Latest Film School Reviews

I just wanted to make a film. At least one no matter how B-Quality it might turn out. I was just going to buy a cheap camera or use my phone. I ran into some videos online that led me to this school. I was dreading the thought of taking lessons and possibly sitting for hours of listening to nonsense. I didn't know what online school was all about but I took a chance thanks to the kindness of the school leader. The courses turned out to be incredibly easy to understand, very casual in a good way and extremely helpful. The teacher has been very communicative every time I had a question. Because of these courses, I now have knowledge of software and hardware that I would have never learned on my own and my short film turned out to look way more professional than I have ever dreamed. You are taught everything under the sun. Not only that, but I have confidence of creating more than one film. I can create several. I am very thankful for this school and the teacher. One of the best experiences I've ever had. I totally recommend it.

It's been few days since I started taking lessons and I really liked the lessons they are not too long easy to understand and navigating through these are very easy the community is diverse and we can learn while interacting with different people.

I’ve been involved in this online film school, and it’s genuinely been a standout experience. The course is self-paced and extremely well-structured, with clear communication and a highly supportive community. It’s helped me refine my storytelling and deepen my technical skills, and I’ve already been able to apply what I’ve learned directly to my filmmaking career.

The alumni network functions a bit differently than a traditional in-person program. While the global reach is a major advantage, it naturally makes spontaneous meetups or hands-on collaboration less common. For me, this hasn’t been a drawback, and as the school continues to grow, I expect its community circles to strengthen and naturally create more opportunities for in-person meetups.

Overall, it’s a five-star experience in terms of clarity, support, and practical impact.

An online “school” with no accreditation or legal accountability, promises “something no other school guarantees” which is just that you make a short film. Most film schools also guarantee you make films so this is a false statement. It would likely be better and certainly cheaper to just learn the same stuff from cheaper online platforms like Lynda, skillshare, or masterclass where at least the person teaching probably has some real experience in the industry especially given that success is self-determined in this course and those. Has a single “instructor” who has a BFA from a for profit university who itself got in trouble for defrauding accreditors about the success and training they provided. All that to say by any legitimate program standard they would not be allowed to instruct. Think long and hard about spending money here.

I started this program a few years ago. Based on the good reviews and the school’s proud claims, I expected I would receive a great education. However, soon after starting, I realized this was not going to be what I imagined.

Our editing classes mostly consisted of watching free YouTube tutorials—resources I could have easily accessed on my own. The program often promotes outdated Hollywood practices that are no longer relevant, discourages creativity, and pressures students to make the most basic films. Equipment training is minimal: you receive only a brief introduction to heavy, outdated gear and are then expected to figure it out with classmates. As a result, many students were injured. A few in the class above me even reported long-term spinal pain from accidents.


Be mindful that this is a very physically demanding program. If you are not physically prepared to carry heavy equipment constantly, you will still be forced to do so. Students are also expected to drive large grip trucks, often on little to no sleep. I am honestly surprised there haven’t been more accidents, considering students are frequently asked to drive over an hour after already working 13-hour days.

The program is even worse when it comes to mental health. Many students struggled with anxiety and depression throughout their time there. The information on the school’s website is also misleading. After graduating, I reached out to alumni, and almost all expressed disappointment. They said they received no meaningful support after graduation. From my own class, many no longer work in film-related fields or returned to the jobs they had before earning their degree. So, I don’t know where the “96% of graduates work in the industry within one year” statistic comes from—it seems outdated at best, if not completely fabricated. Graduates are offered no career support, and most are funneled into entry-level production assistant roles—positions that many people obtain without a degree, let alone a master’s education.

On top of all this, the school claims ownership of student films and even takes prize money from awards, despite graduates often being in desperate need of those funds. I know two students who were forced to give up their $10k awards at a time when they were already struggling to start a new life after graduation. While the program does cover production costs for short films, it comes at the price of stripping new graduates of both their creative and financial rights.

The only real advantage I see is that tuition is cheaper than most film schools if you’re a Florida resident. But in the end, you get what you pay for.

First off, let's talk about the pros to attending Chapman. The weather is great all the time and if you come here, you avoid that good for nothin snow back east. Disneyland is just around the corner and if you're lookin for a little bit of expensive fun, it's got you covered. The campus is absolutely beautiful as well while you're being surrounded by students who also (hopefully) love film.

Now let's talk about the cons, and trust me, there's a lot in the editing program.

The editing program is taught by one professor, unlike other programs such as directing and screenwriting which tends to be taught by multiple professors. Not so bad to have one editing professor right?... right?... Well there's a lot of problems with him and the way he teaches his class so if you don't like him, you simply can't switch.

For example, when I was in undergrad learning editing, I had a bunch of computer classes that taught me various programs on how to become a better editor and when I went into Chapman, I expected that this program was going to be similar. However, the editing program isn't taught with computers. You just simply show up to class, sit on a couch, and watch movies while the editing professor tells you on how to edit better. There's no hands-on learning, no using a computer in his class, it's purely learning by auditory learning. However, you do get to edit student projects and he'll give you auditory feedback on how to make them better.

In terms of his personality, if neuroticism is on a scale of 1 to 100, he's at least an 80+, while his agreeableness is below a 30. This translates to a highly competitive guy with a bit of rough edge around him and the kind of guy where if you disappoint him, he will give you an earful of negative talk and is not the kind of guy to give second chances either. For example, after one student did bad on an editing assignment, the teacher called their work completely incompetent and told them to their face that they have no talent. That's the kind of guy this professor is.

This isn't really a pro or con but if you decide to attend Chapman, you should definitely have some experience with editing film. This really isn't a school to cater to beginners.

I really like it, I'm glad I was able to get in, and the learning process is great. I've made a lot of friends. Basically, everything I've ever dreamed of is here.

I honestly think the experience of attending Prague Film School will vary depending on the attendee's skill level, situation, background, outlook, etc.

Here is mine:

Expenses
I am an American who had never traveled outside of the country before coming to PFS. In the United States, it is very expensive to attend a university out-of-state for a reasonable price. The tuition price was ultimately less than it would have been for me to attend an out-of-state university for a year, so it was a good option for me. I was also using it as a gap year and not coming from partner study-abroad programs at Oberlin College, Northwestern University, or Sarah Lawrence College. In general PFS would be considered too expensive for what it offers. Before arriving in Prague I had not known of the general cost of public education in the Czech Republic. However, the tuition of this certificate program is similar to that of private, English-speaking universities in Prague such as Anglo-American University.

The school provided flat accommodation is also expensive. I wish I had done better research and opted to find my own student accommodation, which can go anywhere from $200 to $800 a month. You can't get anything nice with those prices, but I recommend choosing that route instead. The thought of trying to find housing in a foreign country sounded like a daunting task but it is actually quite easy if you know where to look. School flats are around $1,000 a month, which again sounded reasonable to me at first until I came to Prague and saw how cheap you can get some places here for. Although the flats are expensive, they are indeed very nice places and situated in great neighborhoods. I lived in Žižkov first semester, but moved to Karlovo náměstí second semester to be closer to school. Gorgeous locations with lots of things to do. One thing though is that they are situated in regular flat complexes and neighbors can complain about noise and usage of the elevators for moving equipment.

Production costs mostly fall onto one person, the director of the film. Filmmaking is expensive, and the costs of location, actors, costumes, props, transportation, craft services, outside crew hiring, and additional equipment rental quickly adds up. I've seen people make their projects with no-budget, and others with a big budget.

Teachers and Curriculum
This is the part of PFS that I think can most be improved on. Classes are around 2.5 hours each, with several classes in a day. The quality of teachers is very inconsistent, and there are some more than others you get more out of. Some teachers were not willing to go into the super technical aspects of filmmaking like codecs, color science, etc. Camera and lighting classes consisted of looking at examples of a certain technique and trying to recreate it. While it was super fun coming up with on the spot scenarios to practice with, these classes ultimately get too repetitive. Equipment protocol and crew protocol were the most valuable to the production phase of the semester. The elective classes are not taken seriously, and the optional Czech class was a Q&A on how to say certain words in Czech. Teachers and staff are mostly alumni of the school.

Production
This was my favorite and most note-worthy portion of PFS. They told us in the beginning we would be working on a lot of films throughout the year, and they were not kidding. This is an intensive program, with 12-hour long shoot days and even some overnights. I had the opportunity to explore every crew position, and even found a favorite one I could specialize in. Teachers are not hands-on during the actual filming, which is a positive and negative thing. Students organize and coordinate crew amongst themselves, which can often get hectic and stressful. If something goes wrong during a shoot, which it very much does most of the time, it's hard to get help. I thoroughly enjoyed every set I got to be apart of. It's stressful and hard work, but ultimately so worth it. A lot of students choose to hire outside equipment, crew, and actors. As a director casting actors for roles, the small pool of actors in PFS's acting program is sometimes not suitable. Some are not native English speakers and may have accents that don't fit your story. There is a large emphasis on cinematography and directing, which leaves editing and sound to be a bit neglected. Some older equipment shows wear and tear, but for the most part works okay. The school computers and software installed are not super updated, and has caused me some problems. It seems like this does get better with each new batch. I can't speak to the second-year, documentary, or acting programs.

School Environment and Culture
Every member of the staff, admin, and student body are welcoming kind individuals. In general, the school is well organized and ran via Alice platform. Students are comprised of a wide variety of nationalities, ages, and backgrounds. I loved learning about other cultures than my own. I have met such interesting people here and made life-long connections. School appointed events such as parties and screenings are held at nice venues.

TLDR: FAMU is probably better quality, but PFS is surely not a complete scam. Fast-paced, intensive, with loads of hands-on set experience. I do not regret attending PFS, but it may not suit everyone depending on your circumstances. I am personally someone who whishes for super technical theory knowledge, but I didn't quite get that here. In closing, PFS is an experience I will never forget.

A couple of things...
AFI like many film schools, and rather like every institution, is not perfect.

If you see your career after film school to be a writer/director RETHINK AFI VERY CAREFULLY.
Many fellows in the directing cohort are sold or marketed AFI to be a place where notable writer/directors (Andrea Arnold, Ari Astor, etc.) have taken root. While that may be half true, I think it's pertinent that incoming fellows know that the directing track is intensely focused on learning to direct other people's work. It's not really a place for you to discover your voice or style as a writer/director but it is a place to become a better director. What I mean by this is that it's focused on building crucial elements in your directing toolbox which means you may have very little/ no chance to write your own stories as cycles. You may get ONE chance to do that for one cycle (short film) out of the three you make.

Also, you may not get to make the thesis you pitch, which means directing a script someone else wrote. Now, if you are someone that can't see themselves ever directing someone else's work then, maybe AFI just really isn't the place for you. THAT IS OKAY because there are other film schools that can be a better fit.

Depending on what you want out of a program that may or may not be what you want. Definitely audit the classes.

Also it helps if you're more experience as a film professional or have worked on sets before. AFI is hard for people that are just getting their feet wet into filmmaking.

This review will specifically go over the MFA Editing Curriculum at Dodge

Editing Expectations at Chapman:​

If you decide to attend the editing program at Chapman, you are expected to already be proficient in either Adobe Premiere, DaVinci Resolve, or Avid. It is also strongly recommended that you have experience with editing film specifically because if you don't, you are more likely to struggle in this program, and the resources to help struggling students succeed is scarce (more on that later).

I know that you can get a masters in editing even if you didn't go to film-school as an undergrad, but the editing program isn't built to help students succeed if they don't have a lot of prior film experience. If you come to school here, you are expected to know what you're doing. Prior experience with editing film is strongly strongly recommended if you decide to attend Chapman.

The Editing Class Itself:​

The editing curriculum is specifically taught by one person who has been there for a long time and has edited various films, some of which you have heard of before. The best way I can describe him is that he’s basically a milder version of a drill sergeant. He’s high strung, old school, no-nonsense, and honest to a fault. If you’re late to his class, he will yell at you so you better show up on time. He’s not the accommodating type and not the kind of guy who’s going to spare you the rod, meaning if he thinks your film is bad, he’s going to tell you that your film is bad, and break it into detail on why he thinks your film is bad. The editing curriculum is very intense and competitive. If you do bad on an editing assignment, instead of getting a bad grade, the editing teacher will simply replace you with someone else.

In terms of teaching style, he’s pretty old school. For one thing, he doesn’t teach you through the use of a computer, in fact, he hardly teaches you any editing technical skills at all. How his class works is that he gives you editing footage that you must complete in a week, and then he watches everyone’s edit live in class on a big screen. While watching the edits, he will give feedback based on what he wants done differently in everyone’s edit. And then for the next two weeks, you must revise your edits based on what the teacher wants. Oh and by the way, anything he wants differently to another person’s edit, also applies to your edits as well so you better remember everything he said. If the teacher gives you feedback on how to change your film, and you don’t apply the changes in your next edit, then he will yell at you in class.

Now the problem with the teacher is that his teaching style caters more to students who are good at processing auditory information. Since he does NOT give written feedback and refuses to do it, anybody who primarily learns by written instruction or by hands on instruction, may struggle in his class and may not be able to process all of the information as easily. He is not a good fit for everyone, so if you’re an editor and you decide to attend Chapman, keep in mind the fact that there’s only one editing mentor as of 2025. A teacher can either make or break your experience at this school and if you’re in this curriculum and you're not a good fit for this particular teacher, then it’s going to be tougher to succeed.

The Resources To Help Students Succeed at Chapman:​

In terms of bigger schools, such as the University of Kansas where I'm from, there isn't a lot of resources to help struggling students succeed in their classes. But in order for you to better understand, i'll give a comparison between Kansas and Chapman.

• Kansas has a discord group where students who are struggling in their classes can go get help. The Chapman film school does not.
• Kansas has a tutoring center where students who are struggling in their classes can go get help. The Chapman film school does not.
• Both schools have computers that are dedicated to running various computer software including Premiere, Davinci Resolve, and many more.
• Both schools have teachers who are willing to help their students although in my opinion, teachers at Kansas have more dedicated office hours and are more willing to help you.
• Kansas has PLAs who are student assistants in the class who's job is to help students in the class and they even have dedicated office hours where struggling students can go get help. Chapman does not have PLA's.
• Both schools have disability services available.

Overall, Kansas has more resources to help struggling students succeed. If you are struggling at Chapman, you have to rely more on the optional good-will of others, rather than an obligation that dedicated school resources provide.

What if you're neurodivergent and/or have major learning disabilities?
Then stay away from the MFA editing program. At Dodge, only the strongest survive. The editing teacher isn't going to hold your hand and help struggling students out. He doesn't give a shit if you're disabled or you're going through mental problems, either you do a good job, or he's going to fail you. Like I said, the editing program is very competitive.

I discovered Stony Brook on this website. I looked up film schools in New York, and there she was, comparable to all the schools that would bankrupt me.
The out of state tuition was a little steep, but that’s only when comparing it to its own in-state tuition, not other film schools.
You get the feeling they are truly cultivating a cohesive cohort during the admissions process, which was smooth and forthcoming. My cohort has exceptional chemistry and we all encourage and support one another.
My writing has grown in leaps and bounds since I’ve been here. The feedback, via table reads and one on one conferences is invaluable.
Yes like any graduate program (this is my second) it can get tough, but literally everyone’s on your side championing you to complete your script or film, so nothing seems impossible.

I've been absolutely happy with Feirstein. Great community. State-of-the-art facility. You will be taking a risk on an up-and-comer school but should pay off. At least, visit the facilities.

Great school with some passionate professors. But the professors really make it break the program. The schools got all the equipment and stuff but don't expect to find your original voice here. They are too radically progressive. In left leaning but Jesus, I want to learn about film aesthetics not that a professor sees 1000 phallic symbols of the patriarchy. The narrative is constantly pushed in classes that should be focused on films and filmmaking . This is the narrative Hollywood pushes and it's crap and too one sided. Library is packed with film materials and it's all around a great experience if you can keep away from the political side.

I am an alum of the Dramatic Writing program at NYU, and loved my experience there. It completely revolutionized my understanding of not just television writing but storytelling in general (and I arrived thinking I had a lot of writing experience). All of my professors were knowledgeable and taught me a lot, and I formed great relationships with several and came to see them as mentors. I left as a wildly better writer with multiple finished scripts that have served me well in my post-grad professional life. That said, tuition is very expensive, and though it's possible to meet people in other departments, the department offers limited opportunities to formally collaborate with them.

I wish I had seen something like this when I was searching. I had contacted some ex students through instagram but I later realized that when students are young and have not lived in Europe such as Indian young students for whom traveling to the heart of Europe is a big change already and can mean "life changing experience" - their advice was not the best to follow. When I moved to Prague and discovered the school, I realized that it is too expensive for what it proposes.
They advertise it as a school where you'll learn the art of european author cinema with the possibility to develop your own unique voice. But the structure of the program doesn't allow you to do that. The sheer number of students that they bring means teachers have to handle a lot of people. Next the program is very fast paced. Project after project after project. The positive side of it would be to do these projects and learn a lot of technical skills and familiarize yourself on being on a set on many sets and work under pressure. Which would be good if your goal was to get a good basic filmmaking understanding. However if you are relocating from a foreign country your expenses will be so much that you wonder if that's really worth that much money. I paid 18.000 EUR for the school + 8.000 EUR for the stay of 8 months. Then 500 EUR per month (4000 EUR for 8 month) you'll need for food. + whatever cost your projects will be which you have to cover yourself (camera equipment is provided). Actors, catering and props are on you. So you are talking about 30.000 -35.000 EUR spending. Which is a lot for a school that doesn't provide you with network nor with time to create a very well polished portfolio film that could really change your career.

When I was coming to this school. I thought I will put this much money to have access to high quality instructors, equipment and come out with a film after all this study that would be worth sending to big film festivals. But the sheer rapid pace, the business attitute of the very way the school is built, the lack of focus on individual students, just to have new groups and new groups come and go, made the whole thing like a great exercise in filmmaking. We did many sets, from this set to the next set, got the taste of that - but that was never my intention to spend 34.000 Euros on with all the relocation cost and hussle. It was simply not worth it. It was quite frustrating to find out mid way that the school is just teaching you filmmaking basics with a ton of hand on experience through infiniately shifting projects.

Another negative point is the school saves money on teachers. They hire their own alumni. I met 5 instructors that are ex students. And they have 15 people max (excluding administration). They also do not give you industry insights, connections, how to make your way through it. If you enter with misty knowledge about how to grow your career in the film industry, you'll exit in mist also, at least that knowledge won't be coming from the school.

So my overall estimation - the school is way too expensive for what it offers.

Growing up, I knew I'd be an arts major and professional, I just struggled to figure out what medium I wanted to commit my adult life toward. The closest thing I got to film before choosing this program on a whim was a brief exploration of stick figure animation and messing around in iMovie. I knew nothing about the program going in, nor did I have experience with any of what I'd be doing.

In your first semester you take two film classes and they are as simple as it gets, you learn how to analyze films (picking up all the terminology along the way) and everyone produces a short film as their final. It was especially simple in my case, considering that they place you in subsections based on your experience, and I was put in the least experienced section, as not-so-subtly explained by a substitute teacher one day. In that section of maybe twenty students, I think only two of us remained in the program all the way through graduation (and we became roommates and each other's go-to collaborator). To be fair, COVID-19 arrived in my 2nd semester of freshman year, but I still get the sense that the administration expects low retention overall.

I won't speak much more on courses due to how the pandemic did affect them, but I will say that you will get the most out of this program out of the classroom. Whether or not you're doing it for class; just suck it up and make bad films, learn why they're bad, then work your way up to okay films, learn why they're just okay, etc. Professors respond best to students who are putting in the work not just for a grade, but out of a genuine interest in the subject matter. The best professors even incentivize missing class (on the rare occasion) if you're going to be on a set.

I highly suggest going for a concentration, because the administration doesn't care as much for the students that choose a more independent / customized track. I personally chose to get the Music Technology certificate at Boyer instead, since the film program's sound courses were a bit lacking and didn't teach ProTools. Despite doing work-study and being a campus ambassador for a major studio, I was basically invisible as a student. The only way to work around this is by getting involved on thesis films. Junior theses are good, but definitely aim for helping multiple senior theses (graduate theses too, if possible).

Overall, Temple does give you the necessary resources to succeed. It's certainly not an abundant amount, but honestly, I think it's better this way for absolute beginners. You get the entire Adobe suite, the tech center is equipped for all post-production needs (I even did V.O. and scoring in there). I know that people like the dedicated film editing rooms in Annenberg too. The theater program being the only other program in the school means that you have a direct connection to all of your actors. It's a big school, so cliques for crewing do develop, but there's plenty crossover and there's relatively less ego than at the more prolific film schools. The few organizations that have stayed alive over the years do great stuff, especially Temple Smash if you want to try sketch comedy. Finally, the Diamond Screen Film Festival is an incredible incentive and opportunity for students. Seeing your film on a big screen and "competing" for the various awards brings a lot of life to campus.

As with any film school, you're going to get out what you put in.

Toronto Metropolitan University (formerly called Ryerson, the name changed because the guy was the architect of the residential school system... YIKES) had a reputation for being the best film school in Canada when I applied back in 2017. It was that or Concordia by popular consensus. For good reason, as many of Canada's most exciting young filmmakers came out of this program in the past 20 years, including Brandon Cronenberg, Jasmin Mozaffari, Kazik Radwanski, and Andrew Cividino. While I do think the landscape in Canada has shifted a bit (York University is becoming much better, with younger and more exciting faculty like Matt Johnson, and Sheridan College's thesis films have routinely impressed me more than most work coming out of TMU), there are still a lot of things about this program that simply can not be beaten.

As with any program, there are pros and cons, so let's get into it.

• One of the key selling points here is the LOCATION. TMU puts you right in the smack of the dab of the middle of downtown Toronto. It is the heart of the industry, the center of activity, with no end of great experiences to be had with film culture. I mean, you can attend your first week while taking breaks between classes to go see premieres at TIFF. It's a beautiful thing being so close to everything. With this said, it's easy to let the location go to waste, and you need to be looking for opportunities and work within the city, otherwise you may as well be studying in the middle of nowhere. You're in downtown Toronto, make the most of it.
• A huge selling point of this program, and the strongest thing about it in my opinion is that the entirety of first year is spent Shooting on 16mm Film. I LOVED how assignments restricted us to shooting one reel of 16mm, which was about 5 minutes total of footage. By doing this, students learn the fundamentals of planning what they're shooting, and economy of shoot time. There's no room to waste or do a million takes. You need to make every second count or be out another $100. (Also, for those interested in analog film, some of my peers were taken on as apprentices in the school's on-site film development laboratory).
• On the other hand GEAR CAN BE OLD/DAMAGED. There were very few productions I was on that did not run into issues with the school supplied gear. This ranged from 16mm cameras with huge light leak issues, completely ruining assignments, to highly unreliable sound recording equipment. For the most part, the gear is great, but there's always something that requires an emergency phonecall to the Cage.
• I always say that film school is basically paid networking, and it is true that the most valuable part of any film education is the people that you become friends with and create collaborative relationships with. In terms of classmates, I loved the variety of people that this school gave me an opportunity to meet and collaborate with. I will say, however, that 95% of my classmates had next to no interest in movies, which has never ceased to confuse me.
• Worth mentioning that a few years after graduation, only one of my peers has completed a feature film to date, and they dropped out of the program in second year. So this isn't a program that pumps out filmmakers ready for a feature within a few years.
• The FACULTY IS A MIXED BAG here, with a mixture of former professionals who have not been working in the industry for at least 20 years, and younger professors who are still making great art. I often found that these older "career professors" were giving information that was totally out of date or mostly useless, and it really feels like the program is full of this type. On the other hand, there are some young professors who really make the value of this program go up, as they are actually currently working in the industry and are making waves. Highest praises go to Karen Harnisch, who actively connects students with the industry and helped many of my peers with getting jobs. Unfortunately, professors like her are currently few in number, meaning connections with alumni and industry feels quite rare. But the ones like Karen really make this school shine, and hopefully as the old guard retires, the school truly flourishes again.
• The program is primarily HANDS-ON, meaning you will be making 5 Films in First Year, 4 Films in Second Year, 2 Films in Third Year, and 1 Thesis Film in Fourth Year. For those seeking practice making movies (as we all should be), you get a LOT of valuable hands-on experience.
• Those seeking a more academic approach to film will not be pleased here as there is a bit of an anti-intellectual atmosphere within the school and the faculty (something I discussed with a former faculty member who left for UofT). Film History and Theory are treated as unfortunate obligations, and feedback and criticism among classmates is not really something that is encouraged or taught.
• On that last point, this program is pretty soft in terms of feedback, so those looking to grow will not get the constructive criticism needed until thesis year slams you to the ground. Any professors who offer solid and strong constructive criticism routinely receive complaints from students, meaning that only one or two profs are willing to actually tell you what you need to work on. There's a lot of coddling that happens here, and everyone only hears good things about their work - it can be nice, but I felt like it was hard to grow in that environment at times.

First of all, the program does not provide a safety net in terms of job placement. Every year the program admits, at most, 5 people, and the least the teachers running the program could do is introduce us to companies who are in the market to hire. They are (the teachers) some of the most well-connected in the business, and yet I did not feel they provided enough resources or support when looking for a job. In fact, in the last class that graduated, all 5 did not even end up in jobs within entertainment, but rather other fields. It’s a poor sign on the program when its graduates don’t even end up in the field they tried to pivot too. And the teachers running the program, while very nice, are tone deaf when it comes to hearing and acting on student’s needs for post-grad employment.

Second, and leading from the previous point, the program is not structured in a way that allows the students to take full advantage of either the MBA or the MFA program. Chasing two birds with one stone is highly applicable here. Here is how the program is structured:

• 1st Year: Business School
• 1st Year Summer: Film Class
• 2nd Year: Film School
• 2nd Year: Business School Internship / Internship
• 3rd Year: Choice of classes between Film and Business school

Now what’s inherently wrong in this is that the first year when you’re in the business school, the first summer should be your internship summer. But in this program it’s not the case. You have to recruit for an internship in your second year. But by that point in the fall semester, you’re preparing to make your second year film, which is a LOT of work, to the point where you have NO TIME to recruit, which usually takes place in the business school’s fall semester. So by that structure, dual degree students have a very hard time finding an internship, because they DON’T HAVE ANY time to find an internship, which puts them at a disadvantage, and nullifies the usefulness of why we went to an MBA program in the first place. By doing a dual degree, you’re putting your focus in two different directions, which the program does a bad job of managing/structuring.

Within this structure, dual-degree students struggle to build relationships with the filmmaking students whose projects they are meant to produce. While dual-degree students spend their first year in business school, MFA students are already working together, forming strong bonds. By the time dual-degree students join the film school in their second year, they are outsiders rather than integrated members of the cohort. As a result, filmmakers don’t see them as true classmates, making collaboration more challenging.

Third, the dual-degree program fails to teach any hard skills that can’t be learned in a standalone MBA or MFA. It does not justify the three-year commitment or the $200K+ cost. For context, NYU’s Graduate Film program awards the Media Services Producing Award annually to the student who demonstrates the most skill in film producing. In recent years, it has consistently gone to MFA students—not dual-degree students. This raises a fundamental question: If the program doesn’t give its students a competitive edge in producing, what’s the point? The reality is, it doesn’t.

Being a producer is not someone with a business degree (it’s a foreign concept to Hollywood people). It’s just someone that knows how to get things done, and unfortunately, a program for that doesn’t make sense. During my job search, I’ve had two people tell me that the MFA is not worth it and I should take it off. And over time, I’m seeing it as well. The dual degree is nice to have on your resume, but it CANNOT replace work experience.

My recommendation:

• If you want to work in the corporate side of film, get an MBA. It’s a two-year program, gives you dedicated time to recruit for an internship, and costs significantly less.
• If you want to be a film producer, get an MFA. It’s a longer path, but you’ll build stronger industry relationships and gain hands-on filmmaking experience—something a business degree won’t provide. Columbia’s graduate film program, for example, offers a producing track within its MFA but no dual degree, which speaks volumes.
• Prioritize industry experience over degrees. The best way to break into film is by working in the industry and building your network. No one—and I mean no one—cares if you went to school for producing. What matters is your practical experience. Without it, the degree is meaningless.

Sarah Lawrence has a very unique approach to learning, with a focus on small class seminars and one on one projects completed with professors. This approach carries over into film classes, with most being small group classes focused on completing specific projects. I really enjoyed all my film classes there, especially my screenwriting courses, which were run like writing workshops. I also love that SLC gives you the opportunity to explore classes in other subject matters beside your main area of focus, since we do not have declared majors. Since the school is small, sometimes groups can be a bit cliquey, with everyone having their set friend group. I don’t think the culture of the school would be for everyone, but I really enjoyed it there. Nice to have a beautiful campus so close to NYC as well.

Good faith tl;dr: ArtCenter should be your last resort safety school. Only go here if you are willing to blow the money and didn't get into any other film school in the LA area (and really want to go to film school immediately). Alternatively, keep applying to the actual top film schools (USC, AFI, etc.) every year until you get in or you get to the point where you're finding enough work, have a good network, and don't need film school anymore.
Glaring cons:

• Borrowing equipment from the school's equipment room is significantly more difficult than renting equipment from a rental house. Considering the amount of money you'll be paying to go here, this is absolutely unacceptable.
• The amount of tedious paperwork you'll do at ArtCenter for common, mild, or otherwise minimally dangerous production circumstances totally eclipses the amount of paperwork you'll do in the real world for the same or similar circumstances (at least in amateur or independent film). Considering the amount of money you'll be paying to go here, this is absolutely unacceptable.
• There is a leveled production system that massively limits creativity and is downright insulting to filmmakers (experienced or not). For example, in your first semester with "level-1 production", you couldn't make a film that has smoking or even vaping in it, or any kind of special effects (smoke, fog, haze, wind, rain, snow, make-up, prosthetics), or any kind of fake weapons (including real, prop, toy, water, etc., any object used as a weapon, or any object that could cause harm). You will only be allowed these luxuries once you take a class that qualifies you for "level-3 production"—classes that are only available (once their prerequisites are fulfilled) years into the program. Considering the amount of money you'll be paying to go here, this is absolutely unacceptable.

These production policies and paperwork were constantly criticized by students and faculty alike, and you would even have certain faculty members praising their students for breaking the rules for the sake of their art. Sure, it was "cool" that some faculty members were like this, but this environment was incredibly depressing to be in, and a big punch in the face all things considered.

No attempt was ever made by the film department to change anything. There were only additions that made things worse. Everything felt like the education decrees from The Order of the Phoenix or something. The cherry on top was the unrealistic paperwork deadlines.

Eventually, certain members of the department started to get overtly passive-aggressive toward us for being reasonably skeptical about the policies and paperwork. We all felt this and got more standoffish as a result, creating a nightmarish feedback loop of loathing that was never addressed nor rectified. Overall, everything was a sad mess.

The "grad show" mainly consisted of friends, family, and some faculty. Either the film department heads made no effort to invite anyone from the industry, nobody accepted the invites, or I smelled awful (each situation equally horrible). I didn't feel marketed at all, and that is kind of what they said they were going to do at the grad show in return for being a good student/filmmaker and paying them tens of thousands of dollars. In this respect, I felt scammed.

Lastly, upper level management at ArtCenter is terrible and the faculty are currently in their own struggle (@accd.faculty.federation). ArtCenter isn't even helping out their own faculty so they certainly don't have their students' interests in mind.

I’m still not employed in my desired field. I know you’re not guaranteed to get a job in the industry just because you went to film school, but I don’t think ArtCenter has helped me at all in this respect. You’ve been warned.