I think you're personally measuring what's "worthwhile" to you as opposed to understanding what is more worthwhile to others.
If there are schools that want you to learn about multiple disciplines in filmmaking, not just directing, that can take a long time. The way I see it is you have 3 years to learn more about screenwriting, with guidance; 3 years to learn more about directing and practice it, with guidance; etc. You have the opportunity to put your work into festivals that have student categories that can be less competitive than doing it on your own, plus resources from the schools to help you submit without cost. You can intern at companies you may not have access to if you're not a student.
So many different programs have long masters or doctorate degree requirements so I think, as always, it's up to the person to decide what school and program works for them. A conservatory like AFI is 2 years but equally as expensive as a 3 year program, but you're focusing on 1 discipline.
And I think the obvious note here is that not everyone wants to be a Software Engineer.
When I said worthwhile I meant in regards to average ROI. Going around $30k x 3 = $90k in debt potentially (more or less) is a serious life altering decision that gets even worse when the interest makes it balloon over time to $120k+.
Also as someone who did their undergrad, what these schools will not tell you is you have to apply for loans each year. This means you could get approved the first year, and now with more debt on your credit, get denied the next year with nothing else changed and have to drop out with nothing. Or it could happen the 3rd year you get denied on the remaining loan amount. They only approve the amount for that term at a time so it's a serious risk.
I look at a lot of the faculty and search the courses to see who are teaching them at different schools, and I then look up their work and often find I have done more work than they have. Or their work is really not very good at all.
A lot of schools also have no books, no official materials so there is no quality standard to assure you at least learn a minimum basic. You are now subject to the experience of that teacher you happen to get.
Maybe it's my skepticism and fear about being denied to complete it and taking out all that debt to then not have a decent ROI or way to pay the loans back.
I just feel like the overall process would be much more bearable and reasonable from a pure logic and common sense approach, to let students pick their concentration of directing, screenwriting, editing, etc. and lower it to 30 hours like many other standard graduate degrees.
I think someone getting the MFA in Directing at AFI would have no issue teaching courses in screenwriting or getting those types of jobs at all, so the idea that the concentration necessarily matters from a teaching perspective would be likely not even critical.
Many directors I know have done nearly all roles if they've been at it long enough. To say you couldn't define a curriculum to be 10 solid courses at 30 hours, and not cover the main things needed to know, seems pretty obvious that they are adding filler.
The real courses needed are things like contracts and raising capital and negotiating and packaging projects and there are no courses listed for that. Instead they add filler like Art History like someone hasn't already seen hundreds to thousands of films before applying. I would argue many students at that point have already took a related course as an undergrad or have studied the history of cinema on their own to even consider getting a masters in it. I use UT Austin as an example but many schools follow it's structure. It requires 60 hours and does not offer a single film finance course. You are basically absolutely screwed without a film finance course or knowledge. I speak from real world experience. The fact that they don't offer that is gross negligence as they are setting up a lot of students or major failure. And having a course on producing a short is not the same as producing a feature. You can utilize some things, but there are many major differences you need to know.
Again 3 years and 60 hours is the equivalent of 2 masters degrees for many of the other master degrees offered. Yet here is film wanting 3 years and 60?! To me that is pretty demanding and I have to say it's also a bit irresponsible of the decision makers in charge of making that decision at these schools to not make it more concise at 30 hours.
You would essentially cut students grad debt in half and assure some could even afford it. It in many ways a racial/economic block against the poor and middle class unless you receive the favoritism/blessing of getting the grants/scholarships on being the most likable candidate.
You have to essentially be an outright fool and a bit crazy to pursue it and start stacking that debt, to then roll the dice another semester in hope your loans will get approved again when you apply when there is no certainty at all that they will approve your next year loan when they run your credit again. And then if you manage to pull it off, then trying to get the ROI to pay it back when you didn't even take a film finance course on raising capital?! A lot of the faculty are so out of touch which can be seen by their IMDb resumes that lack any real experience that could pay off a $90k debt.
And then 3 years is at many schools is considered as the full time track. So if you are working it's even longer and you have a higher chance of dropping out with just debt. It's just statistics and adds a time factor.
Many wouldn't want to pursue a law degree but it's 3 years. And many say medical school is long, but 1 more year and you could have went to med school. And many may actually be around the same price!
So yeah, it just sort of makes me angry that they are asking you to spend the time and money of 2 master degrees to get one because it is cinema while there are so many theaters pretty much shutting down or going under, or doing poorly, and you have a dieing business model and in many ways film and movies feel like they are dieing based on the quality of content being funded or released versus historically.
I think now would be the time for these schools to really evaluate the ROI on these programs and the demands they are asking as far as time and cost.