Creative Writing MFA Rankings: The TSE Top 100

[EDITOR'S NOTE: Hello! Welcome to the site. If you plan to regularly check in here for MFA rankings, I hope you'll consider also making a small donation (even $10) to the website in recognition of the effort it takes to compile/spreadsheet all this data. Donations can be made via PayPal at the link below; it's 100% secure and takes less than two minutes to do. As a fellow full-time student (along with everything that status connotes, like massive debt!) I can't tell you how much donations, of any size, are appreciated. Thanks in advance for your consideration, and best of luck with all your applications!].

[For additional rankings from 2007 and 2008, see the right-hand sidebar on this page].


Introduction

No one spends more time researching MFA programs, or considering their relative strengths and weaknesses--using both hard data (selectivity, class size, duration, funding, et. al.) and soft data (reputation, alumni success, location, et. al.)--than MFA applicants. MFA faculties are, by definition, less interested and invested in the topic of current MFA program reputations, and for this reason it was always a bit of a mystery why U.S. News & World Report polled only MFA professors during their 1996 (and only, reprints notwithstanding) ranking of MFA programs. Quite simply, tenured professors are focused on their own writing and--to a lesser extent--on teaching MFA students, and since no aspect of their advising duties involves recommending MFA programs to their charges, it's not a subject on which they are or could be expected to be current or engaged. MFA applicants, in contrast, have something vitally at stake in getting their matriculation decision right: thousands and thousands of dollars, years of their lives, their current and future happiness, their chances of advancing within their chosen field.

This ranking is based on the premise that the best way to access a particular truth is to harness the vital human resource of an enormous class of persons aggressively dedicated to accessing that truth. In this case, the key question is "Which MFA program is held in the highest esteem by applicants?", and applicants are voting not merely with their application lists (the data-source used in the creation of this poll), but even, in a more immediate sense, with their hard-earned money--applications cost money, after all (in some cases, more than $100 apiece).

Nor is the theory behind this ranking--that polling professors raises the question of the nature of expertise, and polling graduates questions of bias, scale, and representative samples--a novel one. Social scientists have long been aware of the notion of "Revealed Preference Rankings," an algorithm of which this poll is a modified example. The theory, of course, in simplest terms, is that the decisions actual people make on subjects of importance to them are more revealing than any questionnaire filled to the brim with hypothetical questions. MFA professors may be guided in part by the fact that they are only truly informed about programs at which their friends and closest peers are educators; MFA graduates will naturally have personal associations with their alma mater in a way which could make objective analysis of relative program strength impossible--and MFA graduates are certainly no more versed (and perhaps less so) in the strengths of programs they did not attend than those students currently looking seriously at a wide range of program options in the present day.

The TSE Top 100 is thus, while unscientific, a legitimate form of Modified Revealed Preference Ranking whose unscientific foundation is belied by the fact that, before all is said and done, the poll will have catalogued the preferences of more than 10% of the total MFA applicant pool in the United States. Given that, in political polling (the most popular brand of polling in America, with athletics a distant second) a polling sample size of 500 is considered reasonable for a voting population of many millions, the TSE Top 100 is in a unique position to get things "closer to right" than we ever could have expected or imagined when U.S. News & World Report was polling largely under-informed parties on a massive scale more than a decade ago.

Critics of this ranking--what few there are (reaction to the TSE100 is literally running approximately 98 to 2 in the positive)--have misunderstood the poll/ranking by presuming it is intended to calculate actual applications to MFA programs. The TSE100 isn't designed for this, for two reasons: one, data-points used for the TSE100 are not restricted to application lists, but also prospective "top program" lists written by those who are not current applicants (though it should be noted that such lists make up only a minuscule fraction of the data-points for the TSE100); two, and more importantly, the TSE100 can only gather data from those applicants who use online researching and online communities to help them make their matriculation decision--those applicants who do little or no research into programs online, or little or no research whatsoever, are unlikely to be captured by the methodology of the TSE100. And yet, this is little loss: such applicants are either misinformed (because they are using, for instance, the now-obsolete and irrelevant U.S. News & World Report rankings from well over a decade ago) or else literally not "informed" at all (because they are basing their decisions on hearsay, or speculation, or bias, or preconceived notions of various colleges and universities which have nothing to do with the strength of their respective graduate writing programs). It is worth noting, too, that more information about MFA programs is now available online than ever before, and so the "knowledge gap" between largely-offline and largely-online MFA researchers has become considerable. It would not be unreasonable to assert, in fact, that the knowledge of largely-offline MFA applicants is far more likely to be wrong than right, and to the extent such individuals are not polled by the TSE100 it is almost certainly to the poll/ranking's benefit that this is so.

Those reading this introduction, and other writings on the TSE100 and similar endeavors (see the right-hand sidebar of this website), may wonder at the use of the term "poll/ranking" to describe the TSE100. Hopefully readers will see the sense in this: while the TSE100, in the literal sense, represents a "poll" of applicants, the resulting data can be constituted as a "ranking" of current MFA applicant esteem for the various MFA programs in the United States. While some detractors of the TSE100 cite the "lists" published by The Atlantic as being of greater interest to them, only a disinterest in methodology could explain this: first, because The Atlantic advertised these lists as "lists" and not "rankings" (meaning, no distinctions were made between entrants to any particular "list"); second, because The Atlantic conceded these lists were non-exhaustive (meaning, programs which advertise themselves as being in the "top five" in a given Atlantic category because they were included in a given list are willfully misreading the article, which indicates that many other programs could have made each of the lists with equal justification, but were not included for reasons unstated by The Atlantic); third, because the "lists" were compiled by a single individual based on a small number of interviews at only certain MFA programs, which MFA programs appear to have been at least partly selected either because the writer himself attended those programs or because he knew individuals who taught there; fourth, because the shocking (and, by all accounts, unwarranted) appearance of the writer's alma mater on his "top ten overall" list has called into question the objectivity of the entire article. It is worth noting, indeed, that the program in question--included by the author as a top MFA program--was up until two years ago not an MFA program at all, but an academic Master's (MA). Moreover, in an era in which MFA applicants are seeking the longest and best-funded programs possible--leading to the ascension of countless fully-funded three-year programs in the current rankings--the school so coincidentally promoted by the author of The Atlantic article is the only one-year program in the United States, and only "average" to "above-average" in its funding (current estimates would place it between 50th and 70th nationally, out of about 140 full-time, full-residency MFA programs in the U.S.).

While it is true that I am an attorney, a former journalist, a published author, an MFA student, and a contributing author to the sole comprehensive reference guide currently on the market for MFA programs--and therefore in as good (or better) a position than the author of The Atlantic article to compile rankings of the sort below--the fact remains that, unlike the "lists" done by The Atlantic, the ranking below is not "my" ranking. It is, instead, a compilation of data from literally hundreds of unique sources, all of whom are (by definition) not affiliated with any of the ranked programs (another reason to favor applicants over MFA professors or program graduates). It is evident, therefore, that while it remains true no scientific ranking of MFA programs has ever been compiled--institutionally-affiliated rankings are not, in fact, synonymous to scientific ones, to the chagrin of some--what follows, below, is undoubtedly the most comprehensive and accurate ranking of MFA programs ever to appear online or in print.

Methodology

The methodology for this ranking is exceedingly simple, commensurate with the above history: unique Blogger accounts were polled to determine MFA applicants' preferences, either in terms of which programs the account-holder planned to apply to, had already applied to, or would apply to if the account-holder were presently applying to programs. Each mention of a school was recorded as one (1) vote for that program.

While, as noted above, these rankings are not scientific, it is worth noting their remarkably high degree of correlation with every other bit of polling data taken from MFA applicants in the last 36 months. In other words, if ever it was a well-kept secret which creative writing MFA programs were considered by current MFA applicants the best in America, that secret is now officially out.

If you'd like to cross-index these rankings yourself with those issued during the 2006-7 and 2007-8 MFA application cycles, feel free to make liberal use of the links in the right-hand sidebar. Please note that neither this poll nor its resultant ranking, nor any other poll or ranking on this site, is in any way associated with, sponsored by, or endorsed by Google, Blogger, or Blogspot.

NB: The rankings will be updated regularly through April 15, 2009.


Overall Tier 1:





THE TSE TOP 100 MFA RANKINGS (Last Updated 4.15.09)

(votes in parentheses, and significant gainers/decliners since 2007 in blue and red, respectively)

[UPDATE 3.6.09: As of today, the TSE100 will only rank applications to programs in fiction and poetry. For nonfiction rankings, see the newly-updated rankings in the right-hand sidebar. This change is made to level the playing field--i.e., so as not to disadvantage the more than 75 MFA programs which do not offer the nonfiction genre].


1. University of Iowa (253)

2. University of Michigan (169)

3. University of Virginia (144)

4t. University of Massachusetts at Amherst (132)

4t. University of Texas (132)

6. University of Wisconsin (129) *

7. Brown University (127)

8. New York University (125)

9. Cornell University (110)

10. University of Oregon (104)

11. Syracuse University (97)

12. Indiana University (93)

13. University of California at Irvine (91)

14. University of Minnesota (85)

15. Brooklyn College (81)

16. University of Montana (78)

17. Johns Hopkins University (77)

18. Vanderbilt University (76)

19. University of North Carolina at Greensboro (75)

20. Washington University at St. Louis (70)

21. University of Florida (67)

22. Columbia University (66)

23. University of Notre Dame (62)

24t. Hollins University (56)

24t. University of North Carolina at Wilmington (56)

26t. Arizona State University (55)

26t. Hunter College [CUNY] (55)

26t. University of Houston (55)

29t. Colorado State University (53)

29t. The New School (53)

31t. Sarah Lawrence College (52)

31t. University of Washington (52)

33. University of Alabama (51)

34. University of Arizona (49)

35. Purdue University (45)

36. University of Arkansas (41)

37. George Mason University (40)

38. Boston University (39)

39. University of Nevada at Las Vegas (38)

40. Ohio State University (35)

41. University of Maryland (34)

42t. Florida State University (33)

42t. Louisiana State University (33)

42t. Rutgers University at Newark (33)

42t. University of New Hampshire (33)

46. Penn State University (32)

47t. Southern Illinois University (31)

47t. Texas State University at San Marcos (31)

49t. University of Illinois (30)

49t. University of Mississippi (30)

49t. Virginia Commonwealth University (30)

49t. Virginia Tech University (30)

53t. American University (25)

53t. Bowling Green State University (25)

53t. University of California at Davis (25) **

56. Emerson College (24)

57. Oregon State University (23)

58. University of San Francisco (22)

59t. San Francisco State University (20)

59t. University of New Mexico (20)

59t. University of Pittsburgh (20)

62. San Diego State University (19)

63t. Columbia College Chicago (18)

63t. University of Idaho (18)

65t. University of British Columbia [CAN] (17)

65t. University of California at San Diego (17)

65t. University of Colorado (17)

65t. University of Memphis (17)

69. New Mexico State University (16)

70t. Eastern Washington University (15)

70t. University of Wyoming (15)

72t. University of Georgia (14)

72t. University of Massachusetts at Boston (14)

74t. Minnesota State University at Mankato (13)

74t. West Virginia University (13)

76t. Georgia College & State University (12)

76t. School of the Art Institute of Chicago (12)

78t. CalArts (11)

78t. Chatham University (11)

78t. McNeese State University (11)

78t. University of California at Riverside (11)

78t. Western Michigan University (11)

83t. California College Of the Arts (10)

83t. Northwestern University (10)

83t. Saint Mary's College of California (10)

86t. Boise State University (9)

86t. Florida International University (9)

86t. Mills College (9)

86t. Queens College [CUNY] (9)

86t. University of New Orleans (9)

91t. University of Alaska at Fairbanks (8)

91t. University of Miami (8)

93t. California State University at Long Beach (7)

93t. City College of New York [CCNY] (7)

93t. Old Dominion University (7)

96t. Iowa State University (6)

96t. North Carolina State University (6)

96t. Rutgers University at Camden (6)

96t. University of Baltimore (6)

100t. Portland State University (5)

100t. Roosevelt University (5)

100t. San Jose State University (5)

100t. University of Guelph-Humber [CAN] (5)

100t. University of Missouri at St. Louis (5)

100t. University of South Florida (5)


106t: Adelphi University (4); Northern Michigan University (4); Otis College of Art & Design (4); University of Kansas (4); University of South Carolina (4); University of Utah (4).

112t: Naropa University (3); NEOMFA (3); Oklahoma State University (3); University of Missouri at Kansas City (3).

116t: California State University at Fresno (2); Chapman University (2); Georgia State University (2); Hamline University (2); Minnesota State University at Moorhead (2); University of Central Florida (2); University of Texas at El Paso (2); Wichita State University (2).

124t: Bard College*** (1); Butler University (1); Florida Atlantic University (1); Long Island University at Brooklyn (1); Rosemont College (1); Southern Connecticut State University (1); State University of New York at Stony Brook Southhampton (1); University of Central Oklahoma (1); University of Southern California **** (1).

132t: California Institute of Integral Studies (0); California State University at Chico (0); California State University at San Bernardino (0); Chicago State University (0); Savannah College of Art & Design (0) *****; University of the South (0) ^; University of Texas-Pan American (0).

Top M.A. Programs w/ Creative Writing Emphasis: University of California at Davis (25); Temple University (5); University of Illinois at Chicago (4); Western Washington University (4); Kansas State University (3); University of Wisconsin at Milwaukee (2); University of Tennessee (2); University of Texas (2); Eastern Michigan University (1); Emerson College (1); Illinois State University (1); Manhattanville College (1); Miami University [OH] (1); Ohio University (1); San Francisco State University (1); University of Nebraska (1); University of Toronto [CAN] (1).

[138 full-residency creative writing MFA programs ranked; N = 508].

* The University of Wisconsin accepts students in only one genre per year (that is, poetry and fiction applicants alternate years). The program's vote total would therefore ordinarily reflect only one genre's worth of applicants. Consequently, Wisconsin's tally here has been adjusted on the basis of the fiction-to-poetry ratio of its applicant pool, which is exactly 2:1 (in its most recent "poetry year," Wisconsin had 195 applications, and in its most recent "fiction year" 390 applicants). Vote totals for the 2008-9 application cycle--a "poetry year" for the program--have therefore been tripled (as poetry applicants represent one-third of Wisconsin's total applicant pool) to determine the school's relative reputation across both of the two major creative writing genres. In 2009-10 (a "fiction year" for applications) vote totals for the program will instead be increased by only 50%. Had this fiction-year adjustment been made to the 2008 Poets & Writers Reader Poll, Wisconsin would have been ranked fifth nationally (instead of tenth).

** University of California at Davis, an M.A. (not MFA) program, is included here because application trends show it is the one M.A. program nationally which--despite being a non-terminal degree--MFA applicants treat as being on par with a terminal MFA degree. Poll respondents' application lists suggest that Davis is routinely the one non-terminal program a given applicant is applying to; in contrast, the other top-ranked M.A. programs (see list above) are almost exclusively applied to by M.A.-only applicants. MFA applicants are nevertheless advised to fully understand the consequences of receiving a non-terminal degree before applying to Davis or any other M.A. program.

*** Bard College can neither be classified as a low-residency or full-residency MFA program, and so it appears provisionally in this ranking (which does not include "true" low-residency programs, due to the different and specifically-tailored assessment rubric required for such programs). Whereas low-residency programs involve, as a rule, 2 to 4 residencies of 7 to 10 days (for a total residence of anywhere from 14 to 40 days), Bard requires 3 residencies of 54 days each, for a total of 162 days on campus (roughly the same amount of time on campus as required by a one-year, full-residency MFA program like Boston University).

**** University of Southern California is included here because it offers an MFA-equivalent terminal degree, the Masters in Professional Writing (MPW).

***** "Dramatic writing" MFA genres (playwriting and screenwriting) only. Students may be able to take nonfiction writing courses through the school's Professional Writing MFA. Call program for details.

^ Included here because the program's four summer semesters equate to a full-residency program, even if the thesis work completed by students occurs off-campus.