Advice requested

I can't even imagine how much worse those last Star Wars movies would have been if Lucas did have an MBA. I'm sure the Jedis would be guzzling Red Bull (or whatever energy drink had the highest bid) to get fueled for battles, and JarJar Binks would be downing Reese's Pieces by the bag. It'd be the product placement scene from Wayne's World, only nonstop.

As for the original topic, go for it if you want to get involved with the business side of the movie/entertainment industry...a "suit" according to Billy Walsh. How is your quant score from the GMAT? If it is a little low, or you don't have much of a mathematics background from undergrad, you may want to take the Calculus class and reference it in your applications.

Hey UH,

It's great to see you back on the boards!!

Let me say that I have absolutely no idea how the entertainment industry works, so that's up to you to determine whether or not an MBA will help reach your ST and LT goals.

I was accepted at USC and here are my impressions on the school:
They are very interested in high GMAT people. USC is trying to move up in the rankings, and taking high GMAT people is one way to do that (I think Cornell is taking a similar approach as well). If you have a decent story, and good GMAT (which you do) you should be a shoe-in from that perspective. That being said, your age is a complete wildcard. Looking at the whole picture (which adcoms say, but who knows if they really mean this), I believe that your story is compelling enough to quell the age factor, though. I believe that it will. Applying early will be helpful. I do not believe USC is one of the schools that WL w/o interviews (not pointing fingers...cough...NYU) or waits and see how the applicant pool looks (cough....NYU), so applying early will only help your case. Applying to USC's Early Decision round (which does not have a huge $$$ commitment like Columbia) will show your commitment. The fact that you are interested in entertainment also makes sense to apply to USC.

As far as UCLA, perhaps Kry or others know if they are a reapplicant friendly school. I think that your undergrad GPA is leaning on problematic, regardless. I think I read in a post a while back that said that absolute lowest GPA of an accepted applicant from a previous class was 2.9 or 2.7 or something. Could be an issue, even if you reapply early. From a "fit" and story perspective, the school makes sense, it's just a matter of overcoming the other issues.

Good luck and keep us posted.

ryguy

For the creative side of film-making, an MBA is absolutely useless. Networking with a personal portfolio of creative works is the usual method. The MBA may get you into the financial parts of film studios, but i would doubt you would be involved in the actual films.

There is no way an MBA would be qualified to look at the creative output of a film studio (if they did, I;m sure those films would be rubbish). This would be hired based on previous experience, if you have previous experience and an MBA, that's another story... but again, i would doubt the MBA (an analytical degree) is highly valued in a creative industry. It's the same in the music industry and games industry the MBA's would be separated from the creative aspects of the company.

More than likely, the tools an MBA provides would make you qualified in the channel distribution, negotiation of distribution and supply chain mechanics and corporate finance of the entertainments industries.

e.g. Computer graphics :- the artist would be someone who has a portfolio of creative art work and has demonstrated the capability to use modern computer tools (No MBA needed)
The physics and programming of the character movements would require computer science skills (no MBA needed, engineering degree preferred)

like everyone said, if you want to be in the "business" of entertainment (fund-raiser, producer, deal-breaker, etc...), then an MBA is very good. If you want to actually be an actor/director/cinematographer, etc.., then MBA will be pretty useless.

As for UCLA, I think they're pretty friendly to re-applicants, as long as the applicant has improved upon some aspect of their application (similar to most schools). I do know of a couple people who reapplied and got in.

Thanks so much for the responses, guys. I already have a very good creative network, due to my years spent as an actor/musician/writer. I was kind of hoping to gain some business skills so that I could elevate the level of my "day" job, as well as gain some useful knowledge for forming my production company. Even the very successful writers/artists I know still have to have a decent day job - independent productions, while personally gratifying, tend not to pay that well, and you end up sinking a lot of your own money (horrors!) into projects. I've no desire to be a part-time professor or consultant (I have a number of artist friends who do these jobs to get by).

And I have to say, in my experience, the "suits" DO make all of the important decisions, ie, they can greenlight your project - or not - and the decisions made seem to be rather arbitrary at times.

I'm going to chew over your comments for a bit. Perhaps it would be more beneficial for me to continue taking courses at Pratt and NYU, thus gaining some immediate hands-on experience and technical knowledge. But I must say, both UCLA and USC have such an amazing roster of classes in media and entertainment, that I can't help thinking that it would still be very beneficial for me to attend...

Again, thanks for your thoughts!

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Lucas = what a sellout. Maybe if he had an MBA, he would know that a good plot sells.

But he probably wouldn`t be able to create it or measure if it was good enough because there isn`t enough numbers in a plot to be able to analyse it