Hi,
couple of tiny snips into the sketch on MFAs here. Broadly I agree with
Mairead and James in their less pessimistic depictions. My experience,
of on e sprint workshop co-taught with Tom Raworth (a week) and one
semester in south-west Ohio (belly of the beast . . . ?) is of very
energetic students, hungry to be pushed and teased and encouraged. They
are a mixed bunch and out of that 25 total people perhaps only 3 will
go on and perhaps only one will really fly. Many however are lifers and
will carry an interest in poetry as both readers and practitioners
(hard to fillet those out at times) into whatever they do and wherever
they go. That's not so bad, surely? How is this really any different
from saying people ought not read poetry at school or consider that
language through writing can be used as at least an interface with
their growing experience? My reading at school led me voraciously into
all the things i hadn't been taught.
I utterly concur with the efficacy of mixed (in every sense) peer
groups. If i was dictator for the day i'd say that nobody could go on
to University until they were in their early twenties and had done at
least something else for a few years. My own best educational
experience ever was as a student on an access course at Lowestoft
College in a large group of mature students of all ages from all walks
of life - brilliant and feisty conversations.
Whilst i also use pencils and paper they are not the only tools for
writing in todays worlds. Universities are places where one can often
have access to resources and technologies for exploring writing in many
media. Also I quite agree that emphases upon interdisciplinary
collaboration and yes writer--writer collaboration have always been a
part of poetic practice and are being actively encouraged in such
academic enquiries as the MFA will increasingly offer. The days of the
dull MFA creative Writing program are dumbered and numbered even.
Mairead speaks well to how it can be and become.
love and love
cris
|