Why does a a Master's Degree in Film (MFA) take 3 years to complete at some schools?

IndieFilmmaker

New Member
Why does a Master's Degree in Film, also known as a Master's Degree in Fine Arts (MFA), take 3 years to complete at some schools like UT Austin?
3 years to complete it?!

Other Master's degree's in things like Software Engineering or in Education have around 30 hours at a lot of universities and yet a Master's Degree in Film is 60 hours?! It's twice as expensive, and takes twice the amount of time to complete. Why?

Certainly a Master's Degree in Film cannot be more complex and complicated than a Master's Degree in Software Engineering. I've been doing filmmaking a long time and this just seems really messed up to me.

It makes absolutely no sense to double the cost and time to complete a master's degree that may end up being a lot less worthwhile than something like a Masters Degree in Software or Education which are usually around 30 graduate hours.

I really don't understand the logic or reasoning for doing this. Can someone explain to me why it takes twice as long and costs twice as much as far as student credit hours at many universities?
 
Why does a Master's Degree in Film, also known as a Master's Degree in Fine Arts (MFA), take 3 years to complete at some schools like UT Austin?
3 years to complete it?!

Other Master's degree's in things like Software Engineering or in Education have around 30 hours at a lot of universities and yet a Master's Degree in Film is 60 hours?! It's twice as expensive, and takes twice the amount of time to complete. Why?

Certainly a Master's Degree in Film cannot be more complex and complicated than a Master's Degree in Software Engineering. I've been doing filmmaking a long time and this just seems really messed up to me.

It makes absolutely no sense to double the cost and time to complete a master's degree that may end up being a lot less worthwhile than something like a Masters Degree in Software or Education which are usually around 30 graduate hours.

I really don't understand the logic or reasoning for doing this. Can someone explain to me why it takes twice as long and costs twice as much as far as student credit hours at many universities?
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. 😂
 
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.
 
Last edited:
I looked at a lot of these different 60 hour MFA programs, and what they are doing is offering around 10 or so courses in film and then mixing in a lot of filler courses from the general MFA degree as "electives" and "core requirements" and bumping you up to a 60 hour requirement with extra filler courses that are not exactly cinema related and that are absolutely unnecessary and honestly kind of cruel. You're making students complete essentially 2 masters and pay for 2 but giving them 1.

To add more insult and class limitation to this whole process that puts things into perspective, the cost to attend AFI is more than some med schools per year. Med school is cheaper per year than a masters in screenwriting is per year? Seriously? You are writing, sitting down writing, no lab and hospital equipment and staff, no doctors or surgeons teaching you. Just insane when you consider that aspect of it as well.
 
Last edited:
It really truly does depend on the program. As one of those apparently insane people currently attending AFI for “sitting down and writing” I can assure you that that’s not the reality of what we are doing. It’s a full time job of work and none of it is filler. Other schools may have gen ed, but AFI does not. I am around professional filmmakers day in and day out who have resumes that would make you cry. IMDb is not an exhaustive list of someone’s experience. Many people work in the studio space in development for decades. Jobs like that don’t show up on IMDb. Most of the industry jobs outside production don’t show up on IMDb. The people I’m learning from have 1000s of years of collective experience across the filmmaking landscape.

Contrary to what people who don’t work in this industry on YouTube may tell you filmmaking is not something you can accomplish by being a jack of all trades. Roles exist for a reason and it’s a worthwhile investment to actually hone a singular craft.

Do you know how to develop ideas into viable features or pilots? How to build out those ideas into effective beat sheet, outlines, treatments while making sure your structure is in place before you start writing? Do you know how to do all of that and how to develop a pitch that will get you considered for a deal? Do you know the function of a story? The importance of plot? The importance of story? The difference between the 2? What makes a good short vs a feature? How to structure a feature vs a pilot? A comedy vs a horror vs a drama? What the rules of a short are and how to develop a short that will play festivals outside of the 10 min or less box? What the core essence of all films no matter the genre is? What the correct order of operations for an efficient, professional, industry standard production are? What the Frisian makers at agencies and studios look for and what they will simply ignore?

If you don’t find value in those things don’t go to film school. No one is forcing anyone to go to any school. Filmmaking is a complex art. People spend their lifetime mastering it. Arts not the same thing as law or medicine or software engineering. There’s a difference between learning what plays in an abstract space versus hard skills with concrete rules. Those things can be artful, but they don’t have the same ephemeral nature as filmmaking or painting or drawing. There’s hard skills to filmmaking, but at the end of the day it all comes down to how to make choices that exist in an abstraction. How to grade footage, choose camera position, guide performance, design space, choose where to cut and edit how loud a sound should be in relation to others are all extremely abstract skills that have conscious and subconscious effects of people’s perception of a work and even more so when they are all decisions falling on different artists making their own decisions to communicate an idea.

If a doctor doses medicine incorrectly a patient may die. The mistake is concrete. If a cinematographer over exposes film by 6 stops that may destroy the film or make it better. The decision only matters in the abstract.

Now sure debate the merit of a masters of an art form given that mastery will likely take a lifetime so can you really call it a master degree, sure. But it’s far more complex than you’re giving it credit. I can say without a shadow of a doubt I’ve learned more in the 2 months I’ve spent at AFI than I have in a career of advertising, undergrad, and my spouses own masters program combined.

I think about things in a way I was frankly never capable of thinking previously. I understand how my talent fits into the technical architecture that the industry requires. I’m learning about film finance, I’m learning about standard practices. I’m literally making films. Film is expensive. That’s just the reality. Successful microbudgets are a tiny fraction of content that gets attention.

You say there’s “no lab, no hospital, no doctors teaching you.” But this is simply not reality. Our lab is the fact we get to use $300,000+ equipment for free. Our hospital is the fact we have access to soundstages, a library full of scripts and films from the laundry list of success that’s gone through AFI, have working directors like Coralie Fargeat, Sean Wang, etc. come and speak with us and talk about their extremely successful films and how they made them a reality. Our doctors are the tidal wave of ASC, ACE, PGA, WGA, etc. professionals that teach every day. People like Stephen Lighthill, Anne Goursaude, Anna Thomas, Bill Dill, and literally dozens of others. BUT also the peers we have who each bring their own backgrounds like working for Denis Villeneuve, David Fincher, Francis Ford Coppola, etc.

As someone actually doing what you’re speculating about I do think the ROI is enough already. I’m not rich. I am middle class at best. I’ve been on food stamps before in life. I believe in my talent and am willing to try to nurture it into something valuable for me. Not anyone else. Everyone situation is different. You may not find value and that’s your choice, but for me an institution with connections and a track record of success growing people to a place they do great work is worthwhile and I feel I’m receiving that. School isn’t just something you go to and suddenly you’re successful. It requires your engagement and commitment to participating to get value from it. You have to work for anything you want in life.
 
It really truly does depend on the program. As one of those apparently insane people currently attending AFI for “sitting down and writing” I can assure you that that’s not the reality of what we are doing. It’s a full time job of work and none of it is filler. Other schools may have gen ed, but AFI does not. I am around professional filmmakers day in and day out who have resumes that would make you cry. IMDb is not an exhaustive list of someone’s experience. Many people work in the studio space in development for decades. Jobs like that don’t show up on IMDb. Most of the industry jobs outside production don’t show up on IMDb. The people I’m learning from have 1000s of years of collective experience across the filmmaking landscape.

Contrary to what people who don’t work in this industry on YouTube may tell you filmmaking is not something you can accomplish by being a jack of all trades. Roles exist for a reason and it’s a worthwhile investment to actually hone a singular craft.

Do you know how to develop ideas into viable features or pilots? How to build out those ideas into effective beat sheet, outlines, treatments while making sure your structure is in place before you start writing? Do you know how to do all of that and how to develop a pitch that will get you considered for a deal? Do you know the function of a story? The importance of plot? The importance of story? The difference between the 2? What makes a good short vs a feature? How to structure a feature vs a pilot? A comedy vs a horror vs a drama? What the rules of a short are and how to develop a short that will play festivals outside of the 10 min or less box? What the core essence of all films no matter the genre is? What the correct order of operations for an efficient, professional, industry standard production are? What the Frisian makers at agencies and studios look for and what they will simply ignore?

If you don’t find value in those things don’t go to film school. No one is forcing anyone to go to any school. Filmmaking is a complex art. People spend their lifetime mastering it. Arts not the same thing as law or medicine or software engineering. There’s a difference between learning what plays in an abstract space versus hard skills with concrete rules. Those things can be artful, but they don’t have the same ephemeral nature as filmmaking or painting or drawing. There’s hard skills to filmmaking, but at the end of the day it all comes down to how to make choices that exist in an abstraction. How to grade footage, choose camera position, guide performance, design space, choose where to cut and edit how loud a sound should be in relation to others are all extremely abstract skills that have conscious and subconscious effects of people’s perception of a work and even more so when they are all decisions falling on different artists making their own decisions to communicate an idea.

If a doctor doses medicine incorrectly a patient may die. The mistake is concrete. If a cinematographer over exposes film by 6 stops that may destroy the film or make it better. The decision only matters in the abstract.

Now sure debate the merit of a masters of an art form given that mastery will likely take a lifetime so can you really call it a master degree, sure. But it’s far more complex than you’re giving it credit. I can say without a shadow of a doubt I’ve learned more in the 2 months I’ve spent at AFI than I have in a career of advertising, undergrad, and my spouses own masters program combined.

I think about things in a way I was frankly never capable of thinking previously. I understand how my talent fits into the technical architecture that the industry requires. I’m learning about film finance, I’m learning about standard practices. I’m literally making films. Film is expensive. That’s just the reality. Successful microbudgets are a tiny fraction of content that gets attention.

You say there’s “no lab, no hospital, no doctors teaching you.” But this is simply not reality. Our lab is the fact we get to use $300,000+ equipment for free. Our hospital is the fact we have access to soundstages, a library full of scripts and films from the laundry list of success that’s gone through AFI, have working directors like Coralie Fargeat, Sean Wang, etc. come and speak with us and talk about their extremely successful films and how they made them a reality. Our doctors are the tidal wave of ASC, ACE, PGA, WGA, etc. professionals that teach every day. People like Stephen Lighthill, Anne Goursaude, Anna Thomas, Bill Dill, and literally dozens of others. BUT also the peers we have who each bring their own backgrounds like working for Denis Villeneuve, David Fincher, Francis Ford Coppola, etc.

As someone actually doing what you’re speculating about I do think the ROI is enough already. I’m not rich. I am middle class at best. I’ve been on food stamps before in life. I believe in my talent and am willing to try to nurture it into something valuable for me. Not anyone else. Everyone situation is different. You may not find value and that’s your choice, but for me an institution with connections and a track record of success growing people to a place they do great work is worthwhile and I feel I’m receiving that. School isn’t just something you go to and suddenly you’re successful. It requires your engagement and commitment to participating to get value from it. You have to work for anything you want in life.
This was so well worded and written... you should be a writer! 😂
 
Log your film school application with our Application Database so that we can improve our admissions statistics.




Latest Accepted Applications


Acceptance Data
For up to date Film School Acceptance Rates, including Minimum GPAs, Minimum Test Scores, After Interview and Off-Waitlist Acceptance Rates, Film Experience and Undergraduate degrees of accepted applicants, Age data, and other acceptance statistics for your film program of choice simply navigate to the Acceptance Rates tab on each film school's page in our Film School Database.

For example:
Log your own Application with our application database to help improve the site's acceptance data.

Latest Film School Reviews

  • USC School of Cinematic Arts
    1.00 star(s)
    Reviewed by: Current Student
    Degree: MA/MFA
    Concentration: production
    Useless video factory
    If you're a storyteller who believes that the most important aspect of filmmaking is the story, then USC is not the right school for you. I...
    • Anonymous
  • Columbia University's School of the Arts
    5.00 star(s)
    Reviewed by: Alumni
    Degree: MA/MFA
    Concentration: Screenwriting
    My Transformative Experience at Columbia
    Columbia University’s MFA Film Program has been a transformative experience for me, especially coming from UC Santa Barbara’s Film Studies program...
    • Zeno
  • Cal State Northridge (CSUN) - Department of Cinema of Television Arts
    1.00 star(s)
    Reviewed by: Alumni
    Degree: MA/MFA
    Concentration: SCREENWRITING
    MFA SCREENWRITING CSU NORTHRIDGE
    I had a friend who graduated from this institution's screenwriting MA Program and his work was used by his professor, JARED RAPPAPORT...
    • socalsun
  • American University - School of Communication
    5.00 star(s)
    Reviewed by: Current Student
    Degree: MA/MFA
    Concentration: Directing/ Writing
    Great MFA film and media arts program
    I am finishing up my MFA in film and media arts at American University, and I would highly recommend it for a smaller and more intimate, social...
    • Anonymous
  • International Film Institute of New York
    5.00 star(s)
    Reviewed by: Alumni
    Degree: Summer
    Best experience ever -- What a parent heard
    My daughter who is a high school senior attended the IFI summer program and she was thrilled to tell me so many positive things about her...
    • BYates

Latest Applications

Latest questions

Latest Articles

Latest Accepted Applications

Applications
Articles
Forums
Film Schools
Scholarships
Back
Top