Most of the discussion on this forum is about NYU, AFI, USC, UCLA, and Chapman, all of which are quite expensive. My reason for going to film school is specifically to receive an MFA so I can teach college, and as such, I'm not looking to spend a lot of money. Additionally, I'm not worried about connections, since I'm not looking to work in Hollywood. Are there any programs that have a good reputation as a cheaper school? I'm not looking for the renown of a big name on my resume -- I'm looking for a good education. However, I don't want to have to pay off a 200 grand debt on a professor's salary. I'm looking for a school that teaches you how to tell a story, rather than worrying about the technicalities of production itself like budget and whatnot. Could anyone provide me with some direction regarding where I can find some schools that are known for providing a good education without costing an arm and a leg?

quote:

Most of the discussion on this forum is aboutNYU, AFI, USC, UCLA, and Chapman

You forgot to mention Columbia, we talk about it a lot and its about 200k for 3 years! BUT i can tell you if you go to Columbia, you will get an AMAZING education especially if you want to teach. You really learn the essence of film and most importantly how to build up a narrative. Even though its prob second to NYU in price, you can really benefit from going there cuz after graduating they have assistant teaching positions and if you teach for like 2 years, you will come out with almost 0 debt! So look into it.

quote:

Originally posted by Tima:
You forgot to mention Columbia, we talk about it a lot and its about 200k for 3 years! BUT i can tell you if you go to Columbia, you will get an AMAZING education especially if you want to teach. You really learn the essence of film and most importantly how to build up a narrative. Even though its prob second to NYU in price, you can really benefit from going there cuz after graduating they have assistant teaching positions and if you teach for like 2 years, you will come out with almost 0 debt! So look into it.

Thank you; that is most definitely an option worth looking into. Aside from the price, the other main turn-off of the big name film schools is that they teach you how to make films in the Hollywood system. I'm interested in film as an art form, plain and simple. I'm not sure whether or not Columbia falls under that label, but I figured I'd throw that out there.

I think the big-names might not want you if you are honest about "just" wanting to teach, unless you apply to the Film Studies programs...and I mean no offense there.

I'm in Ohio, and I've heard Ohio University has a decent film program. I didn't research it, though, because I refused to consider it.

One of my film professors went to Kent State University, everyone else went to Cal State schools, Columbia, or AFI.


Edited to say that a big name on your resume doesn't hurt. Academia is a competitive industry, and an impressive alma mater won't hurt your asking price or opps for tenure track. I'm pursuing an MFA with teaching as a "back-up" career plan in mind, and will likely pursue a doctorate from wherever I get my MFA...unless it's AFI, of course.

Golly, I hope it's AFI.

Is it April 15th yet?

I'll clarify by saying that I love making films, and plan to continue doing so for the rest of my life. However, I'm always going to go the independent route -- I'm not going to work my way up from the bottom in Hollywood, and I'm not going to make a film unless I have complete creative control. Therefore the only appeal film school has to me is that I can get an MFA, get a job earning decent money for 15 hour weeks with summers off, and have plenty of spare time to make films. Of course, if some Hollywood studio liked something I made and gave me a job directing films with full creative control, I'm not an idiot, I'd take the job. However, the odds of that happening are slim, and as such not even worth taking into consideration. So long as I can get a job teaching somewhere warm, I'm happy.

Let me just say that Columbia is def. not a second rate school, but it is def for you, especially if you want to take the Independent route. I believe Columbia will be breeding big names in the years to come, BUT, it will never lose its artistic approach toward film.

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

Hello everyone,

I wanted to respond to Tima's comment about TAships at Columbia (or elsewhere). The TAships are not after graduation, they are during your time as a third or fourth year student (maybe second also, but I doubt it). You have to teach a course while still in school for a tuition break, though it still does not cover your whole tuition and certain not your films. Also, getting a job even at Columbia, you would certainly not be making $100,000 a year to pay off your loans in two years...Columbia's a great school (I'm considering it too), but the debt is something that will last for years if not decades (as with all of the big five schools).

Duffix, one interesting option is UT Austin, who I visited recently. They are much much cheaper and have amazing facilities.

duffix,

to answer your original question...absolutely there are more inexpensive schools that are for the academic, but also teach you film production. Temple University for instance is cheap but has a very strong reputation for producing qualified film professors. I got my undergrdauate degree from Temple and have several friends that got their grad from Temple and are teaching right now at various universities. I can give you more specifics if you're interested...

There's also UT Austin but that program is about as competitive as the big boy schools.

True, Philly, Austin is competitive, but on a different level than the other places...They get about 150 applications and accept 12...

Though, actually, I wouldn't call UT Austin "second-rate" necessarilly

I wouldn't call UT Austin second rate either, I was merely saying that UT is cheap and has a different vibe than the CA and NY schools. UT Austin focuses more on the academics and theories of filmmaking. Don't get me wrong it's an amazing program that produces world class filmmakers, but it also produces professors and it's cheap.

Oh yeah, i just meant not second rate since the title of the string is "second-rate" What's interesting though is that they are heavy on production too...They have more equipment, facilities and space than Columbia and NYU together. They lose out really only on location in my opinion.

quote:

Originally posted by sa:
Oh yeah, i just meant not second rate since the title of the string is "second-rate" What's interesting though is that they are heavy on production too...They have more equipment, facilities and space than Columbia and NYU together. They lose out really only on location in my opinion.

Well I suppose I shouldn't have used the term "second-rate"; I'm merely looking for less expensive schools.

Thanks to everyone, I'll look into UT Austin and Temple. However, I've heard of both these schools before, and my hope in creating this thread was to find out about some schools I haven't heard of. Are there really less than 10 decent graduate film programs across America?

Another question -- sa, you mentioned the cost of making films while in film school. I believe strongly in the digital revolution -- I already own a Canon XH-A1 high-def camera, and the quality is simply amazing for $3500. As such, I see no reason to bother learning to film on film, since I'm going to be using digital for the rest of my life. I know there are a lot of people that will disagree with me on this point, but that's irrelevant -- my question is, do film schools allow you to use digital media, or do they force you to use film? If it's different per film school, which schools are embracing the digital era?

UCSB started a new film program that might be a good fit for someone looking to be a professor. And it goes through a PHd. Plus I'd imagine more money for a lesser known program as far as grants and fellowships.

What about LMU? Thats an up and coming grad film school. Anyone apply there?

duffx...

You see "no reason to bother learning to film on film?"

Whoa.

I hope you rethink that position. Film isn't going anywhere just yet, if ever, and if you claim to be interested in film as an art form, you should understand both media, at the very least, so you can educate your students on celluloid.

Plenty of programs, if not all, train in both, even if only in 16mm, like UMiami (FLA), but I can think of nobody who's "phasing" out actual film.

Film is important.

I understand what you're saying duffix about how great and cost effective digital can be, but Jayimess is right. No one is phasing out film and I think that the story you're trying to tell should dictate the medium that you choose to shoot in. Digital--and don't get me wrong I love shooting in HD--is more stagnet, quite literally, the image is created with pixels and they don't move on a screen. Film on the other hand is organic. Each frame is different from the last. The eye can tell the difference...So in my opnion you need to choose based on the story and mood you're trying to convey. If you are interested in the art than you need to concern yourself with these details.