<p>jbinca, we are not sure how many auditioned or were accepted at SUNY Purchase (BFA acting). We confirmed that the freshman class will have 16-18 students. Sorry I don't have more info.</p>
<p>I would venture to say after witnessing auditions at open calls that the ratio of girls vs boys is at LEAST 2-1, so the admit rates for girls is probably 1/2 to 1/3 that of the percentages stated (assuming that schools take an equal number of boys and girls, and many places actually accept MORE boys)</p>
<p>The only school that seemed different was Michigan. The head of admissions said that their auditions were 55% female.</p>
<p>My kind of thread! I asked a couple of the programs my D auditioned for and here's an update, Webster I posted from that thread. I changed CCM from 750 to 822, that's what they said at Chi Unifieds. Feel free to add the percentages...</p>
<p>Baldwin-Wallace 300/12-14 (accept 20)
BOCO 1000/40 (accept 57)
CCM 822/24 (accept 30)
CMU 1000/28 (Acting: 16, MT: 12)
Elon 400/20 (accept 24)
FSU 240/12
Hartt 400/25 (accept 60)
Illinois Wesleyan 140/8 (accept 17) MT only.
Indiana 315/10 (accept 12-15)
Ithaca 500/12 (accept 32)
JMU 100/9 freshman; 2 transfers (accepted 18 freshman; 2 transfers) (BA stats)
Michigan 450/22 (650 applicants-450 academically eligible)
North Carolina School of the Arts 900/20 male 10 female
NYU Steinhardt (BM in VP) 275/25--accept 50 to yield 25 (approx. 15 are MT, 10 classical)
NYU Tisch 2300/350 (all studios); approx. 1000+/64 (accept 75) for CAP21
OU(BFA Acting) 240/24
Otterbein 340/8 (accept 10?)
Penn State 500/12 (18 accepted to yield 12)
Syracuse 800/30 (accept 60)
TCU 84 10(MT) 10(Acting) accept(20MT, 20 Act)
UArts 600/24
UCLA (BA Acting, MT, Theater Studies, Directing) 1500/65, has no wait list
UIC 205/32 (16 BFA Acting) (16 BA acting)
USC (BFA) 500 (accept 26 to 30 to yield 20 - as of 4/24 spots were committed for 9 male and 10 female), has no wait list
Webster 450/25-28 (accept 50 Acting and MT)</p>
<p>I have included the percentages of students accepted-schools are MT unless otherwise noted. I did not include UCLA until we get an idea of how many kids auditioned for the MT program.
BW 6.7%
BoCo 5.7%
CCM 4%
CMU(acting and MT) 2.8%
Elon 6.0%
FSU 5%
Hartt 15%
Indiana 4.8%
Ithaca 6.4%
JMU 20%
NCSA 3.3%
OU (acting) 10%
Steinhardt 18%
Tisch CAP 21 6%
Tisch All Studios(Acting and CAP21) 15%
Otterbein 2.9%
PSU 3.6%
Syracuse 7.5%
USC (acting) 6%</p>
<p>It's also good to keep in mind that how varied the competition is-i.e., some very talented kids may not have the grades to even consider auditioning for Michigan, but make the competition more so at the schools with lower academic requirements. And then as I remind the kids I coach, it is all very subjective. Auditioning for many schools is the best approach, and having a lot of auditions can be good experience.
This is worth a lot to the kids who need guidance, thanks so much everyone for sharing.</p>
<p>Maybe I missed a post about this but I have noticed that while quite a few were accepted to Emerson's MT program, I have not seen any decisions to go there. Anyone know what the stats for Emerson are??? It was originally my D's top choice and while she was admitted there, she chose BoCo instead. We are just curious why no one else seems to have chosen it either.</p>
<p>Also, one has to decide prior to auditioning if one will audition for Emerson's BFA or BA program and unlike a lot of schools, admission is offered only to that program (there's no chance to be offered the BA track if not accepted to the BFA and vice versa; the student decides, not the auditors). I wonder if many more students opt to audition for one program or the other....and I wonder about the statistics for acceptance for both.</p>
<p>cktsing, you're right, I don't see any emerson final decisions listed on the mt final decisions thread, but I don't see yours there either. Maybe some people just aren't posting their final decisions? or is yours listed somewhere else?</p>
<p>I would re-think the percentages, because some have incomplete information. </p>
<p>For example, the Steinhardt number is incomplete. I'm not sure how the poster came up with 18% for musical theatre. Approximately 15 MT students will be attending out of 275 who applied for the vocal performance program. I do not know how many out of the total number who applied wanted classical vs. musical theatre. This year they accepted a greater number of classical voice people than in previous years--probably double, even though many more MT applications are rec'd. The director of the program wanted more of a balance between the number of MT and classical students in the program than in previous years, and had purposefully balanced the ratio between the two this year. </p>
<p>There are also other factors that come into play when it comes to acceptances. For example, many of the students who applied never made the cut academically for NYU. </p>
<p>Also, six of the students who are attending the MT program in the fall had also attended the Steinhardt MT summer program. So in reality, far fewer spots existed for people who were applying who had no connection to the program previously. Those students may not have had to audition for the program in the fall and probably had spots saved for them if their academics were good. </p>
<p>So I would advise taking those percentages with a grain of salt. They may paint an incomplete picture.</p>
<p>uskoolfish makes an excellent point. The numbers should not be looked at in isolation, or with too much emphasis because there are likely to be idiosyncracies in each school's annual numbers just as there apparently are in Steinhardt's. The bottom line is that ALL of these programs are very difficult to get into. The admissions numbers and percentages, while interesting to read, should really just be a reminder that compiling an appropriately wide-ranging list of possible schools is going to be key to a student's results. As has been said here many, many times, if a good list is chosen, every student should have at least one school to choose from for freshman year. A list of a range of BFA schools of varying levels, a few BA by audition schools, and a couple of BA non-audition schools which are academic safeties. Each student's individual list will likely differ slightly but the format for the lists should be similar. Academic stats, always important, and financial aid considerations will also come into play when compiling the list.</p>
<p>The numbers are interesting, I admit, and I have yet to figure out exactly why. They really should just be one small part of the extensive research a student should do on each school which interests them, and yet each year, there seems to be a 'numbers discussion'. :) Far more important in the research process, in my opinion, are a detailed look at and comparison of curricula, faculty including guest and visiting, types and number of productions, and discussions with current students and alumni.</p>
<p>I want to reiterate -- as others have above -- that academics come into play at some of the schools listed above -- Michigan and NYU are examples of "top" BFA schools. Muhlenberg and Northwestern are examples of a non-auditioned BA programs that are academically selective. There are very talented students who will not meet their academic requirements, and thus not apply. JMU is a BA program that has an audition for the concentration and is selective academically.</p>
<p>Like alwaysamom says "The numbers are interesting, and I have yet to figure out why. They really should be just one small part of the extensive research a students should do on each school which interests them.."
:)</p>
<p>The most interesting number to me is the Michigan stat about 200 of the 650 applicants being academically ineligible students. Wow! I remember something on an old thread about NYU numbers. I'm thinking about one third were ineligible???? Does anyone remember that? I'll have to search for it. Of course, those kids wasted time auditioning, and it makes me wonder if they were very, very far off in their stats. I wish all schools would give a cursory review of the application -- nothing final, but just a thumbs up or down to tell a kid if he's in the ballpark academically -- before auditions. Or be more transparent about what stats are needed to be a serious candidate. Again, I'm assuming these ineligible kids read the website data before applying & had no reason to think they were not reasonable candidates. </p>
<p>To me, that's the one factor in MT applications you can be fairly certain about. Either you have a chance (not guarantee, but chance) academically or you have none. The talent componenet is much more subjective & unpredictable.</p>
<p>cktsing....well, obviously many people ARE choosing Emerson but they simply may not be on CC. CC has a lot of participants but doesn't nearly represent all who are pursuing MT! Also, at Emerson, one must stipulate only ONE program to apply to and can only be considered for one program. </p>
<p>I agree entirely with what AlwaysAMom posted above....all her points. While this is interesting to view, there really is not a LOT of difference either between admitting 8% or 3%....they are all hard to get into and it is CRUCIAL to build the RIGHT list for an INDIVIDUAL student and everyone's list should be DIFFERENT depending on their own academic and artistic qualifications and college selection criteria (and examine each school and their curricula and policies and so forth very in depth). As well, a balanced list is essential and for most kids, this will likely mean BFAs in a range of academic and artistic selectivity (and I don't just mean acceptance rate), a couple of BA by audition, and two BA with no audition, at least one of which is also an academic safety. </p>
<p>StickerShock.....yes, it does seem interesting that 200 applicants to Michigan were not eligible academically to make the cut to be invited to audition and yes, there are kids who apply to NYU who have no chance of getting in academically. One would THINK that students researched the qualifications needed to be admitted and the stats of admitted students and assessed whether they were in the BALLPARK before applying. But I can tell you in my line of work, I run into many families who are NOT (emphasis on the NOT) realistic and just find MT schools they like with NO examination on the stats needed to get in. Of course, if they work with me, I help them to create a more viable list vis a vis their academic and artistic qualifications but this leads me to believe that lots of people, without guidance, are applying to colleges that are not merely "reaches" but "out of reach". And you are correct that schools are transparent in terms of what academic stats and preparation are needed to be admitted and what the stats are of accepted students to their schools. I see people on CC as well applying to schools or asking what schools offer MT and there is WAY more to selecting colleges for an individual than whether the school offers a degree in MT......there needs to be an assessment of academic fit and artistic fit, as well as the fit of the program for the individual's criteria. Each person's list will therefore differ. I don't think a school needs to tell a student ahead of time if they are in the ballpark academically.....this is EASILY something one can assess by looking at the published data on that school and then finding academic reaches, matches and safeties to build their list. A "far reach" should be eliminated (that's a school where one's stats are nowhere near the ballpark). But apparently, there are students who apply who are not in the ballpark anyway. It is practically a wasted application. Reach schools are fine to have. But if one's stats are not remotely in the ballpark, one should think twice about applying.</p>
<p>StickerShock, I don't recall NYU ever providing details on how many auditioning kids are not in the academic range to be admitted. It's common knowledge for anyone who does even the most cursory research that NYU equally weights academics and the artistic review. NYU's admitted student stats, with average GPA and middle-50% SAT score stats, are provided every year for it's incoming freshman class. People need to look at this kind of information and determine whether or not they are in the academic ballpark prior to applying, just as ANY applicant to NYU should. The transparency is there as much as it can be.</p>
<p>The logistics of doing even a preliminary academic review prior to auditioning for 2300 students is virtually impossible.</p>
<p>Above, I was talking of academic qualifications in building an appropriate list but this also has to do with being realistic in terms of one's artistic talent. Even for the most talented applicants, it is very very very hard to get in. But if your skill set is not in the ballpark, the chances are going to go down a lot. I also run into some families who are not realistic about the artistic talent and the level of competition. Getting an assessment of one's artistic talent is also important. There are some applicants to BFA programs who are not in the running realistically. Being realistic about one's academic qualifications and artistic qualifications in building an appropriate college list is quite important. The wrong list will hurt come spring. It is hard enough to get in even with the right list. As AlwaysAMom noted, with the right list, no student should be left with zero acceptances. Sometimes talking to someone outside your family in assessing the college list to make sure it is realistic and well balanced would be a good idea.</p>
<p>AlwaysAMom, I agree with post #74.....the information that one would need to determine if one is in the ballpark academically for a school, be it NYU or another school, is all readily available and in fact, an important consideration in building a college list. I think some people ignore the academic factor and just apply to MT schools that they like when some truly have very unrealistic schools on their list. People need to research this and not simply pick schools that offer MT that they like or dream of attending. They need to assess their academic and artistic qualifications vis a vis each program/college.</p>
<p>Soozie, maybe it's the term "academically ineligible" that has me surprised. If you look at admissions to ivy league schools, the admission reps are always saying they could fill their seats two or three times over. Kids turned away are just as strong as those admitted. And those reps say (perhaps they're not truthful) that not a great number of kids who apply are completely out of their league. I thought MT applicants would be taking similar care to apply to schools that were real possibilities, expecially given the extra audition time & expense. Maybe a big portion of those 200 Michigan applicants were just academically weaker than the 450 considered; I read the "ineligible" meaning to be not a chance in hell. Serious gaps, such as no foreign language or SATs hundreds of points below the mid range, for example.</p>
<p>But if you extrapolate your experience over 50 states, I guess it's not implausible that 200 ineligible kids would send an application to such a well known school</p>
<p>Actually the 450 applicants at Michigan were apprently not all "equal" in the eyes of UMich. At the presentation they mentioned that some of those were required to submit their first semester grades - while for the rest it was just optional. Giving the impression that some of the 450 were allowed to audition - whether based on their resume or whatever - but were not academically where Michigan preferred.</p>
<p>SS,
Right, just like with schools like Harvard that have too many entirely qualified students and could fill their class at least two times with the same level of qualified students among the applicant pool, but ALSO have applicants who apply who are not remotely qualified for consideration, so do BFA programs. There are applicants who have not done their research, as well as are very very unrealistic and put in an application anyway. I have run into kids, for instance, who say "I want NYU; it's my dream school" who have NO chance AT ALL even on the academic end, let alone the talent end, of getting in. Some listen to the advice and some don't. I've had kids whose artistic talent/experience is not in the ballpark for CMU but apply anyway and it is a waste of a slot on their list. Some are not realistic. It is hard enough to get in even if you DO have the academic and artistic qualifications, given the low admit rates. But if you are not competitive either artistically or academically with certain schools, it is nearly impossible to get in and so it means building a more realistic list. I have had a few families where I have had to really encourage them to add certain schools where I thought they had a better chance compared to the schools they wanted where their chances were not very good and where do you think they ended up? They got in the school I urged them to add and I am glad they went along with the suggestion as that is where they are happily attending and may have been left with NO school to attend.</p>
<p>Always, NYU did give that info at an admissions session. It was discussed here, and I'll search when I can.</p>
<p>The reason I am curious is to see how accurate those selectivity numbers really are. If a school like Michigan DIDN'T do a review of applications before auditions, their selectivity percentage would drop from 5% to 3%. I also don't agree that preliminary review is impossible. It would take far less time, effort, & manpower on the school's part to have a file reviewed quickly than it would to have a panel of auditioners judge an academically weak candidate, teach dances, etc. </p>
<p>Naturally schools love tiny selectivity numbers. They also like the audition/application fee $$. And even NYU will negotiate with admisions for standards to be dropped if a highly desirable talent appears. So maybe it will never change. But just as an observer of all the painful news, crazy expense, & emotional output in this process, I'd like to see some streamlining.</p>