My reaction to the news, though, was a little shameful considering that I’ve always shunned creative writing MFA ranking lists, believing that they’re mostly self-perpetuating (the Poets & Writers list, for example, which is the definitive ranking list people turn to when researching and applying to CW MFA programs, bases its numbers largely on the opinions of people who are currently applying for MFA programs, many or most of whom used last year’s P & W rankings to help them formulate those opinions.)
Still, I have to admit that part of my distaste for these sorts of rankings results from the fact that UAF, which I know is an excellent program from my own personal experience, is usually overlooked. It’s a bit spiteful and jealous, I know. But the problem with ranking things is that, just as somebody’s got to come out on top, somebody—many somebodies—have got to come out somewhere in the middle or on the bottom, and it isn’t always true that the “top” programs are any better than the rest.
It often feels to me like any program that doesn’t make it to the top 25 (or at least top 50) gets unfairly shunned and ignored by MFA applicants (and many others in the CW world), when really, probably most (who knows, maybe even all) accredited CW MFA programs are damn good, absolutely brimming with top-notch writers, both faculty and students alike. UAF is a great case in point: the P & W list ranked them 105 last year out of 130 (although UAF did receive an honorable mention for funding). Programs ranked that low don’t even appear in the list printed in the magazine—you have to go to the website and click “Additional Rankings” to even see the rankings below the top 50.
Yet my alma mater, as I’ve said, is an excellent program. This is not cognitive dissonance talking; if I’d gotten a bum deal from going to UAF, I’d say so. In fact, I’d probably spend far too much time ruminating on what a waste of time it had been going there, what a bad decision I’d made (I could, after all, have gone somewhere else. UAF wasn’t the only school that accepted me, but it was my top choice program from the beginning). But the truth is, the time I spent at UAF was, to date, the best three years of my life, and certainly the most fruitful and instructive. I entered the program naïve and lazy; I left the program having completed two book-length works, one of which was accepted for publication just one year after I graduated. The other students in the program, and the faculty, were all incredible writers, and many of them have had significant publication success. It’s clearly a good program, but at spot 105, it’s overlooked by most everyone.
So yeah, I’m excited about this small bit of recognition, but I know, at the same time, that a spot on any of these lists doesn’t mean much. The truth is, I wish rankings didn’t exist at all. I don’t see how we can reasonably say that certain programs are better across the board than others, when really, personal needs, style preferences, etc. all play an important role in finding the right program for you. UAF was definitely the right program for me, whereas Iowa probably wouldn’t have been (not that I would have stood a chance of getting in, nor would I have wasted my money in applying). Rankings, then, bring the value of my degree down a bit, since people are often quick to assume that a program, ranked so low isn’t a very good program. It’s harder for me to find a job than someone who graduated from a higher ranked school, and it’s harder for me to find an agent, too. Even so, I’m proud to have graduated from UAF, and I don’t regret having gone there one bit. Underrated it most definitely is, and, while the same is probably true of several other programs that didn’t make the Huffington Post’s list, it’s nice to see someone out there acknowledging it.
Did you see their previous article, "Six Myths About Creative Writing Master of Fine Arts"? It's interesting, too. They point out that these programs are not merely ways for the school to get tons of money by duping people with dreams and no talent, that admission into an MFA program is difficult, with many being as selective as places like Harvard Law. I really think that being admitted to an MFA program, any MFA program, saws a lot about one's ability. And since all of these programs are admitting talented, driven, intelligent writers, all of the programs will be places for those writers to learn and grow.
ReplyDeleteI didn't see that article; I'll have to go look it up. That totally makes sense to me that some MFA programs are as selective as Harvard Law. That's a good point that ANY program is going to surround you with other talented, driven, intelligent writers, so it makes sense that all MFA programs are going to be good programs. Even the lowest ranked programs get way more applicants than they can accept, and to get into a program you really have to prove that you're not only a good writer, but also that you're performing at a high level academically.
ReplyDeleteIt's funny, comparing applying for MFA's with other graduate programs. I'm sure there are tons of fields that are extremely competitive, but last year when I was applying for master of library science programs, I was suprised at how low their expectations are (you don't have to have a high GPA or GRE scores) and how high their acceptance rates. As I was putting my applications together, I just sort of knew I would get in to every program I applied for (and I was right), which is such a strange shift from five years ago when I was applying for MFA's, knowing how difficult it is to get in and just hope-hope-hoping my application materials were good enough.
Hi Ashley,
ReplyDeleteJust to offer some data that might open up some new avenues of thought and discussion (much of this is available in the online/free methodology article published by Poets & Writers): the rankings assess programs in eighteen different measures, so not only are those applicants who do look at last year's rankings judging programs not just on how they do overall but on how they do in the other seventeen measures, programs which don't fare as well in the overall measure are given seventeen other opportunities to shine -- and that's intentional, because every applicant is indeed looking for something different in choosing an MFA program. This year the rankings were expanded: whereas last year 60 graduate creative writing programs in total made the print edition, this year that figure was 100 -- which also was intentional, as the expanded rankings offer an even broader swath of programs to receive the high visibility of a print publication. But even more than that, I'll say that the hard data suggests that rankings are a rising tide that lifts all boats, as even less-visible programs receive more applications because the rankings are (among other things) the first-ever comprehensive listing of which programs are even an option for applicants. Applicants who read the rankings are more likely to come across lower-visibility program options than they would just by surfing the net. And in that same vein, programs which under-perform in any area of the rankings often report, now, that they use the rankings as a justification for more resources from their administrations -- so there's that benefit, too. Finally, as to whether this year's applicants do no more than parrot last year's applicants, I think you'll find that the internal demographic polling done in conjunction with the annual rankings proves this not to be the case; for instance, in a current poll applicants are being asked how important last year's rankings are to them, on a scale of 1 to 10 ("10" being "singularly essential," and "1" being "entirely irrelevant"), and with well over 150 responses in the single most popular answer is "1" (i.e., 16% say last year's rankings are "entirely irrelevant"), while fully 40% of applicants provided a response which was "5" or lower. Moreover, this polling reveals that high percentages of applicants use human resources at their disposal, like undergraduate faculty and even current students at various programs. My experience working with applicants suggests that they're never less than thoughtful about making one of the more important decisions of their writing lives; to think they'd abdicate this critical responsibility at the behest of any one person or one ranking methodology is simply not consistent with what applicants are, in droves, telling MFA researchers. So take heart; the rankings are only three years old, and as with any assessment scheme things do change over time as more data is revealed and applicants become even more sophisticated in how they make important life decisions. In any case, I particularly wanted to respond to your post because I saw that you run a website related to MFA students and their experiences, so I thought this data and the methodology article might be of special interest to you.
Best,
Seth