ASHLEY MAYNOR WRITES:
I recently got a request from a filmmaker for advice on whether or not he should go back to school to get a master's degree. As someone who did get an MFA and has both teaching and non-teaching work experience (that is, life making a living as a full-time maker) under my belt, I thought I'd reply to the blog-o-sphere for others who are pondering the same decision: I think the first question to ask yourself is this: why do you want a degree? If you just want to learn more about filmmaking or film studies, you could do yourself much better with a library card, a Netflix subscription, some free classes on iTunesU, and slaving away as a PA on a few productions. Better yet, take the amount you'd spend on tuition and spend that time in NYC and LA working--as a PA or in an agency mailroom--cultivating your network…or buy your own DSLR and make mistakes for free in your own proverbial backyard.
To my mind, there are two strong justifications to pursue a higher degree in Film:
1) It's already paid for (i.e. you've gotten a fellowship or assistantship) and you can learn with the wonderful safety net that graduate school provides. (I do *not* recommend anyone go into debt more than the cost of an old, used car--no matter what the reputation of the school--for a film degree.)
2) It allows you to teach, which is a respectable way to support yourself as an artist, especially as someone who wants to make independent films, experimental work, or films with less-than-great commercial prospects.
If it's the latter, then you must also consider that there are beaucoups of people out there who are unemployed holders of MFAs in film. Film teaching jobs are few and far between--just take a look at the listings on the Chronicle of Higher Education or the University Film and Video Association website to get sense of the scarcity. But, if you're willing to live somewhere fairly off the grid (i.e. not in a big or even medium size city, relatively isolated from the industry and other filmmakers), then there are more positions that may have less competition. This can be a workable situation for the self-reliant or DIY type, especially if you make sure to travel several times a year to keep your inspiration levels up and industry ties strong. But, it can also be, well, depressing and frustrating. My requirements are that a job is too far off the grid if there's not a post-production or equipment rental house within a 3-hour radius. For each person, that threshold is different.
More importantly, I think the best teachers are those who also make--people who are really doing it and have a lot to offer their students in terms of work experience, connections to your industry/field, and a real-world perspective. Anything less poses an ethical dilemma for me: if you can't provide the above, why should students pay tuition to learn from you?
Another consideration for any would-be teacher is that teaching is more than a clock-in/clock-out commitment. While teaching, I more often than not put in above and beyond the 40 hours/week in terms of committee meetings, university and community service, advising, endless emails, etc., on top of my course teaching load. It's work that follows you home, unlike, say, a kind of survival job where you can punch your time card. On the other hand, summers are free for making your own work and the flexible schedule is tough to beat!
Teaching at a research-oriented institution is the ideal job, as it carries the smallest teaching load and encourages (expects, actually!) a high degree of research productivity, which for you translates into filmmaking. And some of your best students may actually be people you want to have collaborate with you on your work. These full-time positions, however, are also the rarest and most competitive. It will be expected that you have made one or more films with a certain level of success (e.g. strong festival run, distribution, critical praise, etc.), have a positive reputation in the industry (e.g. demonstrated by awards, grants, professional organizations, or other acknowledgement), and previous teaching experience. Of course, there are all kinds of schools: liberal arts colleges, typically with a strong emphasis on teaching and student relationships; community colleges, who usually emphasis both teaching and community service; for-profit schools and film programs (which I don't have any first-hand experience with); and part-time teaching positions.
Adjuncting is fairly common for new MFAs, but the pay is rarely great and usually does not carry any fringe benefits, such as health care. That said, I know many a freelance film producer and writer/director who use adjunct classes and part-time lecturing as a way to have some sort of stable income while spending the bulk of their time as makers.
It's also worth saying that there are folks who do teach without an MFA. Guest lectureships, artist visits, workshops both at universities and community organizations often pay successful filmmakers to share their knowledge in short or long-term capacities. I've had a few of these gigs and they are usually a lot of fun but were never enough to sustain me in and of themselves. After a certain level of success, though, it's not unheard of for a filmmaker to become a professor without an MFA at all…but we all can imagine those odds.
So, to sum up:
Why Getting an MFA/Teaching is a Good Idea:
Stable income without selling your soul.
Intellectual and creative freedom for the kind of work you make without as much commercial pressure as full-time filmmaking or freelancing.
Helping shape the future of the industry.
Why Getting an MFA/Teaching is a Not-So-Good Idea:
Highly competitive, especially for desirable cities/schools.
Lots of responsibilities beyond teaching for full-time positions.
You need to be a maker before you become a teacher. And teaching will take time away from making.
If after all this, you want to take the back-to-school plunge, then I recommend you check out these previous posts from the blog. They will give you a good start on the advice we'd give about looking for a film program: