It's only been a few days since the last mailbag, but as we near 1,000 comments, it seems like a good time for a fresh one.
Congratulations to those who've heard good news from programs, and best wishes to everyone still waiting. Remember, it's still very early.
1,074 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 1001 – 1074 of 1074Ugh, LA Swede, I'm depressed now...
LA,
What is your complaint, again? That the teachers below you aren't properly doing their jobs and that your students are stupid? The sort of things you've been saying about your students here are completely inappropriate and unprofessional.
no one is being malicious!! i'm sorry...i won't use the word shit if that is too angry for you...oh wait, yes i will.
how is it that some headed into the profession of writing where words are used to stir emotions, or in other words to shock, or in even other words to offend, as in offend the current mindset one has in order to think, can be so upset about profanity, then can so quickly turn around and judge someone they do not even know?
my complaint, ma'am, is with the educational system...the teachers actually do the job they are prepared for and the students are directly screwed out of a quality education because of that and because of mediocre standards.
AB, I think I get what you're saying, but the problem is, to borrow an overused phrase, "the system" and "the powers that be." I wasn't trying to smash teachers (sorry for calling them dumbasses). It's not their fault all the time. If you teach in public school, you have basically a set expectation, and anything outside of that is considered wrong basically. Everything is about passing tests and getting them out of there. That's it. And it costs our society big, in more ways than one. It IS depressing, but it's the truth. It's not an opinion. Ask any public school teacher you please.
What are you talking about? The use of the word shit had nothing to do with my problems with your posts.
I am not judging you, I am responding to what you have been posting, which has actually been a hell of a lot of judgement.
Ashley, I think it was actually me that was insulting my students. I actually love my students (most of them) very much. I want what's best for them and I think we are not meeting those needs. What I said was unprofessional, but this isn't exactly a professional environment and most of what I was saying is tongue and cheek (I think I called them little bastards, haha).
The idea of "professionalism" is a whole 'nother annoying topic.
calling me malicious is judgment...calling columbia out on their 7.15 billion is truth...saying my students are ill prepared because many of them in my 101 classes don't know how to use a comma is truth...saying all these standardized tests do is lower standards is truth...i suppose you and share different definitions of judgment and truth
@gentleviewer,
I'm probably not the best person to answer to your question, seeing as I did not apply to UCSD (nor do I know anyone who did...) But I thought I would respond just so that your question wasn't lost among the other comments on this blog (and because I laughed/sympathized with you when you said your computer was haunted; I have the same suspicion about mine... :P )
As far as I know (from what I have seen on this blog) no one has heard anything about UCSD. But I may be wrong...
Any UCSD folks out there who might be able help??
Ashley, this may cheer you up:
http://www.hulu.com/watch/110300/saturday-night-live-digital-short-two-worlds-collide-ft-reba-mcentire#s-p2-sr-i2
sorry, you and "i" share different definitions...in the middle of helping my daughter brush her little teeth while typing!!
and i care for my students as well or i wouldn't do my job...it is just very difficult to do it b/c of all the problems previously stated by me and others.
Here's a video for all you teachers out there:
http://cooperativelearning.learnhub.com/lesson/9592-seinfeld-teaches-history
I say turn up the rancor. Today was the most interesting discussion I've seen on this blog so far.
Kaybay's right about most people seeing college professorship as a more attractive teaching option than a high school (or lower) teaching job. But it really does depend on the school. I teach high school and my students are fantastic/I get to teach how I want. It's the kind of job I could see doing until death. But that's partly the result of serious work on my part in finding the job and even moreso it's just a matter of luck.
@ab
and also, i do not wish to dissuede any member of this blog from going into teaching...it is a great profession...
just merely commenting on the numerous obstacles to overcome in the field...teaching can be an extremely difficult task and things such as the NCLB act don't help at all.
all i can say is that if you are going into the teaching field, you'll see...talk to me again in 5 years about this...
Also, my mother has been a public school teacher for over thirty years. I didn't have problems with posts addressing the "degree in education" or various other specific issues with the US educational system. My specific concern was not addressed.
Kaybay,
You may have done so as well, and maybe I didn't react as negatively because I feel I've known you a while. There was at least one specific post of LA's that made me upset, but the entire mood her today has been negative.
LA,
"saying all these standardized tests do is lower standards is truth" - NO, that is not "truth." It is a simplification of the reality of the situation. That is ALL that standardized testing does? That's it? Come on. Nothing is so black and white. I'm with you against standardized testing, but these simplistic arguments are ridiculous. Columbia 7.5 bil might be truth, but the conclusions you've drawn based on it are opinion.
Thanks, Sarah.
My computer says thank you as well, which is really creepy because computers should not talk.
well then i guess i'm wrong...i suppose someone with 0 experience telling someone with 5 years at 3 separate institutions what's what is right...
what did i say that was so abrasive to you? especially considering i haven't been alone in, i believe, any of my viewpoints.
I'm going to side with anyone bashing on standardized testing.
I'll go ahead and say that they're a tool for the weak and narrow-minded at worst, and an antiquated tool for generating profits that certain powerful entities refuse to stop clinging to at best.
Simply put, this stuff ruins learning. And you can throw around whatever cliche you want about how that's 'just my opinion' or that there's no such thing as an absolute truth, but when there's a wealth of research to indicate that my opinion is in line with the measurable effects of standardized testing those sorts of platitudes of moderation start to lose meaning.
A couple of quick comments about Columbia -- I don't really think anyone is wrong and I'm not offended by the big f*ck you directed to (I guess) all Columbia students. I'm a Columbia undergraduate, in the writing program. But I would like to point out a couple of things that I don't think you've considered. Columbia would (will) have to find some way other than teaching assistantships to fund its MFA students because teaching undergraduate creative writing, here, is not an option. Right or wrong, we just DO NOT take classes taught by graduate students -- for the most part -- there are some exceptions, of course. Graduate students at Columbia assist professors and do research. The classes in the Undergraduate Creative Writing department -- from intro to senior level -- are all taught by really awesome working writers. So there just aren't a lot of teaching spaces to offer to graduate students and, as a result, there's just not a good teaching track here for MFA students. My University Writing (freshman comp) instructor was a 4rd year Religious Studies PhD student who was teaching it for the first time.
As an undergraduate student, I really value this system because I've had awesome, accomplished instructors all the way through. My first poetry workshop here (this was a few years ago, because I took time off between sophomore and junior years) was with Ken Koch who was one of the best teachers EVER! When you guys were talking in an earlier thread about good vs bad workshops, I thought of Ken who loved teaching poetry so much, he didn't just teach us college students, he also volunteer-taught poetry in prisons and pre-schools and nursing homes in his spare time. And I spent last semester with Josh Bell reading the luscious poetry of the Bible -- from the parallelism of the Hebrew Tanakh to Paul's rhetoric, as an independent study. And we're now doing an independent study on the rise and fall of the sonnet form. And I also have Timothy Donnelly, who's like a warm blanket of a workshop instructor.
This isn't a defense of Columbia's system. I just wanted to point out a part of the problem that I don't think has been noted, here. I don't know what the solution is to this problem, there may not be one... Just my $0.02!
@Trilbe - The point about grad students assisting not teaching makes some sense. The university could probably figure something out (in terms of funding, maybe not in terms of teaching experience) if it worked on it.
We had a similar situation. The only classes I took taught by grad students were my intro Italian class (I mean, who really cares who teaches that?) and (I think) my freshman expository writing class...that one was taught by Marjorie Sandor, when we were both much younger, though I can't recall whether she was a grad student or a lecturer at the time.
Cheers!
I often wonder if Columbia hates Seth's work on funding info as much as I love it?
On my end it's been richly satisfying to see programs like Columbia get their comeuppance, and Seth has certainly been part of that. But they can't be happy with it.
That said. maybe they're wise enough to know that it doesn't help to (want to) shoot the messenger.
the little poet,
haha, thank you.
I leave now to go to bed, and I apologize for anything I said that made me look like an asshole and forgive the things that pissed me off. Like I said, (no excuses but) I've been sitting on the couch sick for three days. I trust that LA (and the others I didn't go after as directly) are good teachers and aren't after me lucky charms.
Frankish - imagine if they cut the student population in half at Columbia and offered them tuition remission with some exceptional students receiving fellowships or stipends for non-teaching work. How marketable would Columbia be then?
Kaybay for president!
(of Columbia University)
absolutely ab
i know it sucks to hear this type of commentary, and i wish it was just ranting, but alas, 'tis so.
no, we're cool...just disagreeing brothers and sisters...it happens...
I would also make a better coach for my alma mater's (Auburn University) football team, and a better SEC ref. At least, that's what I tell myself as I yell at my TV screen :)
kaybay - I'm not saying it couldn't be better. Certainly, it would be more popular if it were fully or even largely funded . So we are on the same page, there. :)
It's just that, with hundreds of MFA programs available, why do people have such strong feelings about Columbia? They've picked their model. Maybe it's a bad choice, and maybe it's outdated. But they seem to fill a large class each year. Maybe the program isn't right for or appealing to a given student or critic (you, Dreux, Seth, whoever). But why does that create such negative feelings? People are free simply to not apply and spend time pursuing options that make more sense for them. I just don't get it.
As for me, I love Manhattan and the access to the writing and publishing community one gets living there (not solely reliant on Columbia affiliation), so it's an option I'm considering.
Cheers!
Seth, finally got around to reading your manifesto... I very much enjoyed it, especially the portions equating funding with prestige.
My one critique: I feel your politics are showing. While I, as well, marvel at the number and size of public graduate programs, there are many private graduate programs worthy of praise and maybe slighted in your attempts to praise government funding. Vanderbilt, Syracuse, Wash U. St Louis... I feel the Manifesto ignores many private universities' dedication to funding all/most students and diverts possible praise for them by tagging them "small". Sure, I wish some of them let in one or two more writers, but funding is probably not the only determinant for class-size. Even if that were the case, the funded Private school's decision to fund everyone should be uplifted, rather than potentionally marginalized.
I think most of my animosity comes from a deep desire not to see the MFA community (a growing world) contain the same vicious and immoral socioeconomic segregation that the world at large does.
When Seth used the word 'inequity' to describe it, he hit on the element of the whole thing that chafes me worst.
@Dreux - That's fair. It's possible that I'm just more cynical, as I assume that most of the issues with out society will be reflected, even if writ small, in its subsidiary institutions. But I see your point and hope your desire prevails.
Cheers!
out --> our, obviously. :P
Frankish, I think Dreux may have you beat in the cynicism department.
*I'm kidding :P*
Class warfare, yo. Eat the rich!
o kaaaay....
One more thing, to clear up a factual inaccuracy, Columbia funds (most) of its undergraduates extremely well. This will probably add more fuel to the fire, but the university thinks the reliance on loans is harmful to the educational system -- forcing graduates to focus on finding lucrative employment in order to pay off their undergraduate loans, instead of being free to pursue a career path that they would find more fulfilling. So, undergraduates whose families make less than $50,000 per year (with a sliding scale up to, I think, $100,000) have tuition and expenses fully funded from scholarships and grants, with no loans. Their need-based funding is what got my po' @ss out of the ghetto. Columbia College, although a tiny portion of Columbia's population, owns the biggest chunk of that mega endowment so it can afford to be generous with undergraduates. People have been dying for 200 years and leaving and leaving money to fund Columbia College.
Hi all,
I rarely post, but I seem to remember Seth posting Columbia's rebuttal months ago. It touched on their precarious funding, transparency, the program and so on.
Maybe someone can link to it as I can't remember whether it was on TSE or the MFA blog.
@frankish: I tend to agree. This is their model and it will likely persist in spite of so many other (if better, student-centered) models.
Eli had a link not too long ago. I can't find it but it's in a recent mailbag. Yeah, I know there are like 200 of them now haha
Longtime lurker here. I'll probably join the ranks of those getting skewered for opposing Seth. I'll preface this by saying that I appreciate the idea of his work: to make the MFA application process more transparent. That said, I have a hard time trusting him as a neutral voice when he says things like:
"Columbia's MFA is a lumbering, shambling mass of inequity, a baby-crib for the rich, that will die a long and ugly death over the next twenty-five years. But yes, for what it's worth, if Iowa can admit and fully fund 50 students each year -- with an endowment way under 1 billion -- Columbia, with its 7.15 billion endowment, could find a goddamn way to fund 90 students. Columbia is an enormous ninety-foot middle finger in the middle of the national MFA landscape. Nobody does so little for students with so much (money)."
This seems neither fair nor professional for someone who is positing himself as an authority on MFA programs. Can you imagine the reaction to U.S. News if they included statements like that in their rankings? Would anyone take them seriously? I'm sorry, but it seems like Seth has taken it a little far here. Columbia may have some issues with funding its students, but that kind of animosity seems completely inappropriate for someone who is the de facto ranker of MFA programs. When I see that Columbia dropped so many spots in his rankings, and I then read these charged words, I no longer trust his system.
You call it unprofessional.
I call it candor. Frankness. Honesty. Courage, even.
It takes real moxy to state a potentially controversial opinion like that one without prefacing it with some sort of disclaimer. He's spoken his piece without moderation or self-censorship. Good for him.
Is it slightly inflammatory? Yes, but not too much so in the grand scheme of things. And it never crosses the line that divides serious rhetoric from libel. While these kinds of statements wouldn't fit in an article that ranks MFAs, they would certainly fit in an article entitled "The Problem with the Columbia Model," penned by someone who engineered that rankings system. Every rankings system will have its own innate bias. In this case it is fortunate (not unfortunate) that the author is perfectly willing to state and advocate for his particular biases. It gives us the freedom to know what we're really looking at when we look at his rankings.
You don't have to 'trust' his system. It's an open book. You can value or ignore it, but trust shouldn't be a factor when you know exactly how he goes about weighting various factors in rankings.
I think Jonc's posting reads as a bit of an argumentum ad hominem as it does nothing to suggest that Seth's judgments---however impolitic or indelicate the phrasing---unfairly misrepresent the Columbia data. Instead, without any basis, it implies that Seth has a hidden agenda. To the contrary, as is demonstrated by the existence of his manifesto, Seth has a strong belief that unfunded MFA programs rarely are a good value, ceteris paribus, in that they over-promise and under-deliver with regard to the value of their programs for most applicants.
Moreover, in both his recent article and his website, Seth explicitly outlines his methodology. And, inasmuch as I can tell, the TSE rankings are based on public polling and not on Seth's evaluations.
Of course, this is not to suggest that applicants should not critically evaluate the information and advice Seth kindly shares. Each applicant will have to weigh the various factors at play for him or herself.
But the posts that implicitly question Seth's motivations are just absurd. What possible benefit---aside from the incremental advancement of his openly described vision of a positive artistic writing community---does Seth get from providing information and anaylses that might persuade MFA applicants to forgo applying to a school like Columbia?
And, in terms of Seth having a professional obligation to take a more impartial tone, let's remember that Seth freely dispenses his information and advice in a private, non-fiduciary role! Any authority or respect accorded to his judgment appears to be based on the strength of his analysis and the underlying data that he has worked hard to collect (and publicize).
As a final note, in part, I'm moved to write because of the earlier discussion about the propriety of Seth's fees for his consultation services (and, again, the implicit questioning as to his motives). As a former BigLaw lawyer and management consultant with a fairly similar educational background, if anything, I think Seth is undervaluing the opportunity cost of his time.
@gentle viewer
I applied to UCSD in poetry and have not heard anything. From what I gather on the TSE blog, some rejections and acceptances in fiction just went out via email.
I have not heard anything about poetry notifications.
I agree with Jonc completely, though, on the nature of the language. Rather than insulting Columbia with stereotypes and name-calling, let's focus on the truth of the matter. I'm not defending Columbia's funding, but no one is putting a gun to your head and demanding you apply there. The level of hostility and venom aimed toward Columbia is decidedly unprofessional. There seems to be a need for Seth's data as separate from his opinion. Furthermore, slandering Columbia as a "rich kid school" ignores the many people from varied backgrounds that apply and attend.
Case in point, the undergraduate funding. A friend of mine from a single-parent household in a small town in "flyover" country received a full ride from Columbia.
My issue with funding and the debate regarding it is that funding typically comes from teaching. However, applicants are just focused on not having to pay for school. They want money to write; they want institutionalized patronage. This creates a sharp divide than those seeking the MFA as a pure studio degree and those wanting substance, experience, and preparation for a teaching career. I am dismayed that programs which guarantee teaching are also those in which everyone applies. Case in point, Indiana, which was a dream school of mine for the experience it offered, but I ultimately eliminated due to the tiny acceptance rate.
Anyway. There are plenty of un-funded or barely-funded MFA programs besides Columbia. Not all of them involve back-breaking amounts of debt. What is with this hostility and negativity?
kaybay--I think some people do like teaching high school! It all depends upon the person and where they are teaching. I've certainly heard from more than one person that that it's more enjoyable to teach at a really good high school than a mediocre community college.
I use this blog to find out about acceptances and rejections, not a lot of silly blather by pretentious blowhards.
Can we make a separate thread or mailbag just for acceptances?
That way I won't have to fish through all of the drivel.
RT,
You're not entitled -- none of us are -- to notification of others' acceptances or rejections. Neither are you entitled to decide what people post here or don't. Use the blog or don't, it's your choice. Pretty much end of story there.
Jonc,
My motivations and beliefs have been absolutely 100% transparent from day one. And if these rankings were based on my personal opinions rather than public data I would not be entitled to those motivations and beliefs -- I would, as you say, be obligated to neutrality. And indeed my ethics would hold me to that -- I would not merely pretend neutrality, I would be neutral. But in the face of such inequities as exist in the MFA system, and people like RT (above) who want to do nothing for others but simply have others do for them again and again and again instead, I knew that sort of impartiality would be impossible for me here. Which is why things worked out so well -- it so happens that all of the data involved in the rankings, absolutely 100% of it, is public. Anyone who wants can spend hundreds of man-hours checking my work if they wish to. You will find it is correct. You will find, too, that the rankings in no way reflect my beliefs. I would rank Columbia perhaps 100th nationally among MFA programs -- using my personal valuation system -- and yet the public data I collected personally places them (as of the 2010 rankings) 22nd. In this rankings project your views, as an applicant, have been privileged -- not mine -- each time, every time. Which makes your unsubstantiated allegations of bias in the rankings pretty incredible. And ignorant, to be blunt.
In other words: Yes, I am biased, not because I have any animus toward individual programs but because I am an education activist who abhors certain trends in graduate creative writing programs. Columbia is a useful -- and vitally important -- archetype for what is wrong in the system. They are not the only culprit, and they are mentioned most often (by far the most often) because they present the most extreme and easily understood example of a phenomenon. But it would be pretty ironic if my feelings about Columbia were not seen as complex just based on a comment or two in this thread: The only time I ever used my own opinions in a ranking, in one of the three rankings in The Creative Writing MFA Handbook, I placed Columbia in the top tier (which I would not do now, but would instead put them in the third tier; keep in mind I was commingling my opinions with those of others, rather than providing my own opinions in unadulterated form); I've said publicly that Columbia has a top faculty and a top location and a top "name"; I've said that when I was applying to programs in late 2006 Columbia was originally my first choice until I found out about their funding. And I've attended two Ivies, so it's hardly Ivy-hatred on my part. You can't pigeon-hole me so easily.
But the data has no bias. The data is the data, and you should feel free to check my numbers. You should also feel free to attend Columbia and destroy your finances through 2032. Ultimately it's not my concern. I have an educated opinion and that's it.
S.
Wow.
Seth, I'm not about to sit here and argue with you bout who's to blame or call no names - reeal talk. See Seth, only thing I'm tryin to establish wit you is not who's right or who's wrong but what's right and what's wrong - reeal talk.
Umm, yeah, whatever. OK.
Realtalk: are you a cartoon? Please say yes. It's funnier if I believe you are. Also, if you "just" want to read acceptances, Seth's databank pretty much only has people commenting with either lists of acceptances or where they applied.
real talk...
just wondering b/c i didn't quite catch it...what's your post name again?
Did Columbia SAY there was fundin there? Did Columbia SAY THERE WAS FUNDIN THERE? WAS THERE FUNDIN THERE? Reeeal Talk.
Realtalk is making me laugh more than SNL.
P.S. (to all): In retrospect, "baby-crib for the rich" was a little much. I retract that as unnecessary and unfair. I do stand by the "middle finger" comment, though -- and my remark about the program's size, inequity, and eventual death was (in my own way) merely a professional assessment, not an opinion. What I said, in that instance, was an accurate observation (if inartful). --S.
Wow.
If only internet trolls were mythological too.
NM
I feel like Realtalk is Dreux's alter ego. ;).
Okay, this is really crazy. I was the first person who left a "RealTalk" comment, but then SOMEONE ELSE usurped the name or also created a RealTalk name and started leaving all the really insane posts.
For the record, I am the Real RealTalk, and I wrote the original blowhard comment. That was it.
And in response to Seth,
I never said I was entitled. And for the record, you weren't the pretentious blowhard I mentioned earlier.
I just want some kind of thread that is ONLY for notifications, not for blather.
That way, the people who want to blather may do so, and those like me can find out some useful information without sorting through all the columbia wah-wah-wahing.
And since you don't feel people are "entitled" to notifications, why do you post them on your blog?
One last thing, and I will definitely leave this blog alone...
I just cannot believe how much time you guys can talk about "what-ifs" and programs. Get on with it, do some writing, do SOMETHING. Don't spend all day on the computer waxing philosophical about nothing.
That said, I'm taking my own advice. Good night.
@Seth - Cradle for the rich was bad. And suggesting that the poll numbers somehow quantitatively show that the cohort at Columbia is inferior was also pretty bad. Your beef is with the program -- and you've defined and explained the hell out of that beef for the past few years. But you've got no reason to beef with the writers -- your colleagues in Art -- who have chosen to spend their money and attend Columbia. There are some fantastic, dedicated writers at Columbia -- just as there are at schools throughout the selectivity spectrum -- and you know this. I haven't seen you suggest that the cohort at LSU is worse than the cohort at Michener based on the difference in selectivity. So it's an unrighteous slam against the writers at Columbia to slam them based on selectivity data.
RT, for the second time, the page on Seth's blog entitled "DATA BANK FOR 2010 RESPONSE TIMES" is exactly what it says, genius.
Trilbe, maybe some of Seth's remarks sound a bit slanderous, but he certainly isn't attacking the writers at the program. He's saying it's idiotic to go into that much debt over an MFA. Period.
@Ryan2 (little poet) - Seth said: "$100,000 for the 80th best cohort to spend two years studying with? I don't see it, in a world where there are only 143 full-residency cohorts to begin with."
The problem with this is that we're not quantitatively ranking the quality of the writers when we participate in these polls. So let's not use these rankings to say that the writers provide a weaker cohort at one school just because the polling data has placed that program lower on the list than another program. I don't believe Seth would say that you are a weaker poet than Nick if you choose to attend a school that falls lower down the list than his. So I don't believe it's fair to slam the writers at Columbia just because the characteristics of their program make it less attractive to poll participants.
Jessa,
You're going to try to argue the fact that I shouldn't be pissed off at A-a system that hinders learning in students, and B-teachers who don't know what they are talking about and don't care enough to find out so they further hurt the students' learning abilities? I'm sorry, but that's ridiculous. Anyone in the education system has a right to be upset with it. I don't think anyone on here was scapegoating NCLB or the ridiculous system of testing as an excuse for not trying themselves; but if you don't acknowdledge (which you did, so I'm not sure what the deal is) that these ARE problems, would you be ok with it? It's one thing to roll with something and do what you can to help, which is what most have to do, but please spare me the babble about how these things DON'T negatively affect students in a HUGE way, because they do. And yes, I have every right to hate a system that provides a playground for kids that don't care and never will. I'm not saying that means you shouldn't try, or that you should ever give up; far from it. What I am saying is that you can't change everyone. If you don't realize this, I pity you greatly.
Hey little poet...
I'm deleting my previous posts. I respect your response, but I don't want to spark further debate on this topic through misinterpretations. I think the subject is spent.
My boyfriend's snoring sounds like blitzkrieg, so here I am again.
Seth, staying abreast this mailbag's wandering and drunken sensibilities is nothing short of extraordinary (Sisyphean?). While reading both blogs the last year, I'm compelled to say a big 'thanks'. THANKS! We have so much evidence of your tact, good sense, patience and hard labor. You've subsidized a giant workload for us. I sincerely appreciate this blog for its information and its forum. Plus, it's occasionally totally hilarious.
To the critical posters: Seth owes us nothing and give us much (unless you're his private client). You ARE entitled to flex your critical muscle, but exercising critical thinking (and f*cking restraint) will serve you, and any community in which you participate, so much better.
New mailbag is up!
Holy crap, I went asleep and the funniest thing ever happened on this blog... real talk?? Reeeeal talk?! Dreux's alter ego! Ahahaha... I actually laughed out loud, that was hilarious!
I KNOW, KAYBAY, RIGHT? I called it a night and I miss REAL TALK drama? No more. I will sleep no more. I know this mailbag is dead, I just wanted to LOL at everything that is going on here.
@ Seth
Thanks for answering my question about government funding. I have another question for you, somewhat related:
You are strongly advocating that no MFA applicant settle for a program in which they do not receive funding. And clearly, you are advocating that all programs do what they can to ensure full funding for their students.
However, aren't funding and program size largely connected to one another, in that, for a number of programs, in order to ensure what can be classified as, "full funding" they would have to decrease the amount of students that they let into their program?
Now, I know that this isn't necessarily true for all programs. But generally: isn't that the connection? The more students you admit, the harder it is to fund them all?
Personally, I didn't apply anywhere this season where full funding was not available, and don't plan to enroll in the fall without said funding. However, by making this unofficial pledge, I radically reduced my overall chances at getting in somewhere, as schools with the best funding seem to be seeing their highest number of applicants in years.
As this trend continues, won't it be harder to get into fully funded programs, assuming that the number of fully funded programs doesn't increase at the same rate the MFA applicant pool does?
I'm certainly not disagreeing with you saying that we shouldn't go into debt in order to do the MFA, I'm only wondering how things will look in, say, 5 years.
Post a Comment