I was a student at the Chelsea college of Art and Design in 2005 studying for my MA. Soon after the course began it became pretty clear to me that something was amiss. It was hard to put myfinger on exactly what was wrong. Apart from the obvious fact the building work wasn't finished and students were working in a partial building site, it felt as though something far more fundamental was rotten. I voiced my concerns to a member of staff at another institution. I asked him what he felt was the formula for a good art education and I was struck by his response: he told me that you have to get the budget to getthe best tutors to pick the best students and give them the best facilities that you can afford, any money left over is for administration. He pointed out that what was fundamentally wrong at Chelsea College of Art (and from what I have come to understand the University of the Arts London in its entirety) was that in its new 'flagship' campus at Millbank it had devoted over a third of its space to administration.

With reference to Graham Crowley's comment (AM315) on the lack of dedicated work space, I can confirm that the one-year course I was on was forced to move studio no less than three times and twice to rooms with no natural light (which as a painter is surely a prerequisite), but as he says the list is endless and at times also ridiculous. Further to this the labyrinthine complaints procedure that I undertook to pursue took longer to complete than the actual course. I'm not allowed to discuss the terms of the settlement although I can tell you Chelsea issued a formal apology. What the college and their lawyers failed to recognise then (and still fail to do now) is that advertising will only go so far to cement your reputation: it is the present students and alumni who will carry it beyond.

Sophie Baker from the letters page, Art Monthly, May 2008.

Go back to the debate about art education