<p>I would say that in my experience, the reason for the more boys number is because you don't have as many boys that don't have the crazy drive for MT as girls. I'm not saying that girls don't have that drive, I just think that there are proportionally less than the number of guys who don't have that drive. I think that as you increase the sample size (AP Statistics at work here) you decrease the variation in a group. So, with less variation, you have a larger number of girls who want to do MT in general, but due to the larger sample size, you have a larger number that don't have the crazy drive. </p>
<p>I also feel that it is socially harder for boys to pursue it. I know I personally have dealt with insults. It's even harder for a straight boy like myself I think, because you have people spreading nasty rumors about you that are based on your hypothesized perference, but aren't true. So I would say that this drives boys harder to become better. But the reverse is true with girls too, as you have a larger number of players in the game. </p>
<p>Am I making any sense? I hope so...so I'll try to sum it up easily.</p>
<p>% # of boys with crazy MT drive > % # girls with crazy MT drive...</p>
<p>Ok, so that's what I've observed, and now I am ready for others points of view. GO!</p>
<p>Am I the only one who is thoroughly and utterly confused by what chrisnoo wrote? (Sorry, chrisnoo, but when you said that "the reason for the more boys number is because you don't have as many boys that don't have the crazy drive for MT as girls," something about the double negative -- you don't have as many boys that don't have the crazy drive ..." you lost me.)</p>
<p>Did you mean to say that because boys are sometimes looked at a certain way if they want to pursue musical theater, those that <em>do</em> go ahead and pursue it at the college level are highly, highly motivated, and perhaps even more highly motivated than are some girls?</p>
<p>I apologize for my confusion. But I just couldn't make any sense of what you said! Perhaps, however, that is because this English major and lover of written language never took a statistics course (much less an AP one!) in her life! :)</p>
<p>Interesting thoughts I havent really taken statistics, but the subject was touched on in some of my h/s math classes. Hopefully, I can still remember the correct terminology! I'll at least try to satisfy the grammar Nazis. LOL </p>
<p>I disagree with the assertion that % # of boys with crazy MT drive > % # girls with crazy MT drive. First off, as Ive said before, I believe that there are a very small number of kids of either sex with equal potential in the three areas of acting, singing, and dance. I feel there is probably little variation in raw talent between the sexes in that though there could potentially be some variance from year-to-year which could go either way. Then, you have the previously-mentioned social factor that causes many boys to eliminate themselves from the population or never even discover they have these talents. Thus, talent-wise, there would be a much shorter and steeper curve for boys in the population of those auditioning and the variation at the top would be somewhat smaller than that of the girls. However, there is also another factor besides pure talent and drive that has not been discussed and, unfortunately, plays to the disadvantage of girls in this male fantasy dominant business. It is that of perceived commercial viability. Basically, while there are always exceptions, in general, there are a lot more ways a boy can look and be successful in the entertainment business than a girl. I realize this statement may ruffle some feathers and make me unpopular around these parts, but look at the chorus (where most MTers that work will make their living) in just about any classic large-scale professional MT production. Those girls look like the came out of the same cookie cutter. There is a lot more variation in the men. I think the auditors and heads of departments at a lot of these schools realize this and it reflects in admissions. Thus, my hypothesis is % # perceived commercially viable true triple threat males > % # perceived commercially viable true triple threat females. I think this may explain the numbers at UMich if they really accept what they consider to be the most highly qualified unlike some of the other schools that clearly discriminate based on sex in favor of the boys. Notice that Theatermom never quoted anyone as saying most talented.</p>
<p>Wow I think that boys with drive vs girls with drive is way off. I know most schools accept about equal amonts of boys and girls, yet more girls audition and therefor it is more difficult for girls to get in. It takes a lot of drive for a girl, and I'm not even getting into the physical aspect that girls are objectified more than boys.</p>
<p>Also it takes a lot of drive in school because there just are not as many girl parts in shows and when you have about the same amont of girls and guys (usually more girls even) girls get shafted a lot more, and don't get as many chances as boys do, yet they still stay stron and keep on working, and if that doesn't mean drive, that I don't know what does!!</p>
<p>what i mean was that I have seen more girls that want to pursue MT seriously, and don't work as hard as most of the boys I have seen. Many girls I know and that I go to school with just expect MT to be handed to them. Maybe that's because of where I live, idk. </p>
<p>ckp: i also agreed with you i quote "But the reverse is true with girls too, as you have a larger number of players in the game. " meaning that there are more girls, so less chances so they have to work harder.</p>
<p>NotMamaRose - Did you mean to say that because boys are sometimes looked at a certain way if they want to pursue musical theater, those that <em>do</em> go ahead and pursue it at the college level are highly, highly motivated, and perhaps even more highly motivated than are some girls? yes thats what I meant. sorry about my double negative. its easier for girls to be accepted in their quest for MT, more so than guys. </p>
<p>i also knew that posting any sort of thoughts here would only insight opposition. so yeah, I might not have phrased things the way i meant them, but I got a good response, and that brought up more converstation.</p>
<p>and i believe that fishbowlfreshman's hypothesis is a little bit more of what i meant. but i do see a higher percent of boys with drive than i do females. maybe thats just me. </p>
<p>chris</p>
<p>please feel free to disagree again. its fun, it keeps life interesting. i'm not mad by any means. so just keep on respondin!</p>
<p>I havent checked in in awhile interesting discussion. I think something like this was bandied about a year ago. Ill repeat something that was said at one of the group information sessions we went to last year during auditions, in response to the male versus female thing. In essence it was presented this way, far more girls believe in their ability than guys. There are far more girls who take dance and participate in high school theatre, but at the very cream of the crop the numbers of guys and gals are about equal. Although I am not a good judge- my kids call me tone deaf I do know that after hearing many participants practicing during my sons auditioning season- there were about a quarter of the girls I heard that I thought really had no business auditioning. I know one from his high school that I cringed every time I heard her sing. Yet her mother still speaks about her reauditioning into a MT program. My son on the other hand had to really convince us that MT was his only choice. It is such a hard road even today I sometimes wish he hadnt had such strong results and was now quietly studying zoology at a nearby state college. Will he ever be able to support a family? I would be far less apprehensive if I had a daughter studying MT. - And most people call me a feminist!</p>
<p>Gosh! Who knew that just correcting Soozievt's UM gender numbers would start such an interesting discussion!</p>
<p>I just want to respond to fishbowlfreshman's observation that I never used - or quoted - the words "most talented" when discussing my understanding of how UM ended up with more boys than girls each of the last three years. Please note that I try to choose my words very carefully and I was careful to state that what I wrote was my UNDERSTANDING: how I interpret the numbers I know to be true - what makes those numbers make sense to me. I am not privy to the meetings wherein the acceptance decisions are made nor have I had a conversation about this topic with anyone who is. Also, I used the words "most qualified" on purpose. I believe that there are many things that UM looks at when making these decisions, among them being raw and realized talent, passion, potential, intelligence, commitment, work ethic and joy in what you do. All of these are important qualities, but I have no way of knowing what specific weight each of these characteristics is given when UM does its assessment - hence my use of the words "most qualified," i.e., in UM terms, instead of "most talented." Only the folks making these decisions at UM really know what qualifies an applicant for an offer of admission to their program and for every other program qualification can mean something totally different. Hope this clarifies my thoughts from above a bit.</p>
<p>BTW, I think that taking this subject off into the realm of assessing who and how many are more or less motivated and what, if any, impact that has on acceptances is fruitless. You can talk about it all you want, of course, but you will never agree, be able to prove anything or know the answer. But have fun trying!!</p>
<p>When I was speaking of U of Michigan, it was to do with what I recall that came up on the audition day that they take 20 students and an approximation of 10 girls and 10 boys. I'm glad theatermom clarified how many of each sex ended up in each class. I recall them also saying that the year prior to my D's year, they put out more offers than spots...I think they made, for example 14 male offers for the 10 spots and that all 14 boys accepted the spot and they did end up with more boys. I don't know that they are looking necessarily for more boys than girls but that is how it turned out. In that particular year, i think they made approx. the same number of offers to girls and boys but each boy who got an offer, accepted the spot and they weren't looking to have 14 boys in the class and ideally wanted about 10 but they all said yes. Brent Wagner said that for my D's year, they likely would try to put out 12 offers to yield ten based on the previous year's experience with the yield. Like Theatermom says, in a certain given year, perhaps there were more boys that fit what they were looking for, hard to say.</p>
<p>CMU, on the other hand, appeared to want more boys than girls. That was the word on the audition day from current students for the reasons I mentioned in an earlier post. </p>
<p>I think most schools are looking for a balance of girls and boys but it may not come out to be an equal number in the end as they need the right students, a certain talent/qualifications, and fill the slots with who they have in the applicant pool that they need or want. They are not going to take all one sex, of course. </p>
<p>In any case, boys WHO ARE ACTUALLY AUDITIONING have better odds of being admitted than girls, by the sheer numbers of how many apply. </p>
<p>Where we live and even at my D's theater camp, far more girls are involved in theater and so it is "easier" for boys to be cast in significant roles. I won't get into the why parts but just am talking of the numbers who are trying. </p>
<p>I do agree that there are some kids auditioning for BFA programs who may not be appropriate candidates. Trouble is, there are PLENTY who are auditioning who ARE qualified and have the drive, passion, work ethic, and talent. But there are some at auditions who are not realistic contenders.</p>
<p>Thought some of you might want to wander over to the Otterbein thread. Doctorjohn shared some good news about one of "his" kids, and with all that he has contributed here over the years, it would be a shame if it got lost in the shuffle.</p>
<p>It is interesting when you look into the CMU site (regarding their showcase) that their alumni of working actors in film, tv and stage are mostly men.</p>
<p>shortnsweet...I can't say why that is so but remember that CMU has more male students in their BFA program than female ones to begin with. When we were there, we were hearing that their take was that there was more work for men in the field which was part of their rationale to accept more men than women. </p>
<p>Last night, my D saw Megan Hilty in Wicked. Megan is a recent CMU grad and my daughter said she was fantastic. My D also has performed on stage several times with a very talented woman who has been in several Broadway shows and she is a CMU grad.</p>
<p>My daughter, almost 17, recently lost her voice teacher. He works at a local college and recently received a promotion that will no longer allow him the time for students who are not a member of his group at college. She really wants to find another excellent teacher. She has been taking private voice lessons since the age of 10. We are located in California in the San Gabriel Valley (between Los Angeles and San Bernardino). </p>
<p>Thought this might be a good place to ask. </p>
<p>Thanks. Yes, that is an obvious solution and one we have tried. The ones he recommended are currently not accepting new students, and she is on a waiting list. Thanks again for the thought. Anyone have any other ideas or recommendations?</p>
<p>Try calling any colleges in the area, plus music departments at high schools, and talk to anyone you know at community theaters and the like who may have contact names.</p>
<p>Just saw my s for the weekend. Noted he's especially, eh..., scraggley. I'd love to treat him to a "make-over" of sorts, or at least an appt with a hair stylist who has a good sense of attractive, easy to style hair. Any ideas good folks to suggest in the NYC area. I think this would be very helpful prior to his next round of auditions?</p>
<p>BTW jasmom, I work in a high school and...scraggly is in, I think. Especially for boys, the longer 70's type hair looks cute. Course that was the look when I was in school so I may be kind of biased. What does J think of his look?</p>