Film critic here, who knows a lot of ex-Columbia filmmakers. The situation is the same everywhere. Columbia is still the very best film school in the US. But it's not comparable to other countries with proper film university programs. There the burn rate is probably below 10%.

US film schools are more like the shady private film schools in Europe, which focus more on practical tasks and where you have to pay everything by yourself or by external sponsors. Teachers are horrible. A bit like in art schools or theatre, bit more extreme on the financial side. Less harassment though.

I mean, in Vienna (Haneke) they only take about 8 a year, sometimes only 2. They take only the best, where they see they will make it.

Maybe we should not tell kids to follow their dreams for work, but work for money so they can follow their dreams?

Majoring in film making, writing, and most non-stem degrees is a quick way to be deep in debt working minimum wage jobs. Even business (my degree) is a waste of money for most kids.

I am telling my kids to major in computer science or architecture, then they can mess around with fun stuff in their free time.

This is advice I wish I heard a long time ago. What makes it extra hard is when your dreams do line up with your work.

It then becomes nearly impossible (for me, anyway) to disassociate what you do with who you are. When times are rough, it's personal. When mistakes happen, it's personal. And when you score a big win or are sitting atop an awesome opportunity... the dial just gets turned up another notch.

Taking up gardening (in truth, being taken up by gardening) has been a huge sanity saver, but it's still hard to not look back and feel like I lost my way over time: what was an insatiable curiosity gave way to the expediency of being a paid performer. I still love it, but just not like before, especially after the shift ends.

I would love to send my kids to school to get a philosophy/english lit/history degree and then let them get a masters in something job relevant, but this is not how kids from the working class get to spend their early/mid 20s. Our kids feel the pressure to make money early and so it is crucial that kids from this economic class get a degree that has job and earning potential. If we were able to support our kids to 30, you bet I would encourage them to start with a liberal arts degree.

I'm pretty the situation is not confined to Columbia. This is how crazy the film/movie world is.

> I'm pretty the situation is not confined to Columbia. This is how crazy the film/movie world is.

It's not limited to the film/movie world either... this is the unfortunate truth of most MFA programs: they don't launch careers, unless you're looking to become a MFA teacher yourself.

In other words, Multi-Level Marketing

Indeed this is certainly more broadly applicable. But if this is the case for a school as prestigious as Columbia in New York City (i.e., a city with a thriving television industry), things must be even more dire at no-name liberal arts colleges in flyover states.

"Those who can't do, teach" is fitting for many fields of study

Actually, those who "can't do", generally "can't teach" either. One surefire way to get better at doing something is trying to teach it, in fact.

I get what the quote is trying to imply, (and why) but it's totally backwards.

It always annoys me when I see that quoted. The original idea applied to people like athletes - you do it when you can, but when you're too old to compete, you can still teach. Nothing to do with ability, and in fact, it assumes more ability on the part of the teacher.

From my experience, athletes who were really good at the sport wasn't the greatest teacher; since they kind of intuitively understood how they should conduct their body to do something, they had a real tough time trying to transfer that knowledge to me who has no idea how I should move my body. They often tried to use imaginary that didn't really connect with me. It was far better to be taught by someone who was good but wasn't a natural as a beginner since they seemed to have a better grasp on what kind of struggles normal people had.

Obviously this is just anecdotal and probably changes at the Olympics levels and other places where the learner competency and affinity is already high.

I've tried tutoring people in academic subjects I know really well. I find myself unable to explain what they're doing wrong because I cannot put myself in their shoes. Try teaching algebra or calculus to someone who doesn't get it, and let me know if your skills really help with that.

Depends on what you're teaching. In engineering circles it's been said that those who can, do; those who can't, become Six Sigma consultants.

Or agile instructors / scrum masters.

That'd be the SW equivalent, yes.

Not really. One can have the knowledge and understand the mechanics of a trait, and is still unable to succedd in this trait. Especially creative fields are guilty of this. Similar is sports. A great coach can still be lousy player. Because at the end for success you need far more than just knowledge.