As an undergraduate majoring in studio art at UC Irvine, I feel that the article does not accurately represent the studio art program at UCI.
It is true that individual working space at UCI could be more extensive and that equipment could be more elaborate. However, it could also be pointed out that the equipment and space are certainly adequate and that a graduate student requiring, for example, a foundry or a film studio would not select UCI for graduate work.
I feel that the article does not fairly reflect the attitudes that prevail among art students at UCI toward instructors' advice. I have never taken a studio art class at UCI that did not employ group and individual criticism as a means of evaluating students' work. In-depth criticism of a specific body of work must be sought out, and this is generally considered a strong point by students: We are free to develop our work without undue influence from instructors if that influence is not desired.
In a reference to the department faculty, Curtis quotes a student as stating, "I was teaching drawing last quarter, and my professor kind of took off." To my knowledge, the only professor who "took off" left on a prearranged sabbatical to travel in Spain. If this constitutes "taking off," then chemistry and English professors certainly do the same. The inclusion of this quote struck me as an invalid attempt to discredit the studio art faculty by including only a portion of the information available about a particular situation. The same holds for the quote, "Most of the teachers, they've been here 20 years, they're dead." This is one student's opinion but is made to appear to be factual. In reality, only three of 17 instructors have been in the department for 20 years and there is actually a good mix of resident and visiting instructors--the resident instructors providing a necessary coherence and the visiting instructors introducing alternative methods and ideas.