tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15642985.post679755150339629638..comments2024-03-18T20:39:01.815-07:00Comments on THE MFA BLOG: September MailbagTom Kealeyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11913868167191023096noreply@blogger.comBlogger172125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15642985.post-60959287507855526422009-09-22T23:07:04.133-07:002009-09-22T23:07:04.133-07:00Seth,
(I do appreciate the sincerity of your ques...Seth,<br /><br />(I do appreciate the sincerity of your question. So please excuse my cheerleader tone, in the following. What can I say, I like my program. But again, I digress.)<br /><br />You said, "C'mon, Josh--Houston was #2 in 1996. No one at UH could possibly be happy that the new rankings have them at like #29."<br /><br />Well, there's two things there: are people happy about that ranking, here? And what do I personally think of #29?<br /><br />I think people are mostly confused. But you know, the program does a pretty bad marketing job (and the ones doing the marketing may have never seen your rankings).<br /><br />The thing is, the quality of the students here, and their successes in terms of graduate awards, I think helps situate our confusion.<br /><br />What I mean is, how can applicants not know my fellow students are ass-kickers?<br /><br />As for me and the #29: I'm not worried about #29, because I think it's silly to take into account a program for its fiction and poetry together. You may disagree, that's fine. I came here to write poetry, and that's what I was interested in in terms of selectivity and attractiveness to future applicants. So I'm really only interested in us being at #11 in the poetry only applicant polling.<br /><br />Now, do I think #29, or #11 even, is still an unfortunate number to attach to our program in your rankings? Of course.<br /><br />Am I upset? Sure. But really more confused. Here's the thing: we graduated a Stegner fellow (again) and a Wisconsin fellow last year. We have in the program now, currently, two winners of the Ruth Lilly Poetry Fellowship, in the same MFA cohort (which is, I should say, pretty awesome. And they're nice guys, too). The achievements of the Ph.D. students are fairly monster, as well.<br /><br />Our fiction students are also publishing books and doing great things, and it may help that their classmates include former MFAs from, for instance, Iowa, in the Ph.D. track. So long as that is the case, we will continue to have great workshops in both genres, a fantastic reputation, and excellent post-graduate success.<br /><br />So yeah, you're right: I don't think those rankings accurately represent the quality of the cohort here. But you know what, the rankings are imperfect. I have my reasons for quibbling at the rankings, yes, but also I am, like you, genuinely interested in people finding out the most and the best information they can in preparing their future applications.<br /><br />And it helps that I think we're going to be doing just fine, in their future research.<br /><br />Best,<br />JoshJoshua Gottlieb-Millerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16562233353440767788noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15642985.post-5614610320926597582009-09-22T22:39:27.539-07:002009-09-22T22:39:27.539-07:00Well, Seth,
First, you're right about "t...Well, Seth,<br /><br />First, you're right about "top ten" being incorrect in regards to The Atlantic. I meant to say "ten top." Onward:<br /><br />This, I believe, is the summation of our confusion: "You're saying that we know applicants are misusing the rankings because they're using them as a primary source. How do we know they're using them as a primary source? Because they're misusing them."<br /><br />But that's not actually my argument. I don't think applicants are misusing the rankings. In fact, I agree that applicants are trying to find out where the most applicants are applying, because they believe those schools will have their pick of the best students (and vice versa).<br /><br />My point was only that you claimed the applicants will use the rankings as a secondary resource, and I claimed that they will use the rankings as a primary resource (this does not mean misuse them, that's just a value judgment about their potential actions--or should I say, my prior actions).<br /><br />Now that you have agreed that some will use it as a primary resource, I think it's fair to say that we agree here.<br /><br />My other point, following this, is that if, as you say, maybe 43.4% of applicants are using the rankings as a primary resource (I know I'm paraphrasing, but I think it's a safe paraphrase for selectivity seekers), then I say the rankings will have a polling resource that is almost half self-referential, and will not actually be as much of a referendum on the other hard data as on who was tops the year before. Now, I don't think that's a betrayal of the applicants' values, again, as people who want to apply to the most selective schools will (if they're all still applying to the same schools)--what I'm saying is that they will miss out on a large number of great MFA programs if that is their attitude (which I think you also agree with, as you have mentioned in regards to, for instance, George Mason).<br /><br />And you're right about the reductio ad absurdum (I actually quite like those, but I digress): the rankings, if a primary resource, are not an only resource. That's true. <br /><br />And you are also right that my values are different, but they're only difference now that I'm on the other side of the looking glass, and know much more about what I wanted in a program.<br /><br />But three non philosophical questions: you also say that I don't consider the "matriculation decision-making tree," but I'm not sure how that's part of the applicant polling? Is that a new feature? How is that reflected in the applicant preference poll?<br /><br />How do you know you have polled up to half of the applicants? (Unless I've misread you somewhere...) But University of Iowa is listed as having 253 applicants on The Suburban Ecstasies. Don't they usually get over a thousand applications? Isn't there something wonky with the math?<br /><br />I also question whether the hard data will be updated every year, as some schools learn how to market their programs better, and as some schools have better offerings. I know that's a mere procedural question, and if the numbers will be updated, great! But I do wonder.<br /><br />As for your final point, I don't think that in general you ignore anyone's arguments, but I don't either, nor did Phoebe, above, nor most of the people who have disagreed with you. In large part, once we get the linguistic confusions out of the way, we actually agree about more than we disagree (for instance, that your rankings are imperfect, but probably the best measure we have at the moment, to be used as a secondary resource).<br /><br />(Oh, and "Either the above is correct or it is not" is also a tautology, by the way).<br /><br />As for Houston, I again think that's separate from the above discussion, and will again post to that below.Joshua Gottlieb-Millerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16562233353440767788noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15642985.post-69256115215376546382009-09-22T19:52:10.364-07:002009-09-22T19:52:10.364-07:00"I refer to The Atlantic's list as rankin..."I refer to The Atlantic's list as rankings because they use the term top ten for their list."<br /><br />No, they don't. The phrase "Five top..." is explicitly used to emphasize (though it's also stated elsewhere) that these are non-exclusive lists. "Five top" and "Top five" are totally different--and intentional--constructions.<br /><br />"You think people will use your rankings as a secondary resource (a mere tool), and I think people will use your rankings as a primary resource (the whole tool kit)."<br /><br />Josh, this is a tautology. You're saying that we know applicants are misusing the rankings because they're using them as a primary source. How do we know they're using them as a primary source? Because they're misusing them. It's a tautology. And here's why that matters: Someone who uses the rankings as a "primary source" is likely most concerned with Selectivity and Prestige in making their application decision. According to ALC polling data, 43.4% of applicants believe either Selectivity or Prestige is the most important factor (or tied for most important) in their application decision. In that context, how would using the rankings be a betrayal of these applicants' values? You may find the rankings imperfect--and I do too, I've never said otherwise--but right now they do happen to be the best measure of reputation and selectivity <em>as things stand at this moment</em>. So you say people are misusing the rankings simply because your values are different (say, Funding is most important to you, or Location, or Faculty). That doesn't fly.<br /><br />Finally, the third fallacy you indulge in is <em>reductio ad absurdum</em>. That is, you start from the premise that applicants are using the rankings as a "primary resource" (we agree; some are). You then go <em>immediately</em> to the premise--a wildly different one--that these applicants are also using the rankings as their <em>only</em> resource. That, therefore, they're never finding out awesome things about Houston. How does that follow? Even if an applicant used the rankings for 70% of their application decision, a) that would still leave 30% of the decision to be based on other factors, and b) you don't distinguish between the application decision and the <em>matriculation</em> decision, a separate decision-making tree in which applicants <em>again</em> have the opportunity to consider non-ranking factors.<br /><br />Josh--read the above, digest. I don't ever ignore your arguments, but I don't think it always works the other way. Either the above is correct or it is not.<br /><br />S.<br /><br />P.S. C'mon, Josh--Houston was #2 in 1996. No one at UH could possibly be happy that the new rankings have them at like #29.Seth Abramsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08059849202129580100noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15642985.post-78500213047103564852009-09-22T18:45:40.406-07:002009-09-22T18:45:40.406-07:00OK. All of that aside. I include this in a separat...OK. All of that aside. I include this in a separate post, because it is not part of the above argument.<br /><br />Applicant preference polling should be a very useful tool for people, we both agree on that. Even if it's used in different ways than it should be, it will still help people.<br /><br />However, I do think that any poll is going to miss something (and that's ok!). For instance, I don't think many applicants know that MFA students at Houston take classes with amazingly talented Ph.D. students (it's considered a single cohort). That is I think the best part about being in Houston--and there are some fantastic writers here to take classes with.<br /><br />And isn't strength of cohort the whole reason for polling people and finding out where they are applying. Is that not its main purpose? Isn't that usually the argument for any ranking--to help guide applicants to the schools with the most talented incoming students?<br /><br />That's all I am saying--and it's not a defense of faculty polling, nor is it an attack on applicant polling. But since you brought up Houston in a derogative manner in your last post, Seth, I thought I should clean the air a little.Joshua Gottlieb-Millerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16562233353440767788noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15642985.post-11477611437240830752009-09-22T18:38:25.303-07:002009-09-22T18:38:25.303-07:00Seth,
My apologies, as this is a strange argument...Seth,<br /><br />My apologies, as this is a strange argument. But:<br /><br />I refer to The Atlantic's list as rankings because they use the term top ten for their list. Should they have called themselves a faculty preference poll of the top ten, and for their various other lists? Yes. The USNWR also should have. That they did not doesn't change that they should have.<br /><br />I don't really think that matters, though. A little bit, sure, but like you said, semantics (as important as semantics are).<br /><br />However, you did fail to address my main point, so I guess you don't disagree with me. While you attacked my semantics, this is what you ignored: you think people will use your rankings as a secondary resource (a mere tool), and I think people will use your rankings as a primary resource (the whole tool kit).<br /><br />Here's the extension of that: Just because you say it is a secondary resource, doesn't mean that's what it is. I admit I believe that because I think what it is (the rankings as a primary or secondary resource) has to do with how its used.<br /><br />Now the thing is, I don't think that the lists and rankings are bad (either the faculty or your applicant preference polling). I merely believe that they are incomplete. Not that I think there is a perfect ranking tool out there--I don't.<br /><br />And I do believe that you agree with me that people put a lot of stock in these lists/rankings, whether you tell them to research independently or not.<br /><br />That aside, I'm also not sure why my being a student at Houston matters, and it seems to me a strange kind of ad hominem attack. You said: "I know Houston appeared on some of those lists." Actually, in the only listing project in the last ten years, the Atlantic Monthly listing, Houston only appeared for its Ph.D. in creative writing. The MFA was not listed there. And yet, you've stated that within your applicant preference poll, Houston is a top tier school in poetry (although I do think the fiction cohort is just as strong). My point is, I'm not sure what you think I have to gain from knocking a poll that puts Houston poetry back in the first tier. Is there something I'm missing here?Joshua Gottlieb-Millerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16562233353440767788noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15642985.post-40026511952023158292009-09-22T10:45:48.681-07:002009-09-22T10:45:48.681-07:00Please start a new mailbag. I don't care if it...Please start a new mailbag. I don't care if it ain't October yet.<br /><br />Ready to move on...Ryanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08948743543371433835noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15642985.post-40886450031977733392009-09-22T10:30:39.817-07:002009-09-22T10:30:39.817-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.Purcellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12529808440433139330noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15642985.post-75751241047314817482009-09-22T08:39:00.617-07:002009-09-22T08:39:00.617-07:00It strikes me that this blog and its associated bo...It strikes me that this blog and its associated book primarily seek to help MFA applicants answer two questions: (1) how do I determine which MFA program is the best fit for me and (2) how do I maximize my chances of securing admission to those programs?<br /><br />Each applicant will have his or her own criteria for determining which MFA program might be the best fit. But, in order to make an informed decision, each applicant will need to collect information related to his or her unique set of metrics.<br /><br />As both Seth and Phoebe acknowledge, there are many unquantifiable or subjective factors that will influence the extent to which a successful applicant finds a particular program useful or enjoyable.<br /><br />Inasmuch as there are current or recent program participants on these boards, applicants might be able to solicit information about such individuals' experiences. Even if necessarily anecdotal, this input helps provide greater visibility into the programs and reasonably might guide an applicant in their application and selection decisions.<br /><br />There are also quantifiable or objective factors that will determine which MFA program is a good fit for any given applicant. Seth appears to have devoted a great deal of time and energy to collecting and synthesizing data from the institutions and program participants on these factors.<br /><br />Presumably, most applicants will use both types of information to guide their decisions, applying differing weights to each piece of datum based on the relative importance of the factor it addresses and the extent to which the basis of knowledge for the datum is accepted and valued by the applicant.<br /><br />I interpreted Seth’s comments as merely highlighting—both for Carol and for others who might be going through the same processes—that applicants should critically consider their bases of knowledge for any given datum when assigning it a particular weight in their application or selection deliberations.dvhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14232154385958765389noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15642985.post-62196241762746154232009-09-21T22:25:17.287-07:002009-09-21T22:25:17.287-07:00I'm sorry, Josh, does that mean that you regul...I'm sorry, Josh, does that mean that you regularly refer to the 1996 USNWR rankings as a "faculty preference poll"?<br /><br />Wait--I can answer my own question. No you don't. ("I mean, didn't the old US News and World Report, as well as the Atlantic Monthly rankings lead to those programs receiving more applications...").<br /><br />I'm especially impressed by your generous decision to extend a courtesy to <em>The Atlantic</em>--that of calling their work "rankings"--that <em>The Atlantic</em> never even claimed for themselves. They were <em>explicit</em> in referring to what they did as "lists." I know Houston appeared on some of those lists, but c'mon, Josh, be serious--I hope you'll understand, in light of the foregoing, if I take your claims of semantic purity with more than a little salt.<br /><br /><em>Go on</em>...<br /><br />S.Seth Abramsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08059849202129580100noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15642985.post-55968396993654401912009-09-21T20:43:27.179-07:002009-09-21T20:43:27.179-07:00Wow
I'm very surprised and slightly disturbed...Wow<br /><br />I'm very surprised and slightly disturbed that a comment as general as "be happy" could generate so much controversy. But Phoebe, I appreciate your comments. :)Gummy Bear Sacrificehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10316559343219672616noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15642985.post-33285239577384576742009-09-21T19:25:23.936-07:002009-09-21T19:25:23.936-07:00Seth,
We've been over this, and I'm not d...Seth,<br /><br />We've been over this, and I'm not disagreeing with your intentions, nor with your beliefs.<br /><br />You wrote to Phoebe:<br /><br />"Those who have a problem with the rankings generally seem to think that I think--or that anyone thinks--they are a primary resource. They're not; they never have been. They're a secondary resource which (because of how research methods work) folks sometimes refer to first even if, in importance, they are and always must be (again) secondary or even tertiary as a determining factor in the matriculation decision."<br /><br />The problem with your logic is that while you may intend for the rankings to be a secondary resource, that does not mean that most people treat them as a secondary resource. I could make the equally weightless claim that most people treat these rankings as a primary resource. In part because they think other people have done the research, in part because they think (quite credibly) that the top ranked programs will continue to attract the best applicants and that these students will continue the success and further the attractiveness of the programs (although I think this is an oversimplification), and in part because reputation matters more to most of us than it should.<br /><br />I mean, didn't the old US News and World Report, as well as the Atlantic Monthly rankings lead to those programs receiving more applications than they otherwise would have? Or the Kealey Scale after them? <br /><br />This is not an argument against the rankings because those are tired arguments. People will either use them wisely and benefit, or fail to do their own research and maybe still benefit. Or not, that's up to each individual applicant. <br /><br />With luck, programs will provide better information (which I assume someone will update each year?) for the various information metrics that are tied to the applicant preference poll (which is what the ranking is, and I'm surprised you keep referring to it other places as "the rankings" without using "applicant preference poll" as its name. Just because we shouldn't rank programs according to a more intuitive science does not mean that the applicant preference poll is a definitive ranking. It may be the best ranking that we have (may), but that doesn't mean that it is anywhere near perfect).<br /><br />I mean, I believe you that it was misinformation on the P and W boards before, but that doesn't mean that applicant preference is a different kind of, if not misinformation, then maybe not perfect information.<br /><br />Oh well, I tried and failed to stay away from the tired old arguments. Anyway, to assume that people are using the applicant preference poll the way they should, as a secondary resource, doesn't mean that they are. Most, I imagine, are using it as a primary resource. That's too bad. But it's not too too bad. (And it's not the fault of the applicant preference polling that people misuse it.) Anyway, there are worse things. The applicants, I think, will be fine.<br /><br />JoshJoshua Gottlieb-Millerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16562233353440767788noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15642985.post-73719227648982041932009-09-21T17:59:29.400-07:002009-09-21T17:59:29.400-07:00Carol Henny,
While the Michener Center does not o...Carol Henny,<br /><br />While the Michener Center does not offer a class on writing novels, it is quite possible to workshop novel excerpts if one chooses to. Many students are working on novels and many alumni have published them. As well, students at the Michener Center have the opportunity to work with visiting writers, not just permanent faculty. And most people on the faculty have published one or more novels. What the Michener Center was discouraging was applying with a novel excerpt. Anyway, think about it. What's more conducive to writing novels, three years of well-funded time or the ability to take one novel-writing class?malcontenthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09009481791816415362noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15642985.post-1310361420669424582009-09-21T17:35:10.653-07:002009-09-21T17:35:10.653-07:00Okay, I just found this reading tour for Dorianne ...Okay, I just found this reading tour for Dorianne Laux: http://blogs.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&friendId=155967243&blogId=258319500<br /><br />Hmmm.laurahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03447812143209824024noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15642985.post-88734004709408400092009-09-21T17:15:19.470-07:002009-09-21T17:15:19.470-07:00I was just double checking the websites of all my ...I was just double checking the websites of all my prospective schools, and I realized Dorianne Laux is no longer on the faculty website at NC State: http://english.chass.ncsu.edu/graduate/mfa/faculty.php<br /><br />Is this a mistake? Do any current students know if she is still there? I missed the opportunity to take her classes as an undergrad at Oregon, and I was looking forward to the possibility of being one of her students. Everyone raves about her teaching style, and she's a wonderful poet.laurahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03447812143209824024noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15642985.post-17779472874300308292009-09-21T11:45:03.947-07:002009-09-21T11:45:03.947-07:00Phoebe,
I laughed out loud at that for a long ti...Phoebe, <br /><br />I laughed out loud at that for a <em>long</em> time. Absolutely wonderful.<br /><br />Cheers,<br />S.Seth Abramsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08059849202129580100noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15642985.post-52224365834404227052009-09-21T11:26:25.444-07:002009-09-21T11:26:25.444-07:00I know you've answered thousands of variants o...I know you've answered thousands of variants on this question, but I have another question about recommenders. Is it appropriate to ask a former classmate to write a recommendation letter? The other two lettes will come from writing professors. <br /><br />Thanks!Bhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08599320095496256654noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15642985.post-2014566242414553762009-09-21T11:03:14.021-07:002009-09-21T11:03:14.021-07:00Seth,
I think it would be more precise to say tha...Seth,<br /><br />I think it would be more precise to say that I see value in <i>lists</i>, or directories--places to access what really is the hard data of programs (what the programs are, where they are, funding, number of students, location of websites, etc.) These have ended up conflated for a bevy of reasons, but I don't necessarily think they should be. As for your being one of the only people who does it, some organizations have tried, and I'm not looking past them in my criticism--I just think that, when you're talking about arts, and there are <i>so many intangibles</i> the entire enterprise is largely in vain.<br /><br />As for getting to the brass tacks, I think it's impossible to separate the philosophy from the business of MFA programs. I also think it's important for applicants to know that they're entering a field where these questions are likely going to concern them for the rest of their lives. I know that, for me, ideas about art and career became <i>more</i> complicated after I began the MFA application process and this has only subsequently deepened. I suspect this happens to most graduates.<br /><br />But, in any event, I really do need to go get myself some lunch. But there's one last thing I want to share with you, because I'm sure you've had these moments with this months' mailbag: <a href="http://xkcd.com/386/" rel="nofollow">Duty Calls!</a><br /><br />Yours,<br />PhoebePhoebe Northhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08922801801009495791noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15642985.post-62640315614411256072009-09-21T10:48:32.461-07:002009-09-21T10:48:32.461-07:00Phoebe,
Yes, I do think we often agree. But I do...Phoebe,<br /><br />Yes, I do think we often agree. But I don't know that that means we're progressing. We continue, I feel, to talk past each other. For instance, you see the value in having rankings, just not in misusing them. We agree. But then you also a) question my reasoning in creating rankings, while b) implicitly acknowledging that no one else is doing it. That seems to answer your question, doesn't it? I.e., like you, I see some value in rankings; I know no one else will do them; I find the subject interesting (and, again, the final product useful if used wisely) so I do them. It seems we both agree that it is better that I do them than that I not do them, just as we agree that it is better for the rankings to be used wisely than unwisely. What confuses me is that you say you have problems with rankings, but it still seems like your problem is with <em>misuse</em> of rankings, not rankings in themselves. So I would think you would limit your criticism to the misuse of rankings, but you don't seem to. <br /><br />Likewise, I'm sure you'd agree that my own philosophy about how hard it is to predict one's future experiences using one's gut--however much that philosophy doesn't work for you (i.e., however much you believe in gut decisions)--might work for some, i.e. some might believe they can't make decisions primarily based on uninformed gut instinct, so even your concern about "misuse" needs to be (I think) much better defined. Some of what you see as misuse may well be simply those who think differently than you about the matriculation decision. Generally, you seem to think that you are holding back a tide of misuse by warning against it; my own experience is that applicants are pretty darn smart, they know what rankings are and are not, and (though I keep warning them anyway!) they will ultimately use the rankings in the way that's right for them, whatever that may be. The irony here is that the <em>type</em> of use one makes of rankings is often--amazingly--a gut decision one can't be talked out of.<br /><br />As far as the ALC MFA Blog goes, you misunderstand. I don't blog there to talk about rankings. It's the opposite: I go there, by and large, to <em>not</em> have to blog about rankings. In other words, it's not about not being challenged, it's about not having to justify myself on a regular basis, it's about getting down to the brass tacks of the MFA admissions process rather than debating over philosophy. The ALC MFA Blog is a place to get <em>help</em> for those who know what they want and who have decided how they're going to think about trying to get it; it's not a place for arguing over first principles. There are many other places for that (like here). That was my point. I'm not looking for a fiefdom, I'm looking for some respite and for an opportunity to better focus my online time on those who know what they need and how to ask for it rather than those who want to argue about the construction of the questions.<br /><br />Be well,<br />S.Seth Abramsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08059849202129580100noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15642985.post-74974638522409222562009-09-21T10:34:32.721-07:002009-09-21T10:34:32.721-07:00Renila,
Wish I could answer those questions for y...Renila,<br /><br />Wish I could answer those questions for you, but I don't have any experience in those schools directly. But if you're looking into NY schools and funding isn't an issue, have you considered the New School? I know quite a few graduates of both their MFA and BFA programs and would be glad to get you contact information if you need it.<br /><br />Yours,<br />PhoebePhoebe Northhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08922801801009495791noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15642985.post-15551478362044548192009-09-21T10:33:49.000-07:002009-09-21T10:33:49.000-07:00Renila,
You're asking whether New York City i...Renila,<br /><br />You're asking whether New York City is a good place to find contacts in the publishing industry? I think I can safely answer for every poet and fiction-writer who has ever trod the earth when I say <b>yes</b>.<br /><br />As to the quality of teaching, are you asking whether the MFA programs in New York City have been successful in attracting top writing talent to the city on Earth most talented writers want to live in? Again, I will answer for the multitudes (living and dead) and say <b>yes</b>.<br /><br />I think that when you say funding is no object, and location is what matters most to you, the conventional wisdom has always been--and will always be--to go to New York City. That was the conventional wisdom for poets and writers in the 1860s, and it still is today, 150 years later.<br /><br />Workshop size in the United States is largely standardized. I have never heard of a workshop smaller than eight people, or larger than thirteen. This has nothing to do with location, prestige, or anything else--the workshop model, pedagogically, demands a certain size class for it to work. If by "workshop size" you mean program size, yes, the programs in New York City (as indicated on TSE, another purpose it can be put to besides rankings) are the largest programs, program-wise, in the world--often accepting more than 30 students total (across three genres) per year. The reason for this is that one can't maximize revenue, in an MFA program, unless one is making nearly everyone pay full freight and one is bringing in a critical mass of young debtors.<br /><br />The only question you've asked that I think is tricky--requires some pressure being applied to the question--is asking whether any grads can speak to the quality of the teaching at these programs. First, grads don't usually spend time on these boards; second, grads who graduated a long time ago (and who frequent the board, if at all) would necessarily only have knowledge of the faculties that were teaching at the time, not current faculties; third, "quality of teaching" is not a quantifiable factor--one reason it's never appeared in any ranking system. Meaning, I have never had a creative writing instructor who wasn't loved by some students and hated by others. So if you want to know, say, whether Philip Levine at NYU is a great teacher of poetry, it will depend on whose lips get to your ear first--the Levine-haters or the Levine-lovers. Making a final matriculation decision on the basis of which professorial fan-club or hate-club gets to their computers first is not wise.<br /><br />Best,<br />SethSeth Abramsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08059849202129580100noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15642985.post-29376554731140349892009-09-21T10:31:57.171-07:002009-09-21T10:31:57.171-07:00I have no opinion on Carol's "ability to ...<i>I have no opinion on Carol's "ability to be happy." I said that it's easy to over-estimate one's ability to know in advance where one will be happy. </i><br /><br />I think you're splitting hairs here, Seth, and honestly I fail to see how what I said was the egregious misquote you're taking it to be: I think that Carol, or any other applicant, can estimate <i>more accurately than anyone else can</i> for themselves where they will be happy. In the future. So, yes, she'd be making these estimates in advance.<br /><br />I'll speak honestly with you, because it seems that, after discussion and clarification we often actually agree: it can be difficult to parse what you say on these boards at times. For example, your initial advice about the conventional wisdom of applying to 12-15 schools initially sounded very unequivocal, but, it turned out, that your feelings on the subject were actually a bit more nuanced. I can't imagine that the ensuing discussion and clarification is anything but helpful to applicants (though maybe we both garner a few eye-rolls)--it <i>seemed</i> to be to Sara, who seemed comforted by the discussion because of her financial situation.<br /><br />As for misquotings and misreadings, here's one: "But also I think 'following your gut' is actually, usually, a euphemism for using hard data and pretending not to." Did I say that Carol should disregard "hard data"? Well, I certainly suggested that she conduct research on her own ("I'm sure Carol is able to find programs that appeal to her just as well as any rankings., particularly if she's motivated in contacting professors, current students, and alum and conducting research on her own") and that she enter Columbia with full knowledge of their funding situation ("if she's fully aware of the financial risks involved with going there"). I suspect that you're upset simply because I dismiss rankings, and you have a personal investment in rankings (obviously). I'll say again that it's nothing personal; again, I feel similarly about all CRW rankings and, again, they're a fine place to survey available programs--that's how I used the old US news rankings back in 2006--but it's the weighing of the information that I disagree with, for precisely the reasons I've stated before. It seems that, in some ways, you agree with this--there are many intangibles such as location and faculty and peer group--but you attempt to rank programs anyway. That seems strange to me, but it's fine. I think it may be just a fundamental philosophical disagreement. And I think that's okay.<br /><br />In fact, I think dissenting voices generally are a good thing--discussions like this one keep us honest, keep us clarifying, and, if nothing else, show potential applicants that nothing in the writing world is simple or clear cut, least of all MFA programs. But if you prefer to have a more authoritative, but unchallenged, voice in your own blog, what can I do?<br /><br />Yours,<br />PhoebePhoebe Northhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08922801801009495791noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15642985.post-20238484247972714662009-09-21T10:13:30.337-07:002009-09-21T10:13:30.337-07:00Now that my original question is buried...
I AM a...Now that my original question is buried...<br /><br />I AM applying to Columbia & NYU and possibly Brooklyn College (although my GPA in undergrad English classes is below their standard).<br /><br />Location is very important to me.<br /><br />Any grads have insight on their craft classes/workshop size/quality of teaching/industry contacts etc.?<br /><br />I UNDERSTAND THEY HAVE LIMITED FUNDING.<br /><br />THAT'S NOT WHAT I'M ASKING.SurvivinginLAhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17027713272838068065noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15642985.post-37630646011359714992009-09-21T10:02:58.945-07:002009-09-21T10:02:58.945-07:00P.S. And I'll admit that misunderstandings lik...P.S. And I'll admit that misunderstandings like these are one of the reasons I now almost exclusively blog <a href="http://www.abramsonleslie.blogspot.com/" rel="nofollow">here</a>. I'm more interested in trying to help applicants than in having the same conversations (marked by the same mis-readings and mis-quotings) that have been swirling in some quarters of this community for three and a half years now.Seth Abramsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08059849202129580100noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15642985.post-58388332969154214702009-09-21T10:00:59.457-07:002009-09-21T10:00:59.457-07:00Things are so much more complicated than you make ...Things are so much more complicated than you make them out to be, Phoebe. But I'll leave you with another quote for you to inexplicably misquote later on down the line; this is a direct quote from my forthcoming article in <em>Poets & Writers</em> on MFA programs (an article that creates the first-ever <em>comprehensive</em>, print-based, institutionally-sponsored Top 50 ranking of MFA programs, with 15 categories of ranking and data):<br /><br /><b>At base it is impossible to quantify or predict the experience any one MFA candidate will have at any one program. By and large, students find that their experiences are circumscribed by entirely unforeseeable circumstances: A fellow writer they befriend, a mentor they unexpectedly discover, a town or city which, previously foreign, becomes as dear to them as home. No ranking ought pretend to know the absolute truth about program quality, and in keeping with that maxim the rankings that follow have no such pretensions. When I first began compiling data for comprehensive MFA rankings nearly three years ago, I regularly told the many MFA applicants I corresponded with that educational rankings should only constitute a minor part of their application and matriculation decisions; that’s a piece of advice I still routinely give...</b><br /><br />S.Seth Abramsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08059849202129580100noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15642985.post-30371628593482137422009-09-21T10:00:09.061-07:002009-09-21T10:00:09.061-07:00Phoebe,
I don't know what to tell you. When ...Phoebe,<br /><br />I don't know what to tell you. When you quote me this way (speaking of Carol)--<br /><br />"I think that's a fine attitude to take toward applying, too--I don't think, as Seth said, that she's likely to overestimate her ability to be happy...." <br /><br />--I'm flabbergasted. No, that's not what I said. I have no opinion on Carol's "ability to be happy." I said that it's easy to over-estimate one's ability to know in advance <em>where</em> one will be happy. In other words, I am <em>agreeing</em> with you--and I always have, I always have said this in every essay I've ever written--that whether one finds happiness in a program or not is based on things that have nothing to do whatsoever with statistics or anything quantifiable. I've also said that finding happiness in a program (or not) is something that is--<em>ipso facto</em>--therefore extremely hard to predict. So, when people (like you, or Carol) imply that they may have a special ability to predict <em>where</em> they'll be happy based on <em>gut instinct</em>, I do question that. I think if we all could just follow our gut and be happy we would; life's not that simple. But also I think "following your gut" is actually, usually, a euphemism for using hard data and pretending not to. For instance, I always advise applicants to know what they value most before they apply to a program--no one ever uses polls (or would) to formulate a value system. But once you know what you value, you have to know, also, how to assess it. No one says, "I know in my gut that I won't be happy if I have to work during my MFA, so I need full funding," and then goes on their "gut" to find out where they should go to find the best funding. At that point they switch to data (for that part or aspect of their decision). Likewise, I have been saying for <em>years</em> that location is unquantifiable and is the most important consid--<br /><br />--actually, I'm just going to stop there. You've misquoted me twice in a row, Phoebe, and (what's more) you simply don't seem to have ever read anything I've written on MFA programs, or else you've read it and somehow (as with everything I've written in this thread) it's come out the other side, in your understanding of things, exactly the opposite of how it was on the page or screen. I'm not sure that's a good use of my time. And neither, then, I'm guessing, is pushing you on some of your assertions. For instance, we know--statistically--what percentage of the applicant pool uses TSE and this blog and other online resources to research programs: around 50%. What you haven't done is explained how the demographics of the <em>other</em> 50% of applicants are so different from <em>this</em> (internet-using) 50% that it wildly skews the data in some way or another. In fact, the poll captures not only those who research MFA programs on-line but also those who look up program responses on-line after <em>not</em> using the internet for research. E.g., Columbia was 43rd in the rankings in the early months last year, but due to an influx of non-internet-researching applicants/poll respondents at the tail end of the cycle (in March and April), Columbia moved up to 22nd. Other unfunded programs made similar (but much less dramatic) upward moves. That led me to candidly write--as I have always been candid about the data--that Columbia, among those who don't research online, is probably a top 15 program (the estimate would be maybe 12th or 13th). Of course, I then add to that my observations of the annual April massacre--when all the non-internet-researching Columbia admittees go on P&W and ask a group of strangers for advice on how to <em>finance</em> what they've wanted for so long. And I hear them wish they'd done better research. And I hear them say that they now feel tortured--they got what they wanted, but they can't afford it. These are people who followed their gut (which is fine) <em>without</em> also doing their homework (which is not). <br /><br />[continued]Seth Abramsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08059849202129580100noreply@blogger.com