We´re drifing slightly off-topic here, but that´s okay too, in my book, and opinion might as well be passed when it´s relevant, so on to photo schools.
I had to spend time in one when I was doing my early photographic training - evening classes after work - and for me, in those days, it was a total waste of time. The tutors were tired employed photographers making an extra buck (that they needed the extra work spoke volumes) and heads were as firmly stuck in the past as ever. For example, we had to shoot a portrait setup using a wooden 4x5, this in the heyday of the Hasselblad 500C or even the Mamiya TLR! I´m sorry, but you proved nothing by being able to use one for a job for which it is the least appropriate tool.
The most depressing instant I recall was when the conversation, such as it ever was, got onto the subject of star photographers. I mentioned a certain respect for David Bailey, head honcho of the English school (fashion) of the era, to be treated to the tutor´s opinion that should he pohotograph like said Bailey, he would give up photography... yeah, right.
In the end, it seemed to me that photography school served no purpose whatsoever and that you would learn more at work or even as an amateur with a home darkroom.
Today, with digital capture and all the digital workflow that follows after the fact, I hold the opposite opinion which assures me that a photographic school that will teach you everything you need to know about Photoshop and getting the best out of a printer must be worth its weight in gold.
Forget teaching art - you can´t so why bother? Teach the mechanics or, in this case, electronics of the business. Teach the business of the business? Again, you either have that in you - the proper street- smarts - or you don´t.
Ciao - Rob C
