More on MFA programs

Mike Daisey has responded to my post.

He writes:

I'm going to repeat a core assertion I made the other day from this post:

"I am speaking very clearly about the institutional choice to charge tuitions that have no relationship with the craft they are teaching. Individual teacher's complicity with this corrupt system will vary, depending on the specific institution's practices...If a teacher is teaching in an MFA program that charges a tuition its students can never pay through the craft, the onus is on the teacher to justify for his or herself how this can be ethical."

Institutions are built upon the collective efforts of individuals. The contention that "individual teachers' complicity with this corrupt system will vary" fingers these teachers as willing adherents to toxic entities, whether or not they hew to Daisey's concept of ethical behavior.

He continues:

The vast majority of theater MFA programs have very little financial support compared with other type of graduate programs, and the mean tuition is much higher--NYU's Tisch School of the Arts, for example, runs about $40K a year for three years, and that is without incidentals or interest on the loans it will require. If anyone who reads this knows where there are some studies of theater MFA program costs nationwide, post or email me.

Theater students seeking less costly alternatives to Tisch can choose from programs including:

- The University of Iowa, whose MFA in Theater Arts runs $22,346 yearly for Iowa residents, $35,228 yearly for nonresidents. That's including books and living expenses.

- Dell' Arte School of Physical Theater's , which costs $51,300 for the entire three-year program.

- The University of San Diego's MFA in Dramatic Arts, offered jointly with the Old Globe Theater. This highly selective program admits only a handful of students per year, but all receive a full-tuition scholarship and a monthly stipend. This financial support exceeds $50,000.

Daisey argues:

In the case of theater I believe a strong case can be made that the huge footprint of these MFA theater programs is saddling young artists with crushing debt that weakens the future of the form.

Who asked those young artists to sign on for expensive MFA programs, particularly when there are plenty of quality options that won't break the bank? As artists, we're fortunate enough to have many paths toward improving our craft. These exist both inside and outside the ivory tower. If I don't have the money to eat at a four-star restaurant, I make do with a salad at a cafe. Either way, I won't starve.

Daisey writes:

I would argue that perhaps one of the largest pitfall network effects of a capitalist society is the tragedy of the commons—in this case it is possible that a universally needed resource (future artists) is being exploited to ensure economic stability for the system today. By telling theater artists today that they must have training, and then making that training out of context to the industry they will be practicing their craft in we hurt the art form as a whole.

Exactly who is being exploited, and how? This is not indentured servitude, this is a willing decision to enter an academic program in the name of advancing one's craft. Other universally needed resources -- doctors, lawyers, educators -- pay their tuition and accumulate debt so they can enter their chosen professions. They have very little choice -- they are all locked into some sort of academic path. Artists aren't. In that sense, we are the lucky ones.