Not another NYU vs. Chapman question

[lotrfan]

Okay, as you probably figured by now, this is another NYU vs. Chapman question. But believe me, it's different. I know everyone says that, but just go with it.

Anyway, my current situation is that I've been accepted to Chapman, USC, and NYU for Film Production. I've ruled out USC because I kind of applied on a whim and they put me in for Spring of 2010. So it comes down to Chapman or NYU. I've visited both schools, but I still can't make a decision. I'd love to live in New York, but it would ridiculously expensive. Chapman has great facilities, but it's not as "exciting" as New York, for lack of a better term that could make me sound less like a superficial teenage girl. My financial situation for NYU is that I'd be paying $50,000+ a year (with the given scholarships and assuming I don't get any outside scholarships), whereas for Chapman, I'd be paying $27,000+.

I guess what I'm trying to say (or ask) is, is the NYU education worth $200K in debt or does Chapman stack up comparably in terms of not only facilities, but faculty as well (the impression I'm getting is that Chapman only has good equipment but lousy teachers)? Also, as a side question, is it worth getting an MFA (not necessarily in production but in any aspect of film)? I was planning on doing undergrad only and then going from there, but now I'm not so sure.

 

[HandzOn]

Why rule out USC so quickly? (From what I hear) it's a a great program, kickass facilities and professors, which would make it exciting AND technically sound. Just a thought....

 

[lotrfan]

Well, I guess the thing is I really wasn't planning on going there in the first place. Then add that to the fact that they put me in for the Spring semester and that they offered no scholarships, it's really not at the top of my list. Also, I live in West Virginia, which is pretty far from California but pretty close to New York. I'd either travel really far to go to a cheaper school (Chapman), or stay closer to go to a more expensive school (NYU), but USC is far AND expensive. And as the adage goes, distance or price, pick one (right? isn't that how it goes?)

 

[Jayimess]

The logic of staying closer justifying a higher cost makes no sense to me at all.

But, whatever, it's your reasoning, thus you're the only one who has to understand it.

I think, if you love them both so much, you need to figure out which one you'll regret not going to.

When I was choosing between USC and UCLA, I knew I'd be happy at either program...but I had to sit there and flip it around...would I be more upset if I COULDN'T go to one or the other?

That was a huge help to me in the process.

Personally, I say take the money out of it...otherwise you can just go to school in your hometown and be done with the whole thing.

There is no better or best school, there's just the best one for you.

 

[jthamilton]

S/he is just saying that great distance from home and very expensive are both negatives (in his calculations), so USC has two negatives vs. Chapman (distance) and NYU (very expensive) with one. It makes sense to me.

 

[jthamilton]

I also don't think you can or should take money out of the equation unless you are so wealthy that it doesn't make a difference. Money is a part of every other big, important investment that we make. No one would tell you to take money out of the equation in buying a car or a home, or anything else that costs hundreds of thousands of dollars. In all of these cases, most people do and should want to get the best value for what they can afford. That may be the most expensive school or it may not be, but money is one of many factors that people can and should consider when making a decision.

 

[lotrfan]

Thanks Jayimess for your input, you have a really good point. But the reason I am even considering money at all is because as far as I know, Chapman and NYU are among the best film schools in the nation. Now, I've been on the tours and I like both schools, but obviously each school is going to say they're the best. So either one I go to, I'm confident that I will get a very good film education, but that's why I asked my question in the first place, because I'm trying to find out which school might be better relatively.

 

[jthamilton]

lotrfan, as to your original question, I'm sorry I don't have much help to offer in comparing the two schools, because, as jayimess suggested, the answer will probably vary depending on what your most important decision criteria are. If you are able to visit both schools, that might help you make your decision.
Also, as far as helping you determine if a certain school is worth it to you, I recommend checking out a loan payment calculator (as ONE part of your considerations) to figure out what your monthly repayment will be and for how long based on the amount of money you borrow. Good luck!

 

[lotrfan]

Thanks jthamilton, I couldn't have put it better myself. That's really what I'm looking for, the best value between these two schools. If, as a crude exaggerated example, I got accepted to NYU and a virtually free community college, then I'd definitely choose NYU despite the high cost.

 

[jthamilton]

well, so much for the idea that visiting will help you decide.

 

[Jayimess]

JTHamilton said:

"I also don't think you can or should take money out of the equation unless you are so wealthy that it doesn't make a difference. "

I disagree.

I am far from wealthy, much less "so wealthy that it doesn't make a difference." I am an orphan financing my education fully on loans, and when it came down to it, UCLA offered me significant incentives to attend, and thus was the far cheaper choice for me, and so money kept being the lead factor in why I would go there over USC. "It's so much cheaper," I kept telling myself, as did my family and friends.

But the program and curriculum here at USC was worth the extra money for me, and the regret wasn't worth the savings I'd get from UCLA in exchange for a program I didn't feel was right for me.

It seems to me that if you're still considering NYU at all, then money's not THAT big of a factor, right? Otherwise it'd be off the table, like, say, Columbia NYC is for many people because it costs $100K/yr. It'd be no contest, the cheaper school wins.

If NYC at $50K is a finalist, and Chapman at $27K is a finalist, then take the money off the table and start looking at what program gives you what you want.


Regarding schools saying they are the best, this is true, they all do it. The difference between NYU and Chapman is that other people, not just the school, have declared NYU as a top school for decades. Same goes for USC, UCLA, AFI, Columbia. Chapman's program is new and thus its reputation is not as solid nor recognized. The Chapman people will be the first to tell you that doesn't mean anything, and they are right.

Rankings are pretty useless, in my opinion...top five or whatever, but it must be said, if one cares about such things, that Chapman is not considered one of the so-called "big five film schools" by most, if all rankings. Top ten or twelve, yes. That doesn't mean it's not a good school, before the Chappies come at me with their fire and brimstone. UT-A, FSU, Loyola, Columbia Chicago, Emerson, Ohio, Cal Arts, and more are all recognized as great programs, highly ranked, too.

What do you want from film school? How will NYU make that happen? What about Chapman?

Where do you want to end up? If LA, will you be better served at Chapman for four years, or will NYU's industry pipeline do you better? What if you want to be in NY? Can Chapman get you there?

Do you want to do TV? Do you want to do games, web? Which school will teach you what you want to know, and which school's students will be filmmakers you want to work with for the rest of your life?

Best of luck.

 

[jthamilton]

Originally posted by Jayimess:


I am far from wealthy, much less "so wealthy that it doesn't make a difference." I am an orphan financing my education fully on loans, and when it came down to it, UCLA offered me significant incentives to attend, and thus was the far cheaper choice for me, and so money kept being the lead factor in why I would go there over USC. "It's so much cheaper," I kept telling myself, as did my family and friends.

But the program and curriculum here at USC was worth the extra money for me, and the regret wasn't worth the savings I'd get from UCLA in exchange for a program I didn't feel was right for me.

That is simply your experience making your decision. No harm in telling it of course, some may find it helpful. The original poster however, did express a concern about money, and telling him/her that that concern should not be part of the equation makes no sense. It IS part of the equation for this person. Just because you have a high tolerance for debt does not mean that everyone does or should.

lotrfan said that he (she? ahh, gender neutral pronouns) is having trouble making a decision i.e. that there is no one clear front runner. In my world, $100k is a ****load of money, and if there is no clear front runner, I would choose the school that is 100k cheaper. If 100k is not a lot of money to you, or you don't mind eating ramen forever (which I think you said once) or you are willing to pay any amount without limit to go to USC, well, ok. It is certainly your prerogative to make that decision. No one would argue that point.

Someone might also, for example, take out a 200k loan on a Lamborghini and be perfectly satisfied with their decision and convinced it was worth it, even if they never really got out from under the loans they took to make that purchase (actually, in that case they could discharge the debt because of bankruptcy/repossession, and also if they couldn't afford it, they probably wouldn't be able to get the loan in the first place--but anyway) and were poor forever and as a result couldn't get a loan to buy a house or save for retirement or whatever. They might still think their decision was a good one. That doesn't mean that kind of purchase would be a good decision for everyone, nor would I advise someone to have a "money is no object" approach to buying anything. We, of course, disagree on this. Again, perfectly fine--but I just want to offer my opinion to lotrfan (and others reading): it perfectly sensible if money is one of your decision making criteria. Even for school. Even for (gasp) film school.

Another thing worth noting is that a decision to take out massive loans for school results in most of the benefits up front (yay! i love film school! it is so fun to work on films and talk about films all day!) and all of the costs (coming up w/$1k-1500 per month for 25 years) on the back end. I'm not saying you will regret your decision to take out the loans! Only that the true cost of your decision does not effect you until years after you make it. You might think differently 5 or 10 or 20 years from now. Worth consideration, specially for someone of a traditional entering undergraduate age (17 or 18) who has never had the responsibility of making a financial decision of this size and with these consequences.

 

[Jayimess]

JT,

To liken film school to a Lamborghini is ludicrous.

Best,

Jayimess



Seriously, though, I mention many other criteria to consider when choosing which program is best for you...I personally, and only speaking for myself, eliminated many schools based on various criteria, and as I mentioned, cost (here's a gasp for ya, JT, lol) knocked Columbia off the table. FOR ME.

But lotrfan, our OP, clearly has more on their non gendered mind than cost, otherwise lotrfan would be committed to the less-expensive school already. There are other factors. So, what's wrong with taking money off the table for a minute or two?

Without getting into a long, tedious debate, I challenge anyone to do this, if they feel money is turning into the big decision maker:

What if the programs both cost the same amount of money? Where would you go?

The reasons that fuel that decision (i.e. curriculum, facilities, location, faculty, students, opportunities, interests, atmosphere) are the reasons that will determine if the dollar amount is worth it or not.

To me, and I can only speak for myself, obviously, the less-expensive school wasn't the best choice for me, and I couldn't see that until I stopped looking at dollar signs. I wish it had been true, because I would've saved money at UCLA...but I wouldn't have gotten what I needed from a program, so the savings would be nullified, and I would be unhappy, even though my loan payments were lower. I also found that a more expensive school wasn't for me, so it's not like I'm a label *****.

THE PROGRAMS ARE WHAT MATTER, REGARDLESS OF PRICE.

And for the record, hellz yeah, I do love film school. It IS so fun to work on films and talk about films all day. Yay!

Seriously, it's been the greatest experience of my life, and to think that my career will be something like it is something that I couldn't imagine until I got here.

I saw a billboard this morning that I was surprised was for beer: You only live once...make sure it's enough.

I don't know...I feel it's relevant here.

I think I've said all I can, and lotrfan, I really hope you let us know what you finally decide! As I've mentioned before, I don't think you can make a bad decision here, you're in a great place. It comes down to the best place for you.

 

[jthamilton]

Originally posted by Jayimess:
JT,

To liken film school to a Lamborghini is ludicrous.

Best,

Jayimess



Seriously, though...
.....
.....

Haha. Terse "comeback" effect nullified by long explanation.

Only likening making a decision about film school to making a decision about another big ticket item. Point being that one's conviction that a purchase is "worth it" does not make it worth it for everyone. Hundreds of Gs are hundreds of Gs.

Nothing wrong with taking money of the table "for a minute," but consistently telling people that money should not be a factor in their decision seems, to me, patently unwise advice. And in the case of this poster, it disregarded much of the essence of the dilemma she expressed.

 

[Jayimess]

See, now, I wasn't being the least bit terse, I was joking. Ha, ha, ha, like it was a letter. Sheez. I guess I'm not funny.

OP asked if one of the programs was worth more than the other. I don't know how what I've stated doesn't help them find the answer to that question from within themselves instead of answering it for them. It's not like it's a yes or no question; it comes down to the individual.

I don't think that price should be the ONLY factor, or even the most important one, otherwise none of us would go to film school, or private universities at all...we'd all go get sure thing jobs with MBAs and JDs, go to cheap state schools, or even just join the family business.

But we're all going or trying to go to film school. I mean, I have a classmate here at USC that abandoned a successful career as a corporate attorney to come be a screenwriting student, before she'd even paid off her BS and JD loans...and never looked back...as she says, she had to chase her bliss, not her bank balance. She's 36 years old, so she's got a reference point for living with misery that I can't even imagine...my epiphany came when I was 25.

Allowing your life to be ruled by money, to me, is patently unwise advice that will only lead to misery. I think we all approach life differently, so yeah...we disagree.

And that's okay, right?


.....................

What it comes down to, it seems to me, is that the OP wants someone to tell him/her that NYU is worth it because s/he wants it to be worth it. It seems to me that NYU is where s/he wants to be, and the cost is holding him/her back.

Otherwise, if money was all that mattered, there wouldn't be all this talk; NYU'd be ruled out strictly on price. Or if location was all that mattered, Chapman would be ruled out strictly on distance. And so on.

Lotrfan, you gotta figure out what's right for you, and our continuing debate probably (definitely?) isn't helping, is it? I was trying to offer assistance, and I apologize if jthamilton is right and I was of little or no help, and for the hi-jack of this thread with money money money talk.

Sometimes, I wish there was just some weird internet tool that you can plug information into and it tells you the right decision, not just for film school...for everything.

It's been another great day at work spent on the internet, friends, but now I gotta head to class. Matt Wiener's here, and Mad Men is sweet.

Again, Lotrfan, best of luck, and be sure to tell us what you choose!

 

[jthamilton]

Originally posted by Jayimess:


Allowing your life to be ruled by money, to me, is patently unwise advice that will only lead to misery.

I agree with this 100%. If you have to make very high loan payments, then you have to make very high income to afford them. To me that means taking a job the main criteria of which is that it pays well so you can pay your loans.

I live a creative-ish freelance-y life in NYC (high cost of living city, admittedly, but important to me) where I can work on my own projects and other people's projects that I believe in. My margin of left over money living this type of life is very low. If I had high student loan debt I would have to get a consistent, steadily high paying job and would likely (not certainly) have less creative freedom. Less overhead=more flexibility to take the jobs that I want, including those that may not pay well initially.

Nothing is certain, this is just the way I have figured the cost/benefit analysis. I'm still waiting on some financial aid packages from schools, and my fingers are crossed. I'm really hoping to go to film school, too. Money will be a factor in that decision.

I hope the articulation of both sides of this argument helps the OP and others. This is clearly an issue that many people wrestle with; I don't think the back and forth here has been in vain. Hopefully not.

 

[lotrfan]

Guys, this debate hasn't been in vain and it's helped a lot, or at least, it's helped me think about some things that I haven't really thought about before. To answer a question earlier, if money was not an issue, I'd choose NYU in an instant. It's New York City, I'm going to a school with plenty of classmates and creative individuals to collaborate with, and it's close(r) to home.

Being an east coast guy (sorry if that reference about the teenage girl in my first post threw you off), I'm unfamiliar with California. I don't feel "at home" in California, probably because I'm not. But I can adapt to that. Also, at the same time, there are great facilities, and because of the smaller class size, it may be easier to connect with and get to *know* other filmmakers whereas in a larger school I would just know of them. But then once again, it comes down to cost. As much as I want to go to NYU, I don't think it's worth an extra $100K in debt. $25K even $50K more, I could swallow, but $100K is a bit ridiculous. Maybe if I win the lottery in the next two weeks, I'll go to NYU (I'm only half joking). I mean, I went and talked to the financial aid counselor, and I basically begged them, and they were able to offer me an extra $1500 per year. Not exactly generous in light of the costs, but it is what it is. So that's my decision, for now, unless something drastic happens in the next two weeks, which would be pretty sweet. But until then, I'll be choosing Chapman.

 

[Jayimess]

Yay, LOTRFAN, it must feel great to make a decision. Thanks for sharing it with us.

I'm sure you'll like Chapman. SoCal looks forward to having you aboard!

And of course I'm so glad to hear that you weren't bothered by our debate!

 

[lotrfan]

Well, it's a tough decision, and there's really no clear winner. But I feel Chapman offers very good opportunities, maybe not the same ones as NYU, but good opportunities nonetheless. And the substantially lower cost means that I'll be able to come out of school with one less thing to worry about as I run around and try to find a job. I mean I don't have much experience making films right now, but I'm stubborn and unrelenting as heck when I find something I like to do, and I think that's the most important thing at any school or profession, is to just keep at it. The whole reason I even had this internal debate about NYU and Chapman in the first place was because I applied to Chapman and NYU and I didn't think I had a chance to get into NYU. Chapman notified me first, and I was all set on going there and then I heard back from NYU. And considering that I'm down to these two schools, I figure I could do a lot worse, since I had thought about majoring in graphic design at WVU or even the local community college (this was around February, when I was sure I wouldn't get accepted to any school).

Also, every renowned director I know of that came out of NYU went to the grad film school, not undergrad. Which leads me to my other question, is it worth it to get an MFA in anything film-related (production, screenwriting, etc.) if you already have a BFA in film? Is it worth it to get an MFA at all?

 

[Jayimess]

I think if you have a BFA in what you want to do, an MFA will be redundant...unless you feel you didn't get what you needed in undergrad. The vast majority of us MFAers majored in something completely different in undergrad...For instance, one of my classmates was a neuroscience major...or we went to schools that didn't teach us all we felt we need to know, like myself, which only offered a taste of film, one screenwriting class and three production classes.

There are also many undergrads who don't get the most of their first go at college because they just aren't focused enough until it's too late. I hope you're not one of them, but you seem like you've got your head on straight.

I think it's amazing how we don't have any faith in ourselves. Congrats on having enough faith to apply...feels good to get in everywhere, right?