Faculty at the School of the Museum of Fine Arts at Tufts University voted over the summer to implement a pilot program that changes how first-years participate in the school’s review board process, making them observers rather than recipients of feedback.
The review board process requires students enrolled in at least seven studio credits to be evaluated by a faculty-student panel at the end of each semester rather than receiving critiques on individual assignments. The process is an important aspect of the school’s curriculum for artistic development.
The pilot program, which was communicated to incoming first-year SMFA students over the summer, will have them sit in as observers during fall review boards, then participate fully in the spring when the program reverts to its traditional format.
“The intent of this pilot is to provide students with the tools to fully engage in their academic responsibilities as artist scholars and introduce them to an essential part of SMFA pedagogy early in their undergraduate experience,” Patrick Collins, executive director of media relations at Tufts, wrote in a statement to the Daily.
Collins noted that the pilot aims to help first-year students adjust to the uniqueness of SMFA’s review board process.
“Student input is always a requirement of review boards, and the faculty and administration believe that having an introduction to the review board process via observation is an effective way to orient students to this unique process of critique,” Collins wrote.
Some SMFA students, including first-year Nicolas de Athayde, expressed confusion about the decision.
“I found out about this change through a conversation I had with a friend in the first week of the semester. I remember it struck me as somewhat of a strange decision,” de Athayde wrote in a message to the Daily.
De Athayde and other students raised concerns about losing a key opportunity for feedback during their first semester.
“I don’t know if I like this program. I think having a review board of your own is an incredibly important thing for first years,” de Athayde wrote. “While I do see some validity in there being review boards in spring but not in fall, I believe that the more chance[s] for constructive critique the better.”
Sophomore Alana Zheng reflected on her experience with review boards as a first-year and how they helped her build interpersonal connections with faculty and peers.
“I always think the review boards encourage communication and relationship building between faculty and students, so I never thought about it as something that’s so harmful that you need to take [it] away for one semester,” she said. “It’s a little bit of pressure, but I think it’s beneficial.”
First-year SMFA combined degree student Maya Lawrence felt conflicted about the change to the review board process.
“I’m glad I don’t have to present my work but also, at the same time, it’s such an important critique [and part of] the learning process, especially when you first get to art school, so I’m not really sure how to feel about it personally,” Lawrence said.
Collins emphasized that the program will be evaluated before any permanent decision is made.
“The faculty and the administration will review the outcomes of this pilot over the course of the spring to see if it should be implemented in future years. As part of the review, student feedback will likely be solicited,” he wrote.
According to Collins, any decision to make the pilot program permanent would require another vote from SMFA faculty, none of whom were available for comment.
Still, some students remain skeptical, citing the need for feedback from first-year students on the pilot program.
“This change should not be made [permanent] in my opinion. If that were to happen, it would be a sign of a profound lack of communication between faculty and students,” de Athayde wrote.
Zheng shared that she hopes that input from first-years will play a larger role moving forward.
“I will want to know what the first-years actually think about this change. Do they like less [of a] burden in their first semester, or do they want earlier exposure to faculty responses?” Zheng said.
While the pilot program aims to ease first-years’ transition to SMFA’s critique process, students remain divided on whether observing alone can replace the experience of participating directly.
“I find there to be some sense in having [first-years] ‘learn by watching’ in fall before having their own review boards in spring but I still find it better for [first-years] to simply have review boards both semesters,” de Athayde wrote.
