umass76
Nov 25, 2008, 12:42 PM
Post #290 of 1018
(7381 views)
Shortcut
|
Re: [flobelle] Re:Progress in the process
[In reply to]
|
|
|
Flobelle,
The reason, of course, is that we don't look at these numbers in a vacuum. The key is, and always has been, relative selectivity. No one ever says the difference in selectivity between Harvard University (undergrad) and, for instance, Louisiana Tech (undergrad) is immaterial, so neither is it immaterial when it comes to MFA admissions--and just as with undergrad admissions, the numbers only have meaning when compared with one another. Nor is the difference between undergrad and MFA admissions a difference between the "objective" and "subjective"--college admissions officers take into account extracurricular activities, entrance essays, interviews, geographic and demographic diversity, historical trends from the applicant's high school, and many other factors the average applicant can't possibly put a number on (or, in many cases, even know). But by comparing Harvard's accpetance rate to that of other schools, we get a sense of the difficulty of being admitted there. Just so with MFA admissions.
The other point is this: most young writers have absolutely no idea of whether they can write or not; they're just starting out as self-editors, and thus as self-assessors. The statistics are therefore valuable in this sense as well--they allow applicants to make informed judgments under the "all things being equal" assessment necessary for those who don't yet know fully their own strengths and weaknesses. Yes, the MFA admissions process is largely subjective, but only a poor grasp of logic takes one from that conclusion to the conclusion that acceptance rates are immaterial and/or irrelevant.
S.
|
