Fall 2017 Applicants

[Dr. Old Bill]

5 hours ago, RydraWong said:

Thanks for the reminder, Wyatt! I've made a spreadsheet to keep track of app due dates, the differing writing sample lengths for each program, GRE test dates, etc and everything is starting to feel so overwhelming.  I have a feeling dealing with school this fall quarter + finishing up apps is going to be very, very hectic and now I'm wondering why I didn't just take everyone's advice and do a gap year instead...

Also, I'm wondering how you all are going about emailing professors and different programs? I'm putting the finishing touches on my list of schools and there are a few that /might/ be a fit and I'm thinking of emailing some professors and asking them how they think the program would align with my interests. Has anyone here done that yet or can anyone speak to the usefulness of doing that? 

Well, if it's any consolation whatsoever, during the last application cycle I had everything done very early. I submitted most of my applications on the day each prospective program's application period opened. And in retrospect, I would NOT recommend doing that. It's one thing to be ultra prepared, and another to be ready, if that distinction makes any sense... I haven't even had time to think about my applications so far this cycle, since I've been so busy with work and schoolwork (an intensive graduate summer course while working a full GAship and moving to a new home is almost kicking my ass). I'm planning on doing as much of the Ph.D. application legwork as possible between mid-July and mid-August, since I'll have two assistantships, a lectureship, and two courses to deal with in the fall. :-O

As for emailing POIs and programs, I always found it helpful...but don't put much stock in it. Remember that selection is done by a committee, and while it's nice to have an advocate in your corner, there seem to be so many facets to the selection process that it doesn't count for all that much. Still, on a more macro level, it can't hurt to establish connections with professors whose interests are in the same ballpark as yours, whether or not that can be leveraged into acceptances into their programs.

[Anghellix]

Hi everybody!

I'm writing to seek your help and knowledge regarding Writing programs in mid-tier universities. I have had an affinity toward creative writing since the past five years or more and I wish to be a writer by profession. I want to apply specifically for a Ph.D. program in Writing. Unfortunately, due to time constraints, I haven't been able to expend any time researching the university websites. Also, my GRE test is scheduled this Sunday and I want to invest my time revising what I've learnt insofar.

I'd highly appreciate your support in sharing the names of universities that offer a PhD in Writing (without the GRE LIE subject test).

Thank you!

God Bless everyone.

[Romanista]

I don't understand why some people want to be creative writers and think that the next step is to get an MFA or PhD in the same subject. You don't need those credentials. The writers that you inevitably must study in order to write very often do not even have MFAs or PhDs in creative writing because those are somewhat new degrees. Creative writers should embrace this, because you can still write without having to go through the stresses (and poverty) of graduate school. If your plan is to teach creative writing at the college level then perhaps an MFA or PhD could be worth it, but there are actually tenured faculty who teach creative writing with just a BA. Those people are famous writers but still, that should give you an indication of the value of those degrees and how difficult the job market is. 

Inevitably some won't like this post but I have to vent. MFAs are really just cash cows for the corporate university. It is true that the university will always profit of off you studying there, even if you are fully funded. But at least in literature or comp rhet or sociology or computer science or whatever, you are dealing with the type of work and research that can only be done on campus, with access to expert faculty and up to date facilities. Creative writing is a lot more spontaneous and it just bothers me that everyone has this kneejerk gotta go to grad school mentality toward creative writing. For the most part, all this does is allow universities to make more money and then give it to administrators instead of adjuncts. 

People will pay you to write. It won't be creative writing, but it will probably lead to a much better life than taking a chance on the academic job market and only ending up with adjunct work to show for it. It's almost an illusion to think that you can make a living as a creative writer, and slightly less of an illusion to think you can do so as a tenured professor of creative writing. Besides, you won't even be able to write full-time if you are a professor. A creative writer would be much better served by finding a job that supports him or her so that they can write in their freetime. It won't be easy, but writing rarely is.

Go to graduate school in the humanities if the kind of research and or job requires that you do so. I just don't think that creative writing fits that maxim.

[Dr. Old Bill]

Yes, it's a bit of a controversial topic. I largely agree with @Romanista, but I'm also quite biased, having written and published a great deal of poetry long before I entered academia. At the time, I sneered a bit at the concept of the MFA. I still don't think it's necessary, by any means, but I will say this: some of my favorite people in my cohort are MFA students, and all of them take literature courses as well and get a well-rounded education as a part of their degree. In my conversations with a few of them, I think the prime reason for why they are going the MFA route is to have a structured development. One is writing a novel, and she finds that being in an academic environment with other creative individuals is helpful. Also, at UMD at least, MFA students are allowed to teach 101, which provides them with the ability to work on campus or at other local community colleges etc.

So I guess what I'm getting at is that there are some valid reasons for getting an MFA, so long as you don't have the expectation that an MFA is required to be a great writer or even a professor.

[Anghellix]

20 minutes ago, Romanista said:

I don't understand why some people want to be creative writers and think that the next step is to get an MFA or PhD in the same subject. You don't need those credentials. The writers that you inevitably must study in order to write very often do not even have MFAs or PhDs in creative writing because those are somewhat new degrees. Creative writers should embrace this, because you can still write without having to go through the stresses (and poverty) of graduate school. If your plan is to teach creative writing at the college level then perhaps an MFA or PhD could be worth it, but there are actually tenured faculty who teach creative writing with just a BA. Those people are famous writers but still, that should give you an indication of the value of those degrees and how difficult the job market is. 

Inevitably some won't like this post but I have to vent. MFAs are really just cash cows for the corporate university. It is true that the university will always profit of off you studying there, even if you are fully funded. But at least in literature or comp rhet or sociology or computer science or whatever, you are dealing with the type of work and research that can only be done on campus, with access to expert faculty and up to date facilities. Creative writing is a lot more spontaneous and it just bothers me that everyone has this kneejerk gotta go to grad school mentality toward creative writing. For the most part, all this does is allow universities to make more money and then give it to administrators instead of adjuncts. 

People will pay you to write. It won't be creative writing, but it will probably lead to a much better life than taking a chance on the academic job market and only ending up with adjunct work to show for it. It's almost an illusion to think that you can make a living as a creative writer, and slightly less of an illusion to think you can do so as a tenured professor of creative writing. Besides, you won't even be able to write full-time if you are a professor. A creative writer would be much better served by finding a job that supports him or her so that they can write in their freetime. It won't be easy, but writing rarely is.

Go to graduate school in the humanities if the kind of research and or job requires that you do so. I just don't think that creative writing fits that maxim.

Firstly, ~Romanista~ thank you for your critique. I intend to pursue a Ph.D. in Creative Writing mainly because I am intrinsically inspired to write. Furthermore, really, the basic idea for anybody who pursues a Ph.D. is to expand his or her horizon and not just be a frog in the well. Essentially, for me, I shall get the opportunity to learn from distinguished professors in the field of creative writing and at the same time be in a cohort of creative writers. And yes, I most certainly agree that people will pay me for my writing, especially when they buy my published works on fiction. By the way, I'm situated in India and up until a year ago, I used to work as an Acct Mgr for a background screening company based in the US. I quit that job primarily because I wanted to pursue my passion for English and now I'm geared to take the next step in my journey.

I am hoping the other members here could guide me further w.r.t. my query. Thank you.

[EmmaJava]

1 hour ago, Romanista said:

I don't understand why some people want to be creative writers and think that the next step is to get an MFA or PhD in the same subject. You don't need those credentials. The writers that you inevitably must study in order to write very often do not even have MFAs or PhDs in creative writing because those are somewhat new degrees. Creative writers should embrace this, because you can still write without having to go through the stresses (and poverty) of graduate school. If your plan is to teach creative writing at the college level then perhaps an MFA or PhD could be worth it, but there are actually tenured faculty who teach creative writing with just a BA. Those people are famous writers but still, that should give you an indication of the value of those degrees and how difficult the job market is. 

Inevitably some won't like this post but I have to vent. MFAs are really just cash cows for the corporate university. It is true that the university will always profit of off you studying there, even if you are fully funded. But at least in literature or comp rhet or sociology or computer science or whatever, you are dealing with the type of work and research that can only be done on campus, with access to expert faculty and up to date facilities. Creative writing is a lot more spontaneous and it just bothers me that everyone has this kneejerk gotta go to grad school mentality toward creative writing. For the most part, all this does is allow universities to make more money and then give it to administrators instead of adjuncts. 

People will pay you to write. It won't be creative writing, but it will probably lead to a much better life than taking a chance on the academic job market and only ending up with adjunct work to show for it. It's almost an illusion to think that you can make a living as a creative writer, and slightly less of an illusion to think you can do so as a tenured professor of creative writing. Besides, you won't even be able to write full-time if you are a professor. A creative writer would be much better served by finding a job that supports him or her so that they can write in their freetime. It won't be easy, but writing rarely is.

Go to graduate school in the humanities if the kind of research and or job requires that you do so. I just don't think that creative writing fits that maxim.

Quite respectfully, I'll attempt to offer another perspective, and it's not that I entirely disagree with you, Romanista, so much as I do understand "why some people want to be creative writers and think that the next step is to get an MFA or PhD in the same subject," and also that I'm not quite with you on "the types of work that can only be done on a campus."

I would think that I wasn't entirely alone in that what got me into lit studies was actually more a creative impulse than a scholarly one, at least to start...but, that creative impulse came with a longing for it to be situated in a scholarly way. This is totally fair. There are some creative writers out there who do not and should not care how their creative output gets categorized and critiqued, but there are those who do and should, and for those who do and should, these degrees might be necessary. I took a workshop with one of my heroes who openly mocked me for this desire, and I get that, too. He came from a school of thought very much echoing your post, Romanista, and encouraged all his students to put all thoughts of the tortured, starving artist out of mind in favor of pay-day genre-driven rapid output. Which is all kinds of hypocritical given that he's got a PhD and is making beautiful, tortured art (although his output is rapid, that is true).

Here's another thing about "scholarship" vs. "creativity" - or rather, scholarship "vs." creativity: There is no "vs." For me, anyway, I found through my advanced degrees that my scholarly writing must precisely be creative. This will likely set off one hell of a debate, as the non-creative scholars (if such a thing actually exists) hate this, in my experience. I've been told straight up, "no," by many a "scholarly" professor, but I'm sorry, I simply disagree with that notion. So, someone entering this way - with creative impulses but the scholarly longings to situate whatever is happening in their creative worlds  - might well find that their creative media are actually "scholarly" writings, or vice versa. I myself identify with this completely.

And finally, while it is certainly not going to draw much attack, prima facie, the idea that scholarly work needs to happen on a campus and that creative work doesn't is just one of those things that isn't true, as independent scholars and in-between degree-ers can attest. Now, of course it helps to have an affiliation and all the access and resources that come with an affiliation, sure - but then so does a degree from the Iowa Writer's Workshop help an aspiring creative writer in remarkably similar ways. And certainly there is a rational cost-benefit analysis waiting for anyone who needs to take finances into account, sure. I want to reiterate that I'm not out-and-out disagreeing so much as pointing out that an understanding of this desire and even some praxis behind it isn't totally nuts...in fact it makes a ton of sense for at least one sort of temperament.

...but it is interesting, and I think the decision must largely be driven by individual circumstances and personal honesty, as I'm always banging on about. In that same workshop that I referenced above, I also had a close relationship to a classmate who always insisted that there were not really any meaningful technical skills that we were going to get out of this workshop, that "creativity can't be taught," yada yada. And that's all valid, too, sure! This far into my journey, I don't actually believe that any workshops or seminars have truly augmented my own creative juices or flavored my poetics in a way that will satisfy Romanista. But you know what?  They satisfy me, because I have a need that most can't relate to, which is the need for a scholarly self-critique of my own attempts at creativity. If I set out to create this poem or that story, I very much want and need to say, "this is an attempt at ----------". Fill in the blank however you want, but for me, that blank is probably going to have a very "scholarly" word or phrase in there, and when I write my essays, I will be reappropriating those same words and phrases in a poetic vision aims to transcend what I consider to be silly and limiting, like "secondary" or "knowledge production," or whatever. I'm not anti- those things so much as I don't relegate them to only that (which would depress the hell out of me), for they should, if done properly, contain ideas and images and material interactions in the exact same ways as literary art.

 

To Anghellix, I don't have excellent advice for you other than I know there are some joint MFA/PhDs or else PhD's in creative writing and that these seem to focus on that scholarly/creative interplay in a way that I would clearly appreciate more so than a straight MFA...although that said, I have some anecdotal info regarding what I have seen as very valuable in the way of an MFA where I got my MA (classmate testimonies, in other words)...I'll let others provide the name-branding. But I'll say too that you'll probably encounter a lot of Romanista's viewpoint and that you should weigh it carefully. I'm just a wee bit sensitive, falling into weird minority status on so many issues as I do, so wanted to stick up for the idea itself. You're not crazy or misguided whatseover...but you sure as hell better be honest and sure.

*edited: embarrassing typos and some philosophical clarification.

 

 

Edited June 20, 2016 by EmmaJava

[Anghellix]

10 minutes ago, Wyatt's Terps said:

Yes, it's a bit of a controversial topic. I largely agree with @Romanista, but I'm also quite biased, having written and published a great deal of poetry long before I entered academia. At the time, I sneered a bit at the concept of the MFA. I still don't think it's necessary, by any means, but I will say this: some of my favorite people in my cohort are MFA students, and all of them take literature courses as well and get a well-rounded education as a part of their degree. In my conversations with a few of them, I think the prime reason for why they are going the MFA route is to have a structured development. One is writing a novel, and she finds that being in an academic environment with other creative individuals is helpful. Also, at UMD at least, MFA students are allowed to teach 101, which provides them with the ability to work on campus or at other local community colleges etc.

So I guess what I'm getting at is that there are some valid reasons for getting an MFA, so long as you don't have the expectation that an MFA is required to be a great writer or even a professor.

Hi ~WT~,

I'm not considering the MFA in Creative Writing program as a crutch (heck, that'll be lame even from my standpoint). I look at it exactly as you quoted above: "structured development". Does UMD stand for University of Maryland? Does UMD offer a writing program?

[Dr. Old Bill]

1 minute ago, Anghellix said:

Hi ~WT~,

I'm not considering the MFA in Creative Writing program as a crutch (heck, that'll be lame even from my standpoint). I look at it exactly as you quoted above: "structured development". Does UMD stand for University of Maryland? Does UMD offer a writing program?

Yep -- UMD = University of Maryland. It does offer a strong writing program, with some fairly successful creative writers like Stanley Plumly and Elizabeth Arnold on faculty. Again, one of the strong suits is that you can teach while pursuing your MFA, and there are many funding options through GAships / TAships etc.

[Romanista]

34 minutes ago, Anghellix said:

And yes, I most certainly agree that people will pay me for my writing, especially when they buy my published works on fiction.

Good luck to you, but that's not exactly what I meant. I meant that plenty of writers (whose works probably aren't on MFA syllabi) make a living as copywriters/editors, technical writers, grant writers, etc. during the day and write creatively at night. A graduate degree in writing may help you land those jobs, but it is certainly possible to get hired without one.

[Anghellix]

22 minutes ago, EmmaJava said:

To Anghellix, I don't have excellent advice for you other than I know there are some joint MFA/PhDs or else PhD's in creative writing and that these seem to focus on that scholarly/creative interplay in a way that I would clearly appreciate more so than a straight MFA...although that said, I have some anecdotal info regarding what I have seen as very valuable in the way of an MFA where I got my MA (classmate testimonies, in other words)...I'll let others provide the name-branding. But I'll say too that you'll probably encounter a lot of Romanista's viewpoint and that you should weigh it carefully. I'm just a wee bit sensitive, falling into weird minority status on so many issues as I do, so wanted to stick up for the idea itself. You're not crazy or misguided whatseover...but you sure as hell better be honest and sure.

*edited: embarrassing typos and some philosophical clarification.

 

 

I see where you're coming from and I understand the controversial viewpoints as well. I had had an epiphany (as a matter of fact) half a year ago and realized then, that I wanted to be a full-time writer.

[Romanista]

On 6/20/2016 at 2:37 PM, EmmaJava said:

Quite respectfully, I'll attempt to offer another perspective, and it's not that I entirely disagree with you, Romanista, so much as I do understand "why some people want to be creative writers and think that the next step is to get an MFA or PhD in the same subject," and also that I'm not quite with you on "the types of work that can only be done on a campus."

I would think that I wasn't entirely alone in that what got me into lit studies was actually more a creative impulse than a scholarly one, at least to start...but, that creative impulse came with a longing for it to be situated in a scholarly way. This is totally fair. There are some creative writers out there who do not and should not care how their creative output gets categorized and critiqued, but there are those who do and should, and for those who do and should, these degrees might be necessary. I took a workshop with one of my heroes who openly mocked me for this desire, and I get that, too. He came from a school of thought very much echoing your post, Romanista, and encouraged all his students to put all thoughts of the tortured, starving artist out of mind in favor of pay-day genre-driven rapid output. Which is all kinds of hypocritical given that he's got a PhD and is making beautiful, tortured art (although his output is rapid, that is true).

Here's another thing about "scholarship" vs. "creativity" - or rather, scholarship "vs." creativity: There is no "vs." For me, anyway, I found through my advanced degrees that my scholarly writing must precisely be creative. This will likely set off one hell of a debate, as the non-creative scholars (if such a thing actually exists) hate this, in my experience. I've been told straight up, "no," by many a "scholarly" professor, but I'm sorry, I simply disagree with that notion. So, someone entering this way - with creative impulses but the scholarly longings to situate whatever is happening in their creative worlds  - might well find that their creative media are actually "scholarly" writings, or vice versa. I myself identify with this completely.

And finally, while it is certainly not going to draw much attack, prima facie, the idea that scholarly work needs to happen on a campus and that creative work doesn't is just one of those things that isn't true, as independent scholars and in-between degree-ers can attest. Now, of course it helps to have an affiliation and all the access and resources that come with an affiliation, sure - but then so does a degree from the Iowa Writer's Workshop help an aspiring creative writer in remarkably similar ways. And certainly there is a rational cost-benefit analysis waiting for anyone who needs to take finances into account, sure. I want to reiterate that I'm not out-and-out disagreeing so much as pointing out that an understanding of this desire and even some praxis behind it isn't totally nuts...in fact it makes a ton of sense for at least one sort of temperament.

...but it is interesting, and I think the decision must largely be driven by individual circumstances and personal honesty, as I'm always banging on about. In that same workshop that I referenced above, I also had a close relationship to a classmate who always insisted that there were not really any meaningful technical skills that we were going to get out of this workshop, that "creativity can't be taught," yada yada. And that's all valid, too, sure! This far into my journey, I don't actually believe that any workshops or seminars have truly augmented my own creative juices or flavored my poetics in a way that will satisfy Romanista. But you know what?  They satisfy me, because I have a need that most can't relate to, which is the need for a scholarly self-critique of my own attempts at creativity. If I set out to create this poem or that story, I very much want and need to say, "this is an attempt at ----------". Fill in the blank however you want, but for me, that blank is probably going to have a very "scholarly" word or phrase in there, and when I write my essays, I will be reappropriating those same words and phrases in a poetic vision aims to transcend what I consider to be silly and limiting, like "secondary" or "knowledge production," or whatever. I'm not anti- those things so much as I don't relegate them to only that (which would depress the hell out of me), for they should, if done properly, contain ideas and images and material interactions in the exact same ways as literary art.

 

To Anghellix, I don't have excellent advice for you other than I know there are some joint MFA/PhDs or else PhD's in creative writing and that these seem to focus on that scholarly/creative interplay in a way that I would clearly appreciate more so than a straight MFA...although that said, I have some anecdotal info regarding what I have seen as very valuable in the way of an MFA where I got my MA (classmate testimonies, in other words)...I'll let others provide the name-branding. But I'll say too that you'll probably encounter a lot of Romanista's viewpoint and that you should weigh it carefully. I'm just a wee bit sensitive, falling into weird minority status on so many issues as I do, so wanted to stick up for the idea itself. You're not crazy or misguided whatseover...but you sure as hell better be honest and sure.

*edited: embarrassing typos and some philosophical clarification.

 

 

I can definitely see the hypocrisy of creative writing faculty advocating for the working approach to writing, as opposed to the "get an MFA" approach, and I've witnessed that in my own program (though I'm not an MFA student). You are right that independent scholars and inbetweeners exist, but how many of those are out there in comparison to people who have a day job and write creatively on the side? The latter group is surely much larger. 

Creative writers have the potential to reach a mass audience, the proverbial average American reader who just wants a good story, and yet they still resort to couching their work in academic terms. And for what reason other than their own personal comfort? Is it to make themselves feel important? What is their motivation?

Creative writers can have a dynamic and diverse readership of people who can enjoy their work without having a college education. They can reach millions theoretically. The typical academic can't do that, because they are working within a specialized discourse community that academics from other fields (let alone the average person) probably can't fully understand because of their lack of training in that subject. 

And yet these MFA people eschew this potential to reach a wide audience and I don't understand why they throw away that potential power. Is reaching a wide audience selling out? I just can't believe why someone would throw away that potential, to actually touch people's lives, to have people read their work not because they are expected to as professionals, but because they want to, because they would rather do that than watch HBO. 

The MFA has made creative writing elitist. Academia must be elitist but I don't think that creative writing must be elitist, because it hasn't up until the widespread adoption of MFA cash cow programs. Creative writing is not an academic discipline. It has been co-opted into one because it makes universities a ton of money. And if you advocate getting a graduate degree in creative writing, you are part of the problem.

I say that creative writing is non-academic with a lot of respect. I don't think parenthood, or friendship, or a good home cooked meal are scholarly disciplines, but I think all of these things are extremely important. I think they are all more important than any abstract academic field. But the way to practice them is to actually live outside of the protective bubble of academia, which is not an ivy tower but is nevertheless sheltered from the real world. And readers generally want to hear about the real world more than they do about academia when it comes to creative writing because let's face it...being a professor is not very cinematic or exciting to someone with no experience in a given field. That explains why we have so many cop, lawyer and physician TV shows and movies but so few of either about scholars. 

Perhaps we have a different opinion on creative writing. I do both creative and academic writing, but I see the former as entertainment. I don't think novelists or poets or playwrights or essayists are anything more than entertainers. I say this with the utmost respect, because I think that creative writing is really more important than any academic discipline in that it expresses the human experience far better given its primal nature, given that anyone can do it (but comparatively few can do it well). I think we need entertainers more than we need scholars. But the distinction between literary artists and writers who entertain is not just semantics, it is foregrounded by the elitism that the MFA machine has spread in the last fifty years or so. 

This is all to say nothing about the other concerns I have about MFA programs, like the relationship between creative writing professors and students being different than that of working writers and editors, to the lack of useful feedback in workshops (given how criticism about the work is automatically criticism of the writer now since everyone is a hater), to the religious adherence to the more workshoppable short story (even though the non-MFA public doesn't want to read short stories), to the solipsistic trend toward creative nonfiction, which seems to advocate for twenty five year old writers who went straight from high school to undergrad to an MFA program publishing their diary entries under the guise of an essay, even if they are not famous and in fact lead boring lives (to all outward appearances).  

[EmmaJava]

7 hours ago, Romanista said:

And for what reason other than their own personal comfort? Is it to make themselves feel important? What is their motivation?

Hey, Romanista, I love the passion, and I hear you all the way through. In fact, I think I mostly agreed with you and validated you where I didn't agree. Did I not? And I admitted that I'm in a weird minority carrying around a strange sensitivity, so I think we can all agree that I'm the weirdo, here. Guilty! But with all of those concessions made, didn't I give a reason and a motivation that can be appreciated, even if it is a super weird minority position? What I articulated wasn't based on personal comfort or self-importance at all, and (giving the benefit of the doubt), I don't think Anghellix is coming from a place like that, either. Going back to your original opener - you " don't understand why some people want to be creative writers and think that the next step is to get an MFA or PhD in the same subject." So all I'm doing is suggesting a way to understand this, as I do. The "some" in question here - indeed, likely to be a very small "some" - might just matter, and I think this understanding (to say nothing of compassion) is possible. I think you can do it if you try.

[echo449]

9 hours ago, Romanista said:

 

The MFA has made creative writing elitist.

*thinking face emoji*

[Anghellix]

Can somebody guide me with a few good universities for MFA? I'm not keen on the "top-ranking" ones but I'd prefer mid-tier universities. Thanks in advance.

[Dr. Old Bill]

9 hours ago, Anghellix said:

Can somebody guide me with a few good universities for MFA? I'm not keen on the "top-ranking" ones but I'd prefer mid-tier universities. Thanks in advance.

I'm NOT shooing you away from this forum, but just so you know, there is a forum for creative writing here at GradCafe as well. It doesn't seem to get much traffic, but you may find some nuggets of wisdom in older threads at least.

[Warelin]

Everyone: Please try to keep things civil.

[Romanista]

On 6/23/2016 at 1:15 PM, echo449 said:

*thinking face emoji*

I'm not surprised that you downvoted my post. I know I'm in the minority on MFA programs, particularly in an graduate school forum. But I find it telling that you didn't even bother to engage with my argument against MFA programs and instead all you offer is some circa 2016 meme. Are you implying that I think a lot about how degree creep in creative writing is a bad thing? Yes I do. I think about it very often, probably too often for my health.  

[echo449]

2 hours ago, Romanista said:

I'm not surprised that you downvoted my post. I know I'm in the minority on MFA programs, particularly in an graduate school forum. But I find it telling that you didn't even bother to engage with my argument against MFA programs and instead all you offer is some circa 2016 meme. Are you implying that I think a lot about how degree creep in creative writing is a bad thing? Yes I do. I think about it very often, probably too often for my health.  

Fair, and I'm sorry for down voting the post, that wasn't productive. However, I take issue with the use of the word "elitist" and a lot of the aesthetic judgements that you make. I'm not even sure (c.f. Mark McGurl's fine work on the subject) that MFAs even produce work that is all that intellectual, except in programs known for avant-garde proclivities. But bracketing aesthetic judgments for a second: I think the view that art should be first and foremost about telling a good story or whatever is a profoundly weird position, especially in this discipline. I can't say I'm moved by the poetry that I study, or even that I enjoy reading much of the more abstract works, but I don't think of that as a sign that contemporary poetic culture has abandoned the mass audience that it should be directed at. Basically, I'm weirded out by the normative claims your post makes, as a person who studies post-45 lit. I don't particularly care for MFA programs either, but not because of their "elitism".

[Romanista]

24 minutes ago, echo449 said:

Fair, and I'm sorry for down voting the post, that wasn't productive. However, I take issue with the use of the word "elitist" and a lot of the aesthetic judgements that you make. I'm not even sure (c.f. Mark McGurl's fine work on the subject) that MFAs even produce work that is all that intellectual, except in programs known for avant-garde proclivities. But bracketing aesthetic judgments for a second: I think the view that art should be first and foremost about telling a good story or whatever is a profoundly weird position, especially in this discipline. I can't say I'm moved by the poetry that I study, or even that I enjoy reading much of the more abstract works, but I don't think of that as a sign that contemporary poetic culture has abandoned the mass audience that it should be directed at. Basically, I'm weirded out by the normative claims your post makes, as a person who studies post-45 lit. I don't particularly care for MFA programs either, but not because of their "elitism".

Elitist is probably not the right word, but I mean elitist in two senses.

First, academics tend to prioritize experiences within the field to the extent that experiences outside the field count very little in comparison. For example, every once in a while someone posts a message on this forum about their chances of getting into a PhD program in English, saying something like "I've worked as a lawyer/non profit manager/accountant etc. and I've done volunteer work abroad in developing countries but I've only taken a handful of English courses as a undergraduate" and the response from others is usually something like, "that's an interesting background but admissions committees really only care about your coursework in English, or at least, they care about your coursework in English first and foremost and then maybe they will consider your interesting background to separate you from other potential students."

This makes sense, since prior coursework in English is really the best thing that can prepare you for graduate coursework in English. I've never been on the academic job market but my guess is that academic experience is positioned the same way. Even if you have an interesting backstory as a job candidate, the search committee generally will only care about research in academic contexts, your (college) teaching record, and your departmental service work (at your PhD program or whatever school you've worked at before). So I mean elitist in that one type of experience (scholarly) counts far more than another type. I don't think this is necessarily a bad thing.

Second, on a related note, the academic job market is elitist. If I get a PhD in English (or any established academic field) and I apply for a tenure-track position at a university and I don't get hired, in fact, I don't even get an interview, I can still rest easy knowing that someone "qualified" got the job instead of me. In other words, the university I applied to didn't hire some literary scholar savant who holds only a BA, or an adjunct with just an MA who has been teaching for years, or some literature enthusiast who has published scholarly essays despite not having ever went to college. I know that the university hired someone with a PhD (or maybe an ABD) because that is the recognized level of scholarly experience that the position requires. So when I apply to a TT job, I'm not competing with the general public, or with people who love my subject. I'm competing with people who hold the same educational experience as me, and who may or may not love my subject as much as I do. Maybe elitism isn't the right word for that idea. 

This is not necessarily true in creative writing though, either in terms of getting your manuscript published or in terms of getting a tenure-track job. I think this is a good thing because everyone in graduate school is privileged in some sense. There are lots of people who can't go to graduate school because they don't have the time or money or because they have to take care of their family or whatever. But they can still write, and they still do write. And I feel like we're getting to the point now where a manuscript written by someone who doesn't hold an MFA is not considered a serious work, because more and more writers have MFAs, such that not having an MFA is weird, since your local university is bound to offer an MFA program. Likewise, job seekers for a creative writing teaching position (at any institution but particularly in higher ed.) are also not considered serious candidates if they don't have an MFA. This is true even if they may have extensive commercial writing experience, or if they've published genre fiction. The MFA is not an absolute requisite for any kind of publication or teaching position, but if more people get MFAs, I think we could get to that point that creative writing too becomes elitist. If I'm misusing that word, I mean that I think that creative writing could end up resembling the academic job market. Because not everyone can get an MFA, one effect of the shift toward professionalizing creative writing is the shutting out of some creative voices, and I find that troubling since you can write without an MFA (many do). 

 

[Mattie Roh]

Not to be inflammatory, but this is an interesting article regarding MFAs:

http://www.theatlantic.com/entertainment/archive/2016/03/mfa-creative-writing/462483/

Some interesting stats regarding writing by MFAs vs non-MFAs (take it with a grain of salt, of course).

[Dr. Old Bill]

More than any of the MFA-related statistics, I'm blown away by the male-centric stats. That's seriously disheartening...

[heliogabalus]

Why would someone go for an MFA? Well, if it's funded, that means a few years of not having to work a job and have writing as something you do after work.  That doesn't mean someone in an MFA program will be a better writer, but it's not a bad thing. And while there are cash cow programs (Columbia, etc.) some offer good funding. I did an MFA in translation. While I was translating before, and have been translating since, some good came out of attending. Mainly, it came out of the creative writing program's poetry classes--it's a very different thing to study poetry with a poet than it is to study with someone whose main interest is how Judith Butler would read it. Having taken those classes, I know I'm a much better teacher and translator of poetry. I was in a traditional lit PhD for awhile and I did like that the MFA classes and professors seemed more interested in how something is written and how effects are achieved--something I imagine comp/rhet people would like too.

I'm going to be  a jerk about this, and I'm sorry. Criticisms of MFA programs are certainly valid, but it's funny when that criticism is coming out of a rhet/comp MA program. I love teaching writing, so I would be interesting in rhetoric and composition programs, and MA rhet/comp programs that fund--excellent! (Well funded PhD program, even better.) But glancing at the website of Carnegie Mellon (one of the biggies in the field, right?), it doesn't seem that they offer any sort of funding for MAs. They give a bit of a tuition break. So basically an MA student at CMU and other places that don't fund would be paying so that they could teach the remedialish comp classes that tenured professors would rather eat cobwebs than teach. (Much better to teach composition to grad students who are fascinated about the subject than freshmen, right?) You could complain that MFAs are professionalizing artistry (I would still disagree that creative writing is more spontaneous than critcism--seems like a very Romantic idea), but you could also argue that rhet/comp MA students are deprofessionalizing writing instruction, since freshmen are no longer being taught by professors and PhDs. Creative writing programs at some schools are cash cows, but how much money do universities make by farming out freshmen writing classes to new grad students instead of hiring more professors?

I'm not actually against rhet/comp programs or rhet/comp ma programs. I just think it's funny for people in one exploitative program that offers unrealistic hope to scoff at those in another.

Edited July 1, 2016 by heliogabalus

[Romanista]

1 hour ago, heliogabalus said:

Why would someone go for an MFA? Well, if it's funded, that means a few years of not having to work a job and have writing as something you do after work.  That doesn't mean someone in an MFA program will be a better writer, but it's not a bad thing. And while there are cash cow programs (Columbia, etc.) some offer good funding. I did an MFA in translation. While I was translating before, and have been translating since, some good came out of attending. Mainly, it came out of the creative writing program's poetry classes--it's a very different thing to study poetry with a poet than it is to study with someone whose main interest is how Judith Butler would read it. Having taken those classes, I know I'm a much better teacher and translator of poetry. I was in a traditional lit PhD for awhile and I did like that the MFA classes and professors seemed more interested in how something is written and how effects are achieved--something I imagine comp/rhet people would like too.

I'm going to be  a jerk about this, and I'm sorry. Criticisms of MFA programs are certainly valid, but it's funny when that criticism is coming out of a rhet/comp MA program. I love teaching writing, so I would be interesting in rhetoric and composition programs, and MA rhet/comp programs that fund--excellent! (Well funded PhD program, even better.) But glancing at the website of Carnegie Mellon (one of the biggies in the field, right?), it doesn't seem that they offer any sort of funding for MAs. They give a bit of a tuition break. So basically an MA student at CMU and other places that don't fund would be paying so that they could teach the remedialish comp classes that tenured professors would rather eat cobwebs than teach. (Much better to teach composition to grad students who are fascinated about the subject than freshmen, right?) You could complain that MFAs are professionalizing artistry (I would still disagree that creative writing is more spontaneous than critcism--seems like a very Romantic idea), but you could also argue that rhet/comp MA students are deprofessionalizing writing instruction, since freshmen are no longer being taught by professors and PhDs. Creative writing programs at some schools are cash cows, but how much money do universities make by farming out freshmen writing classes to new grad students instead of hiring more professors?

I'm not actually against rhet/comp programs or rhet/comp ma programs. I just think it's funny for people in one exploitative program that offers unrealistic hope to scoff at those in another.

Surely you aren't suggesting that proportionally speaking, comp rhet programs tend to fund less than MFAs. What exactly does it prove that one masters program in comp rhet doesn't fully fund its students? I don't think it proves anything, even though Carnegie Mellon has an excellent program. I mean, Columbia's literature MA is unfunded, but it is also an excellent program, so what is your point exactly, other than that Carnegie Mellon is a little greedy?

Also, I don't think that any program that does not fully fund students would allow them to teach. As a student, you don't pay to teach, you get paid to teach (though not very much). 

I'm fully aware of the hypocrisy. Every funded graduate student (particularly in the humanities) contributes to this problem, where we short charge undergraduates by "teaching" them, whereas forty years ago, TT faculty with a PhD would do the same job. 

The way I justify this is by reminding myself that the job that I want can only come from my getting a masters and or PhD in my discipline. That is not true for creative writers who make a living off their published works, or those who teach in order to make a living off their published works, or those who have a day job in order to make a living off their published works. A graduate degree may help them but they can get by without it. 

No one will hire me for a tenure track job just because I have a passion for rhetoric. I have to show that passion by means of getting a graduate degree. That's why I said that academia is elitist, in that experience is tied to educational degrees attained. This is not as true for creative writers, though unfortunately it is becoming increasingly true.

That's why I think that creative writers are even more complicit in the problem you rightfully pointed out. Literary criticism and rhetoric do not have the equivalent of the NYC publishing world that you have in creative writing. If we want to make it with the kind of writing we do, we need institutional affiliation. Even independent scholars usually have graduate degrees and training that they use in their work. 

So yes, my choice of career is selfish and it allows academia to continue its exploitative practices. But if I really want to do this, it's my only option. A creative writer can always opt out, and I find it sad that those that do are now looked askance at. 

[EmmaJava]

33 minutes ago, Romanista said:

A creative writer can always opt out, and I find it sad that those that do are now looked askance at. 

Wait, this is twisting things. You began by saying you didn't understand, and now you have several perspectives from which to draw understanding, but which you still reject. And your rejection may even be on grounds that I think most of us can appreciate. I know I can. But nobody is looking askance at creative writers who decide to opt out; rather, isn't it you looking askance at those who decide to opt in?  Splitting hairs?  I don't think so, especially if I'm to take your cues. 

I don't think this is a matter of not understanding on your part so much as an unwillingness to depart from a personal ethics. Which, to me, is totally fine, but entirely different.

This personal ethics of yours: to each their own. Certainly you'll find sympathies critiquing a corporate and exploitative university system, as it were (or, as it gets dubbed from within itself). But I think those sympathies may dwindle when you take aim at students and their motivations, especially when you bemoan the game that you - having no choice - lamentably play. Funny how everyone who begrudgingly decides to play the game is also, simultaneously, above the game. All the funnier when those with whom they spar don't begrudge anyone or anything and simply go about their business. I detect a self-serving sleight-of-hand here. I don't read you as being preemptive by admitting to being selfish, but rather as one who tries to hide a double-standard. You want to both raise and lower the bar, ethically, and I call bullshit on that. You're as free as anyone to opt out, "creative" or not. Or, appreciating my perspective for half a second, understanding that "'creative' or not" doesn't even exist, or at the very least, that it may not work for the prospective students in question. I repeat my first post in reply to you, Romanista: creative scholarship and scholarly creative writing are both totally fair. And they are! I've also written this, in reply to others: fairness is a tough deal, isn't it?

All of that said, I did enjoy your post, Romanista. I think it's safe to say that you bring a unique perspective and the reaction you're getting reflects that, surely. I admit to having a little trouble following you at times, and there's a big part of me in solidarity with echo449's paraphrase of something profoundly odd about the aesthetic judgments that you seem to be making, but odd is not bad (again, to me), and I take no issue with differences of opinion on [the production and reception of] literary art...since it's these differences of opinion that are precisely we are all of us are (ostensibly) expressly engaging. But part of this game that you hate so much is being able to say, "yeah, no, good point, ok" when something is actually valid. Right?

 

[Romanista]

33 minutes ago, EmmaJava said:

Wait, this is twisting things. You began by saying you didn't understand, and now you have several perspectives from which to draw understanding, but which you still reject. And your rejection may even be on grounds that I think most of us can appreciate. I know I can. But nobody is looking askance at creative writers who decide to opt out; rather, isn't it you looking askance at those who decide to opt in?  Splitting hairs?  I don't think so, especially if I'm to take your cues. 

I don't think this is a matter of not understanding on your part so much as an unwillingness to depart from a personal ethics. Which, to me, is totally fine, but entirely different.

 

 

I should have added a qualifier to that last sentence. Most of the time yes, the MFA isn't a requirement for creative publication. Nevertheless, I do think some publishers are biased toward accepting writers with an MFA, because it seems to suggest to them that the writer is serious and legitimate, whereas the non-degreed writer is just some dilettante. 

I'm afraid of this scenario: the creative writer who chooses for whatever reason to not ally herself with the academy (besides holding a BA, let's say) but who still struggles to get published in the venues of her choice. And not for lack of talent, or perseverance, but because she isn't part of the MFA club. That may not be a common occurrence now, but we have successful writers who have published extensively and still feel the need to go back to school to get an MFA in order to keep their writing lives going. We are headed in a direction in which you will be passed over if you don't have an MFA when it comes to publishing creative writing. And if you think this is primarily true for literary fiction but not for genre fiction, I would agree, but there have been some genre fiction MFA programs that have sprouted up in recent years. Given how profitable MFA programs are, it's likely that there will be more in the future.

The MFA as a requirement for writing creatively may not be a reality until 50 years from now, but I'm still going to worry about it because I think it's snobbish and unfair because not everyone is in a position to go to graduate school and either go into debt, or live in poverty for 2-3 years in order to get a degree.