I have been feeling somewhat down on academia and MFA/MA creative writing programs since Saturday. Spoke at a panel event this weekend which was billed as an insider's guide to MFA programs. My fellow panelists were 2 academics (Emerson and Lesley U) and a recent grad of the BU writing program. I feel like the problem with panels is that sometimes the people who speak on them have very clear agendas and something to sell. The Lesley rep made a huge push for the new low-residency program which doesn't seem that radically different than Goddard or Bennington programs, except that it is the local Boston option for some - I mean basically the faculty for Bennington repeats itself here. I felt like the token female and minority on the panel, was overshadowed by my counterparts, and was the only representative of a more non-mainstream outsider tradition, representing my own experience in non-traditional programs at Naropa and ARTIC. Lesley is billing itself as "interdisciplinary" a hot buzz word in academic circles which I think usually translates as a load of gray and nebulous crap. Even programs in environments like CCAC which bill themselves as truly I.D. have been known to disappoint expectation. Basically, my feeling was that this panel was not there to serve an audience or community so much as it was there to serve itself and the advancement of a certain academic agenda and power structure, and for that reason, I had issues. It also made me think more about the sort of people that you have to deal with when you work in academia - and I think take it or leave it, leaving it is a healthy option. There was no one on the panel to argue why one should NOT get a grad degree on creative writing and I think that would have presented a very important perspective. It was divulged that MFA programs are basically cash cows for universities - and I imagine especially for universities with small endowments. Poets, be wary!