Sorry, my bad .

I'll use an example here of USC, just because I hear it is a very conventional Hollywood film school (its graduates like Ron Howard, Robert Zemeckis, and George Lucas aren't very known for being "risk-takers," but I have no idea if this claim is actually true). If one goes there and has no talent, they can learn how to follow the forumla, which could get one a job nowadays, sadly. Of couse, I do not know for a fact that USC is like this, but I'm just using it as an example.

Now, let's say that NYU encourages creativity (which is also something I've heard, but cannot prove or disprove). Somebody who is not talented in film will not have any creativity in filmmaking and thus will do terribly. Somebody who is talented will be able to flourish in this arena and get creative criticism from others who care about film. Now if they went to USC, they wouldn't be able to flourish themselves but probably could teach themselves a bit, if only how to work with other actors and crew members and how to deal with Hollywood and its lack of creativity.

Certain film schools will let others flourish more than others. But I think generally a good filmmaker will have more room to grow than a bad one. If you watch one of Hitchcock's early films, they aren't nearly as good as his later ones. He needed the time to grow and develop as a filmmaker. And getting a college degree at the same time is the best way, at least for me. But in the end, as I said, it comes down to the school.