Look, I teach in an art program at a university. I attended three different art schools, Tyler School of Art in Philadelphia, Howard University in. D.C, and Yale School of Art in New Haven. I wouldn't trade my experiences, and know they have been beneficial.
When looking at some visual artists' backgrounds I am noticing that they have studied other disciplines from Business to Urban Planning to Art History and Administration, to no college at all.
I have always known that law schools admit students from a range of studies, and that law school grads find their way to many professions, especially politics, but also broadcast, business and other professions not directly related to lawyering.
When I became aware of visual artists coming from non-fine art lanes, I started wondering about it, and understood that it just makes sense! The mediums for art are also changing, so the artists need other skills.
Fred Wilson, for example, has a BFA and started his career in art education.
Theastor Gates has a studied Urban Planning, Religion and Ceramics with no terminal degree.
But then there's the drive for studio artists to get ANOTHER degree, a Ph.D! What? Well, I have heard about it, knew the College Art Association was exploring the concept and found this essay that I think is insightful in both directions...I personally think artists should make art, not indulge in academic studies about other artists, unless that part of their practice. Besides, what will the historians and critics do?
Artists I revere who didn't/don't have advanced degrees in art:
Kerry James Marshall
From Miami Basel
Andy Warhol had a Bachelor's in Pictorial Design.
Jacob Lawrence, Romare Bearden, Frida Kahlo, Leonardo DaVinci, Pablo Picasso, and on and on...others are arguing this point. http://theartedge.faso.com/blog/70142/you-dont-need-a-degree-to-be-a-successful-artist