This entire thread is making me feel paranoid about not having a coach or not having the right coach. We’re thinking of working with someone this summer who has great chemistry with my son, but the comments here (and the implied success rate) is making me second guess our plans. I know I’m being paranoid and should just stick to with what I think is best for my son and our budget, but this entire process is making me nuts. On another note, is it advisable to list coaching on the resume, or do auditors have negative thoughts about coaching in general?
It would seem that many auditors don’t frown upon audition coaching since many of them are offering workshops in conjunction with private coaches and/or attending private “unified” style audition events arranged by private coaches.
@claire74 I think and typically recommend that a student work with someone to prepare songs and monologues (may be two different people) who are familiar with college auditions and have worked with other HS students pursuing such degree programs. National coaches can be one great resource, but certainly not the only one! If you have someone local who can help your child, who is familiar with this process and has helped students in the past, go for it! My child worked on her songs with her regular voice teacher of 5 years and worked on her monologues with an acting teacher. Albeit, both taught in MT programs in NYC, though lived in Vermont, our home state. We had no additional costs for song “coaching,” as it was my D’s regular voice lessons, but did have some monologue “lessons” for about 6 months on a weekly basis. There are many people who can do this and there is no one way.
@claire74- if I had another kid going through the process this thread would make me tense too. Clearly coaching can help- the proof is on the websites. Mos of the kids I have known going through the process (including mine) had help from teachers at her PA school- who have a deep knowledge of art, but are not experts on the college process the way a coach would be. I don’t know if I would do things differently - but I can easily see the allure. But for me, it comes back to a larger question. Year ago- if you were a “smart” kid (good grades/high scores) you could apply to really selective colleges (ivies and the like) and have a pretty good chance of getting accepted. Today- having a 4.0+ and stellar scores is only the 1st step- there is so much more that goes into that “package”. Are we heading to a place where “just” talent isn’t enough in the BFA world?
@claire74 - it depends on what schools your student is interested in attending. If you want to attend a school that draws hundreds (or maybe more than one thousand) very talented applicants from across the country for a very limited number of slots, then you will be competing with hundreds of students with many years of training and experience in acting/voice/dance, have deep pockets, have attended several expensive summer programs, routinely travel to NYC to see shows, have professional experience, have audition coaches (local or national), etc. None of that is a guarantee, however, as students are admitted to these programs every year who have none of those advantages, just a lot of heart, moxy, determination, and natural ability.
Conversely, there are many programs that draw mostly or exclusively from regional pools of applicants, very few of whom have attended expensive summer programs, many do not have several years of dance/voice/acting training, and only a few have audition coaches. These programs are generally not listed at the top of this forum and are only mentioned in a few posts each year, if at all.
This forum is a great resource, but it tends to focus on a relatively small set of extremely competitive schools.
toowonderful - You gave a great example. Talent isn’t enough when it takes a certain amount of money and know-how to get through an audition season. My son didn’t have years of training, but when he decided in junior year to go the MT/Acting BFA route we raided the money from grandma to pay for a pre-college program and a minimal amount of coaching. I remember feeling like I landed on an alien planet when my husband and I sat in the CMU auditorium during the pre-college parent weekend and my husband leaned over and said “Get a load of the ring the woman next to you is wearing.” The diamond was so big, it looked like a helipad! Then came the application fees, sending SAT scores, airfare, hotels, etc. My head was spinning and the credit card was almost on fire! It pains me to think about all the talented and worthy kids who cannot compete financially to audition, let alone pay tuition.
And at our S’s CMU audition (and others), we also saw kids from the other end of the spectrum - obviously came to the audition alone - perhaps via mass transit - and no “professional” had coached them on what to wear (or a “nicer” option wasn’t in their closet to begin with). They may have had talent up the yin yang, but w/o a super helping of self confidence you wonder how they managed their own stress levels in the audition room. Was there anyone to steer them towards good material? I cannot imagine what it would have been like for my S if he had been standing in their shoes. I understand the stakes involved, but it seems like this process is becoming like grooming thoroughbreds for professional racing - either pony up, or get out off the track.
Don’t start the process feeling you are way behind others if you don’t work with one of the well known coaches often discussed here. I think we get thrown off by the word “coaching”. Most kids who go through this process get help from someone along the way with picking out material, school suggestions, practicing their material, suggesting what to wear, etc… Sometimes it is a school teacher, a voice or dance teacher, the local children’s theater or a friend that helps. But what they are doing is still advising, just like the nationally recognized coaches discussed often here do. So I think there are a lot more kids who are “coached” through the process than we often recognize. And realize that many of the kids who work with these “coaching” services may only work with them for 4 or 5 hours total - just to select their material. Many choose to work on their songs and monologues with someone at home.
The MT process is not really different than regular college admissions. There are kids who work with college planners, who have ACT/SAT coaching, etc… who help shape their essays, videos, resumes, etc… Those professionals are trying to help them with their list of schools, and show themselves to their best in their applications and interviews.
There will always be people with advantages over others in life. MT is no different than that. Assess your situation. Figure out what you can do to prepare and go with it. Don’t stress. But do get the best help and advice you can find. I still think Mary Anna’s book, “I Got In” is the best bang for the buck - borrow a copy or check it out of a library if you can’t afford your own copy. It’s got a wealth of information. There are other books as well. Check out what’s available. And of course CC is full of free info as well. Use your school teachers. Other locals if they are willing to help. Don’t let not being able to afford one of the national coaches be an excuse. Don’t let it make you feel you are already behind those you are auditioning with. Find you own ways of getting coached or prepared that work for you But whatever way you choose to prepare, be confident in yourself and your abilities. And let that confidence shine in the audition room. You can do it!
mom4bwayboy, I agree that it is really not an even playing field. I wish there was more colleges could do to provide indicators of “fit” or potential success. The cost-of-attendance indicators are all very well for kids in most majors, but not for performance majors. It’s kind of like shopping at Kohls–you never really know how much it’s going to cost until you get to the checkout. And even once you’re there, the person in front of you may have more coupons, more membership discounts, or a better scratch-off card than you. I wish the MT departments could devise some sort of FAQ that would help students assess their potential for admittance. Even being straight up about how many girls/boys they plan to admit would help (some websites do this, or you can check the photos). Perhaps a list of qualities/experiences they look for in students would be helpful, or an indication of what type of student generally gets talent scholarship and who doesn’t. As moms and dads, we all think our kids are incredible and deserving of big awards, but the reality is that schools are “for profit” at some level and need full-tuition students to make the wheels go around. This is my second experience with a performance major, and there is a lot I didn’t learn until I got to the checkout desk last time. I’m trying to be more savvy, but when it comes to cost, I still feel I’m in the dark. While I know deep down that our family can’t afford some of the top schools, I have a hard time telling my kid he can’t apply, especially when the websites and theater department reps hold out the carrot of potential scholarships that my kids probably has a snowball’s chance of winning. I really feel for those hugely talented, optimistic and confident kids who are trying to work the system by themselves when their luckier peers have parental support, guidance, and resources to help them along.
Agree with both @vvnstar and @clair74 - We did all of S’s “coaching” locally - private voice teacher and private teacher for monologue help. Throughout all our “Art” kids school years (three boys in art-related fields, MT S is youngest) we spent small fortune on local classes, private lessons, summer experiences. We “shopped” for scholarships whenever possible, did “local” when we could and within driving distance for intensives that were further afield. We made it clear to all three that their “college funds” had been spent on all these things - things we knew would help them be college ready, but also things they loved to do even if they changed their minds about what they wanted to do after HS. We allowed all three to apply to expensive “dream” schools and helped with portfolios, prescreens, logistics. etc. But we also made it clear from junior high that it was unlikely we would qualify for needs-based help (except loans) and we were not paying for college beyond what it would cost us to to feed and house them in our own home, help with books/supplies and secure a bus pass to the local options. Over many years, we had given them the means (yes, including a some sessions of private PSAT and ACT prep). They all had the brains for substantial merit scholarships. What they did with this “leg up” was up to them.
Several “dream” schools panned out for visual artist son #2 - with substantial scholarships, but not enough for us to justify taking out parent loans to cover an education for a S that had shown “spotty” work ethic in HS. We sort of had a “heads up” about what we would find at the final “checkout”, and were not willing to bring out the “plastic” to pay up. We’d already paid what was a lot to us, to get him “in the door”.
MT S #3 feels that his outcomes at “dream” schools might have been different if he’d had a different coaching arrangement. But even if that had been the case, based on our experience and that of others, we would not have been able to pay at “checkout” for most of them. As it is, the “local” coaching got him into a program that is perfect for his aspirations and the few hundred dollars spent on test prep (along with years of doing his best in decent schools and living with parents that use words too big for their britches) netted him a large merit scholarship - less than an hour from home.
We did the best with what we had - more than some and less than others. Maybe a national level coach would have been a good thing, but I’m not sure we could have benefited from the possible “better” results. We do know others who had little monetary/logistics help from home and mostly utilized teachers at school. Their results were not what you see posted on the national sites, but they are happy with where they ended up. For every single one of these kids, it’s ultimately going to come down to their own effort, tenacity, risk taking and willingness to make their own “luck”.
@claire74 The whole business is murky. And it certainly doesn’t improve when they are out in the real world. The whole process of casting is subjective and based on so many other factors that you can’t even begin to understand the factors that go into a final decision.
So you can’t expect admissions to be clear cut. I’m sure that there are some students applying who are unanimously thought of as untalented. But most are talented, and have a shot. But you just can’t gauge the odds.
uskoolfish, I understand where you’re coming from and know it’s a valid point of view, but, boy, do I find that comparison of college auditions to professional casting exhausting. And flawed, too. In my view, real-world casting is all about type and fit, connections and experience. Directors know what they are looking for and spell it out in casting notices–often down to details of color, age, height, build, etc. In applying to college, our seventeen-year-olds are, at some level or other, trying to find themselves. They’re often not sure of their “type”, not entirely confident in their skills, and sometimes not even sure they are on the right path.Maybe I’m being naive, but I dislike the tendency to compare entry into education with a casting call. I feel that schools seeking tuition-paying students (and parents who pay audition-fees/travel costs) should have some level of obligation to let prospective enrollees know what they are looking for and what their expectations are. This happens in academic majors, with GPA/SAT/ACT requirements, guidance on essay writing, opportunities to meet faculty and alumni, and charts/graphs to determine academic fit, etc. To some extent it happens at MT departments (some schools are better than others at sharing information and opening their classrooms to observers than others), but I do wish they could find a way to be more transparent about their expectations and requirements. The amount of research needed to fully investigate each school is time-consuming and exhausting, with multiple barriers. Yet record numbers of students are applying each year for a diminishing number of spots. I think part of the reason we feel the need to apply to 12-20 programs is that the schools don’t always put themselves out there as welcoming of applicants. I don’t know what the answer is–if I were an admissions officer, I would be overwhelmed, too, by the extraordinary number of applications–but it would be helpful, I think, if schools were clear on the following: number of opens spots, number of boys vs girls, current “type” requirements (if there is a way to do that), how “talent” money is allocated, desirability of classical voice training or dance training, how resume experience factors into auditions, how much of a part extra-curriculars or volunteer work play, etc. If there is a “type” to whom the school NEVER gives scholarship (pretty blonde soprano, for instance), then applicants have a right to know that they will be expected to pay full tuition if accepted. If the school needs bass singers or tall male dancers and that’s where there scholarship money will go, tell applicants that, too. Our teens are seeking an education and an environment in which to mature, not a short-term casting. They don’t have a grasp on costs or the long-term effects of extended student loans. They don’t need their confidence to be bashed to pieces before they even get started. Ok, rant over (steps down from soapbox).
I think you make a valid point @claire74 - after all, in a casting call the auditioner is looking to get paid- in a college audition the auditioner will pay them! It’s a different game
toowonderful, you’re so right. Sometimes I feel that our students don’t have the edge or receive the benefits that a customer in any other transaction accrues. And let’s remember that this transaction can cost the student anywhere from $80000 to $200000 in tuition alone. That’s money that goes directly into the school’s pocket and doesn’t include other costs of attendance, such as room and board.
Casting is a bit different than college audition admissions because with college auditions, you are not necessarily vying for a part, but simply to be part of a class. I don’t think programs could indicate what “type” they are looking for because many programs want a variety of types to fill the class (let alone potential shows). I think they are looking for talent in singing, acting, and dancing (generally speaking) and many candidates obtain skills through training and there are likely some who have a natural ability but less training and so the programs can’t tell you how much training is necessary. In terms of required extra-curriculars…in my personal opinion, my kids chose extracurricular endeavors that they WANTED to do and not “to get into college.” They would have taken the same lessons and partaken in the same activities or community service whether or not they were applying to college. They had a passion for their chosen endeavors. And I do think that most colleges do like to see kids who are engaged in interests outside the academic classroom and have achieved in those areas of interest or played a significant role in the endeavor. Typically, more selective schools weigh such things more than less academically selective schools and use holistic admissions and not just test scores and GPA. I don’t think my MT kid (or my other kid) would have done anything differently prior to college had each college outlined some very specific things they want in a candidate. I think most schools outline some general things that they are seeking. I think one should pursue their interests, get great grades, challenge themselves academically and extracurricularly, and be themselves. I don’t think one should pick endeavors to do just to look good for a college. Anyway, how would you do that if every college wanted something different and you are applying to several? In the end, an audition is a subjective element and just can’t be defined in black and white terms.
In terms of the resume, I didn’t really care how much it counted because my kid did what she did that eventually got recorded onto a resume because she wanted to be in those shows, take those lessons or classes, or have a fun summer program pursuing her chosen interests. She didn’t do those things just to build a resume. The resume was just a record of everything she had done. (as an aside…my MT daughter chose her summer program at age NINE and loved it so much she went back every summer until she entered college and so she surely didn’t pick it with college in mind!)
By the way, I am not sure I agree that while more students are applying to MT programs, that less spots are available. Actually, there are more MT programs now than there were ten years ago. It was difficult odds then and it is still difficult odds.
soozievt, is it good news or bad news, in your opinion, that more schools are offering MT programs? Is there more demand or are colleges seeing MT as a potential profit center? If the number of graduates is going up, what is that going to do to the professional market? Surely professional demand is shrinking rather than growing? And if many more schools are offering MT, doesn’t that mean there is even more need for transparency and for schools to find ways to differentiate themselves to the candidate pool?
I don’t know if it is good news or bad news. I just meant that while more may be auditioning than ever before, there are also more programs/spots. In terms of the professional market, it always has been hugely competitive and will always be. As you know, people are vying for casting who have majored in other fields, not gone to college, and so on, and so the audition pool in places like NYC is full of more than just MT graduates! It is very hard to make it in a stage career. That said, I still believe a college degree is useful in terms of anyone’s future and getting an education is important. Most will have to likely augment a performing career with other types of work but that work may still be arts related (or not).
I think the schools ARE differentiated and it does require research. If anything, there is a finite number of MT programs to research compared to applying to regular colleges. One can examine all types of things like curriculum, type of degree (BA, BFA, BM), Acting or MT, amount of liberal arts required, type of university the program is in, conservatory or college, size, setting, faculty, production opportunities, showcase/not, success of graduates, and so on. They are not all the same. It isn’t a matter of finding 12 schools by eeny meeny miny mo…research at program/college websites, college visits, talking with current students and graduates, reading online forums like this one, etc. and charting aspects of each program allows one to compare them with one another, as well as against one’s own selection criteria. Then, there is the aspect of balancing the list both artistically and academically vis a vie one’s own academic and artistic qualifications (one person’s list should not look like another’s). Also, given how competitive it is to be admitted, one should cast a wide net and not be overly picky at first and see where they get in and then narrow down the fit and criteria to a favorite. If one does their research, trains, prepares, builds an appropriate college list, one should have options for college (that doesn’t necessarily mean a BFA option). I have rarely seen anyone have NO college to attend. Things do work out in some way.
One thing to keep in mind in all of this is that many (most??) of these kids are choosing to pursue a BFA at audition programs. By their very nature these programs are competitive, and looks/type/talent-based standards are inherent to the field. A violinist applying to top tier music schools is going through the same process - without the looks component - but certainly “type” and who you trained with are important factors. Dance majors also run the same gauntlet - and looks play a huge factor - with the added pressure of trying to enter the field at a very young age in order to maximize the potentially very short life span for a career. We’d like to think that college is about lots of things besides learning a “trade” that may, or may not, pay off. But anyone hoping to enter a highly competitive BFA program needs to understand what they are getting into. It may look like fun to those of us in the audience, but it is NOT a 4-year walk in the park. Neither is being a working actor/musician/dancer. Kids who do not want to “jockey for position” in these fields (I don’t mean that in a negative sense) can choose to go to non-BFA, non-audition programs. It doesn’t necessarily mean that their college education will be any less valid or valuable - just different. Perhaps less stressful. Possibly more creative or exploratory.
Coaches are doing so well and programs are springing up like mushrooms because of demand. Programs don’t “need” to be more transparent about what they’re looking for, because they have a huge applicant pool without being transparent - and maybe they don’t “know” what they want until it walks into the audition room.
As for all those highly trained actors/singers/dancers/musicians coming out of the increased caliber pipeline, they will either need to learn to live on a pittance, or learn to juggle multiple jobs, OR - my personal favorite - figure out a way to create greater demand for high quality entertainment in undersaturated markets and then deliver the high quality goods created by all those highly trained performers/writers/directors. They will have to create their own future success. And hopefully the rest of us will get to benefit from an “abundance of riches”.
I think that with the audition process for colleges, you are hoping to somehow be able to capture and categorize a moving target. Schools reserve the right to decide on a case by case basis whether they want to admit a student and recognize that it is totally subjective. I think the parameters are subject to change and there is no set formula. Auditioners might start the process by saying it would be great if we could find someone who is type “A” to round out our class…but if a sensational type “B” student comes along, they may grab them up and change their original plan.
No school is going to say we don’t need a blonde soprano (imagine the law suits!) or we never admit students who can’t belt. Because they can always make the exception.
However, if you do research, you can find out a lot by really looking into curriculum, recital requirements, searching websites, searching you tube and visiting schools. This kind of information won’t be an exact science, but it can reveal the school’s philosophy, teaching methods and what other classes look like.
And I do think that the process helps prepares students for what is to come. If the process of auditioning for college is daunting and unfair, multiply that by a lot when it comes to the real world. Half way through her program, my own D decided she didn’t want to perform enough to always audition and live with the uncertainty that not having a full time job entails. She also realized that she like putting together shows more than performing in them. She liked the development, casting and marketing aspect of theatre. Which has lead her in the direction of casting, working in an agency and doing entertainment marketing.
But the experience of being on the other side has been eye opening. And yes, being cast is very much about networking, likability and type. And is totally subjective and personal.
In other highly competitive college admissions…for example, to elite colleges such as Ivies…there are a lot of subjective aspects that go into picking students. To even be considered, you have to have relatively high standardized test scores, high grades, have taken a very rigorous HS course load in the context of your HS, being close to the top of your HS class, etc. and yet, way too many candidates meet those concrete objective criteria. So, the things that separate them and are considered quite strongly, are a lot of subjective criteria…the strengths of their ECs and achievements in those, essays, personality, leadership, recommendations, and so on…THEN, a school is building a class (just like they do for a MT program) of different types…they want diversity in terms of race and economics, geographic location, and so forth. THEN, one year they may need more fencers and another year a French horn player or newspaper editors. So, a lot of subjective decision making goes into highly competitive admissions even outside of audition type college programs.
And as uskoolfish says, if you think BFA in MT admissions is insanely competitive and subjective (and it surely is!!), just wait and see what it is like once your kid graduates…it is WAY more! So, welcome to this world. Students really need to weigh if they want to be subjected to this or not. It is difficult to say the least. There needs to be a lot of drive to put up with it, passion, and being realistic. Interestingly enough, after some of these kids go through all this to get admitted (and it is a LOT), some end up wanting to leave a program or leave MT once they are in such a program.