My thoughts on education for writing is not as important as say education is for a vet or other high paying hard jobs. But for a writer going to school can have benefits in experance and you do learn new ways to write and you learn great advice. I'm planning to go to university to be a vet or a teacher. Depends how I feel by then (to be a teacher I'd be going to a university close to my town, I know for some thats a plus, but for me it means seeing my family more then I'll like, ug, but if I do go to school to be a vet I'll have to pay more money and in high school I'll have to take certant science classes and I' might not be able to go in art for two of my high school years .....) If you are planning to get a degree then you should try for one that will help you in your writing AND gets you a paying job. The job will be a safety net if your writing doesn't do good (not saying it won't). Plus it will give you a lot of experance in the real world, thus making your writing better.
One last little food for though... Lost in thought just said "It's not as important for a vet or higher paying jobs" and I've heard that too. I guess to me it's kind of dumbing down what it takes to be a writer. It's okay, writing is so easy you can teach yourself and classes are just a waste of money since you won't learn anything you can't teach yourself. If you're talented enough you can do it on your own. I really think that dumbs down the art of writing and makes educators out to be idiots, when I think it is a very difficult and hard working career (don't worry not attacking you Lost!!!!!) and to say school isn't necessary or not worth it devalues the skills someone has learned or is teaching. Maybe that's just me... Maybe this comes from having a professional career as a photographer and graphic designer. People go out and buy a camera and think they can shoot weddings suddenly because it's so easy to push a button or people thinking they own photoshop can design logos when you shouldn't use photoshop for design in the first place. Just because you have Microsoft word doesn't make you a good writer and just because your talented doesn't mean you can't gain something from taking further education.
I was in the same boat as you are, in middle and high school teachers always told me that I wrote very well, though my spelling was horrendous, and still is. But I didn't really see it as anything that I wanted to do with my life until my senior year in high school when I took a creative writing class just as an easy A. Through that class and having to constantly do free writing activates, write short stories and poems, I guess you could say that my love for writing surfaced. Although I loved writing and now felt that it was something that I really wanted to do I didn't peruse it much because I wasn't sure how my parents and friends would feel about it because I was big on what everyone thought of me and I just felt like people would see that as a bit odd so I went into college with my mind set on majoring in physics. After my first chemistry class I knew that it wasn't for me so I switched majors and now I am majoring in creative writing and it was easily the best decision I have made in a long time. I haven't gone too deep into the classes yet but so far I am very happy with the choice. I say no matter how well you do something naturally, supplemental instruction always helps.
You're not wrong. Really, no one is. The photographer example is simply because the bar was lowered enough with the advent of inexpensive digital photography made it so everyone can take photos with a lower barrier of knowledge. It also means that anyone could take a photo with the chances of it being a true work of art--though, the chances would be lower than someone who can steers those odds back in their favor with expertise and know-how. Same with filmmakers. I wouldn't say the modern word-processor is much different. The levels that a grammar check can go to could fix a lot of the technical problems that would not be as readily apparent to some goofball blasting away on a typewriter. The problems in both scenarios are still the same: tone, structure, story, etc. When the barriers fall, as a general populace, the amount of worthwhile art (in all mediums) can only go up. Sure, that will crowd our chosen expertise, but the onus is on us to rise to the challenge and prove our worth. It also increases the amount of tripe at the bottom. Technology helps us became technically more proficient with less training. It does not make the art for us.
Personally, I need a writing coach or partner more than I need a teacher. A partner will give you a good kick in the ass when you're being lazy. A teacher will give you an F. I guess one motivates me more than the other!
Well, things may have changed in the last few years since I went to college. Students could audit a certain number of classes, sure, but not all. And non-degree students still had to be registered students at the college. If, someway, one could actually get accepted into one class as a non-student, I'm not sure why that would be better than attending a workshop or conference. Now, talking about a masters, yes, that is a whole 'nother ball of wax. You have to have a bachelor's degree to get into those. And non-degree students definitely have to pay the same tuition as degree students. And if your current degree isn't at least somewhat related to the masters, you'll have additional classes to take. In general (since there have been so many posts since I looked at this last) I would say that one has to consider the cost versus the financial benefits. For writers, I don't think it's worth while, especially if talking about a masters. Yes, people with degrees overall make more money than those without. However, that's statistically. A medical doctor will make more than a mechanic. Unless the doctor decides to be a mechanic, in which case his degree is worthless. And I know many mechanics (no degree) who make more than social workers (degree). So just having 'a degree' doesn't mean you'll make more money. Can you learn more about writing in college? Sure. Can you learn to write better? Maybe. Will it get you published faster and/or for more money? Doubtful. Editors and publishers don't care about your education - they care about the story in front of them.
Of course all students have to be registered at the school, you can't just show up and hand the professor a hundy or something. Not sure where the confusion was, as I certainly didn't intend to imply non-students were showing up for classes. Just wanted to counter the notion that anyone wanting to take a single class would have to go through tons of per-requisites. As that's simply not always true, and in my experience especially if you're not a degree seeking student and instead are wanting to simply take a class. It depends on the conference or workshop, and the class, but many classes will be far more in depth, with far more personal attention, that most conferences or private, non-academic workshops. It depends, though, and I won't attempt to counter ever possible definition of these words, but if you clarify which you're talking about specifically, I'll try. True, you need a bachelor's to get into a graduate program (whether a Masters, Masters of Fine Arts, or PhD, all of which one can get with writing-related emphasis). You can't be a non-degree graduate student. Or at least I've never heard of it. Or are you talking about undergrad again? Yes, everyone pays the same tuition, but I was countering the assertion one would have to take a bunch of expensive prerequisites if they wanted into a fiction class. That's simply not always true. As I mentioned, in my experience, it's generally easier to get waivers into upper division classes if you aren't part of a degree program and are non-degree-seeking or just wanting to audit courses. If you're an English major, sometimes even if you've scored high enough to be tested out of English 101 or 102 (often the basic pre-reqs for any higher English courses), they'll want you to take those classes as they prepare you (in theory) for success in a degree program. If you're just some guy who is interested in taking a few fiction classes, you can often waiver past all that stuff. For instance, my local university requires 'introduction to English studies' course (or some name like that), but if you aren't getting an English degree, and aren't interested in anything but taking a few fiction classes, they aren't going to make you sit there hearing about the virtues of a linguistics degree. [/quote]And if your current degree isn't at least somewhat related to the masters, you'll have additional classes to take.[/quote] Your undergraduate credit very rarely counts towards a graduate program. It only counts, and only sometimes, if you were able to take appropriate graduate classes while an undergrad. I don't know of a single Masters program for writing that require a degree in anything specific. You just need a bachelor's degree. That's it. In fact, many programs make a point of the fact they don't care what your undergraduate degree was in, and have taken applicants in the past from a variety of undergraduate degrees. I'm sure we're both getting annoyed at my frequent quoting, but I want to be clear about where you're misinformed. Many Masters programs in creative writing a funded. The best pays you nearly 30 thousand dollars in stipend for the two 4 month semesters, and with no teaching requirement on the part of the students. 30 thousand dollars a year for 8 months work to do nothing but write. That's the best program, but some programs not even ranked in the top 50 will still pay writers upwards of 12 thousand. Sure, nobody is getting rich, but that's more than most writers will ever make in their lifetime writing, and they're giving you that money to then also sit in classes and workshops and study the craft of writing. A Masters or PhD is precisely where it's worth it, as you're (in theory) getting top notch instruction and they're paying you. Granted, there are programs with no funding, that in my opinion aren't worth it, but generalizing that all Masters programs aren't worth it is a bit ignorant. And, of course, all students must consider the cost vs. reward, but it's short sighted if you think the only reward that should be weighed is potential earning power. Even in undergraduate situations, depending on the quality and depth of the program, the reward in terms of contacts and letters of recommendation and insights into the business and general benefit of education are all something that should be considered. If you're ever, as a writer, focusing on your monetary reward, you might as well just quit now. The best a writer can hope for is learning their craft and the business and putting themselves in the position to get lucky. If you don't think formal education can help do that, then I'm guessing there's no convincing you, as there seem to be two camps of writers: those that take every opportunity they can to succeed and those that put down every opportunity that for whatever reason didn't work out for them. Again, you seem to be arguing generalities I wasn't making. I wasn't talking about a doctor making more money than a mechanic. I'm talking about, by and large, a teacher with a masters making more money than a teacher without; a mechanic with a degree making more money than a mechanic without; just about any state or government job where people make more money based on their level of education, not to mention the many jobs you can't even qualify for without a degree in something. This is another area you're kind of right, but thinking about it in such a limited way you're actually pretty wrong. It's not the degree that anyone is impressed with, though there are plenty of graduate programs that will get the notice of editors and agents. It's the fact you were obviously smart enough to get into and succeed in a graduate level program. It's the other writers, often highly acclaimed and with many useful contacts, that you end up forging relationships with. It's the proof you can meet deadlines and standards and work as a professional. So no, having the piece of paper doesn't get you much, but everything that went into it does matter, particularly the contacts. It's naive to think that the quality of your writing is all that matters. It's the biggest factor, of course, it's the most important thing a writer can control. And a lack of quality will sink one quicker than anyone else. The reality is there are increasingly more, increasingly better writers in the world. Many of them, like it or lump it, are in fact coming out of formal education. It's in part because giving a writer time to focus on their craft, well, gives a writer time to focus on their craft. But also it's become big business in a sense, fueling the industry of writing, and tons of contacts and networking and getting a writers foot in the door in a way relying on the slush pile just doesn't do. What's better, having the perfect novel that can still never be read by agents if your query isn't great, or if they're too busy, or the slush reader didn't personally like the idea, etc. Or having the award winning writing-professor in your Masters program send you a personal recommendation to an agent he/she knows in New York? And don't think a degree matters? Sure, you can become a great writer without one, but take a look at the bios of people winning O. Henry awards and Pushcarts, etc. Very often, an MFA or PhD is listed. Sometimes they went, and it isn't listed. But they've usually had some form of formal training. Oh, is that just literary crap you don't like? Well, Michael Chabon, who was just a literary, MFA darling for years, goes ahead and wins the Hugo and Nebula awards too, you know, the awards given to genre fiction. And more graduate programs are offering courses in novels and even genre fiction. I'm not saying a degree in creative writing makes a writer, but there certainly seem to be trends as an increasing amount of writers are finding success with such degrees. Maybe they all just wasted their money, though?
Just a couple responses here and then I probably should drop out of this discussion. I know from experience that it is harder than hell to get into a good class if you are not in that program. This is because the good classes typically have students within that program waiting to get in. The higher the level of the class, the harder it is to get in, especially during a particular semester. I've known students who waited two years to get into one class. Now, it is possible to audit a class, in which you get no grade - but I doubt many professors will spend as much (if any) time with that student when they have their other students to deal with. Regarding students in master's programs getting paid - yes, if they get a fellowship or an assistantship. Those are extremely hard to come by. Giving the impression that all, most, or many students will get paid by the college/university is very misleading. Fellowships are given based on merit (ie, what have you done to prove you're worth it) and some require you to give at least some lectures; assistantships means you're teaching or student-teaching - which eats up a lot of the time you would've spent writing. Plus you have your own studies to deal with. Yes, there is something to be said for networking - but unless your career goal is within the industry... but it's not going to get you published. If your professor knows someone, maybe it'll get your ms looked at sooner. I'm not saying there's anything wrong with going for a degree at either the bachelor's or master's level. I'm just saying that there are huge costs involved (unless you're one of the very few lucky ones as mentioned above) and one needs to be aware of that. The benefits depend on your career goals. But if you "only" want to be a writer, there are numerous and less costly ways of doing so. And they have the same guarantee of success.
Maybe what she wanted to point out is that teaching creative writing is not as easy to teach as say for example medicine or other theoretical professions. It's something you learn by practising and reading, and some of it I believe is even pure talent, and while studies sure help understanding many of the aspects of the craft there's nothing saying just because you studied it you will become a good writer. I think we can all agree that studies are never wasted , whatever you want to become, but in this case practise and self-studies (reading) might be even more important than that. You can be a good writer with no formal education, but you can't be a good writer without (a lot!) of practise.
Again, not true. I don't mean to sound rude but in a lot of your posts, on one side you say it's misleading to say something, but to back up your points, you revert to generalities instead of specifics to make it. There is absolutely no reason why 75% of tuition cannot be paid through outside sources. The amount of scholarship and grants out there are tremendous. People just don't tap into them or refuse to work for them. There are foundations, programs that often times if you show a need and a drive to learn ... will help you if you seek them out. Even many employers these days have some sort of program in which they will reimburse you for your tuition expenses if you choose continue with your education. There are more grants and scholarships out there that just don't get used and a lot of the time is that people just don't want to work to meet the requirements for it. And that's the problem, people want to be handed success, they want to be handed a free money to pursue formal education, but they don't want to work for the right to have a free formal education. So many people complain about lack of money, or lack of time, or lack of whatever, but the resources to overcome those hurdles are out there, they truly are, it's just people don't want to work for them.
The thing that bothers me is the misinformation being given to people based on generalities. It's easy to make false generalities that seem true, that support one's personal perspective, but that doesn't serve others very well who may actually be looking for information. Hilariously, I'm actually personally quite against a lot of the things I may seem to be arguing for. Why? Because I understand my personal experiences and biases that have formed are only relevant to me, and meanwhile there's a lot of writers out there that may benefit from the truth and information on the situation. To give my personal, biased opinion only serves to support my own experiences. That's why they call it self-serving bias. Giving information and facts serves to support others who may be looking for options. I'll prefer to continue doing the latter. It would be pretty easy for me to also generalize about how writing degrees are like totally useless since it didn't make me famous, but what's the point in that? Sitting home reading thousands of pages of library books didn't make me a famous writer either, despite being free, so I'm also not going to generalize about how the library is a sham. If an option didn't work for you personally, that doesn't mean it's a bad option in general, especially when the option is presented as fact and information based so others can decide for themselves.
You know, in this whole thread. There have been a few posters who are arguing pro-education and are really trying to flesh out the benefits of formal education, but on the flip-side, for many that are arguing against the path, I have yet to see any substantial claims of what self-education can provide that formal education cannot. Other than the money aspect, I just don't see many reasons as why self-education is a substantially better route. Sure, you can list examples of authors who made it without formal education, but I can list just as many authors who made it with formal education too. So many that are arguing against formal education are listing the pros and cons of formal education, but surely there are cons and pros to self-education as well, yet, I just don't see anything being presented on that side other than vague generalities.
I tried to come up with some ways self-educated writers have an advantage, but couldn't, not even monetarily. These days, writing in general is less about the pure genius of a creative mind, and far more about properly constructing yourself as a writer. For better or worse, of course. The people I've seen who thrive as self-educated writers are still spending the time and money for education and study, it's just not formal. They're spending time-money going to conferences and taking workshops and buying how-to books and attending readings and hitting blogs and social networking sites to make contacts, etc. What a good writing program (even at undergraduate levels) does is brings all that to the writer. Instead of having to figure things out for yourself, which may take years, you're given direct to help that figuring out occur faster. Whether it's the business side or the craft side, the biggest benefit of formal education is someone else has done much of the organizing for you. All the stuff you have to do anyway if you hope to make it is presented to you, for you to then use (hopefully), instead of having to figure it all out yourself, hope it's 'right,' and then trust yourself to use it without an external deadline looming. Sure, a self-educated writing can learn how a book tour works if they hit up enough blogs or forums online... but there's a certain benefit to having an internationally best selling author standing in your class with 10 other students and answering questions you have. Sure, one can find good writing lessons if they peruse enough blogs, forums, how-to books, etc, but there's a certain benefit to having an instructor who has refined fiction lessons over the years and has seen first hand what works and what doesn't. But yeah, a self-educated writer can get all the same stuff, I suppose, it just arguably takes more time, and perhaps even just as much money unless you're really lucky to already know people or live in a writing mecca (like NY and... ummm... NY I guess). Arguing for self-education is hard, because it doesn't actually argue against formal education, as they're still education and require much of the same time, effort and funds. It's just easy to say one can do all the same things being self-educated, and then gloss over the details, allowing others to fill in the blanks and assume self-educated means sitting back waiting for the world to simply recognize one's genius without having to put in time and money to make success possible.
I'll admit, before I say anything else that I haven't read the whole thread. I know I should, but frankly I don't have the energy, sorry. Sundae- certainly for the people who are arguing against formal education, money is going to be the number one culprit to identify. It's just the way it is. I have no formal education, but if I were able to afford it, I would. Pretty simple I think. It's not that I am against it in any manner of speaking or even thought, just that I don't have the funds available to accomplish that feat. That's all. As to cons for self-teaching - well there are far too many to list. How do I know I'm learning the right way, the right things? How can I be sure I'm listening to the right people? How can I actually be sure I'm any good, that it's worth it, that I should bother at all. Maybe I should just go flip burgers, huh? Oh wait - people with formal educations probably think the same things. How can they be sure they're in the right classes? Have the right professors? That they're actually getting what they've paid for? (and the fact is, even if I make it as a writer I may still be flipping burgers) The answer is simple and is true for self-teaching and formal. You get what you put in. You study hard, you dedicate yourself to the craft, submerse yourself in it. You write, you edit, you read. You try to find people who can help you along the way, people you can trust and you hope someday to be good enough to actually be proud of what you've written. Somewhere in the back of your mind you hope for the day you'll be famous - while the rational side of your brain acknowledges that no one in the free world gives a rats furry ass about what you've written. And then you start again. When it comes down to it those with formal educations are really no different than those of us without. People are posting vague generalities because when it comes to self-education the pros and cons are going to be different for everyone. I can meet any deadline like my life depends on it (because I'll treat it as if it does) and I am self-motivated when things are important to me. I can ride my own ass, I don't generally need someone else to do it for me. I LOVE to learn, I live for it - in fact - and consider a day wasted if I haven't learned something new. When I want something I do everything in my power to get me there, and if it's not enough I take whatever steps I must to make me smarter, stronger, faster, whatever I need to get closer to my goal. It's how I'm made and it makes me a good candidate for self-education. Other people need to be pushed, need real-life consequences for not meeting a deadline, need something important on the line. They need someone breathing down their neck, cheering them on. They need the numbers, the grades, the .... the direction - when it comes down to it. For those people self-education is a monumental catastrophe. But again, if I could be formally educated, if I had the money and time, I'd be there in a quarter of a heartbeat. Just because I CAN do it myself, doesn't mean I'm doing it right, doesn't mean I'm not missing extremely valuable advantages, connections, extras that those with formal educations have. I CAN do it, I WILL do it, I AM doing it, it doesn't mean it's the right way, the better way, the BEST way to do it. It's what I have to work with and I'm making it work - for me.
I definitely don't think self-education is a better option, but at least in my case, the train has pretty much gone for taking up university studies (im not in my twenties anymore and right now I have less money than ever), so for someone like me it feels encouraging to hear I don't have to give up my dreams of being a writer too because of that. Time will tell if they will come true, and I sincerely wish I had been studying more when I was younger. Unfortunately I chose a path that didn't hold much of a future and now it feels like Im too old for going back to school. Maybe we shouldn't look at these as two options to vote for, of course studying is the best way to go, but rather as the traditional way and the exception, for those who don't have the possibilities to study. that is just my point of view.
My opinion( which can be prone to error) But this isn't about formal education vs self-education, and which is more effective. I can tell you now without ever stepping into a creative writing class, that those who choose to study writing at university level would most likely develop and hone their writing skills quicker than those who don't. For six months, or a year or three, you're dedicating a significant portion of your day to the craft. Experience builds skill, and a course in writing is a focused, guided experience. But every degree or diploma has one purpose. It's a stepping stone along a career path. You study law to become a lawyer, accounting to become an accountant. And note, you must obtain a degree in law if you wish to become a lawyer. You can also study writing to become a writer, but you don't need a degree, diploma or certificate to become an author. And like many have said, a degree will make you a better writer but the chances that you'll become a successful published author are still minute. So the question is why invest your time and money in studying something which has such an unreliable reward, when you can use your resources to acquire a formal education in a career path with a far more stable outcome? Given the fact that so many people have written good fiction without a formal education in writing, it would be far more prudent to pursue your dream of becoming a novelist while still progressing in a more stable profession. That would be my advice to those fresh out of school who have a passion for words. Don't bank everything on being a fiction writer. The chance of getting a novel published is present with or without an education, and until the day you sign the publishing contract, it will only ever be a chance. I wouldn't recommend dedicating any amount of academic years on a mere chance.
In an effort not to repeat what has already been covered in the thread, yes, I agree with you. In fact, it was popsicledeath and I who having been arguing for pro-education while still recognizing the cons of formal education. In fact, both of us at various times stated that it may be wiser to pursue a degree in a different field while still pursing writing as well. Here is one quote that I wrote. Note, we are not saying that formal education is the only way, but we defending it as a substantial option that can be pursued. While I maintain that the benefits of formal education are greater than that of self-education for various reasons, it is not a stance against self-education, but more of a stance of not closing the door to formal education because it doesn't meet your specifications specifically. Even those that pursue formal education are at the same time pursing personal self-education options continuously as well. That is a something that every degree requires. And like popsicledeath above also mentioned, those that are self-educating are too pursuing education with a hybrid approach of self-studying along with investing in workshops etc. And to answer Trish's response to me. Yes, I agree with you too and a lot of what you said has already been covered in this thread, some of what you even said is exactly what I said in previous post. The main stance I am taking in this thread is that instead of outright discouraging someone to pursue a certain path because of personal bias or personal experience, it would do better to instead present information about both options in a factual and informative way. We all have personal experiences that prevent us from pursuing a certain path, or even experiences that gear us toward a certain path instead of another, but the person asking for this information hasn't been in your shoes, and so instead of just outright discouraging a certain path, focus more on presenting the good and bad of both options in an informative way.
Which isn't close to what anyone has been saying... Interestingly, I went through the current best seller list. Every single one of the top ten had a college degree (save for Jame's Patterson's co-author Michael Ledwidge, but I couldn't find much information on him at all). Not all of them have graduate degrees (though several) and not all of them majored in English (though many), but it's at least an interesting fact. And I thought it was more fair looking at the best seller list which is usually populated by genre writers, not literary writers, as literary writers often have a much higher rate of English degrees and MFAs, as that's the kind of writing MFA's tend to focus on. So, I don't think it proves anything, but is certainly worth thinking about.
What would be interesting would be to find out if they got their degrees because they wanted to be writers, or if they got them and then decided to write... ie, to see if there were any cause and effect here. Otherwise, it's like saying "They all have brown hair.".
I personally, don't think you need a writing course to be successful. I'm 14, have no writing school experience, and doing fine. So it really can't be too difficult for adults.
I have a feeling this isn't going to end well. Understandably, people without degrees aren't agreeable to being told that their chances of success are diminished. People with degrees are maybe putting too much of a premium on the value of their education. I can only speak from my own experience. I am personally a better writer than I could have been had I not gone to university. Whether this is from learning better syntax, vocabulary, prose, studying general humanities, meeting experienced academics or bouncing ideas between classmates, I don't know. The extent to which this environment enhances someone's chances of being published is near impossible to quantify. There is no written rule and no formula for success. We all know that. However, I think that the greatest travesty resulting from this debate would be to devalue the life experiences that can be gained and the general 'roundedness' higher education can give to a person's world view. A good higher education will challenge prejudices, teach impartiality and drum it into students that the only opinion worth having is a balanced one backed up by proven evidence. It would be hard to learn this on your own. I would hope that most people come out of university not only with improved technical writing skills, but a different way of looking at the world. I can't speak for everyone but I was like a different person when I graduated. My views were less reactionary. I was much more critical, analytical and open minded. To be a discerning writer you need all of these skills. Whether this can be replicated by self tuition is difficult to assess but I am doubtful. I work with a woman who home schooled her son until he was school leaving age, fully expecting him to ace exams required to get into university. It now transpires that he can't even attempt these exams and has had to take a college course for two years (which replicates the final two years of high school) in order to prepare for national exams. I know this is different to writing but I think it highlights how fraught with difficulty self tuition can prove.
