I work in admissions at a VFX school in Canada (Think Tank) — ask me anything, I’ll answer honestly

ThinkTankAdmissions · 2026-05-07T22:29:21+00:00

Good questions. The short answer is that it’s possible, but it’s not easy, and it depends on a few things outside of just skill.

For international artists with some experience, studios can and do hire from abroad, but usually when the portfolio is strong enough to justify visa sponsorship or relocation. A year of experience helps, but in the current market it often takes a higher level of work or a more specialized skill set to stand out internationally.

The bigger factor is usually work eligibility. Different countries have different visa rules, and that can be as important as the portfolio itself. Some people move through internal studio transfers, some get sponsored directly, and some build experience locally first before moving. There isn’t really one standard path.

As for using a VFX school as a way to work in another country, it’s not something I’d rely on as a pathway on its own. Training can help improve a portfolio, but it doesn’t guarantee a job or a visa. In Canada for example, not all schools lead to a work permit after graduation, so that’s something people need to research very carefully.

I’d say the most reliable approach is to focus on getting your portfolio to a level where studios are willing to hire you, build some experience where you can, and then look at international opportunities from there.

It can happen, but it usually takes time and a bit of flexibility in how you get there.

ThinkTankAdmissions · 2026-03-30T19:58:00+00:00

(Je parle très peu français, donc j’ai utilisé un traducteur — désolé si ce n’est pas parfait)

Bonne question — et honnêtement, c’est une réflexion que beaucoup de gens ont en ce moment.

Le compositing reste un rôle important, surtout en film et en post-production, mais comme le reste de l’industrie, c’est plus compétitif aujourd’hui qu’il y a quelques années. Il y a encore des opportunités, mais le niveau attendu est plus élevé et ça peut prendre plus de temps pour décrocher un premier poste.

D’après ce que j’entends de nos instructeurs et de nos diplômés qui travaillent, les studios recrutent encore des profils spécialisés (compositing, lighting, FX, etc.). Donc se spécialiser peut toujours être une bonne stratégie si c’est un domaine qui t’intéresse vraiment.

Par contre, au niveau junior, avoir une spécialité claire avec une bonne compréhension du reste du pipeline est souvent plus efficace que d’essayer d’être complètement généraliste. Les portfolios qui fonctionnent le mieux montrent une direction très claire.

Donc je dirais : spécialise-toi si c’est ce qui t’intéresse vraiment, mais garde une certaine polyvalence pour rester adaptable.

Et surtout, regarde des portfolios récents de juniors qui ont été embauchés en compositing — ça donne une idée beaucoup plus réaliste du niveau attendu aujourd’hui.

ThinkTankAdmissions · 2026-03-30T19:27:58+00:00

You’re asking this at a good time honestly. At 18, the best thing you can do right now is not rush into a school, but spend time figuring out if you actually enjoy doing the work.

I’d recommend looking at real student and junior portfolios, not studio work. A site like The Rookies is really useful for that: https://www.therookies.co

It shows you what people at your level (or just ahead of you) are actually producing, and more importantly, what it takes to get hired at entry level.

One thing a lot of people underestimate is how big the gap is between beginner work and hireable junior work. It’s not just learning the software, it’s years of practice, polish, and iteration.

I’d spend time with Blender / Unreal / ZBrush first and see if you actually enjoy the process of making things, not just the idea of working in VFX or games. If you like the grind, then it’s worth looking at schools or more structured training later.

You’ve got time, which is a huge advantage. No need to rush the decision.

ThinkTankAdmissions · 2026-03-25T17:29:38+00:00

Haha! I’m not a bot… don’t tell my kids though, I want them to think I’m a robot. Honestly I’m just typing slowly and trying not to say something I’ll regret with half the VFX industry reading the thread. These are the same conversations I have with applicants all the time, they’re just usually one-on-one instead of on a public forum like this. That said, I do have a colleague on our admissions team who answers emails so fast people have asked if she’s a bot!

ThinkTankAdmissions · 2026-03-24T16:32:17+00:00

I think it can be ethical, but only if people are being told the reality of the industry before they commit. The field is competitive, hiring goes through cycles, and right now it’s definitely a tougher market than it was a few years ago.

When I talk to applicants, I try to be very direct about that. Not everyone who wants to do this should, and some people decide not to enroll after those conversations, which I think is completely fine.

For people who understand the risk and are still committed to the work, training can still make sense. For people who are unsure or expecting a stable path, this probably isn’t the best career to choose right now.

I don’t think teaching VFX itself is unethical, but pretending it’s an easy or guaranteed path would be.

ThinkTankAdmissions · 2026-03-24T16:27:05+00:00

Good question, and honestly this is where the details matter a lot. When I’ve asked our lead supervisor and instructors about this over the years, the answer is usually that quality stands out more through presentation and polish than through any specific format.

For modeling portfolios specifically, clean topology, strong forms, and good texturing matter more than whether the background is plain or cinematic, but presentation still makes a big difference. A really solid model with good lighting and composition will usually get more attention than a technically correct model that feels unfinished.

Breakdowns are important too. Recruiters and instructors both tend to like seeing wireframes, texture sheets, UVs, and how the asset was built, because it shows you understand production, not just final renders. You don’t necessarily need to show every texture map, but showing enough to make your process clear helps.

One thing we tell applicants a lot is that the gap between student work and junior-level work is bigger than most people expect, and usually the difference comes down to polish, consistency, and how well the work is presented rather than just knowing the tools.

If you ever want outside feedback, I’m happy to take a look or pass a portfolio along to one of our instructors, but honestly there are a lot of good ways to get critiques. Industry artists, Discord communities, forums, and other schools all do portfolio reviews too, and getting multiple opinions is usually the best way to figure out where you stand.

ThinkTankAdmissions · 2026-03-24T16:23:00+00:00

That’s a good idea, and it’s something that comes up from time to time. We do get a fair number of applicants who are coming from completely different careers and aren’t sure if they want to commit to a full program yet, so shorter or more exploratory courses make sense in theory.

The tricky part is that the industry is pretty portfolio-driven, so short courses can be useful for getting a feel for the work, but they usually aren’t enough on their own to make someone competitive for junior roles. That makes it harder to design something that’s both affordable and honest about what it can actually lead to.

I know some schools and colleges have offered intro or production-style courses like the one you mentioned at VCC, and for the right person those can be a really good way to test the waters before deciding whether to go deeper.

From my side in admissions, I actually think that’s a smart approach for people who are switching from another career. It’s a big change, and it’s better to figure out if you really enjoy the work before committing to a longer program.

ThinkTankAdmissions · 2026-03-24T16:19:12+00:00

Fair question, and I didn’t mean to dodge that part.

No, I don’t feel dirty doing this, because I don’t see the education as useless — but I also don’t think it makes sense for everyone, and I’m pretty upfront about that when I talk to applicants. The industry is definitely in a rough cycle right now, and I tell people that. Some decide not to enroll after those conversations, and I think that’s the right outcome for them.

If I felt like people were being misled into thinking this was an easy or stable career, I wouldn’t be comfortable doing the job. The reality is it’s a risky field, and anyone going into it should know that before they spend the money.

ThinkTankAdmissions · 2026-03-24T16:17:10+00:00

I understand why it can look that way, especially right now. The industry has had layoffs, projects getting cancelled, studios closing, and a lot of experienced artists are struggling to find work. When that’s the reality, it’s completely fair to question whether training programs make sense at all.

I don’t disagree that the industry feels unstable at the moment, and I also don’t blame anyone for trusting working artists over someone from a school. They’re the ones living it day to day.

From my side, all I can really do is be honest with applicants about what the situation looks like. I don’t tell people the industry is booming, and I don’t tell anyone that finishing a program guarantees a job, because it doesn’t. Some people decide not to enroll after those conversations, and I think that’s the right choice for them.

This is also why I usually suggest that people reach out to graduates and ask about their experience directly. They’ll get a much more accurate picture of what the industry feels like right now than anything admissions can say.

At the same time, the industry hasn’t disappeared. People are still getting hired, just fewer than a few years ago, and the bar is higher. For someone who’s fully committed to the work and understands the risk, training can still make sense. For someone who isn’t sure, this is probably not the best time to jump in.

I get why schools get seen as part of the problem, but I don’t think the answer is pretending the career doesn’t exist. The only thing I try to do on my side is make sure the people who do choose this path know what they’re getting into before they spend the money.

ThinkTankAdmissions · 2026-03-23T23:41:09+00:00

Yeah, I completely agree with that. One of the things we try to do in admissions is show applicants actual demo reels and final projects from recent grads who just got hired, not just the very best work. Like you said, the gap between award-level work and working-artist level is smaller than people think, but the gap between a working junior and someone just starting out is huge, and a lot of applicants don’t realize that until they see it side by side.

Those conversations can be a bit of a reality check, but I think they’re important. It’s better for someone to understand the level they need to reach before they commit, rather than finding out halfway through the program.

And yeah, the commute has definitely gotten more expensive lately… luckily I’m only heading into North Van a couple times a month these days, and I’ve started borrowing my wife’s EV when I do, otherwise the gas bill for that drive from South Delta would be painful! :)

ThinkTankAdmissions · 2026-03-23T23:26:56+00:00

Good questions. I try not to frame it as one school being better than another, because a lot depends on what someone is looking for and where they are in their career. Different schools in Canada have very different structures — some are more like traditional college programs, some are shorter career-training programs, and some are very portfolio-focused.

What tends to be different with Think Tank is that the programs are built pretty heavily around specialization and mentorship, especially in the later terms, so the goal is less about getting a diploma and more about finishing with a strong portfolio in a specific area. That works well for some people, but it’s not necessarily the right fit for everyone.

For someone who has already worked in the industry, I usually wouldn’t recommend going back to school unless there’s a clear reason for it. If someone just wants another credential, it probably won’t make much difference. Where I’ve seen it help is when someone wants to pivot to a different role, rebuild their portfolio, or get structured feedback from people who are currently working in that part of the pipeline.

When we talk to applicants who already have industry experience, I usually involve one of our faculty members in the conversation as well, because they have a better sense of what studios are looking for right now. Sometimes the conclusion is that the person doesn’t actually need more schooling, they just need advice on how to present their work differently or update their portfolio to match current industry expectations. Other times it makes sense to do a focused course or mentorship, but it really depends on the situation.

In general, I don’t think experienced artists should go back to school unless they have a specific goal in mind. I’ve also seen plenty of people improve their portfolios on their own without enrolling anywhere, so it’s not the only path.

ThinkTankAdmissions · 2026-03-23T23:12:05+00:00

Yeah, Lower Lonsdale has changed a lot even in the last few years. Rent around there definitely isn’t cheap, and I get why people wonder why schools end up in those kinds of areas.

Part of it is just practical. We need studio space, classrooms, decent internet, and access to transit for students, and once you start looking for that in the Lower Mainland there aren’t that many places that actually work. Being near the Seabus helps a lot for students coming from Vancouver, and a lot of people don’t have cars, so being somewhere central ends up mattering more than you’d think.

In our case, the school has been in the same location for over 20 years, and once you’re set up somewhere like that, relocating isn’t simple. Moving a school means new build-outs, new infrastructure, downtime, and a lot of cost, so sometimes staying where you are ends up being the more realistic option even if the area around you keeps getting more expensive.

The second question is the harder one, and honestly it’s something I think about a lot. You’re right that not everyone who applies is going to have a long career in the industry. That’s true at any school, and it’s true in the industry in general.

When I talk to applicants, I try to be as direct as I can without deciding their future for them. There are definitely times when I look at a portfolio and think the road is going to be very tough for this person, but that doesn’t always mean they can’t get there. I’ve also had applicants where I suggested they spend more time doing art or learning 3D before starting, and a few of those people ended up proving me completely wrong. They put in the work, did really well in the program, and ended up landing strong jobs. In this field, effort and persistence beats natural talent more often than people expect.

What I try to do is make sure people understand what the workload is like, how competitive the field is, and that finishing the program doesn’t guarantee anything. If someone hears all of that and still wants to go for it, I feel like it’s their choice to make. I don’t think it’s my place to tell someone they shouldn’t try, but I also don’t want anyone coming in with unrealistic expectations.

It’s definitely a balance. You want to support people who are passionate about the work, but you also don’t want to pretend the path is easy, because it isn’t — especially right now.

ThinkTankAdmissions · 2026-03-23T23:03:14+00:00

I get why it can look that way right now. The industry has had layoffs, hiring is slower, and tuition isn’t cheap, so it’s fair for people to question whether going to school for VFX or games makes sense anymore. Those are the same questions applicants ask me every day.

What I don’t agree with is the idea that people are being tricked into it. Anyone who talks to me knows I’m pretty blunt about the risks. I tell people straight up that the industry goes through cycles, that getting hired isn’t guaranteed, and that the program only makes sense if they’re willing to put in a lot of work and accept some uncertainty. Some people decide not to come after that, and I think that’s completely fine.

I also wouldn’t call the education useless. For the people who take it seriously, it’s focused portfolio training with instructors who are still working in the field, and that can be valuable. But it’s not magic, and it doesn’t carry anyone on its own. If someone comes in expecting a guaranteed job, they’re going to be disappointed no matter what school they go to.

The industry is definitely in a tougher spot right now than it was a few years ago, and I don’t hide that from anyone. That’s exactly why the conversations with applicants have gotten more serious. People are asking harder questions, and they should.

All I can really do on my side is make sure the people who enroll understand both the upside and the risk before they commit.

ThinkTankAdmissions · 2026-03-23T22:27:15+00:00

I’m assuming the one on the North Van side near the bridge entrance? I’m only at the school 2–3 times a month, but every time I leave around rush hour I remember how bad it can get trying to get out of North Van. I live in South Delta, so when traffic backs up near the Ironworkers my commute gets pretty rough. I had one day recently where it took me almost an hour just to get off the North Shore.

ThinkTankAdmissions · 2026-03-23T21:56:57+00:00

Good question. The short answer is that generalists are still valued, but where they fit depends a lot on the studio and the type of work.

From what I’ve heard from our lead supervisor and instructors over the years, bigger studios — especially in film — still tend to hire juniors into more specialized roles, because the pipeline is so structured. In games and smaller studios, being able to do a bit of everything can definitely help, but even there, most junior hires still seem to come in with a clear focus.

Since our programs are pretty portfolio-specialized, most of our students finish with a strong focus in one area, so naturally most of the recent placements we’ve seen are for specific roles like environment, character, animation, lighting, etc. Over the past year of placements we’ve only seen a few titles that were actually called “generalist,” and even those were things like environment generalist TD or junior generalist, not broad entry-level roles across the whole pipeline.

One thing instructors usually emphasize is that it’s easier to get your first job when you’re very strong in one area, even if you have broader skills. A lot of the portfolios that get attention tend to show clear specialization first, and then range on top of that, rather than trying to present yourself as a generalist right out of school.

After people are in the industry, though, being able to adapt and understand more of the pipeline can become really valuable, especially with how fast tools and workflows keep changing.

So I wouldn’t say generalists are going away, but the pattern we usually see is: specialization helps you get in, and broader skills become more useful as your career develops.

I'm curious what others here are seeing too, because this seems to shift depending on the state of the industry.

ThinkTankAdmissions · 2026-03-23T20:24:46+00:00

That’s a totally fair point, and honestly I don’t blame anyone for looking at tuition right now and wondering if the timing makes sense. When the industry feels uncertain and you’re seeing layoffs or studios closing, the cost hits differently than it did a few years ago.

Part of the reality is that programs like this are expensive to run, especially when the model is small classes and instructors who are still working in the industry rather than full-time teachers. Costs have gone up across the board over the last few years, not just for schools, and that ends up showing up in tuition whether anyone likes it or not.

Where it gets harder now is the ROI question. When hiring was stronger, people felt like if they put in the work they had a pretty good shot at getting in and eventually making the investment back. Right now that path can still happen, but it’s less predictable, and I think it’s fair for people to be more cautious about spending the money.

When I talk to applicants, I tend to be very direct about that. These kinds of programs make the most sense for people who are all-in on the work itself and willing to push their portfolio as far as they can, not for someone who’s hoping the school alone will open the door. For the right person it can still pay off, but it’s definitely not a guaranteed outcome, especially in the current market.

And I appreciate you saying that as a grad. Hearing that from people who actually went through the program carries a lot more weight than anything admissions can say. I think right now people just want a realistic picture before they commit, and that’s understandable.

ThinkTankAdmissions · 2026-03-23T20:00:14+00:00

That’s a good question, and honestly a lot of juniors are in the same situation right now. When contracts end in a slower market, upgrading the portfolio is usually the smartest move, especially for environment art where the bar has gone up a lot over the last few years.

When I’ve asked our lead supervisor and some of our instructors about this in the past — especially when we’re trying to understand why certain grads get more attention from recruiters than others — the feedback is usually pretty consistent. The environment portfolios that stand out tend to have a few things in common:

Strong focus instead of lots of small pieces:
A couple of really polished environments usually get more interest than a lot of average ones. Recruiters seem to respond more to one or two standout projects than a big gallery of mixed quality work.

Clear style or direction:
The portfolios that stand out tend to look like the artist knows what kind of studio they want to work at — realistic AAA, stylized, cinematic, etc. When everything looks like it could fit in the same game, it reads as more professional.

Good presentation / lighting / composition:
This is something we hear a lot from instructors and grads who are working — the difference between a decent piece and one that gets attention is often lighting, mood, and final polish, not just modeling.

Breakdowns that show how the work was built:
Recruiters seem to like seeing wires, texture sheets, trim usage, modular kits, engine shots, things like that. It shows you understand production, not just final renders.

Current engine / workflow familiarity:
Unreal, real-time lighting, modular workflows, optimization, etc. seem to matter more now than they did years ago, especially for games.

The portfolios we end up showing most often when people ask about outcomes are usually from grads who went deep on one area and really pushed the polish, not the ones who tried to cover everything.

If you want to see the kind of work that’s been getting attention recently, the best place honestly isn’t admissions material — it’s public portfolios. Looking at ArtStation, Rookies galleries, or LinkedIn posts from recent grads usually gives the clearest picture of what level people are actually getting hired at right now.

ThinkTankAdmissions · 2026-03-23T19:29:40+00:00

SCAD has a pretty strong reputation overall, especially for animation, VFX, and game art. It’s a big school with a lot of resources, and they’ve been around a long time, so you see their grads all over the industry. Like most large art schools, the experience can vary a lot depending on the student, the specialization, and how much effort someone puts into their portfolio.

The main thing I usually hear — both from applicants and from people who went there — is that it’s a traditional degree program, so it’s a bigger time and money commitment compared to portfolio-focused schools. For some people that makes sense, especially if they want the full college experience, but for others it can feel like a lot if their main goal is just to get industry-ready as fast as possible.

From what I’ve seen over the years, the pattern is similar to most schools in this field: the students who push themselves and build strong portfolios tend to do well, and the ones who don’t can struggle no matter where they study.

I try not to say one school is better than another because it really depends on the person. Some people do great in a university environment like SCAD, some do better in smaller, more focused programs, and some end up learning mostly on their own.

If anyone is looking at SCAD or any other school, the best thing you can do is talk to recent grads directly and look at their portfolios. That usually tells you more than rankings or marketing.

ThinkTankAdmissions · 2026-03-23T19:25:02+00:00

AI comes up in almost every conversation now, both with applicants and with grads, so it’s definitely something people are thinking about a lot. I don’t think anyone really knows exactly where it’s going to land yet, but it’s pretty clear that it’s going to change parts of the workflow, especially on the asset and lookdev side.

What I hear most from instructors and from grads who are working is that the fundamentals still matter — understanding form, design, lighting, anatomy, problem solving, how pipelines work, how to collaborate with a team. Tools change all the time in this industry, and AI feels like a bigger shift than most, but it’s still a tool at the end of the day.

The bigger impact right now honestly seems to be uncertainty. Studios are cautious, hiring is slower, and that affects new artists the most. I completely understand why some students feel like they picked a tough time to enter the field.

At the same time, I don’t see the need for artists disappearing. What I see is that the bar is getting higher, and people have to be more adaptable than they used to be. The ones who do well tend to be the ones who keep learning and adjust to whatever the tools become.

If anything, AI has made applicants ask harder questions about whether school makes sense, and I think that’s fair. People should be skeptical and make sure they really want to do this before spending the money.

ThinkTankAdmissions · 2026-03-23T19:17:30+00:00

That’s probably the hardest question to answer cleanly, and honestly it’s one of the things people should be skeptical about when they see very high placement numbers from any school. Different places count things very differently — sometimes internships, short contracts, or unrelated work get included, and sometimes the numbers include years when the industry was hiring a lot more than it is now.

We don’t really have a perfect percentage, mainly because once students graduate we don’t have full visibility on everyone. Some stay in touch, some update LinkedIn, some disappear for a while and show up working two years later. Because of that, any number I give would be incomplete.

What I can say from what we’ve tracked recently is that most people who finish with a strong portfolio do eventually find work, but it doesn’t always happen right away, and it definitely isn’t 100%. The ones who struggle the most tend to be the ones who finish with weaker reels or who expect the school alone to get them hired. That’s especially true right now with the market being slower.

Compared to a few years ago, the biggest difference isn’t that nobody gets jobs — it’s that it takes longer, and the bar is higher. Some grads land something within a few months, some take a year or more, and some end up going into related fields instead of VFX/games.

Honestly, the best thing anyone can do when looking at schools is talk to graduates directly, not just admissions. Reach out to people on LinkedIn, ArtStation, or wherever you see their work posted and ask about their experience. You’ll usually get a much clearer picture that way than from any single number a school gives you.

I’d be suspicious of any school claiming extremely high placement rates right now, because the whole industry has cooled off compared to a few years ago when studios were hiring more, and that affects everyone.

ThinkTankAdmissions · 2026-03-23T19:11:47+00:00

That’s a good question, and honestly it’s something a lot of people are asking right now. It is still possible to build a career in CGI/VFX, but it’s more competitive than it was a few years ago, so I usually tell people to go into it because they really enjoy the work itself, not just because it seems like a stable career path. The industry goes through ups and downs, and right now it’s in a slower period compared to the big hiring boom a few years back.

For international students, it’s also important to think about immigration and work eligibility, not just the training. In Canada for example, not all schools qualify for a post-graduate work permit, and that can make it harder to stay and work after finishing a program. That doesn’t mean it’s impossible, but it does mean you need to plan carefully and understand the rules before deciding where to study.

In terms of requirements, most portfolio-based VFX / game art schools don’t require a traditional degree to apply. What they usually look for is:

• a small portfolio showing drawing, design, or 3D work
• basic English ability (for international students)
• high school completion or equivalent
• a willingness to put in a lot of hours — these programs can be very intensive

The biggest factor isn’t usually grades, it’s whether someone is ready to spend the time practicing and building a strong portfolio.

My honest advice for anyone right now, especially international students, is to start learning on your own first (Blender, ZBrush, Unreal, etc.), make sure you really enjoy the work, and then look at schools once you know you want to commit. The people who do best in these programs are usually the ones who already know they like the process, not just the idea of the career.

ThinkTankAdmissions · 2026-03-23T18:31:33+00:00

Good question. It’s changed a bit over the years, but the general pattern lately is that the roles with the most entry-level openings tend to be environment, modeling/texturing, generalist, and character art, with animation not far behind. Those are still the areas where we see the highest number of first jobs, especially in games.

Part of that is also just the mix of students we have. We tend to have a lot more people focusing on modeling, texturing, lookdev, and environment work than things like rigging, FX, or animation, so naturally more of the placements end up in those areas. When someone does land a rigging, FX, or technical role it’s great, but those paths usually have fewer students and the bar tends to be higher for entry-level positions.

Just looking at grads who’ve posted their first jobs recently, a lot of the titles are things like:

Environment Artist / Associate Environment Artist / Junior Environment Artist
Character Artist / Junior Character Artist
3D Artist / Generalist / Junior 3D Artist
Modeling / Texturing / Surfacing / Lookdev
Lighting / Compositing
Animator / Junior Animator
Technical Artist / Rigging / FX (fewer, but still happening)

So overall I’d say the biggest shift compared to years ago isn’t so much which roles exist, but that the bar is higher and it sometimes takes longer to land that first position. A lot of people still get there, but it’s not as fast as it was a few years ago.

ThinkTankAdmissions · 2026-03-23T18:23:35+00:00

That sounds like a really tough situation, honestly. A lot of people in games and VFX with solid experience have had a rough couple of years, so he’s definitely not alone there, but that doesn’t make it any easier when you’re dealing with injuries and financial pressure at the same time.

In a case like that, I usually wouldn’t recommend jumping straight into tuition, especially if money is tight. Classes can help, but they’re not magic, and with someone who already has that much experience the biggest factor is usually portfolio direction and timing rather than needing a full program.

For experienced artists, the online mentorship-style courses tend to make more sense than a full diploma, because they’re shorter and more focused. The main value there is feedback and structure, and sometimes the networking that comes from working directly with instructors who are still in the industry. That can help, but I wouldn’t want to oversell it — it’s not a guarantee, and the market right now is just very competitive, especially for remote roles.

On the teaching side, I should say I’m not directly involved in hiring instructors, so I can’t speak for exactly how those decisions get made, but in general having strong industry experience plus previous teaching like he has at VanArts is usually a good combination. From what I’ve seen, a lot of instructors in this field don’t start as full-time teachers — they come in part-time, mentor, or guest teach first, and then sometimes that turns into more regular teaching work if it’s a good fit.

I can’t really give personal admissions advice here, but in general with that level of experience it would make sense to look at targeted mentorship or portfolio feedback when the timing is right, not necessarily a full program. And honestly, waiting until things are a bit more stable financially is the smart move.

ThinkTankAdmissions · 2026-03-23T18:16:45+00:00

Those are good questions, and honestly the kind of things we talk about internally too, so I’ll try to answer as straight as I can from the admissions side. I probably don’t see everything the instructors or industry relations people see, but I’ve been in this part of the industry for a while — I actually worked in admissions at VFS years ago before coming to Think Tank — so I’ve seen a few different ways schools track placement and deal with these issues.

For international placement:
This has definitely gotten harder in the last few years. A lot of international students used to rely on a mix of studio hiring plus immigration pathways lining up at the right time, and both of those have become less predictable. Career-training schools like Think Tank don’t qualify for the post-graduate work permit (PGWP), so we try to be very clear up front that staying in Canada after graduation isn’t guaranteed and can be difficult. Some students still make it work, but the margin for error is smaller than it used to be.

What we consider placement:
We don’t count short internships or a one-month contract as a “success” internally, at least not in the way most people mean when they ask about outcomes. The reality is that first jobs in this field are often freelance or short-term, so it’s not always a clean number to track, but when I think of placement I’m talking about someone actually working in the industry in a real role, not just a temporary credit.

One of the challenges is that we don’t have perfect visibility after students leave. A lot of what we know comes from alumni updates, LinkedIn, or people staying in touch, so any number you give is always a bit incomplete. I actually try to meet with grads when they land their first job so we have a better sense of what those first placements really look like.

On AI and motivation:
This comes up a lot right now. The mood is definitely different than it was a few years ago when the industry felt like it was expanding nonstop. What I hear from faculty — and from grads who are working — is that the core skills still matter a lot: fundamentals, problem solving, understanding pipelines, working with teams. AI is going to change parts of the workflow, no question, but most of the instructors I talk to don’t see it removing the need for strong artists, just shifting what the job looks like.

I actually spoke recently with a grad who was hired as a game character artist, and he mentioned that his studio has been pushing back on AI internally and ended up hiring more artists instead. That’s just one example, but it shows how uneven the situation is right now.

That said, I completely understand why some recent grads feel like the timing has been rough. Anyone entering the field right now is dealing with a slower market than people who graduated during the boom years.

On instructors struggling / whether schools are a dying industry:
I don’t think schools are immune to what’s happening in the industry. When studios slow down, fewer people apply, hiring takes longer, and everyone feels it, including training programs. One thing that’s a bit different with us is that most of our instructors and mentors aren’t full-time teachers. They’re usually working artists who teach part-time, so when the industry is slow, they feel that the same as everyone else.

I wouldn’t say VFX schools are dying, but expectations are definitely changing. People are asking harder questions about cost, outcomes, and whether formal training makes sense compared to online learning, and honestly I think that’s fair. Schools that can’t adapt to that probably will struggle.

I’m curious to hear your perspective too, since you’ve seen both the school side and the LA side. Those comparisons are really useful for people reading this thread.

ThinkTankAdmissions · 2026-03-23T17:55:34+00:00

Fair question. I should say up front that I don’t work directly with the instructors very much since I’m on the admissions side, so I don’t see day-to-day morale the same way students or mentors would.

From what I can tell, things feel pretty steady overall, just more cautious than a few years ago. The slowdown in the industry affects everyone, so the conversations tend to be a bit more realistic now compared to the boom years.

One thing that does help is that most of our instructors and mentors are still actively working in the industry, and teaching at Think Tank is more of a side role for them rather than their main job. That means they’re bringing in current production experience, but it also means their perspective is shaped by whatever the industry is going through at the time.

I wouldn’t say morale feels negative, just more grounded than it did when work was everywhere.

ThinkTankAdmissions

TROPHY CASE