<p>I think it would serve those cut to say that they "dropped out" as Sutton Foster says about CMU, and then to believe it. (Is there a possibility that she could have been cut?) Hmmm. If they really want to continue in MT, they should, as she did. It's up to them to turn it into something positive. If they are talented enough to get into CCM, they could certainly succeed elsewhere. I wish them luck! If a teacher/director doesn't like a student for whatever reason (not necessarily based on talent, grades or attitude), chances are they won't be cast in many shows, and may even be let go from the school. It's unfortunate but perhaps they aren't seeing what another director may absolutely love. Could the directors/teachers possibly not feel a student shines as brightly as the others (and as we know some of these MT kids shine pretty loudly...I mean brightly), yet be overlooking the quiet actors? Sure. I say move on and prove them wrong.</p>
<p>I was told that Sutton Foster left CMU when she was cast in a professional show. Is that not true?
In any case, Melsmom's advice -- to move on and continue to believe in oneself and get good training -- is great advice.</p>
<p>I saw a program that impressed me greatly a couple of years ago. Butler University in Indianapolis has a lyric theater program seemed quite stellar. I don't think I've seen it mentioned here, but I have not scoured the threads. Take a peek at it. It does take transfers. The production opportunities looked marvelous. I liked Butler U very much. In a city neighborhood of Indy, nice sized, good rep in Indy, decent sized city, lots of performance opportunities.</p>
<p>Doesn't CCM and other schools with a cut policy have to worry at all about the flip side of their actions? Suppose that the student cut does come out to be that one in a million, like Sutton Foster, and really succeeds? It doesn't bode well for the school who cut that person from their program (I am not at all saying she was,) especially if said student either trains elsewhere, or goes directly to work, and becomes a success.
If motivation was at all a factor for the student being cut, being able to say that "School XYZ is a mess" might be just what the actor needs to step up his/her game. It wouldn't look good for the school doing the cutting, which seems to be what they are worried about, their reputation in the professional community.
Suppose for a minute that SF had been cut from CMU (again, not saying she was.) Would you think less about program there? Probably.</p>
<p>I agree that should you ever be cut from a program, try to forge ahead and believe in yourself. Many people do well after a setback. I have read or heard about people cut from respectable BFA programs who then were admitted to other BFA programs and/or were cast successfully after being cut. I can't recall the details as it was some time ago, but I have this recollection that someone cut from CCM then got cast on a National Tour....I think even in a significant role....may have been the Millie tour, but I honestly can't recall the details. </p>
<p>This field involves rejection and setbacks and if you can weather them, you can be successful in the long run. I think cuts can be avoided by not attending a program with this sort of policy but other setbacks and rejections will be a part of this field. I just don't think cuts are necessary or positive in a college program (though I do believe in any educational setting that if someone is failing on an ongoing basis, they do need to be dropped, after given a probationary period).</p>
<p>The whole notion of a student being talented enough to get into school "A", who is then cut, moving on and pursuing successes elsewhere is well and good (and what other choice is there but to "give up"). There are many who are cut who achieve success at other very fine schools. And there is always going to be a diversity of opinion about whether a "cut policy" is a good or bad thing. </p>
<p>I think the real issue, though, is one of disclosure and transparency. Very few schools with an actual cut system are forthright and candid about how it operates or if it even exists. They may tell students that they must pass a jury but not disclose that the jury is used to "cut to a number" so that regardless of how well you do in absolute terms, you may be cut because they like someone better and you fall 1 position below the number they want in next year's class. The school may not disclose that the jury is a re-audition, not simply a "final exam" and that you can be cut because the school has recently auditioned a transfer student or freshman they really like and they want to rotate "fresh product" onto their shelves. The school may not disclose what criteria are used to evaluate a student at a jury that is used to determine a cut or that the jury alone is used to determine whether to cut. Or warn a student in advance that they are at risk of being cut.</p>
<p>Therein lies the problem. Because of a lack of disclosure and transparency, students are often unable to know how juries are really implemented, measured and used at certain schools or that an actual "cut policy" even exists. If schools that have cut policies were forced to give full and complete disclosure that they have a cut system, how it works and the basis for cuts, then I wouldn't be as bothered by it (even though philosophically, I think true cut systems based on factors other than "fault" are inconsistent with the educational purpose of a college or university). At least then a student could make a fully informed consumer choice before committing a year or 2 of their lives and 10's of thousands of dollars.</p>
<p>And the reason many schools are not open and honest about this is that they have no incentive to be and plenty of incentive not. Total disclosure could result in a reduction of applications, a critical view of the school and other reactions that would diminish the school's reputation in a world where application numbers and yield rates play a significant role in funding of departments. I bet that the perceived immediate risk of "full disclosure" to a department is far greater than the highly speculative, temporally distant risk that a cut system could result in knocking out someone who later turns out to be a "star".</p>
<p>Michael, I agree with you. In general, I do not favor cuts as being a part of an educational mission. But if a school is going to have them, it needs to be more transparent as to the rationale behind the cuts and also the specific criteria one could be cut for (a rubric or benchmarks) and warnings/probation along the way, and it being based on more than just what happens during a jury ("final exam"). Right now, at some schools, there is too much vagueness with regard to all of this for my comfort if I were to be applying.</p>
<p>When my D auditioned @ UMich, B. Wagner stated to the students & parents as follows; "we do NOT have a cut system - having such a system would mean that we do not have faith in you from the beginning." "Why would we invest time in someone only to let them go?" (I don't recall his exact words as it was over a year ago).<br>
I believe that the majority of schools feel this way.
There has to be more to this "cut" story. If not, then a school should owe an explanation, transfer assistance and perhaps a refund of some sort!</p>
<p>Mainstage....Brent Wagner gives that talk I think to all those who audition as I recall something similar on our visit/audition day as well. He contrasts his program and philosophy to that of a school that employs cuts. Truly, it is a different educational philosophy and mission between schools that have cuts and those that do not.</p>
<p>The cut policies of these schools is something I hope all parents and kids understand fully. I know that when I went through this system with my son a few years ago, I knew so little. Had no idea there even was such a major. Not being from a music or arts background, I was severely challenged in this process and trying to separate the talk into relevant categories was not easy. We made a lot of mistakes bungling through our process. I don't think I would have understood what this cut policy can mean at that time. We were more interested in getting into a program which was not looking so good at times. I can tell you that it would have been likely that my son would have been cut if the program was not committed to get the kids through the process. He's had some real bumps in the road and some issues at college.</p>
<p>I realize that the performing arts field is rife with cuts. They will be a very big part of all actors' lives. However, the reason we are supporting 4 years of paying for his education is that we feel that our son needed a bit of a safe harbor and training to become the man who can go into the field he wants. I was not sending a finished product to college, but very much a work in process. Whether at the end of his years in school, he wants to continue in the field or even gets opportunities to do so, is not the issue so much as he has his 4 years to develop in a somewhat sheltered environment as others of his background (college kids) do. I don't want to think about "Cuts" or looking at other schools or programs at this time unless something comes up that makes it the best choice. I don't want a program where the possibility is high for this to occur. That is why we are paying a school rather than having him hitting the audition trail earlier. For some of these kids, the females, in particular, these 4 years invested in college rather than at auditions really are precious ones in an industry where youth is so valued. It makes certain windows smaller.<br>
That there are programs like Arizona's and CCM's is a fact, and certainly their right to make programs as they wish. I just truly hope that every family who invests in such programs understands those risks and that this is NOT the ways most college programs work. There really is very little out there to guide a person through this MT process. I think CC has the best and most complete info I have seen anywhere. We had nothing, just word of mouth and what the programs themselves related to us. Much of the info we got was incomplete, misleading, and vague.</p>
<p>It seems to me that having a cut system not only says we don't have faith in you but we don't have faith in ourselves to do our jobs. How do the teachers not feel like failures when they cut several kids whom they annointed as "cream of the crop" one year earlier? The choice is either poor judgment or poor teaching.</p>
<p>Yes cartera45, That plus great auditioning. It could be that kids have the auditioning thing down pat, and it masks an underlying issue about their actual talent. This indeed shows that a schools fallabilty lies with the teacher/professors/directors. Either for getting snowed by a glossy auditioner, or being flawed in their vague reasons for cutting. There needs to be a more black and white checklist at these juries, as soozievt stated, and the students need to know what exactly is expected of them in order not to be cut. Exactly, and prior to accepting enrollment. The system is so very arbitrary in its selections, from getting into a program, getting cast in shows, possibly showcases, and finally in auditioning for jobs. Ask any student in any program and they will probably admit to some favoritism issues when it comes to any of it. It's probably only human and natural. Why shouldn't the cuts be just as arbitrary? It's the nature of the beast unfortunately and there doesn't seem to be any finites at all in this business. The next situation/training program/job is always around the corner, and this is key, should you have talent. Especially if you're a man.</p>
<p>Wagner at Michigan was the one who commented that having the possibility of cuts hovering over an actor's head often results in the students' creativity and risk-taking being squelched and just as bad, tempts them to "suck up" to teachers to get the teachers on their side. He told the group at my D's audition that their job was not to please the teachers, but to find out who they were and what their strengths were and become the best "them" that they could be. (I remember him saying that Michigan doesn't like to say that they produce the "next" Kristin Chenoweths or Sutton Fosters, as the world already has one of each of them and doesn't need another. What the performance world needs, he said, is individual performers who know who they are and who have been trained in a program that brings out their best.)</p>
<p>Another explanation is that the departments have adopted an operational structure based on a business model giving priority to promoting themselves over the interests of their students. How else do you explain a program that cuts to a "number" instead of just matriculating the number they intend to keep and accommodating the excess in years where the yield is higher than expected. How else do you explain a school that cuts an incumbent to make room for a transfer who it is concluded has more "professional potential" and will promote the school better in a showcase. Unfortunately, there are some schools where the cut system is purely mercenary, justified by the flawed rationale that "that's how it is out in the real world". Yeah, well in the "real world" I haven't paid you $50,000 so that you can have the power to fire me; you pay the school $50,000 because it has made a commitment to educate you.</p>
<p>I guess I don't know how college BFA programs work. Why is there such a hard and fast number of students that must be adhered to? So what if a talented transfer comes in? Does it really matter that there is one more student in the class if everyone is paying their tuition?</p>
<p>As a general rule (and without getting into the cut issues that have been discussed), BFA programs seek to limit class size because of a desire to make sure that all students get the individualized attention that is required by the type of training that occurs. Also, at many schools, there is a recognition that in many classes, often acting studio, there is a need to foster an atmosphere of emotional security and trust in order for students to feel safe to do the kind of work that can make a new student feel very vulnerable but which is essential to their growth as an actor. Schools will then limit the class size to be consistent with the resources and faculty they have and to enable the classes to serve these needs. Some schools are a bit more flexible than others so that if the yield is greater than anticipated, the school finds a way to cope but in general, schools try to stay within the class size limits they have set for themselves so as not to undermine their educational objectives.</p>
<p>Another thing I don't understand as far as cuts in schools are concerned is isn't there an issue in funding (state or private) if you see every year a decline in student population. No school wants to have large "exit" numbers for whatever reason. I doubt on paper the "powers that be" that look at numbers/finances etc. care why there is a drop. Instead they just care that there was a drop in student numbers. There are enough students that leave schools for their on reasons with out PUSHING out students that are in good academic standing.</p>
<p>Of course I understand--and I'm glad!--that BFA programs limit class size. But I still can't get why, if one talented transfer walks through the door, one talented rising sophomore (or junior, or whatever) must be cut to keep to a strict number of students in a class. There HAS to be more to it! Pease note that I CAN understand why they wouldn't want to add, say, 5 additional students to a class. . .</p>
<p>By the way, I wish more CCM supporters would weigh in on this issue. Surely there is another "side" to all of this.</p>
<p>soozievt said:</p>
<p>
[quote]
I agree that should you ever be cut from a program, try to forge ahead and believe in yourself. Many people do well after a setback. I have read or heard about people cut from respectable BFA programs who then were admitted to other BFA programs and/or were cast successfully after being cut.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>This is not my field at all, so pardon me if I'm asking a stupid question. While reading this thread, I am wondering, what would the OP's son put on a transfer application where it asks, "Why do you want to come to our school?" If he says, "I am looking for a new program because I was cut from CCM," wouldn't that put him at a disadvantage? And of course saying anything else would be a falsehood. Just wondering how this should be handled.</p>
<p>LurkNess...that is a really good question. I don't believe in lying on an application. I don't know what these kids put on it. I suppose one vague response would be that they left their other program and it wasn't a good fit and why they want to go to X program instead. Then, a more direct response would mention being cut. On the one hand, you might think that saying you were cut would be a "negative" on the record. But on the other hand, I have heard of kids who were cut who got into other selective BFA programs and so it does happen. Perhaps other programs are very aware of the cut programs and are still willing to take talented kids. I would imagine these kids have talent if they even were admitted to these highly selective BFA programs originally. I would HOPE that the faculty at the cut program would be willing to write recommendations for kids they have cut from their program. Perhaps someone (or their parent) who has been cut in the past who then got into another BFA program can chime in. Such members have posted on the MT Forum in the past.</p>