»

Subscribe | Give a Gift Subscription

Log In or Register | Help | Contact Us | Donate

Advanced Search

Main Index » Writing and Publishing » MFA Programs
Choosing an MFA Program (2009) (2010) (2011)
Edit your profilePrivate messages Search postsWho's online?
You are not signed in. Click here to sign in.
If you are not a member, Register here!
136344 registered users
First page Previous page 1 ... 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 ... 41 Next page Last page  View All


Clench Million
Charles

Aug 29, 2008, 12:44 PM

Post #151 of 1018 (14552 views)
Shortcut
     Re: [umass76] Choosing an MFA Program (2009) [In reply to]  


In Reply To

As to Columbia, I don't mean their grads don't publish--I mean I don't read about what they publish on the New York Times notable books list. And there's a difference.

S.


They don't?

Vendala Vida got it last year, Kiren Desai got it the year before that, Benjamin Kunkel the year before that... So there are three in a row off the top of my head. I'm sure one could find many more if they searched through all the old lists.

And in addition to the above, Columbia under the guidance of new faculty like Ben Marcus, Sam Lipsyte, Gary, Shteyngart and so on have been putting out quirkier authors like Wells Tower and Karen Russell who might not be New York Times mainstream, but have been acclaimed and award winning in more interesting circles.

In fact, actually sitting down and thinking about recent MFA graduates, it wouldn't surprise me if Columbia tops the list. Most of the famous Iowa fiction writers I can think of are from the distant past. Adam Hasslet got an Iowa MFA like 10 years ago... but who else?

Anyway, the claim that Columbia does not produce notable or award winning fiction authors is quite silly as anyone who follows contemporary fiction would know.


Clench Million
Charles

Aug 29, 2008, 1:01 PM

Post #152 of 1018 (14541 views)
Shortcut
     Re: [Clench Million] Choosing an MFA Program (2009) [In reply to]  

Note: Since I can't go back and edit, I confused Keith Gessen and Benjamin Kunkel in my first post. Only Kunkel went to Columbia.


ejdifili
Emily

Aug 29, 2008, 1:04 PM

Post #153 of 1018 (14539 views)
Shortcut
     Re: [umass76] Choosing an MFA Program (2009) [In reply to]  


In Reply To

I guess what I'm saying is, it's going to happen--soon, if not already--that hiring committees say, "let's look at where the best writers are coming from, and/or where the most recent rankings place the different schools out there." And when they do that, programs like Massachusetts are going to really explode in prestige, as will other programs that have made the top 20 in the United States in three straight years of rankings:

Iowa
Michigan
Cornell
Indiana
Massachusetts
Texas
Brown
Montana
Virginia
Oregon
Wilmington
Irvine
JHU
Syracuse
Notre Dame*
Houston*
Washington U.*
Minnesota *
Wisconsin *



Seth- do you think the genre-specific ratings have any bearing on this? Because, for example, Wash U-St. Louis tends to be better known for its poetry program than for fiction. Do you think committees do/will consider the perceived prestige of a candidate's particular genre program?


aiyamei

e-mail user

Aug 29, 2008, 2:20 PM

Post #154 of 1018 (14515 views)
Shortcut
     Re: [umass76] Choosing an MFA Program (2009) [In reply to]  


In Reply To

As to Columbia, I don't mean their grads don't publish--I mean I don't read about what they publish on the New York Times notable books list. And there's a difference.

S.


Wow, Seth, I'm really flummoxed by why you'd say this. Maybe you have really different reading taste than a lot of people here? But in purely factual terms, as Charles mentioned, every New York Times notable list of the last several years has been heavily laden with Columbia alumni, like it or no.

In less factual terms, I would argue that the books coming out of Columbia recently are getting heavy attention for unusually good reasons -- because they are taking literature, inch by inch, in new directions.

And then also, speaking to the more cynical side of the business, the Columbia kids seem to be grabbing up the coveted spots as most hyped debuts of every season. (Sadly, there only seem to be a couple debut novels per year that lap up the media praise and attention). So I have no idea why you'd suggest the Columbians are somehow less successful. On the contrary, I'd put them ahead of all schools' alumni but Iowa's.

Maybe that's the next branch of your rankings project! -- which schools are turning out the most successful alumni, as measured by indices like NYT notable, etc. I think a lot of people would be really interested.


(This post was edited by aiyamei on Aug 29, 2008, 2:23 PM)


__________



Aug 29, 2008, 3:14 PM

Post #155 of 1018 (14498 views)
Shortcut
     Re: [aiyamei] Choosing an MFA Program (2009) [In reply to]  

Yeah...I hope no one reads my posts as overly contentious -- and I have no personal stake in Columbia -- but the idea that their grads don't publish good (or well reviewed) books is just factually incorrect. They are right up there with Iowa in terms of output. And as someone else mentioned, their success seems to be on the rise, and not the wane, and their books are (to my mind) less stodgy, and more interesting. Now I've done a lot of research into schools myself, and the thing I've always liked about Columbia is that I've never had to search out tales of alumni success; I've always come to these books 'naturally', in the course of my reading.


six five four three two one 0 ->


dorchester


Aug 29, 2008, 6:05 PM

Post #156 of 1018 (14470 views)
Shortcut
     Re: [Junior Maas] Choosing an MFA Program (2009) [In reply to]  

  
Since some of these comments are directed toward the exchange I had with Seth, I'd like to say first that I think it was definitely unfair of me to lump Columbia in with Johns Hopkins, as Columbia has continued to produce successful writers in recent years, maybe not at the same rate it did in the 80s, but certainly at a rate that separates it from all but a small handful of other strong programs. This may change over time with the drop in application numbers, but it doesn't seem to have affected the program yet. Personally, I've always felt that one of the bonuses of going to Columbia was its proximity and close connection to the New York publishing world. As one of my close friends who went there said, "It's kind of a risk. You probably increase your chances of publishing a book by going there, but at the same time, if things don't work out, you're going to be stuck with a huge amount of loans."

As for Clench's assertion that Iowa's graduate success has dropped off, I think that's preposterous. Just off the top of my head, I can think of dozens of successful writers just from the time I was there and from the classes ahead of and before mine: Adam Haslett, ZZ Packer, Julie Orringer, Nathan Englander, Brady Udall, Chris Adrien, Kevin Brockmeier, Sarah Sun-lien Bynum, Curtis Sittenfeld, Peter Orner, Yiyun Li, Bret Anthony Johnson, etc., etc. And these were all people who have emerged or graduated in the past five to ten years, which is I think the appropriate amount of time to assess graduate success.

Further, among the people I knew when I was there, or the classes before or a head of mine, I can think of at least 8 Stegner Fellows, 7 Guggenheim Fellows, Finalists for the National Book Award, Pen/Faulkner Award, Pen/Hemingway Award, Los Angeles Times Book Award; several Whiting Award and Rome Winners; winners of almost every major poetry book contest; many, many appearances in Best American Short Stories, O.Henry Awards, and Pushcart Prize Prize anthologies; not to mention The New Yorker, Atlantic, Harper's, etc. Many, many NY Times Notable Books, at least three people on Granta's "20 Best Young Novelists" List (ZZ Packer, Kevin Brockmeier and Yiyun Li) etc . . .

Finally, on top of all of that, if I was estimating very conservatively, I'd say that at least 50% of the people I went to school with have published at least one book (and I'm sure the actual numbers are higher) and many have published multiple books by now.

I'm sorry that I have to even list this stuff--it actually goes against my nature to even bring it up--but when I see unsubstantiated claims being thrown around like this, I feel the need to defend the program.

Best wishes,
Dorchester


(This post was edited by dorchester on Aug 29, 2008, 6:08 PM)


umass76


Aug 29, 2008, 6:41 PM

Post #157 of 1018 (14454 views)
Shortcut
     Re: [dorchester] Choosing an MFA Program (2009) [In reply to]  

Certainly, my part in the conversation I mentioned having with a friend here about Columbia was focused on the poetry side of things, where Columbia is not faring well of late. This other person is in fiction, so I tended to take their word for the fiction end of things, particularly as I personally don't see any of the names above as being names I'm seeing all over. For instance, Gary Shteyngart would be a great example of a name I do see all over--but he went to Hunter. He simply teaches at Columbia, and I've said for years CU has a great faculty. In fact, FWIW, I've also been raving about Hunter, including its grads, so Gary Shteyngart is probably a way of proving the point, anyway.

I think it's telling that Columbia's defense of its graduate success focuses primarily on who teaches there. It'd be like Iowa emphasizing former/current visiting or permanent faculty Jorie Graham, Rita Dove, Stephen Dobyns, Larry Levis, Galway Kinnell, Donald Justice, Denis Johnson, John Irving, Mark Strand, Philip Levine, Robert Bly, Ethan Canin, Charles Wright, Flannery O'Connor, and Marvin Bell.

Which'd all be bad examples, as they all graduated from here also.
S.


(This post was edited by umass76 on Aug 29, 2008, 6:49 PM)


bighark


Aug 29, 2008, 11:03 PM

Post #158 of 1018 (14410 views)
Shortcut
     Re: [umass76] Choosing an MFA Program (2009) [In reply to]  

Jesse Ball, Columbia graduate, won the 2008 Plimpton Prize.


umass76


Aug 29, 2008, 11:17 PM

Post #159 of 1018 (14407 views)
Shortcut
     Re: [bighark] Choosing an MFA Program (2009) [In reply to]  

Jesse Ball is an excellent poet, actually. Good catch.
S.


Clench Million
Charles

Aug 30, 2008, 3:35 AM

Post #160 of 1018 (14379 views)
Shortcut
     Re: [umass76] Choosing an MFA Program (2009) [In reply to]  


In Reply To
I think it's telling that Columbia's defense of its graduate success focuses primarily on who teaches there.



I think it is telling that after being caught spreading bold-faced misinformation, you resort to more misinformation to hide your disproved claims.

You claimed that Columbia did not produce notable graduates (patently false) and then, when challenged, claimed you never read about Columbia alumni in New York Times Notable Books (again, patently false). When challenged again, you claim that "the Columbia defense" is to list its faculty, despite the fact no one has done that.

After your false claim, two unaffiliated posters pointed out the factual inaccuracy and I did as well. I am the only Columbia student posting here and thus the only person whose response you could construe as a "Columbia defense." My post rested entirely on Columbia alumni success. I only mentioned a few teachers in passing to suggest that Columbia has expanded from mainstream fiction and is producing fiction outside of the scope of the NYT, this is, again, in addition to the fact that Columbia alumni frequently appear on the NYT notable book list.

Again, off the top of my head, in recent years Columbia has produced:

Vendala Vida
Kiren Desai
Benjamin Kunkel
Rachel Sherman
Karen Russell
Monica Ferrell
Wells Tower
Rivka Galchen

I am sure someone more interested it combating insults online could create a more complete list.

The above writers have appeared in everywhere from McSweeney's and the Paris Review to the New Yorker and have had their books reviewed in places like the New Yorker or mentioned on the New York Times notable book list and many other awards.

Now that multiple people have challanged and disproven your claims about Columbia, the honest thing for you to do would be to admit you were incorrect or to at least back up your attacks. Where did Columbia's "defense" consist "primarily" of listing its faculty instead of alumni such as the above? What NYT lists are you reading that don't include the Columbia writers listed?


Clench Million
Charles

Aug 30, 2008, 4:08 AM

Post #161 of 1018 (14369 views)
Shortcut
     Re: [dorchester] Choosing an MFA Program (2009) [In reply to]  


In Reply To
I'm sorry that I have to even list this stuff--it actually goes against my nature to even bring it up--but when I see unsubstantiated claims being thrown around like this, I feel the need to defend the program.


Dorchester,

Although I did say I felt Iowa has had a dip in its alumni success over recent history, I hope it was clear that I think the program has had the highest alumni success ever in the past and still remains a top notch program, probably the best in the nation. The program still produces many notable writers and I would never deny that.

I can sympathize with the above quote. It is disheartening to come to websites and see posters spreading unsubstantiated attacks about programs based on agendas and rivalries. If I contributed to that, I apologize. I don't think there is a need to tear other programs down to feel good about the program you attend. Iowa is a top notch program with great alumni.

Best.
CM


umass76


Aug 30, 2008, 10:41 AM

Post #162 of 1018 (14348 views)
Shortcut
     Re: [Clench Million] Choosing an MFA Program (2009) [In reply to]  

Clench, I'm going to keep my promise and not argue with you.

Columbia has graduated plenty of fine writers.

S.


__________



Aug 30, 2008, 11:57 AM

Post #163 of 1018 (14331 views)
Shortcut
     Re: [umass76] Choosing an MFA Program (2009) [In reply to]  

Anywho, I believe the original point was how hiring committees perceive things -- tweedy old men a bit fuzzy on their MFA lore. It strikes me that an Ivy League school will always sound impressive. Say if Harvard got James Frey to head a brand new, three hundred student MFA with a 50% acceptance rate, that program would probably give you the edge over Irvine grads.


six five four three two one 0 ->

(This post was edited by Junior Maas on Aug 30, 2008, 11:59 AM)


Clench Million
Charles

Aug 30, 2008, 12:40 PM

Post #164 of 1018 (14318 views)
Shortcut
     Re: [Junior Maas] Choosing an MFA Program (2009) [In reply to]  


In Reply To
Anywho, I believe the original point was how hiring committees perceive things -- tweedy old men a bit fuzzy on their MFA lore. It strikes me that an Ivy League school will always sound impressive. Say if Harvard got James Frey to head a brand new, three hundred student MFA with a 50% acceptance rate, that program would probably give you the edge over Irvine grads.


There has only been one official type ranking published since the 97 ones, and it didn't show drastic movement. Most of the other rankings online are based on where applicants should apply and movement is heavily dictated by funding. This is perfectly fine for applicants, but it doesn't necessarily reflect on the strength of a program or the quality of its alumni.

It is prestige and alumni success that hiring committees care about and not location or good TA stipends. Obviously there is some correlation between the two, as presumably the more applications you get the likelier you are to accept good writers and then the likelier you are to have alumni success. Still, by and large the same programs hyped for their alumni a decade ago (Iowa, UCI, Columbia, etc.) are still producing the most and keeping their reputation in that regard.


It also would not surprise me if the current MFA climate only reinforces the prestige of a few top programs, because recent history hasn't really seen a replacement of desirable programs but a disbursement of applicants. Now there are dozens of MFA programs that are desirable and I find it unlikely hiring committees would try to keep track of them all.

Anyway, it is still your publication history that is going to get you a job, not your school... unless it is Iowa maybe.


(This post was edited by Clench Million on Aug 30, 2008, 12:46 PM)


umass76


Aug 30, 2008, 1:13 PM

Post #165 of 1018 (14304 views)
Shortcut
     Re: [In reply to]  

Putting aside the Columbia issue entirely, I think it's important to trace the history of MFA rankings:

* In 1996, a national news magazine distributed a questionnaire to MFA faculties and asked them to give every school in America a single reputation score. The programs were thus ranked in one area of interest, based on writers filling out a single piece of paper. These rankings were immediately abandoned by the magazine as unreliable.

* In 2007, a single reporter for a national news magazine did "top ten" lists in various areas of interest. He based his lists (and he insisted they were not rankings, explicitly noting, too, that twenty other schools could have easily made his "top ten list") on a handful of interviews with select MFA faculty, many of whom he knew personally beforehand. He also placed his alma mater in the top 10 of MFA programs--for only the second time in its history (previously, it had once placed in a six-way tie for 10th).

* In 2006, 2007, and 2008, hundreds of MFA applicants voluntarily ranked their favorite MFA programs, based on their own research into MFA options, and taking into account every single factor of interest MFA applicants consider, and provided this data to a single individual for compilation. That individual is an attorney, a former journalist, a professional writer, and the author or co-author of two books, one of which is the only reference guide on the market for MFA applicants.

These latter rankings will, in 60 days' time, be published in paperback by a major international publisher.

Can someone explain again why--why in the world--anyone would look at the 1996 single-area "rankings" and 2007 "lists" and consider these more reputable than the rankings we have now?

In fact, by no means is funding the only factor considered in the MFA rankings on TSE. If that were the case, someone would have to explain the following to me:

Columbia (largely unfunded): #4 (USNWR96); #14 (2007); #24 (2008); #43 (2009).
Swing: -39; Difference*: -30 (#4 to #34).

* Between average placement 2008-9 and USNWR96.

NYU (largely unfunded): #6 (USNWR96); #17 (2007); #17 (2008); #27 (2009).
Swing: -21; Difference: -16 (#6 to #22).

Arizona (largely unfunded): #9 (USNWR96); #21 (2007); #31 (2008); #27 (2009)
Swing: -18; Difference: -20 (#9 to #29).

Utah (largely unfunded): #16 (USNWR96); #58 (2007); #82 (2008); #90 (2009).
Swing: -74; Difference: -70 (#16 to #86).

So unfunded programs are dropping, yes, but Columbia's drop is two times greater than NYU's. Same location, same USNWR96 reputation, same stellar faculty, same funding package. Meanwhile, Columbia has held its ground substantially better than Utah, though both programs were top 20 in 1996, and both are largely unfunded. Why? Obviously, Columbia's overall reputation as a University significantly outstrips Utah's (e.g., Columbia is #8 among undergrads, Utah #127, according to USNWR).

So this notion that all unfunded programs are being treated equally by the TSE rankings is wildly inaccurate, as is the idea that all New York City programs are faring equally poorly. They're not. At all.

Best,
Seth

P.S. The above comparisons are actually excessively generous to Columbia, as right now New York University stands at #7 in the forthcoming 2009 P&W Reader Poll, and trending upward, while Columbia is at #19, and trending downward. Again, why this cross-town discrepancy? And why this consistent discrepancy across three years of rankings?


(This post was edited by umass76 on Aug 30, 2008, 1:14 PM)


umass76


Aug 30, 2008, 1:33 PM

Post #166 of 1018 (14290 views)
Shortcut
     Re: [umass76] [In reply to]  

P.S. I actually don't really care about talking about Columbia, here. The point is about how unfunded programs generally are treated by the TSE rankings. For instance, why does NYU fare 25% better than Arizona, though Arizona actually does offer slightly more funding? And why does NYU rank a whopping fifty-four spots better than Utah? Or how about comparing Arizona and Utah (a fifty-spot swing), given that these two schools were only separated by seven spots in 1996? Perhaps Arizona is a better location in the view of most applicants, has a better faculty, a better track record in postgrad awards and publications (as shown by the TSE data on this), and offers more funding than Utah? Perhaps Utah has come to be known more for its CW PhD. than its MFA, so its MFA has received less and less attention, whereas Arizona doesn't offer a CW PhD.? Is it worth noting, in this regard, that Florida State, one of the only other once-highly-ranked MFA programs with a CW PhD., is also seeing its MFA ranking plummet? There is rhyme and reason to this stuff, and it goes way beyond funding or me (or anyone) badmouthing particular programs.


Clench Million
Charles

Aug 30, 2008, 1:43 PM

Post #167 of 1018 (14287 views)
Shortcut
     Re: [umass76] [In reply to]  

No one claimed funding was the only factor, I suggested that priorities for applicants are different than priorities for hiring committees.

What I am telling you is that as someone who has talked and met with many agents, editors and others in the publishing world, the programs that Dorchester listed (Iowa, Columbia, UVA, UC-Irvine, etc.*) are still the programs that have the cache in that world.

The online applicant world (which in my experience is very different from the applicant pool at large, thus why small surveys online sometimes show drastically different application numbers than the programs themselves claim to get) may well rank programs differently, but that was not the discussion. The question was about hiring committees and what they look for. Applicants and hiring committees look for different things. As I've said, to the degree that hiring committees care about the school you went to, they care about the prestige of the program (history, faculty, etc.) and the alumni success.


*The one change I might note is that Syracuse has gained a lot of reputation recently, likely knocking JHU out of that group. For fiction at least.


__________



Aug 30, 2008, 1:46 PM

Post #168 of 1018 (14285 views)
Shortcut
     Re: [umass76] [In reply to]  

I'm still with the camp that thinks we could get similar results with tea leaves. Or if that's not a camp, I'm making one, right now.

Not that I don't love you guys for trying, but really. We should add 'statistician' to the above mix. Find some reliable markers of anything (other than perception) an let her run with it.


six five four three two one 0 ->


Clench Million
Charles

Aug 30, 2008, 1:49 PM

Post #169 of 1018 (14283 views)
Shortcut
     Re: [Junior Maas] [In reply to]  


In Reply To
I'm still with the camp that thinks we could get similar results with tea leaves. Or if that's not a camp, I'm making one, right now.

Not that I don't love you guys for trying, but really. We should add 'statistician' to the above mix. Find some reliable markers of anything (other than perception) an let her run with it.


Ha, yes, I agree. I gave up on trying to "rank" programs a long time ago.

The only way to get an accurate reading on schools application numbers would be to actual call the schools and ask them for the information.


umass76


Aug 30, 2008, 2:03 PM

Post #170 of 1018 (14278 views)
Shortcut
     Re: [Clench Million] [In reply to]  

Clench,

I agree with you about hiring committees, and I already said that earlier in the conversation--hiring committees don't pay as much attention to rankings as MFA applicants do, and aren't online as much as younger writers are (generally speaking), so they're still working off outdated information as to school reputations. That means that, for a few years more, the schools you and Dorchester mentioned will indeed have the most pull with hiring committees. But it won't be that way for much longer. Eventually, reduced applications and reduced selectivity leads to a weaker cohort, which leads to less postgraduate success and therefore less notice from hiring committees. Also, given that I receive e-mails regularly from MFA programs referencing my blog and the forthcoming Creative Writing MFA Handbook, I don't think it'll be long before universities are aware of the rankings which are so disregarded by some here (1% of the readers here and at Kealey's blog, I estimate).

As to calling the programs to get information, I've only just stopped laughing a moment ago. If you want to try prying information from MFA programs about the details of their funding and their acceptance rates and their applicant-pool sizes and (in some cases) even just their annual class size, feel free. You've got hundreds of hours of largely fruitless work ahead of you. The only thing which is moving us toward transparency in MFA program applications is, ironically, precisely these rankings you don't think so much of. One of the reasons I started doing this was to create accountability. And if my e-mail in-box is any indication, that is--slowly but surely--starting to happen. It's not an accident that an article I've written on MFA funding will appear in the November print edition of Poets & Writers. The TSE rankings, and, to a much greater extent, Kealey's work, has put programs on notice that someone is watching them now, and publications like Poets & Writers are signalling in ways that count that they're willing and interested in joining this effort.

Be well,
Seth


(This post was edited by umass76 on Aug 30, 2008, 2:05 PM)


Clench Million
Charles

Aug 30, 2008, 2:43 PM

Post #171 of 1018 (14264 views)
Shortcut
     Re: [umass76] [In reply to]  

I think your rankings are probably very helpful to MFA applicants. I think that your surveys are too small and taken from too similar of a source to have any real degree of accuracy, but the rankings themselves are surely helpful and a positive thing for potential applicants.


umass76


Aug 30, 2008, 3:00 PM

Post #172 of 1018 (14257 views)
Shortcut
     Re: [Clench Million] [In reply to]  

Thanks, Charles. I appreciate that.
S.


__________



Aug 30, 2008, 3:08 PM

Post #173 of 1018 (14254 views)
Shortcut
     Re: [umass76] [In reply to]  

I don't dismiss the rankings entirely...I definitely think they're a step in the right direction. I still think the best thing an applicant can do is just look at all available info (and note that it's often measuring different things) find out what's important to them, and make their own rankings.

It definitely is a joke trying to get information from many programs. But there are schools -- good ones -- that are very helpful, too. For instance, Alabama was just about the friendliest bunch of folks I've ever corresponded with. They gave me application numbers, acceptance rates, funding info, etc. as well as thoughtful, detailed answers to the most arcane and anxious questions I could throw at them. To me, that was very important, and they moved way up my list.

Anyway. I don't think any resource is going to tell you everything. It's ultimately up to the individual to make it all happen.


six five four three two one 0 ->

(This post was edited by Junior Maas on Aug 30, 2008, 3:09 PM)


umass76


Aug 30, 2008, 4:24 PM

Post #174 of 1018 (14230 views)
Shortcut
     Re: [Junior Maas] [In reply to]  

JM,

I think one of the many good things about the rankings is the way they address, really for the first time, schools ranked #10 to #100. We might all be able to agree on ten schools which, at this point, get the most respect from, say, hiring committees. But those schools probably accept a total of 50 people a year, and there are 4,000 people applying. At some point, the other 3,950 applicants are going to stand up and say,

"Okay, Johns Hopkins is great, and Iowa, and Irvine, I get it...but does that mean I just shouldn't go to an MFA program if I can't get into those schools? What if my writing needs some work, so I want time to write but can't get into one of those schools right now? What do I do then...?"

The rankings, if they do nothing else--and I think they do much more--at least give applicants some names to look at, so that Colorado State doesn't mean the same in an aspiring applicant's mind as San Diego State. Because those two programs aren't interchangeable, either in funding or in terms of quality and reputation.

It's really easy to say when a school's #3 in America; how about #33?

Be well,
Seth


Raignn



Sep 2, 2008, 9:54 PM

Post #175 of 1018 (14107 views)
Shortcut
     Re: [Other Schools] [In reply to]  

This is my plug for Illinois for the newbies.

If you're poetry there are four! poetry faculty (one of them being Brigit Kelly) and only three incoming students a year.
If you're fiction they've got similar stats and Richard Powers (who was nominated for a Pulitzer this last year).
Full funding for everyone, including full tuition remission plus a very nice stipend. Everyone gets the same amount so there is no competition.
You're guaranteed to teach creative writing.
Strong focus on writing.
You can work on the awesome Ninth Letter.

I'm on the poetry side, but I know most of the students here quite well and everyone is very happy. I could not be happier with my decision to go here and would highly recommend people of both genres to at least check out the program.

http://creativewriting.english.uiuc.edu/graduate/about/

First page Previous page 1 ... 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 ... 41 Next page Last page  View All

Main Index » Writing and Publishing » MFA Programs

 


P&W Newsletters

Sign up to receive our monthly email newsletter to stay informed of the latest news, events and more.

Click to Sign Up

Subscribe to P&W Magazine | Donate Now | Advertise | Sign up for E-Newsletter | About Us | Contact Us

© Copyright Poets & Writers 2011. All Rights Reserved