School of Cinematic Arts Hopefuls-Class of 2014

Colleges & Universities University of Southern California
281

<p>Neither USC nor any of its Schools use a waitlist. They admit a target number of students, expecting that only a portion of their admits will matriculate, and have learned from years of experience what their yield will likely be. All students are supposed to be considered by both majors they list (if they list two) and also by the University admissions (for undeclared in Dornsife), giving them 3 chances to be considered. However each School will look at different criteria in their holistic read of the file. In addition, Schools have a certain number of spots they can offer for Spring admission. In a way, this is their backup plan, because if a smaller number of admits come to USC for fall, they just move up some of the Spring admits, who are very happy to be bumped up to Fall.</p>

<p>Contrary to what 6767676’s S’s counselor was told, SCA doesn’t have unilateral admissions control, as all students must ultimately be vetted by Dornsife for academic worthiness. SCA tells students this reality on their orientation tours because no matter how gifted a filmmaker may be, she/he has to take classes at USC and the rigor is considerable. In years past, we have observed SCA admits with slightly lower than avg stats, so there seems to be a bit of flexibility, but grades and test scores do matter. As for how SCA makes their decisions, we have gathered they make up lists of students they wish to admit for each of SCA’s majors. The professors and other SCA staff are the readers of the application supplements, so it’s likely only 1 person will look at any particular student’s work as a first screening. The final winnowing down process of all the great applicants who have most impressed these professor/readers is shrouded in mystery. But I’ll posit that it might be that they have to go to bat for these finalist students they champion (this is a typical scenario at many selective college admissions where the adreps present their top candidates to the committee). I could imagine (only logically trying to deduce) that some of the professors might want to gather more background on the candidates they adore so they have good ammunition when each of them advocates for their favorites. As we’ve said before, there are many equally wonderful applicants who get end up getting shut out by the tiny size of the class. How they make those final cuts is anyone’s guess, but I’d suspect it has to do with the overall makeup of the incoming class of Production majors as they strive to get in diverse voices, backgrounds, talents, and professional goals. No one can control this. </p>

282

<p>I think it says specifically for Writing majors that they won’t receive and interview or a call, as that’s what it says on the SCA page and I didn’t get one and still got in as well.</p>

283

<p>@6767676 Parent of a SCA freshman - so I know how “nail-biting” this process is for new applicants. But I’m an interviewer for another top university and my husband is an Adcom for yet another. So we know what those “meetings” look like. A lot of angst and negotiating and debating among committee members. Easy is whittling down the initial list. </p>

<p>but… </p>

<p>Brutal is trying to determine which of the finalists get a spot. Trust me, everyone comes out of the process a bit battered as they see some of their favorite candidates left without a spot. So don’t despair - a lot of SCA applicants got no phone call at all before being rejected. I hope knowing someone was “fighting” for your son should give you some comfort.</p>

284

<p>@Madbean is right. NO waiting list. USC takes significantly more students than they hope to enroll based on historical data. A rejection does NOT mean the students were unqualified. In the end, with USC having to choose among 51,700 freshman applications for only a few thousand spots. They admitted 17.9% of the applications ( approx: 9,100 students) with an anticipated yield of 30% to arrive at 3,000 Freshman enrolled. That leaves 42,600 students who were likely well qualified who couldn’t be accommodated by USC and hence were declined. Good, smart, hard working students. </p>

<p>However SCA works differently. At a meeting they reiterated that they admit only the number of slots they have available and took only 4% of the applicants for the program. No waiting list. No extras in case of drop-outs. No “appeals.” If some of those students decline then those open spots are filled later with internal and external transfers. If I remember correctly, this past spring they admitted 75 students for Critical Studies but only 35-37 enrolled. 25 for Production, but fewer than that enrolled. 25 for Animation (number of bays available?), etc. It was clear from photos the dean sent to parents of the students orientation the first week (taken by department) that this is the case.</p>

<p>So can you imagine trying to decide who among the 4-5K applications will get the handful of spots available to build a Freshman class in film?</p>

285

<p>@Madbean @ArtsandLetters thank you. Very helpful to get some transparency around the process, and yes, at the end of the day, son was really proud that he made the phone call list and that the adcom had good things to say. That said, does SCA or UCLA take sophomore transfers or just junior transfers? What do they look for in tranfer applicants? Do they want film school experience? My son is looking to attend a LAC back east with a very strong writing program as well as a smaller film program. I feel like we were all so naive when our son went into the application process about what the criteria would be, how the selection worked, etc. So he wants to be much better prepared for the next round. </p>

286

<p>USC used to take transfers as early as soph, but I believe UCLA only takes junior transfers. In addition,UCLA has a special application to enter their film major for all students (including those already at UCLA and transfers) so Freshmen do not enter with that guarantee. Neither school is looking for film school experience but would likely look favorably on those who continue strong participation in a wide range of creative projects and who continue to stretch themselves, as will be shown in their supplemental materials. However, the best advice we’ve seen is that both UCLA and USC have made a commitment to take transfers from the California community colleges. There are articulation agreements in place to allow easy transfer of credits earned. This is not particular to transfers to SCA, but it is smart to be thinking about using time wisely to get a lot of the GE type reqs (and language, etc) out of the way before entering USC since the reqs for the film major take a lot of time.</p>

<p>The story is a bit different for each of the SCA majors. For instance, I believe the the BFA program in Screenwriting and also Animation are not easily entered by transfers as they have a sequenced curriculum that takes all 4 years at USC to complete. As of this coming year, the Production major will become a BFA and that may change the process, and even perhaps the availability of transferring in, as has been possible in the past. If someone knows how this will work, please pipe in. However, I believe the easier route (and perhaps the only one, now) may be transferring in as a Critical Studies major. (By the way, 6767676, did your S apply to Film Production major as #1 choice, and Critical Studies major as #2? They have a lot of the same courses, and CS is considered a (slightly) easier major for admissions since they field a class of 75. OTOH, some of the majors put stronger emphasis on writing. As for the general USC admissions, they will take the gpa and SATs pretty seriously, so if your S has a real interest in transferring, he may want to pay careful attention to his grades next year. </p>

<p>All that said, the very successful director/writer I mentioned in another post, Bryan Singer, attended a film school before his transfer to USC SCA. This was many years ago, but it shows that did not hurt his chances. You might have your son call SCA admissions and ask some of these questions. Tell them he’d like to plan for transferring (and maybe explain he got a call from (name the prof)) and is there a preference for transfers from any particular kind of college/university.</p>

<p>Best of luck.</p>

287

<p>@ArtsandLetters they admit 50 production students.</p>

288

<p>@ArtsandLetters, I have heard they admit more than their target class size number to account for melt. As an example, two years ago, they admitted 20 to IMGD, and 17 matriculated for the projected 15 spots open.</p>

289

<p>I applied to the Writing for Screen and Television major, and was accepted to USC, but haven’t heard anything from the major. I got a letter in my acceptance packet that said they would contact me later. But on here people have already heard, so now I’m worried and confused. Help? </p>

290

<p>Thanks, scahopeful and @madbean for the correction. I just realized that for production I was quoting another universities which only admits 25.) </p>

<p>But I do remember the SCA dean saying they didn’t over admit but I’ll admit I could have heard wrong . I’ll ask when I’m back on campus as I’m now curious about the numbers he quoted. :-)</p>

291

<p>One slight correction, UCLA started admitting Freshman to the Film major this year. <a href=“Undergraduate Film BA - UCLA School of TFTUCLA School of TFT”>http://www.tft.ucla.edu/programs/film-tv-digital-media-department/undergraduate-degrees/ba-undergraduate-film/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

292

<p>@vanlowe Have you received an acceptance packet from SCA? If not, you might have been admitted undeclared to Dornsife. Anyhow, congrats in making it in! :)</p>

293

<p>@LayraSparks‌ All I got was this letter that said SCA was still informing USC on it’s recommendations, and when they did, I would be contacted again. I’ll be fine either way, this letter was just a bit confusing. </p>

294

<p>@vanlowe That’s strange, considering that others already know what program they got into, and that WSTV has so few slots available. Sorry but I can’t really say more, since I didn’t get in, but maybe someone more knowledgeable can help you…</p>

295

<p>Just remember - they have a lot of student files and they can only admit the students who USC also agreed to take. Then they send out their own packet that looks very much like the one from the main university - complete with a certificate welcoming you to the school. Patience - that golden envelope is worth the wait.</p>

296

<p>CaliFilm, thanks for the update on UCLA film admits. I think this is a great change for their program and makes it much more desirable for many hopeful film students. </p>

297

<p>I’m relatively new to college confidential, and I have an unpopular opinion. But here goes</p>

<p>If you need permission from a money-siphoning school like USC to start a filmmaking career, you will never succeed as a filmmaker. Or a screenwriter. Period. </p>

<p>60k a year? What a joke. You could rent an Arri Alexa for a three week shoot, buy yourself a lighting kit, steadicam, dolly, track, and jib (you’d own ALL of it by the way, no sharing), plus a bunch of other goodies, and even afford to shoot in 35mm with that kind of money. If you spend it wisely and cut corners, you can make a high quality, feature length film for the cost of one year at USC. A film worthy of submission to any film festival, including Sundance or Tribeca (assuming it doesn’t suck). You have better odds of winning a Nicholl screenwriting fellowship than getting into an ivy league, and yet it’d open 100 more doors for the prospective student. </p>

<p>You want to learn filmmaking? Go out and make films. You’ll get better with each one. Buy a cruddy DSLR to practice camera angles. Work your way up. Read books. Forget those BS textbooks that cost $500 and only teach pretentious film theory: there are dozens of great instructional books out there (for under $20) that teach 10x the amount of practical information. You can’t buy talent. You can’t buy connections. You can’t buy a killer work ethic, and industry knowledge comes from one place and one place only: getting your hands dirty and diving in.</p>

<p>This is a USC film school thread, so I thought I’d offer up a different opinion on USC. Take it or leave it. I wish I could take all the students considering going into crushing debt for USC (or any other expensive film school), smack them upside the head, and tell them “you are free. You don’t need to bind yourself to some school to be successful. Now get out there and make something of yourself”. USC is a great option – but only if you can get out without significant debt (and if you understand that your film degree is NOT an employable backup) </p>

<p>You needed to go to a prestigious film school in the days of George Lucas because digital format was not widely used (didn’t even really exist) and 35mm was the only popular delivery format. No average Joe could get access to that kind of material; not to mention that everything (camera, lights, audio equipment, you name it) were big and clunky. There was no such thing as a pocket DSLR camera. Just look at the iphone; you’d need a pickup truck to fit in all the gadgets the iphone encompasses twenty years ago, and now it fits in the back of your pocket. Filmmaking is no different. In addition to this, facebook and social network didn’t exist, so film school truly was the only way to make connections and meet cast and crew. Those days are over. There is no benefit to pampering yourself by sharing expensive sound stages and “world class” equipment as an undergrad, because those materials won’t be available to you upon graduating. The world of film has changed, and now the only way to break in is by starting out in the guerilla/indie route and climbing up the ladder. There is no such thing as a first time director who directs a studio feature. It simply. Doesn’t. Exist. Never. Even Christopher Nolan started out by making his indie film “the following” for $7,000 before he could get anywhere near the dark night’s budget. Going to a big school like USC doesn’t teach young filmmakers how to be frugal and do things cheaply, which is the most important skill of any independent filmmaker. </p>

<p>Good luck to anyone applying (really). I just ask you consider ALL the other options before making a very, very big commitment </p>

298

<p>You may be new to CC, but you have the same axe to grind in various forums, don’t you? </p>

<p>Smart? Resilient? Independent? Auto-didactic? Unable or unwilling to pay $250,000 (or indeed, somewhat less as low-income USC students receive significant FA, and about 20% receive merit awards, over 100 for full tuition, over 200 for half-tuition)? Impatient to get right into the business?</p>

<p>Move to Hollywood and see how it all goes. No degree is needed to start a career.</p>

<p>If that is your point (An artist aching to make films with limited $$), sure go ahead and move to L.A. or N.Y. or wherever and give it a try. But suggesting that it is a better way to prepare for a serious film career, no. Not better. Maybe equal for some rare folks.</p>

<p>However, here are just some things smart kids learn in film school:</p>

<p>1) Everyone hears how competitive it is out in Hollywood. One way to taste it is to apply to film schools. For some, that is an early experience of being judged on one’s creative output, one’s voice, technique, storytelling ability, etc. Outside validation can help fuel the inner passion. If you don’t have the stomach for such competition, it’s an early warning sign that the filmmaker’s life may not be agreeable. If you get a slew of rejections, and find a way to make your dream happen anyway (see Mr. Spielberg), you are even better equipped for the life than those who are not tested with such failure.</p>

<p>2) Attending film classes with other artists of equal or greater passion, drive, ambition, talent, connections, funding, and dedication is a great incubator for one’s own success. Only at a top film program can you really see who it is that will be out there, looking at the same jobs you want. And test yourself against them. Competition is part of the equation.</p>

<p>3) Being exposed to many diverse genres of cinema and television, working with award winning instructors, hearing the stories from veterans in the business is inspiring and allows for personal growth and awareness. Without these generously shared philosophies, anecdotes, advice and widening of horizons, some artists who possess raw talent would never be inspired to reach further and refine their vision. A lot of young people seem to have one amazing screenplay or film or novel in them. Then, without a grounding in storytelling theory and experience with deeper themes, their careers are done.</p>

<p>4) At SCA and other great film schools, the best filmmakers come to campus and preview their films, do q & a’s, discuss details that are not commonly available to the public. Learning from the masters is a tried-and-true way to pass down the secrets of mastering a craft. Living among so many people who think about film and treat it with reverence is another great aspect that for some, opens them up to great breakthroughs in personal vision.</p>

<p>5) Indie films are well represented at USC, with several screenings a week. In addition, SCA organizes trips to film festivals, like Sundance, and hosts events to allow students to mingle with current artists. Sometimes meeting one special filmmaker has led to internships, and more. </p>

<p>6) All the sound, editing, lighting, camera equipment is available 24/7, so the avid editing bays, the film equipment, sound recording studios, mo-cap, etc etc is easily accessible. It can be better than, as an individual, simply renting equipment/studio time independently, because here are instructors / friends who can walk you through the paces, answer any questions, and give feedback. They can show you what they are working on, introduce you to new techniques, and offer critiques. </p>

<p>7) All the while you are working on films at SCA, you are working in collaboration with other film students who will be at the top of their game. Your friends over these four years (history shows) will often be the leaders in the industry in the future. You’re becoming part of a community that stretches out ahead and past film school. Wes Anderson and the Wilson brothers began making films at U Texas, and on afterwards. This is not uncommon. </p>

<p>8) SCA has such a stronghold in today’s Hollywood that hundreds of internships are available to SCA students, and career opportunities are also more prevalent. </p>

<p>9) Oh yeah, the professors/instructors can be phenomenal (no, not every one, but many–so choose wisely). You actually learn about yourself as an artist, and the sort of art that you might want to make. You learn techniques, skills, and practices even in auxiliary film aspects (DP, Directing, Production Design, Sound, Writing, etc) that help you become experienced and proficient.</p>

<p>If your only objection is: spending money on college is throwing it away, and you are wasting time, I think it all depends on how much one can afford and what you would be doing with your time instead. The screenwriters I’ve met who are working at The Apple Store and Starbucks are not, I suggest, getting their films made any sooner than those at college.</p>

<p>I do not really disagree with the idea that certain people do not need to go to film school in order to succeed. For the few (and really, they are rare) 18 year olds who already know all this, why delay putting yourself out there and doing film? And if you learn best from trying and failing and trying again, and have unfailing energy and bounce back resilience, skipping school may make sense to your learning curve. Finally, (this may be your real point, anyway), if you simply have no money for college,why not go for it? Try to get a foot in the door (this can be very hard if you have absolutely no contacts in film/tv) and teach yourself all you’ll need to know.</p>

<p>But if you have parents who want to send you to college and who value the actual education you will receive, beyond your film courses, you are lucky indeed. And if you get accepted to a selective film program, and your family can afford it–which is many who are on CC–you are even luckier.</p>

299

<p>@‌madbean </p>

<p>You make several valid points. But the simple fact remains: student loan debt has surpassed credit card debt, with over 1 trillion dollars owed. No one gets hit harder than film students, who have virtually no way of paying off these loans unless they make very, very good money right out the gate (which is also quite rare). Here is an article I found of a young man sharing the darker experiences he had at USC, specifically focusing on the loans he owed upon graduating: <a href=“Film school and drowning in student loan debt...”>Film school and drowning in student loan debt...;

<p>As you can see, for many students, film school comes with its own set of costs. Filmmaking is an incredibly risky career. You need to be able to pour your heart and soul into it for a good couple of years. You need to be able to take risks, borrow money, and put your heart on the line. It’s a game of full measures, not half measures. If you give filmmaking only 50% while holding down another job, someone out there with the same talent level will be expending 110% of their energy. Who do you think will win? Debt is (literally) a ball and chain. It becomes very, very difficult for a young filmmaker to succeed when they have the pressure of debt crushing them down. Few can survive that kind of stress. It’s all about responsibility: it’s the same reason why so few people succeed at filmmaking if they start out when they have young children or a spouse to support. Your chance of success grows exponentially with the fewer ties you have and the less baggage you carry. Debt is a dream killer</p>

<p>I’d like to address a few other misconceptions. You say that at a school like USC, you’ll be working alongside passionate students. This is absolutely true, but here’s the catch: they don’t know much more than you. They too are incredibly naïve. Most film students don’t even touch a camera until late n the curriculum. A young filmmaker is bound to learn more by spending one week on an independent film set as a PA, working with professional adults who know their craft, as opposed to bungling around with other students. And while you could spend 60k a year to go to a school like USC to meet students who MAY or may not become famous, rich, connected filmmakers and producers, if you start out in the industry right away, that kind of money can be put towards a good 5-10 years of comfortable living in Los Angeles, all while you meet individuals who actually work in the industry, rather than individuals who simply aspire to work in it.</p>

<p>Following on the topic of working in the industry vs. aspiring to work in it, you may also notice that at all of these film schools, a majority of the teachers have very few credits to their names (and if they have any, they tend to never be in a directorial role, or at least only for a small, small independent film that never made it past internet distribution). The reason being is simple: while teachers at USC may love the craft of filmmaking (or be skilled at filmmaking) this is incredibly different than being a successful filmmaker. To succeed in the business of filmmaking, you need to learn from those who have done just that. Many teachers at these films schools may love film, but they simply didn’t have the skills, knowledge, or time to succeed within the actual industry. If they did, surely they would be out creating films and screenplays. So many students are disillusioned into thinking the only thing they need is talent, when in reality, they need financial know how and an understanding of how the business works. Many kids are seduced by show business, without realizing only 10% of that is actually show and the other 90% is business. This is the unglamorous, boring part of it all film schools choose to mask with intriguing, fancy advertisements and expensive facilities (facilities that don’t even come close to representing the work environment of most film school grads, who will find themselves cut out of the sound stages and editing rooms after four years).</p>

<p>What this argument really comes down to is experts versus professionals. There’s an article I love, posted by a woman who works as a professional author, debunking the popular myths about writing and college. <a href=“Do Writers Need College To Write? – Holly Lisle: Writer”>http://hollylisle.com/experts-professionals-and-college/&lt;/a&gt; In it, she explains the difference between an “expert” and a “professional”, and why you should seek a creative education outside of a formal university. Even if you don’t agree with what she says, it’s an interesting read.</p>

<p>You are correct in saying that it all depends on how you use your time. Some kids need a kick in the rear to make films. If they were all on their own, without anyone holding their hand, they wouldn’t have the courage or the discipline to learn and work independently… but, is this really such a bad thing? Surely if you need the validation of a school, you’re partially bound for failure from the get go. Surely if you need that kick in the rear, you won’t ever be cut out to do things on your own. I suppose the point I was initially trying to make is that film school is a padded environment separate from the actual film industry, and creates padded writers and filmmakers. At the end of the day, everything boils down to skill. A completed feature film to show off will always look better to a prospective producer/studio executive than a film school degree. If two screenplays pass the desk of a studio head, one good and written by a USC grad, the other amazing and written by a high school dropout, the dropout will always win. I repeat. The. Dropout. Will. Always. Win. This is nonnegotiable (I’m sticking to my guns on that). At the end of the day, when you graduate film school, you’ll be in the same boat as everyone else. Jobs will not come to you; you need to go to them. The internship flow is a bit of a myth. Unlike other professions where you simply need to train new recruits on the job, an industry like the film industry doesn’t have the time or the money to reward individuals who don’t possess natural, raw talent. Remember, you can graduate from USC film school and still be the worst filmmaker on the planet. I understand that young filmmakers need support, but even a film class or club would offer some like minded friends for a fraction of the price. I’ve simply never agreed with the philosophy of spending tens of thousands of dollars for friendships.</p>

<p>That’s all I had to say. Everyone’s got a few bad films in them before they can direct/write something great. Some people never even get to that point. The choice is what environment you’ll find that out in. The only caution I was trying to spread is that $30,000 - $60,000 a year in tuition may not seem like a large sum of money to a fresh high school student, but when they graduate and need to find funding for their first indie feature (money doesn’t fall from the sky) it’ll seem like the jackpot.</p>

<p>Once again, good luck to anyone making this decision. </p>

300

<p>@ABCDE11 I am curious, what exactly is your experience in the film industry? Did you follow your own advice and go into the film industry without any formal training and are you making a good, stable living at it? Did you spend $100k on a film degree and cannot find work now? To have such a profound opinion there must be a back-story. It think sharing it would help us better understand your position. </p>