key example of USC’s misplaced priorities, and we couldn’t agree more. With a reported $3.8 billion in endowment, and $8.8 billion in total assets, the institution has the resources and capacity to provide stable, decently-paid jobs to faculty. Unfortunately, over 75% of faculty at USC work in contingent, part-time positions, which offer low pay and no job security. These are the jobs awaiting qualified scholars and practitioners, as well as debt-laden graduates.
For months, we have been speaking out about the personal struggles that many of us face, not knowing if we will have jobs from one semester to the next. And all too often, we have no voice in the decisions that affect our students and our programs. This instability and lack of transparency affects not only faculty, but our entire educational community.
To be clear, the decision by the first-year MFA class to drop out of school represents a failure by USC to retain and to engage productively with the students it recruited, and thus to meet its pedagogical mission. The University’s glaring focus on profits over quality education shows an administration disconnected from its own mission, as well as the needs and realities of its students and faculty.
We share very serious concerns regarding the University’s efforts to drive down the cost of instruction at the expense of providing quality education to our students in their fields of study, and good jobs to faculty.
United, we share a vision for the future of higher education. We are part of a nationwide movement organizing for good jobs for faculty and quality education for students. Together, we will continue the fight, and hold large institutions like USC accountable. We call on our colleagues across the country to join us as we rise to protect the stability of our students’ education.
Current and Former Faculty, USC Roski School of Art and Design:
First-year MFA class, USC Roski School of Art and Design:
Lauren Davis Fisher
For more updates on the situaton, please visit
MFAnoMFA Statement May 15, 2015
We are a group of seven artists who made the decision to attend USC Roski School of Art and Design’s MFA program based on the faculty, curriculum, program structure and funding packages. We are a group of seven artists who have been forced by the School’s actions dismantling each of these elements to dissolve our MFA candidacies. In short, due to the University’s unethical treatment of its students, we, the entire incoming class of 2014, are dropping out of school and dropping back into our expanded communities at large.
The Roski MFA Program that attracted us was intimate and exceptionally well-funded; all students graduated with two years of teaching experience and very little to no debt. We were fully aware of the scarcity of, and the paucity of compensation for, most teaching jobs, so this program seemed exemplary in creating a structure that acknowledged these economic and pedagogical realities. However, a different funding model was presented to us upon acceptance to the Program by the Roski administration: we would receive a scholarship for some of our first-year tuition, and would have a Teaching Assistantship with fully-funded tuition, a stipend, and benefits for the entirety of our second year upon completion of our first-year coursework. We, the incoming class of 2014, were the first students since 2011 to take on debt to attend, and the first students since 2006 to gain no teaching experience during our first-year in the program. Moreover, when we arrived in August 2014, we soon discovered that the Dean of the Roski School was attempting to retroactively dismantle the already-diminished funding model that was promised to us, as well as make drastic changes to our existing faculty structure and curriculum.
The Dean of the Roski School of Art and Design was appointed by the University in May 2013, despite having no experience in the visual arts field. She, along with Roski’s various Vice and Assistant Deans, made it clear to our class that they did not value the Program’s faculty structure, pedagogy or standing in the arts community, the very same elements that had attracted us as potential students. The effects of the administration’s denigration of our program arrived almost immediately. In December 2014, Roski’s MFA Program Director stepped down from her position, and was not replaced with another director; in short succession that month, the program lost a prominent artist, mentor, and tenured Roski professor, her pedagogical energies and input devalued by the administration. By the end of the Fall 2014 semester, we quickly came to understand that the MFA program we believed we would be attending was being pulled out from under our feet. In January 2015, we felt it necessary to go to the source of these issues, the Dean of the Roski School.
In a slew of unproductive, confounding and contradictory meetings with the Dean and other assorted members of the Roski administration in early 2015, we were told that we would now have to apply for, and compete with a larger pool of students for the same TAships promised to us during recruitment. We were presented with a different curriculum, one in which entire semesters would occur without studio visits, a bizarre choice for a studio-art MFA. Shocked by these bewildering and last-minute changes, we reached out to the University’s upper administration. We were then told by the Vice Provost for Graduate Programs that the communication we received during recruitment clearly stating our funding packages was an “unfortunate mistake,” and that if the Program wasn’t right for us, we “should leave.” Throughout this grueling process of attempting to reason with the institution, the Roski School and University administration used manipulative tactics of delaying decisions, blaming others, contradicting each other’s stated policies, and attempting to force a wedge of silence between faculty and students. At every single turn, the Dean and every other administrator we interacted with tried to delegitimize and belittle our real concerns, repeatedly framing us as “demanding” simply for advocating for those things the School had already promised us.
As of 5pm on May 10, 2015, after four months, seven meetings that we held in good faith with the administration, and countless emails later, we have no idea what MFA faculty we’d be working with for the coming year; we have no idea what the curriculum would be, other than that it will be different from what it was when we enrolled and is currently being implemented by administrators outside of our field of study; and finally, we have no idea whether we’d graduate with twice the amount of debt we thought we would graduate with.
Since February 2015, we have communicated in writing to the Provost of the University, the Vice Provost for Graduate Programs, The Dean of the Roski School, and other USC administrators that we could not continue in the Program if the funding and curricular promises made during recruitment were not honored; thus, the University is not blindsided by our decision, nor has it been denied ample time and opportunity to remedy these issues with us. Perhaps the University imagined that we would suffer any amount of lies, manipulations, and mistreatment for those shiny degrees.
Let’s not forget about the larger system of inequity that we paid into to try to get our degrees. USC tuition has increased an astounding 92% since 20011, compensation for USC’s top 8 executives has more than tripled since 20012, and Department of Education data shows that “administrative positions at colleges and universities grew by 60 percent between 1993 and 2009”3. Adjunct faculty, the jobs that freshly-minted MFAs usually get- if they’re lucky- are paid at a rate that often does not even reach the federal minimum wage4 while paying off tens of thousands of dollars of studentloan debt. USC follows this trend of supporting a bloated administration with whom students have minimal contact to the diminishment of everyone else. Despite having ultimate power over the program structure and curriculum, our experience has shown that the administration has minimal concern for their students. Meanwhile, faculty voices are silenced and adjunct5 faculty expands, affecting their overall ability to advocate for students. We seven students lost time, money, and trust in a classic bait-and-switch, and the larger community lost an exemplary funding model that attempted to rectify at least some of these economic disparities. What we experienced is the true “disruption” of this accelerating trend.
We each made life-changing decisions to leave jobs and homes in other parts of the country and the world to work with inspiring faculty and, most of all, have the time and space to grow as artists. We trusted the institution to follow through on its promises. Instead, we became devalued pawns in the University’s administrative games. We feel betrayed, exhausted, disrespected and cheated by USC of our time, focus and investment. Whatever artistic work we created this spring semester was achieved in spite of, not because of, the institution. Because the University refused to honor its promises to us, we are returning to the workforce degree-less and debt-full.
A group of seven students is only a tiny part of the larger issues of the corporatization of higher education, the scandal of the economic precarity of adjunct faculty positions, and the looming studentdebt bubble. However, the MFA Program we entered in August 2014 did one great thing: it threw us all together, when we might not have crossed paths on our own. We will continue to hold crits ourselves and be involved in each other’s work. We will be staging a series of readings, talks, shows and events at multiple sites throughout the next year, and will follow with seven weeks of “thesis” shows beginning in April of 2016. Our collective and interdependent force is energizing as we progress toward supportive and malleable spaces conducive to criticality and encouragement. These sites are more important than ever in the current state of economic precarity that reaches far beyond the fates of seven art students. We invite everyone to reach out to us with proposals, invitations and strategies of their own, dreams not of creating a “better” institution, but devising new spaces for collective weirdness and joy.
Julie Beaufils, Sid Duenas, George EgertonWarburton, Edie Fake, Lauren Davis Fisher, Lee Relvas and Ellen Schafer