Low-residency MFAs

Judging from some of the comments I've gotten when I started blogging about good reasons to get an MFA and poor reasons to get an MFA, it sounds like a lot of low-residency MFA programs are being overlooked. Don't! These programs provide solid education and great flexibility for many individuals.


A definition: A "low-residency" MFA program is a program where much of the work is done remotely and interaction is primarily through correspondence and a minimum of 14 days of residential study each year. The MFA program will often break this up into two separate visits of 7-10 days. All other study is done from the student's home wherever that is in the country or world.

The AWP (Association of Writers and Writing Programs) says this by way of introduction to low-residency MFA programs in its Directors Handbook:

Since the first low-residency MFA program in creative writing was developed in the 1970s, higher education has established over thirty such programs.  With various combinations of residencies, workshops, lectures, online workshops and classes, study abroad, correspondence, and  one-on-one mentoring, low-residency programs vary; however, their chief attributes are individualized instruction and structural flexibility for students.  Low-residency programs require at least two years of study.  Students study literature and craft by writing original fiction, creative nonfiction, poetry, translations, screenplays, or plays; by analyzing contemporary and canonical works of literature; and by writing critical papers.  Programs also require culminating projects focused on the craft of writing—an extended craft essay, a lecture, or the teaching of a seminar.  The centerpiece of the course of study is a creative thesis, an original literary work in the student’s chosen genre(s). 

With its mentoring relationships involving one teacher and one student, or with small online workshops and seminars, the low-residency program excels in expediting the development of a writer.  Students in low-residency programs tend to be older than traditional graduate students.  Many students enter these programs intending to continue in their already established careers; these students find that their professional work is often improved by the skills they acquire in their artistic avocations.  Low-residency programs have a strong record of preparing graduates for careers in teaching, editing, publishing, public affairs, advertising, and administration. 

Lifestyle favorable: Low-residency MFAs are good choices if you aren't within driving distance of the school you want to go to and have a life you can't easily move. Great for people with kids in school, or a spouse that needs to stay put for work or family reasons, if you have a house you can't sell, or if you have a job. Yep, you don't have to quit your job to get an MFA if that's what you want to do. It'll be tough to juggle it all -- going to night school always is -- but it can be done.

Another perk is that low-residency MFAs do not (usually) come with teaching obligations to round out your funding. Although, if your post-MFA goal is to teach then this may be more of a con than a pro as the during-grad-school teaching obligations are also a form of getting experience. But if you know you don't want to teach -- ever -- then hey, bonus!

But remember that even though you get to keep your current normal life/job/living situation,  it is a form of "going back to school." Even though you meet in person only once or twice a year, you still have weekly homework, workshop deadlines, and scheduled internet chats/emails/etc. with faculty.

I've been told that to be a successful low-res MFA instructor you need to be good at expressing yourself in email -- that is, expressing yourself thoroughly and without confusion. So I'd assume that the flip side of that is that if you're a low-res student, you shouldn't be afraid of extremely long emails from your faculty; you should be willing and able to plow through those and learn whatever you can; you should be able to then express yourself succinctly through reply emails. Regardless of how well you can write a story, some people just can't email worth a damn -- odd, but true -- find out if this is you before you apply so that you can have a strategy for success or choose another route.

Niche and genre-favorable programs: If the classics aren't your thing and say, mystery writing is your thing, then odds are that there's a low-residency MFA program with a niche program for mystery writers. Same goes for screen writers, YA writers, science fiction, fantasy, romance, crime, and other forms of "commercial fiction," "popular fiction," or "genre fiction" (all three terms refer to the same thing and are used interchangeably). It's my experience that it's much harder to find programs that specialize in any of those things among traditional (high residency) MFAs, but there are quite a few now in the low-res world. The University of Southern Main, Seton Hill University, and Western Colorado are just a few I know off the top of my head. It's my opinion that more programs should be more open to training writers of popular fiction.

Non-MFA granting training programs: There are also non-MFA programs which are great.  Some of them, like the Odyssey Fantasy Writing Workshop, are potentially better than MFA programs in terms of how much you grow as a writer. If you're a sci-fi/fantasy/horror writer, consider Odyssey Fantasy Writing Workshop, Clarion, Clarion West, and others. For romance writers, join the RWA -- I don't know how much of an education the local chapters will give you, but I know that they often run bootcamps for members nationwide which you can attend (which anyone can attend but by joining the RWA you actually get notified of the upcoming event). I have little doubt that there are similar workshops and bootcamps for mystery writers and others interested in commercial genres check them out. They may be the alternative to a high residency MFA which is perfect for you.

Resources: While a google serach for "Low-residency MFA" will bring back oodles of results, there's also a handbook you can get in paper or Kindle format. It appears to be made by the same people who made the Creative Writing MFA handbook, which presumably didn't have an in-depth enough section on low-residency programs and thus the low-res volume. I've not taken a look at either -- they were either not in print yet or had gone out of print when I was applying to programs.

What I recommend is checking out the Portable MFA in Creative Writing (a $10-17 book) before you begin. If the book puzzles you, presents items you never thought of, makes you feel in over your head (ever so slightly) or tantilizes you to learn more, then getting an MFA may be just the thing to do. I remember looking at A Portable MFA before starting my program, and everything that I read sounded vaguely familiar. At the time, my vocabulary wasn't up to snuff (particularly the vocabulary I use to talk about writing) so it presented a challenge when the authors were talking about writing. But mostly I remember reading that book and agreeing with them on the lessons and the theory ... and then putting down the book and having no idea how to apply that to my own work.

And that is precisely what a good teacher/mentor can do for you: teach you how to take what works theoretically and make it work for you.

Forthcoming MFA posts: 

• How to find a program
• Why you should pay no attention to "rankings" for any school or program

Reasons to get an MFA in creative writing

Here's my big question -- before we even get into the "are you ready for an MFA?" and "where should you apply/go?" -- why do you want to get an MFA, and are your reasons strong enough to hold you through 2-3 years of graduate study?

Good reasons to get an MFA:

• You want to work on improving your craft.
• You are encouraged by having deadlines for your writing.
• You want funded time to write (assuming you get funding).
• You'd like to teach writing at the college level including composition.
• You learn well in a school-setting.
• You have a high threshold for pain when it comes to people critiquing your writing.
• You enjoy classic and contemporary "literature."
• You want to push yourself.

Poor reasons to get an MFA:

• You got a BA in English and don't know what to do next.
• You hate the thought of teaching freshmen to write essays and only want to be an artist.
• You want to be an artiste.
• Your writing doesn't need any work, you just need to network.
• You believe that once you're in an MFA program, you need only stay long enough to network your way to an agent/editor/publication.
• It will look good on your submission cover letters. 
• You think a masters degree in creative writing will make you employable.

An MFA, in theory, is the terminal degree for a creative (or artistic) form.  There are creative writing PhD programs out there, but for the moment both a PhD and an MFA are considered "terminal."  As a creative discipline, the Fine Arts part of your Master of Fine Arts degree makes you not terribly employable.  There are no ready jobs for MFA holders they way there are ready jobs for holders of JDs.  (Although lately there's no ready jobs for them either.)

With an MFA in creative writing you can teach college level writing classes -- most of these openings will be college level composition classes not college level creative writing classes. With an MFA in creative writing a couple publications, you can also teach community ed. classes in creative writing. You must have substantial publications in your creative field and substantial previous teaching experience to land a decent job teaching creative writing full time.  Know this ahead of time if it's what you want.

The time spent getting the MFA is a time to learn, but it's also a time to write.  That is the most valuable part of the MFA for any funded student: funding to write.  The most valuable part for the unfunded student: a chance to learn craft from people who (usually) are good teachers.

MFAs are horrible places to network your way to publication. Unless you make it into Iowa.  If you make it into Iowa and convince them to give you a degree, it will be easier (eventually) to get a teaching position and/or your first book contract. But every other MFA in the country is not Iowa.  Only Iowa is the Iowa of writing programs. No other MFA holds that clout -- no matter its "ranking."  More on that ranking nonsense tomorrow.

The MFA community can sniff out those who are there to network not learn. And it takes them about as long to find the fakes as it does the new family on the block to figure out if their neighbor is bringing them a casserole to welcome them in and save them from ordering pizza while unpacking, or it the goo and noodles in the corning wear is really just an excuse to get in the house and snoop. And those who are identified as using the program to network, don't ever integrate fully into the community. Although I will say that most of my faculty are the biggest name droppers I've ever met ... but that doesn't mean they'll introduce you, the student, just because you're there.  If you're looking to network, then go to local readings. Find out about readings, get on email listserves.  The university, library, or community group in your area likely brings writers and editors to town to talk and you don't even know it. Ask to be included on those email list serves and then, you know, attend readings -- it's one of the best ways to meet writers. And it'll generally cost you the price of their book (to get it signed) and not the few grand it would cost per semester of MFA.

State of the MFA: Year Zero

State of the MFA: this week's retrospective on the grad school process and plans for the future.
 
I begin before the beginning.  I begin with year zero.

I've posted in the past about how I finally came to the decision to apply to MFA programs. It was something that I'd greatly resisted when leaving college even though I majored in English writing -- my institution's degree that was half English lit, half writing classes.  I thought that writers had to be starving artists because they earned so little.

I rather liked food, so I applied to law school.

In short, law school sucked.  The parts of it that were cool, they told me I would not do as a practicing lawyer.  The parts of it that were a akin to waterboarding while watching paint dry, were the ones they told me I would do daily for the first ten years I practiced until I could afford to pay someone else to do them for me.  So I left.

Panic and whimsy hit me all at once.  I was in love with Chicago and I hated it.  I walked the South Loop and ground my teeth and hunched my shoulders against the wind and the drizzle.  I walked the lake shore and wanted nothing more than to sit next to a young tree and watch the waves.  I remember getting a copy of Poets & Writers mailed to me by my mother -- because for some reason you can't buy a newsstand copy of it in Chicago -- and going out to the marina during the last days of October.  I sat on the cold cement and dangled my legs over the edge.  Behind me, an occasional jogger or cyclist went by.  There were no boats tethered except one; the rest were already in winter storage.  One lone goose paddled up to me; he hung out with me the whole time I was there just in case I might feed him.  The chill seeped through my jeans, and my butt and thighs went numb, I gave the finger to the law school homework I'd been assigned and read every MFA related article in Poets & Writers until I could not feel my fingers for the cold.

Deciding to apply to MFA programs on or around November 1, is a difficult proposition.  I don't recommend it as a strategy.  But I was desperate, unemployed, not in school, and had just moved back into my parent's house.  It was a prove yourself by doing this situation.  So I did.

I applied to six schools.  Three were reach schools (fully funding all students), two were considered sleeper programs, and one was a safety school.  I don't necessarily recommend "safety schools" when applying to MFAs.  Wherever you apply to should be someplace you would actually move to and live there if you got in.  However, I was in a bit of a strange situation, what with the whole dashing of one plan -- I had done nothing but plan to be a lawyer for the 24 months prior -- and the unemployment, and the when are you going to move out of my house questions ... I was willing to go someplace I didn't really want to go to just to be moving forward.  I didn't get into the three schools that fully funded all students -- I later found out that they'd each had 2000-3000 applicants -- but I got into all of the other three, and went to one of the sleeper programs.

But in that dark period between Jan.1, when the last application was due and mid-March when they started letting people know, I did the smartest thing I could have done: I dedicated myself to writing the shitty first draft of a novel.  I finished it and proved to myself that I was a finisher not a quitter (quitting law school had put me in danger of thinking that way).  And I kept my mind off checking the MFAblog hourly.

At the time, the MFAblog was THE ONLY place to go.  Since then it's gone downhill and the Poets&Writers online forums for this sort of thing have improved drastically.  But don't post on either, or spend January and February checking either: it will only drive you crazy.  And then, two or three years later, you'll realize that you sounded just as naive, pretentious, impatient and whiny when you posted as those people who are posting today.

I think, in an ideal world, I would have asked more questions.  I would have taken my time applying.  I would have considered low-res programs that fitted my creative needs, instead of looking only for schools that would provide me with an excuse not to take my bizarre skill set into the job market during what was not-yet-called-a-recession.  Back then, my mindset was that if I showed up and applied myself, whatever teacher in whatever program could teach me to write well, and I could take that and use it as a foundation for whatever it was I wanted to do.  Back then, I also didn't know what I wanted to "do" in terms of my own writing.

I waffle between saying I would have been more successful if I'd waited until I'd known myself better, and saying that I learned more about my writing because I was in the MFA.  I think that if you're leaving nothing (like I was) to find yourself, then go and go boldly.  If you're leaving a job or moving a spouse ... maybe you want to find yourself first.

If You Were Running an MFA program ...

So -- again -- I make reference to Nathan Bransford's blog -- the man just has really interesting blog posts about writing!

This time, he has written the "If Nathan Ran an MFA Program" post, which is interesting even if it has a few big flaws.

Flaw One: why are there only three tracks (genre, literary or creative nonfiction)? Genre writers often don't want to work together, they want to work within their own genre ... there's a reason RWA holds it's own workshops and doesn't team up with the SFWA, genre writers frequently don't like all genre fiction. Lord knows I haven't picked up a mystery novel since Encyclopedia Brown and I wouldn't be too thrilled to do a detailed read through of your manuscript even if you thought you were on to the next Cat Who series.

Flaw Two: why is it plot vs style? Bransford says he'd (selfishly) teach plot first followed then by style. But isn't the argument normally plot vs. character? It is when you're talking about what "drives" the author's writing process and production. That, and don't you need a consistent style to apply it to the plot? I think if he's going to break it down into you must take Plot class then Style class the order and amount should be a semester or two of style (Style 101 and 102) and then 2 YEARS of plot (Plot 500 and 525) ... assuming you ascribe to Bransford's theory.

What would you do to plan your idyllic MFA program?

Me? If I were inventing a school of MFA I think it would be an unbelievably huge school because it would include separate genre tracks for students to focus in -- however "cross-crafting" would be encouraged, perhaps even required for graduation.

It would also have a year long required course called Style and Clarity the purpose of which would be to help the student develop a writing style that works the best for the writer -- the writer can write easily it and it sounds authentic and authoritative -- and then help the writer identify all the pitfalls of that style -- where do things tend to sag, to get bogged down, where does your style of writing frequently cause confusion, etc.

There would -- as suggested by Bransford -- be a course on "selling" your work, including cover letter writing and networking, hooks and contracts.

It would also be a five year long program because there would be a 1-2 year optional novel writing sabbatical. A time when you could phone in your hours but you would need to produce a full length text and then spend time working it over with a small group (five-ish, no more than eight) of about to graduate students.

The more I think about it, the more I think a low-residency MFA might have been better for me -- the quick 10 day flashes of workshop brilliance followed by "normal life" and finding ways to write during it. But that wasn't an option as there were other constraints in my life such as the need to move out of town and the need to gain some teaching experience (univ. instructor) because all of my previous jobs had made me want to tear out my hair. I couldn't have done a low-res MFA and still kept down an entry level job because the entry level job would have killed me.

Low Residency MFAs

Once upon a time I was asked a question on this blog about low res MFA programs. And I honestly had very little to say that you can't find elsewhere. Not that this helps overmuch, but you can read this blog post over on the emerging writers website written as the day account of a resent panelist at a low residency MFA and his take on what he saw there.

Basically (and this is the take that you can find anywhere else on the web) the low residency MFA is for people who want to get an MFA but cannot relocate to a new city because of job or family obligations. It is also a good program for people who do not want to use their MFA to write not to gain a college teaching position. It's great for writers who have a day job, want to keep the day job and enrich their lives through further study of writing.

In no way would I say that low-residency MFAs are lesser programs. Some of them are harder to get into than regular residency programs. It's not like going to "night school." It's an intense process and you have to be dedicated to it or you'll never get better. But it is a nod to the fact that many writers never earn a living off of their writing. And because of that you'll hear many people tell you not to apply to campus based full-time MFA programs unless you want to teach.