The following is an excerpt of an article appearing in the November/December 2009 issue of Poets & Writers Magazine. The print article, and its accompanying rankings, include eight categories of additional data for each program, including size, duration, cost of living, teaching load, and curriculum focus.
"When U.S.
News & World Report last gathered original data about
graduate creative writing programs, in 1996, it did so based on two erroneous
assumptions. First, it presumed that no part of the writing community was
better equipped to assess the relative strengths of the country's then
three-score MFA programs than the
faculties of the programs themselves. In fact, there was rather more evidence
to suggest that no part of the community was less suited to opine on this topic
than the one selected. MFA
faculties are by definition composed of working writers for whom teaching is an
important but often secondary pursuit; likewise, faculty members, because they
are primarily focused on writing and teaching within their own programs, have
no particular impetus to understand the broader landscape of graduate creative
writing programs.
A second major flaw—among
many smaller ones—in the USNWR
approach was the premise that, unlike every other field of graduate education,
graduate study in creative writing was singularly resistant to quantitative
analysis, and that therefore the only category of assessment worthy of
exploration was faculty opinion on individual programs' "reputations." In fact,
every graduate creative writing program has (somewhere) a documented acceptance
rate, an annual if changeable funding scheme, and a whole host of less weighty
but equally quantifiable data points: student-to-faculty ratio, matriculating-class
size, credit-distribution prerequisites, local cost of living, and so on. USNWR ignored all of these.
Irrespective of the approach taken by USNWR, the evils of
educational rankings are indeed legion and do urge caution on the part of any
prospective analyst of MFA programs. 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: They
befriend a fellow writer; they unexpectedly discover a mentor; they come to
live in a town or city that, previously foreign, becomes as dear to them as
home. No ranking ought to pretend to establish 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,
even as the creative writing MFA rankings I helped
promulgate have become the most viewed and most utilized rankings in the field—read
online by thousands of prospective MFA applicants
every month.
None of the data used for the rankings that follow was
subjective, nor were any of the specific categories devised and employed for
the rankings based on factors particular to any individual applicant. Location,
for instance, cannot be quantified—some applicants prefer warm climates, some
cold; some prefer cities, some college towns; and so on—and so it forms no
part of the assessment. Other factors traditionally viewed as vital to
assessing MFA programs have likewise been
excluded. For instance, conventional wisdom has been for many years that a
program may be best assessed on the basis of its faculty. The new wisdom holds
that applicants are well advised to seek out current and former students of a
program to get as much anecdotal information about its faculty as possible,
but, in the absence of such information, one must be careful not to confuse a
writer's artistic merit with merit as a professor. In the past, too many
applicants have staked years of their lives on the fact that the work of this
writer or that one appealed to them more than others, only to find that the
great writers are not always the great teachers, and vice versa. Likewise,
mentoring relationships are difficult to form under even the best of
circumstances, particularly because neither faculty member nor incoming student
knows the other's personality and temperament in advance. In short, determining
whose poetry and fiction and memoir publications you most enjoy yields little
information about whose workshops and one-on-one meetings you will find most
instructive and inspirational.
“None of the data used for the rankings that follow was subjective, nor were any of the specific categories devised and employed for the rankings based on factors particular to any individual applicant.”
Reader Comments
Add a Comment | View All Comments (19)