Do MFA Programs Create the Same Writers—Or Better Ones?

One of the most common criticisms of MFA and MA writing programs is that they turn out writers who all sound the same. Workshop voice. Polished, competent, interchangeable. It’s a fear new writers share—and one that established authors once believed.

Alexander Chee—award winning novelist and author of “Edinburgh” and “How to Write an Autobiographical Novel”, admits that he, like many writers, once thought MFA programs existed to produce authors with a similar voice. The idea makes sense: put writers in the same rooms, give them the same reading lists, apply the same critiques, and you might expect uniform results.

But Chee’s perspective shifted after he was accepted into the Iowa Writers’ Workshop, one of the most influential MFA programs in the world. What he discovered there wasn’t pressure to conform, but pressure to clarify. Chee says:

Strong programs don’t erase individuality—they refine it. The goal isn’t to sound like your professors or your peers, but to sound more fully like yourself, with fewer crutches and clearer intention.

In that sense, an MFA doesn’t give you a voice. It challenges you to confront your habits, your weaknesses, and your assumptions about what “good writing” is. The risk of sameness doesn’t come from the program itself, but from writers mistaking approval for authenticity.

My opinion? An MFA can’t make you original—but it can help strip away what isn’t essential. What remains, ideally, is not a workshop voice, but a truer one. BTW: I’m starting the Wilkes University MFA/MA program in January. Wilkes University regularly ranks as one of the top Creative Writing programs in the nation.