In a culture that is becoming oversaturated with emphasis on GPA and career outcomes, the School of the Museum of Fine Arts (SMFA) at Tufts University follows a markedly different path. Classes are listed on students’ transcripts as either for credit or not for credit, rather than being accompanied by an evaluative letter grade.
Professors believe grading would be difficult due to the inherent subjectivity of judging art and could therefore be detrimental to students’ work. As stated by SMFA Professor of the Practice Sean Glover, “Grades can be somewhat arbitrary when it comes to art and creative disciplines. When focused on a grade, students tend to get hung up on the parameters around the assignment and will not really get into the spirit of it.” Professor of the Practice Charles Goss corroborated this idea, telling The Tufts Tribune that “Grading artwork is totally out of the question for me. There’s no right or wrong way to make a drawing. It takes time to get a strong piece of work and let it grow with trusted teachers.”
Beyond these practical academic difficulties, grading may also be an inaccurate predictor of real-world success. The effort to develop and create more authentically, as Glover sees it, is the key to post-college success. As he describes, “A ‘C student’ that is struggling and failing to make the art that they want to but who is working earnestly through those struggles may end up benefiting more after school,” compared with a student who “follows the assignment to a tee but is not undergoing the same labor or investing as much time.”
Students seem to agree that grading would be difficult and might stunt creativity. “Because SMFA classes are not boosting your GPA, all your work has to come fully from your pure will to do it,” stated sophomore Yeji Chon, a combined degree student who will earn diplomas from both SMFA and the School of Arts and Sciences. “When you work on a piece for 10 hours on the weekend, that comes from your own passion about the craft. I think if the piece had a grade to it, we would feel more pressure to try and please someone else.”
Some students, though, expressed frustration that the school’s system cannot substantively account for their hard work. “I wish that my studio classes were factored into my GPA because I work hard in them, and it’d be nice to get credit for that, other than just a pass,” said SMFA student Sam Morrison (‘27). Morrison does acknowledge the difficulty of an alternative, though, contending that “it’s pretty impossible to judge art on a rubric, but I wish that there was a way for the work to be evaluated that seemed more legitimate.”
Instead of receiving grades, students’ art undergoes criticism through “critiques,” a structured time in which students provide feedback on each other’s work. Critiques vary widely, though, depending on the class. “I wish there was a more ubiquitous understanding of what critique is,” said Morrison. “Professors sort of set the tone for what is an acceptable kind of critique. Some do a good job of sculpting the conversations to get productive feedback, whereas some could do a better job of giving parameters so that it’s not just an open conversation where people just kind of go off on tangents.”
The feedback is student led, and the criticism can stray from its intended purpose and productivity without the proper guidance. “Sometimes students are afraid of being mean to each other and do not give feedback other than compliments, or they take it really far in the other direction and are too rude,” said Morrison. Combined Degree student Chloe Resnick (‘29) corroborated this, telling the Tribune that “It’s not really beneficial if we’re just complimenting people’s paintings.” She suggested that critiques are most helpful when they happen midway through the process and no one is worried about deprecating the finished work. “I feel like in-progress critiques are nice because you’re not finished and there are definitely things that can still be changed,” said Resnick.
Another crucial part of the process at SMFA is review boards. These sessions are designed to evaluate and provide feedback on a student’s entire portfolio over the course of a semester or undergraduate tenure. Students sign up for a time slot with two professors. Two students are also assigned to each review board, so that there is a balance between the criticism of professors and peers.
To some, the customizability of review boards is a lauded benefit. “I like the freedom where I can choose my professor. I think that’s one of the best parts about review boards,” Chon said. “I chose a professor who had already seen my work over an extended period of time, and she gave me comments about my improvements throughout the year.”
“I think that the way that we register for [review boards]…is a kind of mad dash—picking a pair of professors, a room, the time, and leaving people with bad assignments,” contended Morrison. Chon furthered this critique, mentioning that she has “known people who were missing a reviewer on their own review board.”
Chon also expressed the need for added structure in review boards. She wished there were “some kind of database where someone could write the comments and submit it—almost like SIS, but for review boards, where you could go to your history and see all of your comments,” rather than the current system, which yields only an email write-up.
When everything goes according to plan, though, review boards can be “wonderful,” according to Morrison, or as Resnick puts it, even a “favorite part of SMFA.”
Professor Goss believes strongly in them, recalling SMFA’s accreditation, when, in order to receive funding, it had to withstand scrutiny over its evaluation process. “It was also an affirming situation that what we were doing was right. Review boards have been a pride and practice for over 60 years. The review board system has caught hold in so many more schools because of how holistic and encompassing this kind of art critique is.”
Professor Glover also commented on the unique pedagogical approach of review boards as a system of evaluation when compared to other schools at Tufts. “Two students and two faculty sit together in critique of a student, which means the students outnumber the faculty and soften[ing] the hierarchy considerably,” said Professor Glover. “That being said, it only works if those students who sit on the board are active participants.”
If students are not getting enough out of the critique system, professors suggest that they take more initiative. “You should ask more of your colleagues and ask questions in your critiques,” said Glover. “There’s still plenty of latitude within this system that we have for the students to advocate for themselves.”
Morrison’s picture of student agency in review boards was less idealistic. “People sometimes just get unlucky and get professors who don’t give good or helpful feedback or don’t have technical expertise in the medium they are reviewing.”
Luckily, employers do not seem to mind the lack of grades, and it does not seem to have affected the students’ career prospects. According to SMFA Career Center data, many SMFA students are working in marketing or graphic design at companies like the Broad Institute or Mass General Brigham, as well as galleries, arts nonprofits, and museums. Within six months of graduation, 97% of SMFA’s undergraduate class of 2024 were employed or enrolled in grad school.
“I know that grades are really good for measuring progress within a system, but when you move on beyond college, I’m not so sure the grades will really translate,” said Professor Glover. “For a good artist, your portfolio is really what resonates.”
Students and professors are interested in the same thing, at the end of the day. Their common opinion that high quality art requires genuine, personal commitment to the product begs the question: should the standardization of review or the student’s self-motivation drive us toward that end?
Artwork by Nicole Mousad