Kyle, I worry about you sometimes.

i think looks is a considering factor to a small degree... despite what they say. Why else would schools like NYU request a passport size picture as part of their application. I can understand that looks are important in acting, but common... in production related fields? I don't think so.

Here's something I'd thought I'd share. During my interview at UCLA, the head of the program told me that they're very intentional about having women in the program. While this is very specific to the producer's program, I'm sure that there's a similar mentality for the other programs. After all, the chair of the Dept of Film, TV and Digital Media IS a woman.

oh, and rockstar brings up a good point... I think they also want to balance the diversity.

So...does that mean we'll get in just because we're women?

Cause that's no good, either.


(Dammed if you do, dammed if you don't!!)

Wait. NYU makes you send a pic?

That's crazy.

Hey if being a woman gets me into UCLA then great-- I mean, there is no way that they interviewed every or even most women that applied. As you said before, film has historically been a gentleman's club, and (at least in the director's program) they only interviewed the top 5% or so of their applicants and if being a women gets me in over an equally qualified man-- great, that hasn't happened enough in this industry. And I sincerely doubt they'll choose a women over a more qualified man.

I think the attractiveness factor is so much of an issue for the women that apply to these schools, because if a woman is attractive or cute, she's immediately deemed as dumb or naive. I've fell prey to that one-- that's how I learned to be outspoken. And in a 20-35 minute interview there is hardly enough time to see beyond that first impression.

If you think about it, how much could a passport picture influence an application? Apparently a lot if they're asking for it.

Jayimess,

I don't think we'll get in just because we're women :P Since it's already known that filmmaking has traditionally been a man-dominated arena, I don't think I need to restate that. I wouldn't read too much into either - UCLA wants to admit women and is intentional about giving women the opportunity to pursue filmmaking, but I wouldn't leap to the conclusion that it means that all women will be accepted simply because she is a woman.

I think they're looking for a balanced program. I remember looking at past stats, I read somewhere, 40% in the Producer's Program are women. So almost 50/50.

Are you so pompus you have to create a thread hinting at how attractive and talented you are but may be rejected cause of those traits? Maybe you lack something if you get rejected not have too much? I apologize if I sound harsh, which is intentional.

You should apologize for sounding like an idiot, whether it was intentional or not.

I believe, but can not say for certain, since I didn't start this topic, that a comment I posted in another thread sparked this thread. I came under fire, somewhere completely unrelated to this site, for wearing a suit to my UCLA interview. I was accused of trying to use "typical female ploys" to get ahead, and it was said that I should have dressed down.

Why is it pompous to have confidence in your appearance, talents, potential, or successes? Why is it pathetic to have doubts in those same categories?

Please gag Film Jock, moderators. He just inspires anger, and causes those of us who are nervously awaiting acceptance letters to waste time and energy ignoring him, or responding to him, like I just did, to defend ourselves and/or other users.

Right on Jayimess! Couldn't have said it better.

Let Film_jock speak its fun to see him make an ass of himself. Plus I'm hoping on some level it's performance art, I mean how could someone called Film_jock not be a meat head. In fact he should get his own thread, we could call it "Me and my *****in' Camaro!". Plus people like him do exist so it makes no sense not to have them metaphorically "tarred and feathered" here on the forum.

Anyway as for the topic it's fair to bring up the question of "looks" but it's more disturbing to me to have the poster bring it up without any evidence of "looks" being an issue in her actual interview. I know that's not her point as its a hypothetical argument.

So yes it's possible but it's also possible that youth culture and especially female youth culture has been marinated in so much sexual objectification that they themselves bring the issue to the table as an insecurity.

What does that mean? Hell I don't know I just wanted to say objectification. At the end of the day your work will speak the loudest as your looks will not determine your will.

But I do agree women (good looking or fugly) have had a hard time gaining support as directors in particular and worse yet have not had an even playing field and because of this it's their responsibility to fight against their oppressors.

I'm sorry about Film_Jock. He's been banned. He had signed up with a temp account at a site that deletes all mail after a few hours, so he obviously meant to be a troll.

Aw, thats to bad. I thought he was pretty entertaining.