Snarkhunter Imaging wrote:
Word.
Well, it's a balance. But yes, quality of instruction varies quite a bit, and students must be engaged in order to learn. Otherwise, it's just blah blah blah; might as well surf YouTube.
--S
It's harder than that. Students don't just need to be engaged - they need to be challenged. There is an idea in the psychology field called cognitive dissonance, that basically states that in order to fully learn(to 'know' something, as opposed to simply remembering it), the learner needs to be presented with information that differs from what they already know. The process of squaring those two ideas is a lot more intense than learning by rote, and the student will better internalize the lesson.
It's not necessarily as big as 'God is dead - now let's talk about science.' It can be as simple as saying, 'yeah, that was great for Photo 1, but now you're an upperclassman. That's just not acceptable for this class.' The student now has two different ideas of what a good photo is, and sorting that out is part of the educational process. If a student is really good, they'll figure out THEIR answer, and not THE answer.
I think that is why so many educational institutions fail, especially in the arts. If students think you're mean they might not want to take your class, and no students means no pay. But if you're too easy they're not learning anything, regardless of what you think you're teaching. It's a fine line to walk, and I find myself questioning what I've said to students in crit almost every week.
I've actually started using some pretty ridiculous terms like 'strumpet', so I can be frank with students without offending them. As in, 'this senior portrait assignment doesn't work. She looks like a strumpet'. They're generally too busy laughing at my word choice to notice that I offended their friend, but they get the point.
But I'm at a 2 year college. If it were a BFA program, I'd be more frank.
The point is that nice guys don't make good teachers. They make awesome TAs and lab assistants, but terrible teachers. But unfortunately, you can't fix that, outside of the graduate level. To be a good artist AND a good teacher requires a large amount of schooling or experience, and most schools aren't willing to pay for that. That's why so many adjuncts come and go, and why qualified teachers fight tooth and nail for a full-time position that barely pays rent and college loans.
At the undergrad level, all you can do is research. Only go to a school if you personally like the faculties' work. If they have a very high acceptance rate(over 40%), run the other way. Even if it's cheaper, that means it's probably easy as hell, and you'll learn nothing.
Except for community colleges. Those are harder. The rule of thumb there is that those in really nice areas and big cities probably have good teachers(my own in the Adirondacks has a LOT of semi-retired adjuncts with doctorates), and those in smaller cities or less-desireable areas probably have a lot of teachers that are there to subsidize their photo business.
It's a gross generality, but it is depressingly true 
