UCLA School of Theater, Film and Television (TFT) Reviews & Admissions Statistics

When I applied to the Production MFA, I definitely hadn’t expected to get in. Much of the process and its student body hasn’t demystified and for that reason I think TFT has gotten away with a lot as a department, off the back of an old reputation of excellence. I truly wouldn’t recommend this program to filmmakers who’ve started their careers seeking studio time or discipline. You are in classes until 9 or 10PM some days your first year—these are not shoots, but legitimate classes you sit in. There are some gems in the department teaching, but this degree program is structured to suck as much money out of you as possible while getting away with offering the most very minimum resources it can. At the beginning of the year we were promised Panasonic EVA-1s that ended up getting taken away for whatever reason I don’t understand.

Mind you, in addition to whatever tuition rate you’re at (resident/nonresident), you pay an additional $15-16k in “Professional fees” which is a second tuition. I thought the department was very sneaky about springing the cost of the program on newcomers. Yes it’s still affordable compared to a private, but an extra fifteen grand doesn’t secure us access to cameras and equipments for our shoots promised at the beginning of the first year. The department head, Fabian Wagmister, makes us sign a contract at orientation basically signing our time and efforts away to this program, and you’re strongly discouraged from holding a job. I can’t speak for my cohort, but I can only speak for myself—I’ve been done very dirty by TFT and this is a barely-running pyramid scheme that asks for $36k from me to sit through lectures where we’re barely shooting or building our portfolios. The cinematography teacher does not have a strong portfolio herself nor does she possess a strong knowledge of equipment or set etiquette—she has deferred most of this responsibility to the grad TA. That’s another weird thing—grad students a year or two above you are running this program for us. They are overworked and underpaid or vice versa.

The department didn’t demystify what access to equipment we had, but left us in a vague limbo state where none of us knew what quality of things we had access to were. The department doesn’t even have a fully functioning website and has placed all the responsibility on a grad advisor who is also extremely overworked. Sylvia has been one of the very few people in this program who actually does her job and isn’t full of it 99.99% of the time.

My advice—save yourself the money, go buy yourself a nice camera and some decent equipment and make your own shit. Or, go to a smaller program or for an Art MFA, I don’t care but don’t come here if you want to feel like you’re not being scammed. On top of our yearly tuition, we’re expected to fund most of the costs of our shoots or apply for funding which is basically just a minor refund of the professional fees paid out. If you go to the meetings to give feedback, Fabian sits and pontificates and deflects instead of reasonably brainstorming or receiving any sort of feedback on how this program can improve. It’s truly a shame, but don’t say I didn’t warn you. The UCLA Coppola attended is NOT the same UCLA that exists now. It’s a moneymaking scheme!! Also our program is 3 years long, the third of which you barely do shit and still pay full tuition which is another example of this program being a complete and total scam :-/

I wanted to correct the record a bit:

I'm a first year in the Screenwriting program and, so far, I'm very happy with the decision I made. The school attracts a lot of thoughtful, friendly and conscientious students and its rigor seems to be underrated.

As opposed to its private peers, UCLA is incredibly democratic. Every student gets a fair shot and there doesn't seem to be a lot of chatter about who is the son/daughter of someone wealthy or famous. I understand that this can come at the expense of certain networking perks but it makes for a peaceable and meritocratic environment.

Everyone in the program is pretty impressed with our professors. Each brings a different outlook and vibe to the table. Their standards are high and, sometimes, they do instill fear in students. But most agree that this is effective: no one feels comfortable slacking and a solid learning curve is going to come with some stress and fear. The commitment and presence these teachers bring, given that they all have careers outside of UCLA, is really surprising and they do care about making you into a better writer.

In this program, you write more than the others. As you probably know, there's no better way to improve your writing than... writing... a lot.

After the curriculum overhaul, the school seems to be a lot better about having students interact with students outside their program. This has been a really fun part about the program.

Overall: high praise. I'd make the same decision again.

I have loved this program so far! For me, it was the right move. Coming from out-of-state, I learned a lot about LA and housing, but it could have been worse. With the loans from FA, I was able to move relatively stress-free.

I have met like-minded individuals who are hungry to make a career for themselves in this industry. The professors are incredibly helpful, intelligent, and know what they're talking about. They care about students and their success.

The one thing I wish the program did a better job of was connecting us to industry professionals with the intention of getting our work out there. I feel like they should want their alumni to do well in the industry, so a little bit of a push would be great. But at the same time, they offer real advice about breaking in. It's tough but they are supportive.

I am going to write this review from the rationale of why I chose UCLA, and compare it to the other big film schools that exist in the top four.
UCLA is the best film school out there, but that obviously depends on your goals. They only accept 24 people a year, and even less than that for Narrative Directing. USC MFA selects significantly more twice a year and you are not even guaranteed that you will make one film; at UCLA you are guaranteed to direct 4 films, and unlike AFI and USC you own all the rights to every one of those films and can do with them whatever you please. With UCLA you are also offered a very esteemed network from the number one public university in the country, although AFI is a great network it only provides you the network in the entertainment industry. UCLA TFT also has theater attached to it so it has access to excellent actors, prop and set designers, as well as composers from the music school, and access to a world renown screenwriting program.
The only problem that I have with UCLA is the facilities. We actually have great useful facilities with 6 soundstages, but if you want the most beautiful film school you have ever seen and looks like a palace - go to USC. UCLA is a public school; it has what you need but it is not beautiful. BUT, UCLA is located on a beautiful campus right outside of the gates to Bel Air, and USC is in a not so great neighborhood (take your pick.) AFI is in Hollywood, and if you have ever been there, you either hate Hollywood... or hate Hollywood.

UCLA's program is top notch with wonderful filmmakers and well designed. The curriculum focuses on all aspects of production (Screenwriting, editing, directing, cinematography, producing, etc) which you should know as a good director, but directing is your primary focus. At AFI you only really focus on Directing, or Producing, Screenwriting etc. At USC it is just a degree in production and never really focus on one aspect unless you choose to.

Finally, NYU; Do you want to be in New York or Los Angeles?

I hope this helps. I love every day that I am at UCLA and all the focus that I receive from top notch instructors in order to become a successful filmmaker. I do not feel like I am lost in the machine of a school just trying to pump out students with a graduate degree that will serve me no purpose later on.