Students will pay a fortune, travelling from Asia, Australia and the Americas to study in the beautiful Rennie-Macintosh buildings in the centre of Glasgow.
It is said that when they get their first job, former students of the design faculty routinely have salaries a few thousand pounds higher than recruits from other art institutions.
This success is not reflected in how current students see the institution however.
Feedback forms from students rating the quality of teaching and facilities places Glasgow School of Art in 48th position amongst the United Kingdom's art schools.
There are only 48 art schools in the United Kingdom. How did this mismatch occur?
Where getting onto a course is highly competitive, the tuition and facilities are considered to be world-class while on leaving graduates can expect to get well remunerated; it seems that it is only the students who are actually there who are disappointed.
Were the students' expectations unrealistic, is there a feeling of discontent within the walls of the institution or do the students simply have nothing to compare their university with?
I think of the Art School in Glasgow when I hear of more schools in the UK planning to introduce pupil monitoring of their teachers.
If there is a mismatch in perception between how art students good enough to be given a place on a course in one of the best institutions in the world view their school, how good a review will a teacher get from a disgruntled 12-year-old who has just been told off for shouting out in class?
The most recent school to commence a program of pupil feedback is Longfield Academy, a secondary school in Darlington, County Durham in the North of England, who have dubbed some of their pupils 'secret shoppers'.
These students are briefed in advance about what they should be looking for, as part of their teachers' Continuing Professional Development, and then return their feedback to the senior leadership team of the school.
The school hopes this will celebrate success and lead to the sharing of good practice and it could be argued that as the recipients of the education, they are in the best place to judge the value of it.
After all, it is not like a ten minute visit from a school inspector or members of the senior management team just 'popping in' to observe the lesson; these reviewers will engage with your teaching spring, summer, autumn and winter, whether you are feeling brilliant or suffering the effects of the flu.
Inspectors of schools in Scotland also like the idea, hoping that pupils will be “actively involved in shaping their education and provide teaching staff with valuable insight”
Pupil feedback adds to the clamour for an immediate response in almost every interaction we engage with; if you leave your online address with an organisation, you can soon expect an email asking you to rate them.
How was your visit to our bank/ castle/ shop/ toilet? Why not add the learner experience to this? The trouble is with people like me.
When asked for feedback I either ignore the request for my numerical review or tick random boxes; my feedback is worse than worthless.
Is the average pupil going to be fair and methodical in the review of your work?
I also worry that professionals' work may be judged by those who don't have a good enough understanding of it.
I enjoy food and I eat every day, but I wouldn't have enough understanding to critique the intricacies of the work of the chef.
If the pie tastes good I wouldn't be able to judge that it might have tasted better if it had been taken out of the oven three minutes earlier.
As the UK's government classroom behaviour tsar Tom Bennett puts it: 'You may as well ask the class hamster what the best way to teach phonics is.'
Furthermore, unfortunately, what could be a good source of information about how well you are imparting knowledge to your pupils might well be tainted by personal enmities, a factor which doesn't come into the equation when someone is reviewing their Airbnb holiday rental.
No matter how good a teacher you are, some kids just won't like you and there will be nothing you can do about it.
A retired teacher once told me that the quickest way to destroy a good relationship with a certain pupil was to ask him to work and I could quite understand a teacher who knew they were being monitored deliver a lesson just to suit the process; snappy and glitzy with lots of technology involved, whether it advanced learning or not.
A recent survey of 3000 primary, secondary and SEN pupils' opinions on their teachers in the Times Educational Supplement found that the number one quality they look for in a teacher is not subject knowledge or how good they are at communicating information, but how funny they are.
Pity the poor teacher about to be monitored by their pupils who doesn't know any jokes, it could reflect badly on their score.
Similarly, warmth is high on the list of desirables and while a joke can be learned (Here's one for free: 'I've given up asking rhetorical questions: what's the point?) you are either warm or you aren't.
That's not to say that pupil voice isn't important; a good teacher is responsive to the needs of their class and should have the ability to gauge the reaction of the pupils' to the work set: too hard, too easy, too boring, and then adjust the delivery to suit the needs of the class.
We can't be led by our egos and if pupils let it be known that the lesson isn't working, if needs be we need to throw it out and start again.
I'm just not sure how this can be formalised, if we are asking pupils to report on the delivery of the lesson, when does their learning take place?