# Advice on MFA



## Taurus_Gemini (Aug 18, 2008)

This is my first post here, please bear with me if my query sounds too elementary...

I am a 29 year-old guy from Hong Kong who is hoping to apply for admission to an MFA degree in film production for fall 2009. I tried NYU, Columbia and UCLA for fall 2008 but was rejected. I will try again this year, but may I ask if there are other (reputable) alternatives that offer solid training and at the same time ain't as expensive as the ones I just mentioned?

I am also extremely worried about my age - I have been working in the legal field for the past six years and the heavy workload does not really allow me to build up a decent portfolio other than a few very unprofessional shorts. I am really concerned - even if I get accepted for fall 2009 - that it would be too late for me to start in the industry when I am like 32 or 33 and without much prior experience. That said, I heard that many people who take MFA degrees are mature students, is that true?

It'd be ideal if the program offers reasonable prospect of working in the industry in the States after graduation - opportunities are few in the local HK industry - and certainly there isn't going to be much living space for a mature graduate like me.


----------



## mckinnod (Aug 18, 2008)

I turn 34 in Sept. and am headed to Chapman (Cinematography) today for orientation.  At 29 I quit everything I was into and headed down this road-I went from making about 50K to nothing within a week when I relocaterd to follow my passion.  It was not easy to do but worth the struggle  and ended up being the best decision I have made thus far...
Donald


----------



## Jayimess (Aug 18, 2008)

Donald is right.  I'm 29 now, with two years to go.  I'm by no means the youngest in my program.  We've got people in their 40s.

The 22 year olds are the real rarity.

Have you considered USC?  They don't require experience, just the ability to tell a visual story well.

Best of luck!


----------



## Taurus_Gemini (Aug 20, 2008)

Thanks!

I am just a bit worried that I will be turned down again with the clock ticking - I am aiming for NYU / Columbia but I know they are really competitive... and expensive! Does anyone have a rough figure of how much an international student will need to spend in order to finish the entire course + reasonable living expenses? I know the figures on their webpage may not be very accurate and I know there are going to be film costs and other additional charges.

BTW does anyone know why they always ask in the application if you have applied before? What's the impact if I fill in "yes" (or "no")?


----------



## Zumbi (Aug 22, 2008)

Hi all.

Yeah, looks like is true.
I'm planning to apply for UCLA and NYU.

have anyone of you heard about the NYFA? I thought to apply for the program MFA FILMMAKING.
But I saw a comment of an student that made the 6 weeks course. And said that is waste of time and money, and that it's not a serious schooll.

Anybody knows the main difference between a program like NYFA and one like UCLA  (production/directing)?


----------



## dharmagirl (Aug 22, 2008)

I am a screenwriter and you are talking about production prorams,  so someone chime in if I am incorrect, but my understanding is that NYFA is not an accredited university, so their certificate does not hold nearly as much clout as a program like UCLA (or USC, NYU, Columbia, Chapman or the other top tier film schools).  As long as you can pay the fees, you get into NYFA and come out with a certificate, but not an MFA.  These schools, on the other hand,  have EXTREMELY rigorous selection processes.  If you just want to learn the technical stuff, NYFA may be a good way to go, but if you are looking for a degree that will get you respect within the film community, then you should look elsewhere.

If your ultimate goal is to go to UCLA then it may be a good thing to take courses at other schools, maybe even NYFA, first.  I was accepted into the UCLA screenwriting program this year, and I think that the classes that I took at NYU's SCPS program (Not NYFA) helped with that tremendously and I would highly recommend it.

NYU School of Continuing and Professional Studies is NOT the same as NYU's selective program.  Like NYFA, everyone gets in.  But they have great teachers, some of whom also work at the "real" NYU and it was a great stepping stone between my undergrad experience and grad school.  Here is the website if you are interested: http://www.scps.nyu.edu/.  

Good luck!


----------



## Ard23 (Aug 22, 2008)

I took a 4 week course at NYFA while I was in college. It was fun and gave me some hands-on experience with a camera, but I'm not sure I would consider it a serious film school. For one, their teachers are often students who recently graduated from the top film schools, but likely don't yet have any professional contacts/achievements, etc. Also, one of the best reasons to go to a top film school is the caliber of the people you will be working with. Its all about building a network. At NYFA, b/c of the open admissions policy, its kind of a crap shoot. Some people will likely be talented, interesting, and ambitious, but you're also going to be spending lots of time with those who are not.

But taking a short course at NYFA just to get your feet wet and see if you have a knack for filmmaking is not at all a bad idea, if you can afford it.


----------



## Zumbi (Sep 19, 2008)

THANK YOU VERY MUCH GUYS!

Yeah, I was thinking the same. As I'll spend lots of money, time and dedication, I prefer to go to a really serious school. Not actually because of the respect, but mostly because of WHAT I can learn and the contacts.

I'm now more keen to go to USC. I liked the program. But still between UCLA and USC, searching for more information.
In the both I would apply for the MFA Production for film and TV. Will do an emphasys in Directing.

Does anyone can list the good and bad points of UCLA and USC? I mean, I know they're both really good, but one of the reasons this forum exists... to help people decide for once wich would be the best institution.

Thank you.


----------



## Ard23 (Sep 19, 2008)

I can only speak for UCLA, as its where I go. Good points:

1 - Small class size (18 directors per year) fosters an intimate feel of comraderie and lots of individual attention.

2 - Talented and inspiring student body.

3 - Talented and inspiring faculty.

4 - Name recognition that attracts big names for guest lectures and (occasionally) guest classes.

5 - Location. No offense to USC, but we're located in a much nicer part of town. That said, "nicer" can also translate to "boring."

6 - Independent film culture. The culture and message at UCLA is, make films that only you can make. It doesn't mean you're encouraged to turn your creative work into expensive therapy sessions (though it happens all the time) but that the overriding creative values are ones that encourage you to not try to spend your time predicting what Hollywood wants. That said, there is plenty of real-world recognition that one must maneuver the industry waters after making what you want to make.

And the bad...

1 - Limited resources. UCLA is a state school, and does not have near the money at its disposal as USC. Much of the grip equipment is pathetic, cameras are better (but no 35mm cameras), and the sound stages are fairly ancient. Plus the physical plant of the school is 60s-era fugly. The good thing about that is that the school is not too protective of the place, and is ok with holding drunken dance parties on the sound stages (happens at least once a year).

2 - Bad faculty. The exception to the rule, but there are some real hacks teaching at UCLA who really have no right to be. But they are not too difficult to avoid once you recognize who they are.

3 - Soviet-style bureaucracy. As part of the UC system, there are lots of non-film school specific regulations/ limitations that we have to deal with (ie not getting insurance from school that covers shooting outside of LA). Also, every clerical matter takes FOREVER to get done, and generally involves more paper work than it should. I went to a private school for undergrad, so was spoiled by how well everything worked.

4 - Bad at PR. UCLA does not know how to exploit its name as much as it should, especially given that it has fewer resources. Again this might be a symptom of it being a state school, but they are not very savvy about raising money, or promoting students for that matter. Our end of year Spotlight festival at the DGA is great, but other than that you are pretty much on your own when it comes to promotion (which is pretty much the way it is in the world of indie filmmaking anyway).

Thats all off the top of my head. Write back w/ any specific questions...


----------



## Jayimess (Sep 19, 2008)

Like Ard, I can only speak to my school, USC, and as I'm a screenwriting student, I can only give you production program assessments based on what I've been told and what I've observed.

The Pros

1.  Diverse student body.  USC's students come from around the world and every walk of life...both upbringing and adult journeys.  As MFA students, few of your classmates will fall into the "University of Spoiled Children" category.  


2.  Large but intimate population.  Fifty students enter each semester, which is either a pro or a con, depending on how you look at it.  I've yet to hear a single person say they feel like a number here, or that their professors don't know who they are, though I'm sure it's possible.  Outside of critical studies courses, you'll never have a class with more than 15 people in it, and at that point you usually have more than one instructor.  Most classes are 7 or 8 people.  The best benefit I see of the large student population is that there are always plenty of projects to work on, from 507s to thesis films and everything in between, and plenty of crew that will work on yours.

3.  Cross-discipline integration.  You'll interact with talented screenwriters and producers from the Writing and Stark programs. Besides the 546 projects each semester, they'll collaborate with you on everything from 506 to theses and everything in between, and you'll be making connections that might just last a lifetime.  The writing students can take classes within the production division, and production students can take writing classes.  I don't mean to assume or badmouth anyone, because this may be a pro to many of you out there , but when I interviewed at UCLA, they clearly said collaboration was unlikely, and that writers taking production classes was a big no-no.  It was a huge factor in my decision to attend USC instead.

4.  Room to explore and grow.  You don't come in as any one crew position...so if you're not sure what it is you want to do, you can explore them all.  However, if you know exactly what it is you want to do (my bf, for example, is a DP and he knew it when he applied here), then you can focus immediately on that.  Another great thing about the larger student body is that there are plenty of opportunities to take the classes you want.  I know it's a frustration within the writing division that because we're so small (less than 70 MFA students total, 1st and 2nd years), classes are offered only at certain times and certain semesters.  Not so within the production program.

5.  Amazing faculty.  Go to the website.  You'll see.  The greatest thing is, they WANT to be here.  Lots of them went here, and teaching a class each semester is their way of giving back.  They're both accomplished and devoted, and always accessible.  They're not just instructors, they'll become mentors and friends, and you can come to them long after you've taken their class.  

6.  Amazing guests.  The great thing about amazing and accomplished faculty is that they have amazing and accomplished friends, who are more than willing to come in and share their wisdom with you.

7.  Amazing opportunities.  The USC Mafia is real.  We have programs exclusive to us with several studios and/or brands...as in, only USC students can apply.  Our career services department is amazing, and will work hard to not only find you the right opportunity, but to make sure you get it.

8.  Amazing facilities.  As of December, our new facility will be open, and it looks amazing.  You can see it on the website.  Thing is, the "old" Lucas building, built in 1992, ain't bad at all, plenty of sound stages in pretty good shape.  They'll be tearing it down very soon after the new place opens to build even more sweet stuff.  The Zemeckis Center for Digital Arts is great as well, with motion effects studios, green screens, and spankin' new sound stages.

9.  Top notch equipment.  The only thing we don't have here are RED cameras.  8mm, 16mm, 35mm, mini DV, HD, you name it.  The lighting and sound equipment rocks socks, too.  Avids, we got 'em, and they actually separate them into different rooms and buildings, so the rookies work together, with more monitoring, and the advanced work together with more freedom, so nobody annoys anyone.  ;-)

10.  It's the first film school, and to many people, it's the "best" film school.  I don't think there's any one "best" school, just the best school for each student, but you can't deny the school's rep all the same.

11.  Promotion, i.e. First Look.  This is a great showcase for thesis and 546 films held each year.  If you don't have representation coming into First Look, you very likely will by the time it's over.  The festivals and distribution center promotes the HELL out of student films.

12.  Scholarship/Financial Assistance.  They will work with you to find ways to pay for school, be it assistantships, the myriad scholarships funded by an almost intimidating roster...Jack Nicholson always gives me goosebumps, personally...or work study that pays $12 an hour.

13.  Creative Freedom.  While you are taught how Hollywood and the studio system work, you are not forced, nor even encouraged, to make "studio" films.  They hate "safe" stories here, and will always encourage you to take it to the next level, differentiate yourself.

14.  Joe W. and the Student Production Office.  This guy will get you any location on earth, and he'll probably get it for free.  He is a permit miracle worker, from location to fire.  SPO will help you find just about anything you need.

The Cons

1.  Location.  You might not feel safe when just outside of campus.  We just had a rash of violence, actually, and it's pretty unsettling.

2.  Price.  Good lawd, it's expensive.

3.  Time of Study.  If you want to do a thesis, it could take some time.  I don't really understand the process, but apparently you have to pitch it, and you might not be approved the first time.  Don't take my word on that.  Point is, a lot of directors seem to stay more than three years because of, and they always give the same one word answer..."thesis."  The cool thing is, they won't kick you out if you need extra time (the writing and Stark programs will), and you can take minimum credits, say two per semester, while you work it out.  A production student is needed to explain this better, so PLEASE don't base all assumptions on this paragraph from a well-intentioned screenwriting student.

4.  Critical Studies.  They make you take Critical Studies classes.

5.  Red tape.  All schools have it.  There's no escaping it.

6.  Copyright.  Like many, if not most schools, USC retains copyright to films made with their resources.  You keep the underlying idea.  Example:  I made a doc for 507.  I sold it Truth, the non-smoking non-profit.  They asked me to make a web series in the same vein.  USC gets half of the money Truth paid for the original piece, but I get the money for the series.  I don't know.  It doesn't bother me.  At all.  There are plenty of other options if you don't want to grant them copyright, but they involve securing EVERYTHING on your own...equipment, insurance, what have you.  But people do it every day.

7.  It's USC.  This campus is crawling with people who DO fit the University of Spoiled Children stereotype, so sometimes you will want to hit them with sticks.  Also, if you're trying to shoot/edit on a home football weekend, the place is an effing zoo.


That's all that comes to mind, I'll try to answer any other direct questions by asking friends.


----------



## Ard23 (Sep 19, 2008)

Jayimess' list reminded me of two other pluses of UCLA:

1 - You own copyright on all of your projects, the school has no ownership and does not get a piece of anything you sell/ distribute.

2 - Price. The best deal of all the top film schools. If you're a California resident (it takes a year of being here if you aren't one already), tuition is about 13K a year, not including TAships, which are distributed widely and fairly, and knock off half the tution per quarter you have one, plus pay you on top of  that.

3 - In regards to cross-discipline, directors have the best deal, as we are allowed/ encouraged to take producing, screenwriting, and cinematography classes. However, the other disciplines are generally not allowed to take our directing classes.

Oh, and they make us take Crit Studies as well. Blech.


----------



## Zumbi (Sep 25, 2008)

Looks like the PERRFECT institution would be UCLA and USC mixed...

I actually don't have much time to think, and I'll apply for both By the way, when it's the deadline for applications at USC?

I really liked the program from UCLA. Especially because of the possibility to make the Director's program AND take cinematography classes.
One thing that for me is REALLY bad at UCLA, is that DON'T (gosh) have the F... 35 mm cameras.

At USC the bad point is the program... Would be nice to have a program for directors... And especially for me, the VIOLENCE it's something to consider, BECAUSE I'm taking my wife with me...

I'll apply for both. 

I'll just like, please, Jaymess and Ard23, to know MORE about what thinks a PRODUCTION student from UCLA and USC.
Especially USC, Jaymess. I mean, would be nice to know what a director wannabe (who likes to be the cinematographer sometimes) thinks about the program at USC... If they are happy about the skills they're learning. I believe they are because of the equipment. But, wha about the rest?

Anyway, thank you guys... Very much!


----------



## barbsteele (Sep 25, 2008)

My friend is an aspiring director in the USC program, just starting to cast for his thesis, and he loves loves loves it. Don't think that they're not as good as UCLA at making directors just because they call it "production" and not "directing"! I mean, just look at their alumni...

The openness of their program is what makes it so attractive to me personally (and to my friend when he applied). Almost  _everyone_ sets out to be a director. In the real world, very few get to be, but if that's what you have your heart set on, you'll certainly be able to do it at USC one way or another. In the meanwhile, they make sure to train you in other production skills you can use while working your way up the Hollywood ladder (or to keep you gainfully employed while fundraising for an indie film, if you go that route). My friend still wants to be a director ultimately, but he's also discovered he's excellent at sound editing. Another friend of mine went through their program and found her true passion is producing. If I get in (I hope I hope) I plan to work hard on my editing skills as a supplement/back-up to directing and screenwriting.

USC's program offers more customization than other programs, so the curriculum is really whatever you make it. I'm sure you can find your ideal balance between directing and cinematography courses there, and probably learn about some other area of production you may not have considered before too.


----------



## Jayimess (Sep 25, 2008)

Zumbi, I realize English is your second language, but I suggest you very closely re-read the discussion of directors taking cinematography classes again before you say the bad part of USC is that they don't have a directing program.  It would seem, that if you say that, that you do not understand the program's structure at all.


----------



## Zumbi (Sep 25, 2008)

Hi Jaymess.

Sorry, I meant that they don't have an SPECIFIC program for Director.
To be honest, I think that the USC program can be more interesting for me. Especially because I want to learn cinematography using 35mm cameras.

Thank you.


----------



## Jayimess (Sep 26, 2008)

Just because the diploma will say "Production" instead of "Directing" doesn't mean there's no specificity.  You want to direct, then you direct.  You want to edit, then you edit.  

But if you want to direct and study cinematography, then you do that.

It's up to each student how specific their program is for whatever discipline they choose.


----------



## Zumbi (Sep 29, 2008)

Thank you again Jayimess.
Think I MESS something, or I did A MESS with the posts...


----------



## Jayimess (Sep 29, 2008)

No worries, I know it's a lot of information to absorb.

I don't know how people come here and study in an entirely different language...it's hard enough for me, and English is my first.  I can't imagine going to college and every lecture, textbook, etc being written in French or Spanish.

Bravo, international students, you humble me.

You didn't mess anything, by the way.


----------



## Zumbi (Sep 29, 2008)

It's being really nice be part of this forum, I'm already delighted to learn before start any course. Thank you everybody, especially jayimess and Ard23.
Yeah... I'm thinking about the LECTURES especially. It won't be easy.
Anyway, for me it's the best option. If not in UCLA or USC, it would be here in London, also difficult (if not more). As the schools we area talking about really makes the difference, so let's go.
The problem in UK is that is MUCH MORE difficult to find scholarships and funding for filmmaking studies.
I'm still between USC and UCLA. so I'll apply for both. I'll start my statements, and photo essay.
Yes, it's not easy to learn a new language. It's NECESSARY to go to a country where this language is spoken. I'm still learning english. I went to Italy for a couple of months an I learned Italian. But, REALLY believe you can. And you will see fantastic results! Plus, the experinece to live another cultures it's nice for aspiring filmmakers.
Good luck everybody on your applications!


----------



## Zumbi (Oct 1, 2008)

Jayimess.

I'm with a coleague in another post with some doubts about the TREATMENT for USC and UCLA.
As you are a SCREENWRITER, could you help us with some ideas?

http://forums.studentfilms.com/eve/forums?a=tpc&s=20860...051069265#3051069265

Thank you!


----------



## Taurus_Gemini (Aug 18, 2008)

This is my first post here, please bear with me if my query sounds too elementary...

I am a 29 year-old guy from Hong Kong who is hoping to apply for admission to an MFA degree in film production for fall 2009. I tried NYU, Columbia and UCLA for fall 2008 but was rejected. I will try again this year, but may I ask if there are other (reputable) alternatives that offer solid training and at the same time ain't as expensive as the ones I just mentioned?

I am also extremely worried about my age - I have been working in the legal field for the past six years and the heavy workload does not really allow me to build up a decent portfolio other than a few very unprofessional shorts. I am really concerned - even if I get accepted for fall 2009 - that it would be too late for me to start in the industry when I am like 32 or 33 and without much prior experience. That said, I heard that many people who take MFA degrees are mature students, is that true?

It'd be ideal if the program offers reasonable prospect of working in the industry in the States after graduation - opportunities are few in the local HK industry - and certainly there isn't going to be much living space for a mature graduate like me.


----------



## Zumbi (Oct 2, 2008)

Think it's an interesting post to read.
http://natkhat.wordpress.com/2006/11/03/applying-to-fil...ia-los-angeles-ucla/


----------

