I am over the moon here and never expected what came to me:

I got accepted at both USC and Columbia Univeristy (Fall 2007) for M.F.A. Film.

I had an interview for NYU-Singapore (I originally applied for NYU-New York but they offered me the Singapore program instead and I accepted the interview) which went really well and I am sure I will be accepted there too.

I will not accept Singapore though. I am from Europe and want to base my growth and career in the States, apart from the fact that LA and NYC are a garden of resources compared to Singapore - too risky to be part of a "pioneering generation" of filmmakers at Singapore as they told me.

MY DILEMMA? Which one to go to between USC and Columbia.

I highly respect both programs for what they are - it is not a question of first choice. I am thrilled to study film at such a level in the States (hence no to Singapore).

I want to specialise in directing with a touch of producing, I have a huge respect for well-written screenplays, I love Hollywood movies but see myself as an indie filmmaker.


I have visited USC and love their mentality and philosophy of ambition and their overall 'vision' of 'cinematic arts.
I know that at USC in the 2nd year only 10 people get to direct 10 screenplays and the rest of the students have to crew up. So there is a risk for me not to have the chance to develop my craft fully as a director. And that puts me off USC.

I know Columbia students had good success at indie film festivals and there is an excellent faculty and they are independent focus and have the best writing program (and it is Ivy which my parents love). But their production is not as strong as USC and they lack the state-of-the-art facilities that USC is famed for (I am a keen editor and Columbia does not offer same post oppurtunities as USC).


Then comes in the debate over cities. As a European I know that I will feel in place in NY.
But LA is where the industry is at, its cheaper and there is lots and lots of sunshine - a natural year round film set. On the other hand I am afraid of being swallowed up in the realities of Hollywood's business and power-playing mentality.

I am sorry for this long thread. I accepted the offers of both schools but I need to decide asap and start packing!

This message has been edited. Last edited by: aaandcut,

I think you have a pretty good handle on what the realities of both schools are. It just depends on what you are looking for. USC is most certainly not indie-focused, but people do seem to get jobs when they get out. Columbia has amazing producing faculty, but you will not get much production expertise (you will gain EXPERIENCE on sets as everyone still shoots stuff, but it will be on video mostly until the last year). They use only FinalCut and have 1 Avid machine, as opposed to USC, which has about 40-50 Avid machines (I've seen them). In that sense they are much more "post" focused. I think they are both good schools, but for directing, I think Columbia's program is stronger. Either way, you can't lose.

I do have to say that in terms of transitioning to hollywood after school, Columbia is known for good writing and that is what I think Columbia folks will be pegged as out there. Of course, just my guess.

Yet I think Columbia's films are the best directed of all the schools...

p.s.-I've been accepted to both as well.

I'm waitlisted at NYU, just wondering, would you have chosen the NY campus if you got in there? What are your impressions?

Thanks sa. And congratulations too.

I am also contemplating NYU. But if I get accepted at NYU it will be for Singapore, and that is not where I want to be especially with USC and Columbia offers. I am thinking whether to tell NYU that if they put me on Tisch's waitlst or accpet me for NY Campus I will accept the offer immediately:

This is what I like of NYU:

- It 'seems' to me NYU is a cross between USC-Columbia: independent focused, good facilities, strong production values, seems to have a good writing dept., collaborative approach to film, each year you shoot a short film, films are shot on dv, 16 and 35 right from the 1st semester, editing on Avid, courses in preparing the thesis script, screen adaptation etc.

ans I now see there is course in the bulletin called: "'Master Series: Directing Strategies': Spike Lee mentors students on their own thesis projects, feature plans, and careers."

Which sounds great and I am sure at USC and Columbia there will be many chances to meet award-winning professionals.

BUT: the fact that NYU is opening up campus in Singapore at part of the faculty is jetting off there does not sound good to me. I think it can result in a "distraction" from the side of Tisch and all energy being diverted away from Tisch, I don't know I may be really wrong.

However sa, if you have offers from USC and Columbia and have a waitlist offer from NYU Tisch you should go for the first two not the third - because it is there that they see your potential and 'know' you and will nurture you, not at NYU where you 'replace' someone who declined the offer. But I don't blame you! I am thinking exactly like you and this paragraph just came to my mind now!

A friend/mentor of mine said that if you got in all top schools (AFI, UCLA, USC, Columbia, NYU...) - it don't matter where you go in the end. If you got what it takes then you got what it takes.

Said that, I am curios WHICH of the TWO between USC and COLUMBIA are you leaning most towards and why (and which area do you want to specialise in).

aaandcut-

i was in the same position as you... i technically have 1 week to make my final choice, but it's pretty much been made at this point.

i got into UCLA, NYU and Columbia and was very much weighing the east vs west issue. in the end i felt that for me, proximity to hollywood weighed out my 'personal' inclination towards NY. I'm from san francisco, so new york is way more 'me' but LA just has more in the way of film, like it or not, it is hollywood.

that said, columbia has been producing consistently strong work and filmmakers for a steady 5-10 years... i really loved the faculty, the program and their approach to film. so progressive. but it's way to expensive for me.

usc didn't accept me, but if they had i would've gone in a heartbeat. the access and connections of the alumni and faculty are something to consider-the 'usc mafia' is very really and can def provide a lot of access...

but in the end, i do agree that you can't go wrong. they are the top schools. but if you know you'll have to go to LA eventually, to weed out an agent and producers etc, you might want to do it sooner than later. for me, i don't want the prospect of moving after school only to start from scratch yet again.

also, i posted a thread on columbia you can find with some answers from a 3rd year grad on some questions i had about the program... it might be informative for you.

GOOD LUCK to ya!

Lily

here's a bit of advice i got from a working screenwriter who's from NY and recently moved to LA:

Pros and cons to both. Firstly let me say that I love both cities. I do not hate LA, as do many New Yorkers, but I also don't compare the two to see which one I "like better." They are both great. That being said, there is no doubt that if you really want to be serious about your screenwriting, LA is THE place to be. You will make many more, and better contacts, and you will have access to greater resources, networking opportunities, and peers. HOWEVER, this is only for school we're talking about, not where you are going to spend the rest of your life. And nothing says that you can't move to LA after you complete school. So you might consider going to NYC for grad school, and then moving here afterwards. Still, you should begin to accept the fact that you really will need to live here eventually, at least until you establish yourself. It is not impossible to "make it" as a screenwriter from out of LA, but it is astronomically more difficult.

That being said, it is also worth considering the schools themselves (and congratulations on your acceptance two three of the top programs in the country). I am not extremely familiar with any of the screenwriting programs, though I do have some ancillary knowledge, via people who have attended them, or knowledge of the film schools overall. UCLA is a great program with tremendous access to talented mentors, speakers, etc. Perhaps not as much so as USC, but still huge. NYU has a tremendous reputation as well, though in my experience the students there can be a mixed bag. There will usually be a few very talented people in any class, but many more of those who think that filmmaking is just about throwing money up on the screen and seeing more money come back from it. Columbia, in my experience, is a much more indie-minded, artsy school. Sure it has had some more mainstream screenwriters/filmmakers come out of it (Simon Kinberg springs to mind), but overall, I wouldn't choose it if you're aiming for mainstream screenwriting.

I would also look carefully at the faculty of the schools. See how many names you respect are in each.

Now bottom line, I think no matter what you choose, you'll be in good shape. But it will largely come down to what you're looking to get out of school, what you'll be doing while you're in school, and what you find value in.

Hi guys,

Lily the screenwriter's post is helpful. Thanks for putting it up. What I get from it is actually that it's not so bad going to school in NYC and then moving to LA, which is what I'm leaning toward.

It's interesting how different we all are...To clarify aanadcut, I got into USC, Columbia, UCLA and UTAustin, and then the waitlist at NYU...I've pretty much narrowed it down to UCLA, NYU and Columbia (would be in directing for all). I have a good friend at USC and he thinks it's ridiculous to go to UCLA over USC, because USC has much better equipment and you can make contacts there. The thing about USC that puts me off though is the sheer number of people that go through the school and the fact that they are less "arty" and more hollywood than any of the other schools. I studied fine art undergrad and am a photographer. I lean way more indie-diy-stay poor for the rest of your life, and I know it. For that reason, I'm actually not considering USC. Might be a mistake, but we all have to follow our hunches...I've also heard many times that USC does not foster filmmakers with an "arty' vibe, to oversimplify it. They are very mainstream and open about their ambitions. The funny thing though, is that I get resounding "COME TO OUR SCHOOL!"s from USC folks, and I can't seem to pin down what UCLA is about, as when I visited it seemed a bit sleepy there...


When I visited USC a couple of weeks ago, I sat in on a second year producing class with a woman whose name I forget but who is semi-famous at least. That day she had the head of the HBO mini-series division give a lecture to her class of 10 or so students, which was really cool. He talked a lot about HBO's profits, producing in general and the idea that HBO keeps some shows on even though they don't get huge ratings (he mentioned The Wire as one example) because the critics and "taste-makers" love them. He expressed that they try hard to win awards and to have shows that are "simply the best" but also cutting edge. He said that they are always actively looking for new ideas, and my impression is that they want "street cred."

All pretty obvious I guess...so after the class I went up to the teacher and said to her, well, I'm a new yorker and I want to be the one who is coming up with the cutting edge stories that are pushing boundaries and that HBO wants to pick up. I don't want to be the one working in production or producing the stories. She was like, nyu and columbia are great schools. Everyone here wants to work in the hollywood system, so if you don't want that, don't go here.

The coolest thing about Columbia I think, and what keeps me going back and forth on them, is that they set you up to come out with exactly what you need as a writer director when you come out: a feature length screenplay and a fantastic short. Here's what I recently read in an article on film schools (lost the source, will try to find it):

"The smart student will concentrate on turning out a sharp, distinctive thesis film, hope that it receives a screening attended by industry reps in New York and Los Angeles and picks up a prize, then enter it into as many film festivals as possible. The brilliant student, realizing that the film is no more than a calling card, will have a finished feature script in hand to sell and will postpone any thought of becoming a director. The rule of thumb is that two sold scripts can lead to a directing job on the third."

I think Columbia's program gears you toward just this, with the thought that the cinematography, lighting and editing just aren't the director's job, so don't waste your time thinking about that. Columbia's shorts, if you've seen the dvds (their student film festival starts tonight too), are in no way shabby and have won oodles or Student Academy Awards, and you know of all the Sundance hype...For these reasons I sometimes think Columbia is the way to go.

In terms of what is going to happen at Tisch, I have the same hesitations. Columbia is solid in my opinion. For some reason, though, all along I've had this gut feeling that I'm going to end up at NYU, even though I think that their writing doesn't compare to Columbia's writing at all. What I do like about NYU is that I will have production skills to do a lot of projects on my own and for others. I want to be able to come out of school and have enough skills to create my own small projects with or without anyone's help but my friends, along with aiming for selling my scripts etc.

Yikes. Many conflicting ideas...I'm in decision hell. What I'm trying to remember is that what I MAKE is much more important than where I am and all of the external forces around me. Lots of writing for future films to start on as soon as I send my deposit in SOMEWHERE.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: sa,

Also, I've had a few people tell me that it's not good to accept a school if you are on their waitlist. I guess I would have to disagree as I think we should take the opportunity to go to the schools we really want to waitlist or not. I feel like the schools pick some people and waitlist others because they can't fit everyone in. I sortuv feel like it's really my loss if I don't choose NYU if that is where I want to go, even if it's waitlist. Mostly because whether they think I'm not good enough to be accepted first round or not, I think I'm just as good as the first round acceptances!

Wow Sa, That was really insightful-- and exactly what I planned to do-- Make sure I leave with a solid short a good reel and a screenplay in hand when I graduate.

It looks like ou're leaning towards Columbia again.

My one question is that if you are leaning toward indie film- wouldn't you think it prudent to learn lighting and sound etc?

I understand the Director's job is to direct, but only if someone plans on going mainstream.

Hi Winter, thanks. I totally agree with what you said. My main problem is that I want it all--the production experience, good writing faculty AND the time to write. I know I just can't have all of that, and that's why I haven't made my decision yet. And then, when it all boils down to money, the obvious choice is UCLA! If I go to NYU or Columbia, I will basically come out with $150,000 in debt.

Wow, I'm so glad we have this forum. My friends are probably sick of hearing my film-school babbling...

sa -- that was a really good, thoughtful post. I just want to say I think you're right about the waitlist thing. Schools have lots of reasons for waitlisting people that really have nothing to do with how much they like you or your work. In fact, it means they DO want you in the program, but for some other reason just didn't have a spot to offer.

If you really want NYU, and they end up giving you a spot, don't let the waitlist thing deter you. Anyway, good luck.

Is Columbia Offering any kind of financial aid?

For me, I realized that although Chapman seemed to be the most expensive choice with the fellowship money they offered and with the fact that they fund the films done there, I'd actually leave with less debt than a "less expensive school."

I think the key is finding a place that will allow you to do what you need to do to be a success and (most importantly) a place you will be happy to spend 2-7 years of your life at.

There is always a lack of financial aid at professional schools-- especially because the Universities think there is more of a return on your personal investment (as opposed to a master in Philosophy where you can plan to make next to nothing).

And if you think that you found a school that genuinely nurtures your creative spirit I wouldn't worry too much about the debt.

If you can sell one screenplay or land one decent job in this industry coming out of that school the debt you incurred will be nothing.

For me, time spent is the biggest debt incurred during grad school-- If I can't leave a place with no regrets about going there, then the education was simply not worth it-- cost or no cost.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Winterreverie,

Hi guys,

Your responses are actually really helpful. Winter, nope, I got no money from anyone. I guess I should be happy that I have great schools to choose from (which of course I am!), but money is definitely a factor I have to at least think through. I have no parental support or secret money, so have to weigh that in.

But I actually always come back to what you just wrote Winter. The time spent there really is the biggest investment that we should hope to see a return on. I think you are right about finding a school that nurtures my creative spirit, and I have to keep that in mind over the next few days...

You may want to contact each schools development or financial aid offices and find out A) How much time it takes on average to graduate (Because even if you don't work in film right away-- there are some excellent teaching positions available to MFA students to help relieve that debt) and what kind of Aid/ TA positions, Fellowships, etc are offered after the first year (Since many schools wait until the second year to distribute funds as they get to know you) and which are through the Film Department, and which are through the University itself.

Overall cost and Entering cost can vary greatly.
And I am completely in your boat-- I have no financial support outside of myself (my parents are actually legally MY dependants since my dad's heart attack) so these are all the questions I had been asking my own schools.

Frankly, I think you'll come out with 150,000 in debt at any of the big schools -- UCLA included. Although USC, NYU, and Columbia are worse on tuition, UCLA helps the least when it comes to actually financing the films. From what I have heard and read, it all evens out in the end. Cha ching. So forget about money and pick the best school for you (in my humble opinion).

Sa,

very helpful. And I agree with you 100% that your screenplay is the most important thing you can create when you come out of these schools. I really do believe that Columbia's program nurtures its students to create the most exquisite screenplays and ALSO most well-directed compared to all the other top tier schools. Honestly, NYU, USC, UCLA they are amazing schools, but I think we are going to see i a shift in the meaning of 'amazing'. Most of these schools have amazing facilities and concentrate on technical aspects, but I think there is a effort on the part of the above mentioned schools to shift their emphasis on 'narrative' the way Columbia has been doing, because they see how well paid off it has been for Columbia in the past few years.

I think all of these schools are great and if you really are a GREAT ARTIST, then the school wont have THAT great of an effect on your 'success', it will mostly be you.

Oh and Chapman! Its great too, up there with the rest, just hasnt gained the name yet, but i believe it will in a short while.

Top Tier (in my opinion)
NYU, Columbia, USC, UCLA, AFI
Chapman (an amazing emerging program right up there, and im not advertising, i just think its one of those schools that can be compared to the ones above)

Thanks for the responses guys. I'm starting the process of figuring out the tuition details that Winter outlined today and am going to go to the Columbia student film festival tonight and tomorrow if there are any New Yorkers out there. My friend has a short in the program tomorrow that qualifies to be nominated for a student academy award, so one more up for a Columbia student!

I agree with Tima. Right now we are immersed in this decision-making process and soon enough it'll really be about creating things.

Ultimately, I don't think a film school can make you any WORSE an artist than you already are, can they? I mean to say, there is nothing to lose by going to one of the best five or six schools (except for your financial stability and freedom for the rest of eternity!).

Ha.

I just sent columbia my decision NOT to go there...

I'm feeling sad.