<p>I have been accepted to CalArts and USC for BFA Acting. It will only be for one year if I go to either. I will basically be treading water and getting some more actor training until I turn 18, can sign contracts, and get control over my inheritance. My plan after that is to drop out and continue my training in the LA area studios which I feel will be a better fit for what I want to do than any college acting program. I have also been accepted to Loyola Marymount, but they are not really in the running right now. </p>
<p>If you were going to do this, which would you choose and why? </p>
<p>I am leaning towards CalArts because of one faculty member. Fran Bennett is one of the foremost teachers of the Linklater voice technique and I might want to continue with her for private studies at her home studio even after I leave. It also seems more ethical since they admit more than 40 and expect students to drop out while USC only accepts 18. So, I would not be depriving anyone on the waiting list that is serious about finishing the USC degree one of those spots.</p>
<p>The main arguments for USC are that I would gain some regular college credit for if I decide to return to college to finish another degree later. By that, I mean when I am in my 30s. The regular classes at CalArts seem like mostly far out stuff that wouldn't transfer anywhere. Another thing is that I can't get a handle on what is taught as to acting technique at CalArts. What they teach at USC is very action oriented which is something that appeals to me and would translate into what is taught at the studios I am interested in for later. </p>
<p>Does anyone have any input one way or another? I am not interested in hearing whether dropping out is a good plan or not. I have been over all that with my family and my acting teachers and they support it. </p>
<p>I know nothing about USC’s program, but by what you wrote, it sounds like CalArts may not be the best fit for you. CalArts is nothing like the LA area studios and yes, they expect people to drop out and in fact many people do, but you should know they are just as selective than USC.</p>
<p>Fran is amazing indeed, but quite honestly she’s not the easiest person to deal with, so I’m not sure that you’re actually going to like her once you start working with her. I adore having her as a teacher, but many people despise her. You have to gain her respect and you should expect her to be very blunt about everything (and by blunt I mean she will say things that might be offensive if you take it personally). I don’t think she does private tutoring anymore, but if she does, pretty sure it’ll cost you a fortune.</p>
<p>I don’t know what you mean by “action oriented” since all acting is “action oriented” from my point of view, but the training at CalArts varies according to the teacher you have. Especifically for the BFA1s: Andrea is an actor, so she teaches from that perspective. She combines Stanislavski, Uta Hagen, Viewpoints and some other techniques (“Whatever works for you”). She also really likes non-naturalistic scenes. Nataki is a director with a very specific way of working which I wouldn’t know how to describe. She uses a lot of Grotowski-based exercises. Both encourage physicality and experimentation, and they both choose modern/contemporary American theater scenes for the first years.</p>
<p>If you haven’t already, I would suggest you to shadow classes at both schools. CalArts is an amazing school and it has a very solid acting program, but they focus way more in “opening our horizons” and letting us explore and do things we wouldn’t necessarily do in the “real world” than actually preparing us for the industry/typecasting/etc. If that’s what you’re interested in, don’t come here. If your main focus is film, I wouldn’t recommend CalArts either, since the training is 100% theater-based. There are some opportunities to do student films, yes, but you can’t take an Acting for the Camera class in your first year.</p>
<p>And as for the CalArts credits, they have categories for the general education classes (Humanities, Social Sciences, Cultural Studies, Math & Sciences, Métier and Other Métier Studies), so I guess the credits are transferrable. The “grades” we have are High Pass (4.00 GPA), Pass (3.00), Low Pass (2.00) and No Credit (0).</p>
<p>What I meant by action oriented is a technique closer to Meisner, Earle Gister, or Paul Mann as opposed to Uta Hagen or Lee Strasberg. Stella Adler’s way is kind of between those. </p>
<p>The thing about this is that I don’t think any college acting program is really right for me. They are are great at what they are intended to do, but they are all set up to mainly train people for theater and what is needed for that is different than what is necessary for film and tv. However, the basics are the same for everything, so it doesn’t seem like the first year would be totally wrong anywhere. Just not right, either. It is the voice, speech, and Alexander classes that I will probably get the most useful stuff from. Not that some other things might not surprise me. If I go, I will work hard at whatever is there. I don’t plan to be a slacker. I just won’t be planning to stay. </p>
<p>Does anybody have any info for USC like milkshakespeare gave for CalArts? I would like to visit, but I am tied up with a play and can’t get away right now. I don’t want to tell anybody at the schools about this because I am afraid they might withdraw my acceptances. I wish I could just get an apartment in Los Feliz or Silver Lake and take the classes and get the coaching I want, but it isn’t practical to do that until I turn 18. Some of the teachers I am interested in won’t even let you in their classes until then. </p>
<p>I was assuming they all do as part of voice or movement because it is such a basic thing. If one does and the other doesn’t, that will make my decision for me. If neither do, it will just suck.</p>
<p>At my son’s BFA program, Alexander was taught as a specialized class for upperclassmen…not incorporated into first-year movement classes. I’ve seen other curricula where this was the case also.</p>
<p>Interesting. I know that they teach it from the beginning at some of the top east coast schools like Juilliard, Uncsa, and Rutgers. Same with all the good grad schools. </p>
<p>I guess it is another thing I will have to do privately if I can’t get it in school. The good thing is that there are plenty of qualified teachers that have their own studios in the LA area. They charge between $80 and $100 an hour and it is something you can learn completely in 20 to 30 private sessions.</p>
<p>To answer NJTheatreMOM’s question about Alexander technique: Otterbein does teach it to freshmen; my son was introduced to it in his first-semester movement class and is taking a 1-credit course in it now as a 2nd-semester freshman. I think he may be able to keep studying it, but am not sure whether he can repeat the class for credit.</p>
<p>@Lughnasadh Alexande Technique is taught at CalArts for BFA2s. The movement classes we have are t’ai chi and yoga. And you only start speech your second semester and it’s pretty introductory (mostly IPA and consonants). Also, if you do come here, you definitely won’t have time to take classes in LA. They even told us in the beginning of the semester that if our goal was to work outside jobs, audition, take classes and do some acting work in LA while still in school, we should drop out.</p>
<p>I honestly don’t know what is taught at USC, but it seems like their actors are more commercial than CalArts actors. Even though the training here is not “experimental” per se (the shows are, though), they do have a strong component of experimentation, even in naturalistic scenes. And we are trained to be more than just actors as well, they encourage us to direct, write, etc. If that’s not your focus, I don’t know if you would thrive here as much.</p>