Applying to Film School: University of California Los Angeles (UCLA)

(NOTE: These requirements are based on my application for Fall 2006. They may have changed.)

Program: School of Theater, Film, and Television (Graduate: MFA)

Website: http://www.tft.ucla.edu/
Application Deadline: November 1st

Components (for Fall 2006):

• Online UCLA Application
• Transcript
• GRE
• Department Application
• Supplementary Materials Form
• Recommendations (3 Maximum)
• 2-Page Statement of Purpose
• 2-3 Page Film Treatment

My Application:

Like USC, UCLA also does not accept a video sample. As I said with USC, either this is just a way for the admissions committee to avoid having to watch a lot of bad student footage, or they really want to give students with less experience shooting their own work an equal chance. You be the judge.

The application is made up of two main components: the UCLA general application and the film school application. As in most cases, the general application handles the more administrative details such as GRE scores and transcripts. The film school application handles the more creative aspects. UCLA requires the GRE. They do not require transcripts from every college attended (just the graduating institution) so I was able to skip the summer classes I took at community college.

UCLA asks for a maximum of three recommendations. I guess you could submit fewer than three, but since I had them already, I sent in three. I had read somewhere that UCLA values recommendations from independent artists over academics. So I used recommendations from an independent theatre and film artist that had taught me and had directed me in a play, a theatre professor, and a professional playwright and screenwriter. I was counting on the strength of these recommendations to make up for my lack of film experience.

The creative portions of the application included a statement of purpose and a film treatment. I just tweaked my statement of purpose to highlight the independent artist spin on it (as compared to my USC statement).

From all of the applications, UCLA selects 60-some finalists to interview in LA. I flew out to LA and visited both USC and UCLA over the same weekend. I’m a big fan of UT, but UCLA is the most beautiful campus I have seen and it’s located in a great part of LA too, albeit expensive. I was at UCLA the same day that the Bruins played in the 2006 NCAA basketball championship game. The school televised the game in the basketball arena so I watched UCLA lose with all of the other students. I also attended a class on producing independent films. It was taught by the current head of the Sundance Film Festival. Not bad.

The actual interview was extremely laid back. I met with a panel of three professors. It felt more like a group of people discussing their favorite films than an actual interview. The thing that really surprised me though was that UCLA does not require a lot of film experience of their incoming students. In fact, they even asked me if I would get bored or frustrated with my classmates since I have a lot more experience than they would probably have. I don’t know if this was a trick question or something, but I was completely floored.

(Sad UCLA fans.)

So other than the fact that you see rich undergrads running off to class in high heels, I completely fell in love with UCLA.
My Take:

Choosing between UCLA and UT was the hardest decision in this whole film school application process. In many ways the programs are very similar. Both are focused on the independent writer/director filmmaker with a similar curriculum and philosophy. Both programs are small (UCLA takes 21 students each year, UT takes 12). The curriculum is very similar: the first year is an intensive immersive experience in film production while subsequent years open up to give you more time for your own projects. Both universities are mega-sized public schools.

To try and decide, I read everything I could find (both schools have pretty informative websites), visited both schools, spoke to professors, and spoke to students. I was able to get a hold of an Indian filmmaker in her final year at UCLA and get her take. I also spoke to a couple of students that went to UT for undergrad and UCLA for grad school. Finally, I spoke to a current UT prof who studied at UCLA.

I tried to approach the decision rationally measuring all the different factors.  The professors at UCLA have slightly more experience working in the LA world, but the professors at UT have more experience getting their own independent projects off the ground.  UCLA had more professors from abroad, but UT had just hired two Indian professors in media studies.  According to people who had attended both schools, UT has better equipment.  Both schools try to assemble a diverse student class, but UT puts greater importance on experience (they require a video sample) and therefore, the average age tends to be a little older (late twenties versus mid twenties).  All in all, this was all a wash.

As for the city question, LA is definitely the film capital of America.  Austin is a growing film city, but most of the money still comes from LA.  If you can make a name for yourself, you can make films anywhere, but most of the money and most of the jobs are in LA.  Those are just facts.  So there would be definite advantages to going out to LA.  But LA also costs a lot more than Austin.  And UCLA costs more than UT (especially since I’m a Texas resident).  So considering the programs were more or less a wash, would it be worth the extra cost just to go to school in LA?

In the end, I decided “No.”  I’m very happy with my decision, but there’s no way to say with certainty if it was correct.  I decided that I wanted to go to a school where it would be easiest for me to learn and get my projects off the ground.  Austin is a great place for that.  As a filmmaker I would prefer never to have to move out to LA, but if I ever need to, I can do that after school.

~ by soham on November 3, 2006.