Such a well-researched and enlightening essay. Thanks for your hard work. Your insights also might provide a little balm to my years of rejections at those top festivals and programs: Don’t take it personally, it was never gonna happen anyway. All the money on submission fees. Oy! Like you wrote: “It’s demoralizing.”
You might be interested in this book; a lot of similar themes: “Mutiny: The Rise and Revolt of the College-Educated Working Class.” Just starting it and I’m finding it also to be an enlightening read.
This is super helpful, thank you for sharing. Do you feel the same way about public school MFA programs (like UT Austin or UCLA), than, say, private ones (like NYU/Columbia/USC/AFI?) Public ones are more affordable, but I’ve heard mixed things in their ability to really help and push filmmakers, but the structure can be helpful. Doing stuff on your own is great (and I’ve done that myself), but getting the right feedback/mentorship/support independently is quite challenging, and I’m curious how you think about that tradeoff.
I went to a very good public school MFA and found it very helpful, you just have to manage your expectations, and be careful especially with your early student film budgets. You want to spend the least money when you’re least experienced.
Film school will give you a framework and mentorship but not a career, especially not one directing. It’s just one good step on a long hard road. People will complain about film school constantly, but just ignore that part and focus on the work.
Public school can also still end up being quite expensive. They do not have the resources to push their filmmakers the way the elite private schools do. Consider trying to graduate a year early, and to establish residency in the state before you get in, it’s difficult but doable, and a really good tip is to become a residential advisor so you don’t have to pay rent, which is quite expensive. I do think it’s important to use the degree to get to an industry center.
Those schools, partly because of the class dynamics of their filmmakers, are not very well represented at the major festivals as well. UTAustin has more at SXSW, but as you can see in the charts, the big ones are largely dominated by the top 3 private schools.
I’m very happy to hear that. There is a lot of rejection on this path, and not all of it makes a lot of sense. I’ve had pitches rejected by a producer in the morning and then bought by another in the afternoon. All you can do is keep trying, not take it too personally, and see what you can learn from it for the next one. Just keep improving your craft, and when it gets good enough, some doors usually open, as long as you keep politely knocking.
Super helpful, thank you for the response! I’m Austin based and considering applying to UT Austin (as I’m already a resident of the city), more so for writing than directing, and found your response super helpful. Thank you for sharing!
UT Austin is a good bet, I applied there too back in the day. I’m still mad at them for making me take the GRE, but it’s a good, grounded place. Good luck with your application!
thank you! and i really appreciate your thoughtful, honest, direct, and data-driven analysis. it’s refreshing to see the nuance behind some of the “success” stories and really understand what it takes. as someone who hasn’t gone to film school/doesn’t come from that world, it was eye-opening to see your analysis (i just finished my first short film and struggled with all the rejection, and now i have a totally different pov on it).
I have been saying this for years. Instead of putting your money into an MFA, put it into your shorts/features: you’ll learn more about yourself as an artist and the craft, you’ll make more connections (form a tribe), and have something to show at the end of it all. This is one of the most thoroughly researched exposes to prove the point! I really respect you remaining anonymous, but am so curious about your own background haha. Thanks for all your hard work!
Thanks so much! I totally agree! I think the institutions give you a sense of accomplishment and safety that doesn’t always correlate to the brutal realities outside them. I’m working enough to find anonymity a bit more comfortable, but not enough that I don’t have time to write these giant essays I guess 🙃
Yes, you’re right, they get the “cotton wool” treatment, which we know is a far cry from the realities of the industry! Gratefully, I am originally from Australia where you can do a practical, hands-on film degree in undergrad and it is only ~$20k (and I made about three short films, one on 16mm and one on 35mm). Well, I’m grateful you find the time to do both your paid work and this very thorough research for the industry!
When I was 22, I went to Columbia’s Film MFA open house and when they said they don’t really give out financial aid, it was followed by revealing 2/3 of the class were international students that “saved up.” Just insanity. This was almost ten years ago. I also know Zack who wrote that WSJ article. He got a lot of flack for being honest. Thanks for writing this piece!
I had my first day of film school school today. I got to meet a swath of incredibly talented filmmakers who, just like me, transferred from a different school to one of the major schools in this article to chase our dreams. I read this article in their dorm. You did a great job. The section, "I wonder now, had I gotten into Columbia, would I have been able to resist the siren song of an Ivy League degree, with its mountain of toxic debt?" stuck with me. This school gives basically no aid to transfers, so all of us are paying sticker price to follow the dream. I don't know if all the issues you rightfully brought up are different for me and my fellow undergraduate students. I have school again tomorrow, and I'm going to go right back to chasing that slim chance of my dream, because I don't know what else to do.
Thanks for the thoughtful comment. I do think there’s a difference between undergrad and grad school, also in the eyes of the loans etc. I do know some talented filmmakers who went to Columbia, and one of them is doing quite well now.
i think a film school education can be incredibly valuable, just be careful with the money part of things. Especially on the student films, especially early on, it’s very easy to overspend.
Thank you so much! I’m definitely going to try to get a job after the summer semester, maybe as an RA, TA or in the equipment room. Best believe I will be budgeting to the best of my ability on all of my upcoming projects!!
What was valuable about film school – I went to UCLA in the sixties when the tuition was $32 – was watching lots of films together and critiquing each others’ efforts. Not sure if posting online and reading comments would be as helpful. Film business was in transition then but still hard to crack. Route seemed to be through getting a job with Roger Corman (Wild Angels, Man with X-ray Eyes) or having an ancillary Yale or other ivy league degree, which made you attractive (you spoke the same language) to producers at Columbia or Fox.
Seeing other people’s mistakes is almost as valuable as making them yourself. I did learn so much in film school, Ii just wish it cost what it did when you went. That must have been an incredible era!
I believe it applies to all Master’s programs that do not meet a very clear set of criteria, including medicine, dentistry etc. There are eleven carve-outs at the moment. It comes up in the article. It will affect all arts MFAs for sure.
As someone who loves movies but doesn’t know much about making them, it seems like technological advances should in theory allow for good-looking, low-budget films. You can shoot on an iphone and edit on a laptop, and it looks pretty good. I would expect this technology to result in an explosion of creativity, but that doesn’t seem to be happening.
I can only think it’s due to young peoples’ attention being captured by scrolling. It seems to kill the creative instinct.
Unfortunately digital cameras did not create the renaissance in filmmaking people were hoping for, and in this humble author’s opinion, the greatest cinematic eras: the 90s, the 70s, the 40s, were all in the era of film. I suspect AI will have a similarly difficult effect as digital cameras did.
I think maybe there was a brief window in the late aughts and early 2010s during which the gear/tech cost of filmmaking had decreased enough and before scrolling had started pulling people in to the point at which it became considerably more difficult to organize them around crazy projects that would probably never pay off just because it’s fun and satisfying and edifying to be involved with something meaningful.
Then again maybe I'm just getting older and I'm more surrounded by people with responsibilities that take up time and energy than I used to be (and for that matter I made the mistake of spending some of my prime years working with people who never should have been trusted in the first place; certainly developed some skills and wisdom in the process, but socially speaking, that was a sunk cost).
I’ve been working on a near zero-budget narrative film myself lately, and scheduling and time are the most significant constraining factors. You'd be surprised how well amateurs can learn to operate a boom mic, but at the same time you're not going to have sophisticated lighting setups working this way; there just isn't time. For that matter, performances of non-actors can vary wildly from “holy shit, I’m amazed you pulled that off” to “well, I guess we’re really going to have to edit around that line and hope it’s not too obvious to viewers.”
Despite the stupidity (and calling it stupidity really is the most charitable interpretation I can muster these days) of the institutions that are supposedly intended to support independent film, it’s nice to work on something, even if it’s destined to be extremely rough around the edges.
I think some younger people are finally developing the proper antibodies to social media, though, so who knows, maybe we’ll see more of them pulling interesting things off with the form in the coming years.
First of all - reading this INFURIATES anyone with a conscience and common sense ( I’m not sure which one I have, but let’s go with the latter:) Some Observations:
1) The credentialed, elitist academic class - is not worth much more than the paper their credentials are printed upon - in just about any field of endeavor at this point (A Students work for C Student Entrepreneurs). It’s a self-praising, self-perpetuating circle jerk - much like a cult.
2) While the message from on high is to get “educated” —-see comment above - the preposterous notion that you’re going to get an education - to write, direct, produce and sell - a story - is a foolish notion - and SHAME ON THE STUDENTS WHO BOUGHT THE BULLSHIT STORY TO BEGIN WITH. One of the required traits to tell a good story - is to discern what is bullshit, and what is truth:
Hemingway was a journalist and a war correspondant and in actual combat. He learned from LIFE.
John Steinback was a canner, a field hand- he learned from LIFE.
Steven Spielberg snuck onto a lot, and set up an office in a trailer - at 22. He learned from LIFE - and making films since he was 10.
Banksy is a guerrilla artist - his canvas is the WORLD.
Van Gogh a depressed drunk - trial and erroring his way to greatness - although not recognized during his lifetime ( never underestimate the ability to MARKET art. He didn’t have it - and, apparently, very few wanted to be around him).
10,000 hours on a student film and program - won’t make a you a great storyteller. The only thing that will is WILL - and sensitivity, nuance, creativity, the ability to connect story element dots- the ability to tell the story and sell it to get people who are aware, and passionate enough - to open their wallets ( whether that be one big investor angel, or 10,000 crowd funders). And even then, it’s a CRAP SHOOT - with a 99% failure rate.
As my father reminded late in my time in Hollywood “Keep dreaming, keep fighting for it - but dream with your eyes open.”
Anyone spending $300,000 on “an education” - could have easier spent $50,000 on making something - that gave them the education. Or even, five $10,000 projects. But education -no matter how it’s earned - doesn’t guarantee one has the talents needed - to get a single film or TV pilot MADE - much less - a career in either medium.
Such a well-researched and enlightening essay. Thanks for your hard work. Your insights also might provide a little balm to my years of rejections at those top festivals and programs: Don’t take it personally, it was never gonna happen anyway. All the money on submission fees. Oy! Like you wrote: “It’s demoralizing.”
It never gets easier, thanks for reading!
You might be interested in this book; a lot of similar themes: “Mutiny: The Rise and Revolt of the College-Educated Working Class.” Just starting it and I’m finding it also to be an enlightening read.
Thank you! I’ll check it out!
This is super helpful, thank you for sharing. Do you feel the same way about public school MFA programs (like UT Austin or UCLA), than, say, private ones (like NYU/Columbia/USC/AFI?) Public ones are more affordable, but I’ve heard mixed things in their ability to really help and push filmmakers, but the structure can be helpful. Doing stuff on your own is great (and I’ve done that myself), but getting the right feedback/mentorship/support independently is quite challenging, and I’m curious how you think about that tradeoff.
I went to a very good public school MFA and found it very helpful, you just have to manage your expectations, and be careful especially with your early student film budgets. You want to spend the least money when you’re least experienced.
Film school will give you a framework and mentorship but not a career, especially not one directing. It’s just one good step on a long hard road. People will complain about film school constantly, but just ignore that part and focus on the work.
Public school can also still end up being quite expensive. They do not have the resources to push their filmmakers the way the elite private schools do. Consider trying to graduate a year early, and to establish residency in the state before you get in, it’s difficult but doable, and a really good tip is to become a residential advisor so you don’t have to pay rent, which is quite expensive. I do think it’s important to use the degree to get to an industry center.
Those schools, partly because of the class dynamics of their filmmakers, are not very well represented at the major festivals as well. UTAustin has more at SXSW, but as you can see in the charts, the big ones are largely dominated by the top 3 private schools.
I’m very happy to hear that. There is a lot of rejection on this path, and not all of it makes a lot of sense. I’ve had pitches rejected by a producer in the morning and then bought by another in the afternoon. All you can do is keep trying, not take it too personally, and see what you can learn from it for the next one. Just keep improving your craft, and when it gets good enough, some doors usually open, as long as you keep politely knocking.
Super helpful, thank you for the response! I’m Austin based and considering applying to UT Austin (as I’m already a resident of the city), more so for writing than directing, and found your response super helpful. Thank you for sharing!
UT Austin is a good bet, I applied there too back in the day. I’m still mad at them for making me take the GRE, but it’s a good, grounded place. Good luck with your application!
thank you! and i really appreciate your thoughtful, honest, direct, and data-driven analysis. it’s refreshing to see the nuance behind some of the “success” stories and really understand what it takes. as someone who hasn’t gone to film school/doesn’t come from that world, it was eye-opening to see your analysis (i just finished my first short film and struggled with all the rejection, and now i have a totally different pov on it).
I have been saying this for years. Instead of putting your money into an MFA, put it into your shorts/features: you’ll learn more about yourself as an artist and the craft, you’ll make more connections (form a tribe), and have something to show at the end of it all. This is one of the most thoroughly researched exposes to prove the point! I really respect you remaining anonymous, but am so curious about your own background haha. Thanks for all your hard work!
Thanks so much! I totally agree! I think the institutions give you a sense of accomplishment and safety that doesn’t always correlate to the brutal realities outside them. I’m working enough to find anonymity a bit more comfortable, but not enough that I don’t have time to write these giant essays I guess 🙃
Yes, you’re right, they get the “cotton wool” treatment, which we know is a far cry from the realities of the industry! Gratefully, I am originally from Australia where you can do a practical, hands-on film degree in undergrad and it is only ~$20k (and I made about three short films, one on 16mm and one on 35mm). Well, I’m grateful you find the time to do both your paid work and this very thorough research for the industry!
That seems like a very good investment! Thanks! I’m so glad it’s helpful to you!
When I was 22, I went to Columbia’s Film MFA open house and when they said they don’t really give out financial aid, it was followed by revealing 2/3 of the class were international students that “saved up.” Just insanity. This was almost ten years ago. I also know Zack who wrote that WSJ article. He got a lot of flack for being honest. Thanks for writing this piece!
“Saved up,” I love it. Thanks for reading!
Yes. These degrees should not be considered professional degrees. Music degrees are in an even worse state.
I had my first day of film school school today. I got to meet a swath of incredibly talented filmmakers who, just like me, transferred from a different school to one of the major schools in this article to chase our dreams. I read this article in their dorm. You did a great job. The section, "I wonder now, had I gotten into Columbia, would I have been able to resist the siren song of an Ivy League degree, with its mountain of toxic debt?" stuck with me. This school gives basically no aid to transfers, so all of us are paying sticker price to follow the dream. I don't know if all the issues you rightfully brought up are different for me and my fellow undergraduate students. I have school again tomorrow, and I'm going to go right back to chasing that slim chance of my dream, because I don't know what else to do.
Also if you can be an RA that helps save on rent. Good luck!
Thanks for the thoughtful comment. I do think there’s a difference between undergrad and grad school, also in the eyes of the loans etc. I do know some talented filmmakers who went to Columbia, and one of them is doing quite well now.
i think a film school education can be incredibly valuable, just be careful with the money part of things. Especially on the student films, especially early on, it’s very easy to overspend.
Good luck with the program!
Thank you so much! I’m definitely going to try to get a job after the summer semester, maybe as an RA, TA or in the equipment room. Best believe I will be budgeting to the best of my ability on all of my upcoming projects!!
What was valuable about film school – I went to UCLA in the sixties when the tuition was $32 – was watching lots of films together and critiquing each others’ efforts. Not sure if posting online and reading comments would be as helpful. Film business was in transition then but still hard to crack. Route seemed to be through getting a job with Roger Corman (Wild Angels, Man with X-ray Eyes) or having an ancillary Yale or other ivy league degree, which made you attractive (you spoke the same language) to producers at Columbia or Fox.
Seeing other people’s mistakes is almost as valuable as making them yourself. I did learn so much in film school, Ii just wish it cost what it did when you went. That must have been an incredible era!
Does this apply to all MFAs or just film MFAs?
Here’s the original list of carve-outs, they’re still battling it out in court a bit: https://www.cnbc.com/2025/11/26/criteria-to-be-considered-professional-degrees.html
I believe it applies to all Master’s programs that do not meet a very clear set of criteria, including medicine, dentistry etc. There are eleven carve-outs at the moment. It comes up in the article. It will affect all arts MFAs for sure.
This might help make the arts less elitist.
Or more so.
The thing about rich kids is that they can pay for whatever they want. Daddy always has money.
This is something I think about a lot, the need to level the playing field so that we have culture, not Kultur.
My hope is that at least people who aren’t rich can understand how these things work, then make informed choices.
As someone who loves movies but doesn’t know much about making them, it seems like technological advances should in theory allow for good-looking, low-budget films. You can shoot on an iphone and edit on a laptop, and it looks pretty good. I would expect this technology to result in an explosion of creativity, but that doesn’t seem to be happening.
I can only think it’s due to young peoples’ attention being captured by scrolling. It seems to kill the creative instinct.
Unfortunately digital cameras did not create the renaissance in filmmaking people were hoping for, and in this humble author’s opinion, the greatest cinematic eras: the 90s, the 70s, the 40s, were all in the era of film. I suspect AI will have a similarly difficult effect as digital cameras did.
I think maybe there was a brief window in the late aughts and early 2010s during which the gear/tech cost of filmmaking had decreased enough and before scrolling had started pulling people in to the point at which it became considerably more difficult to organize them around crazy projects that would probably never pay off just because it’s fun and satisfying and edifying to be involved with something meaningful.
Then again maybe I'm just getting older and I'm more surrounded by people with responsibilities that take up time and energy than I used to be (and for that matter I made the mistake of spending some of my prime years working with people who never should have been trusted in the first place; certainly developed some skills and wisdom in the process, but socially speaking, that was a sunk cost).
I’ve been working on a near zero-budget narrative film myself lately, and scheduling and time are the most significant constraining factors. You'd be surprised how well amateurs can learn to operate a boom mic, but at the same time you're not going to have sophisticated lighting setups working this way; there just isn't time. For that matter, performances of non-actors can vary wildly from “holy shit, I’m amazed you pulled that off” to “well, I guess we’re really going to have to edit around that line and hope it’s not too obvious to viewers.”
Despite the stupidity (and calling it stupidity really is the most charitable interpretation I can muster these days) of the institutions that are supposedly intended to support independent film, it’s nice to work on something, even if it’s destined to be extremely rough around the edges.
I think some younger people are finally developing the proper antibodies to social media, though, so who knows, maybe we’ll see more of them pulling interesting things off with the form in the coming years.
PS - Wolves will always find ways to fatten the sheep.
First of all - reading this INFURIATES anyone with a conscience and common sense ( I’m not sure which one I have, but let’s go with the latter:) Some Observations:
1) The credentialed, elitist academic class - is not worth much more than the paper their credentials are printed upon - in just about any field of endeavor at this point (A Students work for C Student Entrepreneurs). It’s a self-praising, self-perpetuating circle jerk - much like a cult.
2) While the message from on high is to get “educated” —-see comment above - the preposterous notion that you’re going to get an education - to write, direct, produce and sell - a story - is a foolish notion - and SHAME ON THE STUDENTS WHO BOUGHT THE BULLSHIT STORY TO BEGIN WITH. One of the required traits to tell a good story - is to discern what is bullshit, and what is truth:
Hemingway was a journalist and a war correspondant and in actual combat. He learned from LIFE.
John Steinback was a canner, a field hand- he learned from LIFE.
Steven Spielberg snuck onto a lot, and set up an office in a trailer - at 22. He learned from LIFE - and making films since he was 10.
Banksy is a guerrilla artist - his canvas is the WORLD.
Van Gogh a depressed drunk - trial and erroring his way to greatness - although not recognized during his lifetime ( never underestimate the ability to MARKET art. He didn’t have it - and, apparently, very few wanted to be around him).
10,000 hours on a student film and program - won’t make a you a great storyteller. The only thing that will is WILL - and sensitivity, nuance, creativity, the ability to connect story element dots- the ability to tell the story and sell it to get people who are aware, and passionate enough - to open their wallets ( whether that be one big investor angel, or 10,000 crowd funders). And even then, it’s a CRAP SHOOT - with a 99% failure rate.
As my father reminded late in my time in Hollywood “Keep dreaming, keep fighting for it - but dream with your eyes open.”
Anyone spending $300,000 on “an education” - could have easier spent $50,000 on making something - that gave them the education. Or even, five $10,000 projects. But education -no matter how it’s earned - doesn’t guarantee one has the talents needed - to get a single film or TV pilot MADE - much less - a career in either medium.
MFA is a simulacrum.
https://behindthenarrative7.substack.com/p/i-went-to-mfa-first-fridays-gay-men?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android&r=bpnge