<p>Yikes, it does not end even with a non cut program. But at least you know that there unless kid really screws up or changes mind, you won't be going through the entire rigamorale the following year.</p>
<p>Fish, taking this discussion out of the context of CCM specifically, there is nothing inconsistent between "a college's mission should be education first and foremost" and "students who want to be pushed way past their current comfort levels on a day-to-day basis with the singular goal of maximizing their artistic potential and neither want nor need anyone holding their hand and telling them "it's alright" and how wonderful they are". The concepts are not mutually exclusive. Neither are the concepts of providing a nurturing, supportive and collaborative environment versus holding students to exacting standards of achievement and growth inconsistent and mutually exclusive.</p>
<p>The problem and objections that I am understanding on these various threads has nothing to do with juries per se. The problem is not where the juries (or eval, boards, whatever) are used as a tool to measure a student's growth and achievement and provide feedback and, where necessary, as notice to a student to take measures to conform to the school's expected standards of artistic growth. The problem is where the juries are really used not for these legitimate educational purposes but as a tool by design to eliminate students from a program. And there is a material difference between being eliminated from a program as a by-product of the juries because over time it becomes clear that a student cannot meet the school's expectation for achievement versus by design using a jury as a tool to eliminate students regardless of their own individual achievement.</p>
<p>Hence the objection to juries (and schools) that are used to "cut to a number", that are used as a type of "1 shot" reaudition, that are used as a process to purposefully eliminate students to make room for other identified applicants not yet in the program, that are used to eliminate students so as to promote the school's image or reputation at showcases or that are a process designed to promote a school's elitist character and image instead of educational quality.</p>
<p>And the analogy to "Sandy Meisner" is not on point. There is a world of difference between a studio program and a BFA at a college or university. Not in terms of the quality and seriousness of the training that is available but in terms of the educational institutional context of the BFA. There is a reasonable and appropriate set of expectations that when a university offers a degreed program that certain educational values, philosophies, and principals will attach that, among other objectives, are designed to promote, facilitate and yes nurture the success of students. If someone doesn't want that kind of approach, then fine, attend studio programs that are free to divest themselves of such "educational baggage". But that doesn't mean that it is appropriate for a BFA program to abandon the educational values and objectives that attach to being part of a college or university or that programs that do so deserve to be defended on the basis of their "outcomes".</p>
<p>Thank you, fishbowlfreshman, for your comments. I hope the students (and their parents) who have decided to attend CCM in the Fall read your post.</p>
<p>I have followed this thread, looked at others, and I, too have been struck by the fact that CCM does not seem to accept a whole lot more students than they can graduate in a class. Isn't the 2008 freshman MT class 17? A school that accepts 30 freshman to graduate 17 is a cut school. I'm not sure what you'd call CCM, but it doesn't do THAT.</p>
<p>Plus, anecdotal reports suggest that students are "let go" at other schools, including those that promise to nurture their incoming freshman through the ENTIRE process. At least this is what we've learned over the past 2 years of research. Are there good reasons (i.e., are these kids "slacking off")? I suppose it depends on who's judging.</p>
<p>Don't most programs have "juries"? I have read about this sort of assessment a lot on CC and on various websites.</p>
<p>Good luck to everyone who needs to try again, including the original poster. "What doesn't kill you makes you stronger"--a quote from my neighbor, which is applicable here.</p>
<p>fishbowlfreshman, you said <<the problem="" i="" see="" is="" that="" there="" are="" some="" very="" talented="" people="" who="" think="" they="" want="" -="" usually="" because="" of="" the="" prestige="" factor="" and="" romantic="" notion="" about="" whole="" thing="" but="" come="" to="" realize="" really="" don't="" or,="" even="" worse,="" have="" someone="" convince="" them="" it="" ...="" sometimes="" brutally.="" kids="" might="" be="" considered="" total="" prodigies="" back="" home="" simply="" can't="" handle="" all="" rude="" awakenings="" in="" these="" high-intensity="" programs="">></the></p>
<p>All true, dat. However, I don't think we were talking here, in general, about the KIDS feeling that they couldn't handle the intensity of the training or the being-pushed-beyond-their-ordinary-limits that comes as part and parcel of really good, high level programs.</p>
<p>Instead, we were talking about a PROGRAM cutting kids who wanted/want to be there, are attending class and working hard and even earning A's and B's in their studio classes. </p>
<p>I think we all understand that there is going to be a certain percentage of kids who come out of high school thinking they want to be actors because they did some high school plays and musicals or a few in their community and find that once they are in a high pressure program that demands the most of them, they simply can't handle it. Those kids either voluntarily leave the program or major or stop going to class and doing the work and are kicked out, and deserve to be. </p>
<p>But those are not the kids most of us are concerned about. Most of us are concerned about the kids who come in, work hard, earn good grades in their studio classes (which prove that teachers think they are doing the work, and well) and find themselves (as Heidi Klum would say) "aut"!</p>
<p>Again, no one here is (I don't think) disputing that juries are needed and necessary. But if they are the ONLY assessment that really counts, then why bother having graded classes?</p>
<p>Many programs have juries. Juries are valuable in assessing performance and development. The juries I have seen in both music and drama are ones that critique so that the kids can improve. It also gives the instructors a guide to what a student needs to learn in the upcoming year/semester. There are kids who are stellar performers that need to work on auditions and vice versa. I believe that people can learn and change, and I would hope these top schools in MT with their small classes can teach what is necessary. Especially such a preselected group.<br>
It's nice to make quotes like "What doesn't kill you makes you stronger", but it does not always hold true. One can be permanently maimed and disabled. It is painful, time consuming and expensive to be cut from an MT program. To go through the audition rounds again is truly a difficult ordeal and unnecessary if a non cut program were chosen. These kids are using some of their prime years to learn rather than being out there auditioning in a field where youth is valued. To lose a year is a problem. All of these things should be spelled out to families who are investing time and money in MT schools so they know exactly what is at stake, and that cuts are not the same as flunking out or dropping out. I would think these programs are accepting works in progress, not finished products.</p>
<p>My D decided against a school with a cut system because she had heard horror stories about people she knew being cut. She also felt that she wanted to attend a mt program where the school was supportive. That does not mean she does not expect to have tough evaluations that may be difficult to hear and demanding but necessary to her progress as a performer. Even schools that don't have out and out cut programs have some form of evaluation or jury. The difference is that these are meant to assist the student in their growth or even have them ask themselves some hard questions about not only their talent but their desire and passion and whether their temperment is suitable to the mt arena.</p>
<p>Let's be honest. No parent or student believes that they are going to be the ones cut from any program. If they believed that why would they pursue mt or acting. Also, no one really understands the cut system except for those ejudicating the cut system. It is truly shrouded in mystery. At DePaul they tell the freshman students to look around at the class on the first day, because half of them will not be there the next year. This is a deliberate cut since they take around 50 freshman and intend not to have more than 25 sophomores. Do you really think any of the students or their parents think that they will be the half not there.</p>
<p>We all come into this quite naive. I wasn't even aware of the brutualness of the cut system until one of my D's friends was cut from a program and trust me when I tell you she was incredibly talented, driven, focused and maintained excellent grades. The only explanation given to her was that she was too talented for the program.</p>
<p>They actually said to the girl "You are too talented for our program?" !!!!</p>
<p>She had been in several equity productions and both her parents were working actors. She was surely talented but I think that the comment about her being "too" talented was most likely a diversionary smokescreen and she didn't buy it. Her point was that she was never given an adequate explanation.</p>
<p>fishbowl....I respect the points you are making. I happen to agree with the responses by MichaelNKat, NotMamaRose, ctpofthehouse, and talentwillout.</p>
<p>I totally understand the need to have like minded driven peers who crave challenge, take risks, want to be pushed and don't just want positive stroking in your BFA group. And I firmly believe and know that there are some who enter BFA programs who are NOT well suited to this type of intense degree program. Many figure that out for themselves and transfer out or else switch majors, etc. </p>
<p>But as NMR writes, that is different than a kid who is willing to do the work, is getting good grades in the training classes and is up to the challenge but perhaps needs more growth who is then cut by the program. </p>
<p>Lots of schools have juries and evals...my D's program does but they do NOT cut kids following these evals. The evals are part of the learning process and give students critical feedback. Juries can have a legitimate educatonal purpose. i don't think eliminating students from the program (who are not failing) is an appropriate purpose. I can see advising or redirecting someone or holding them to certain standards in a probationary way but the goal would be to continue the education. Again, I am not talking about kids who are not making the grade who in any college would not be allowed to continue. </p>
<p>letsfigureitout, I agree that CCM does not necesarily cut BY NUMBER (such as DePaul). But most would agree that they do have a cut policy and that they do indeed cut students. It may be just a few per year and the number varies. I know kids who have attended who say the school cuts and so I don't think we are making this up. You can have good grades in classes there, but fail the jury and be eliminated after freshman year. I believe this is factual. The criteria for cuts is vague to me, however. Yes, there are other schools that cut and so this really is not just about CCM at all. But there are many that do not.....including ones that are well regarded...examples: UMich, CMU, Tisch, UArts, Otterbein, Baldwin-Wallace, OCU, etc. Their programs are surviving. They have many graduates who get work in the field. </p>
<p>I don't really see the rationale behind cuts. If the program is a bad fit or the kid is not up to the intensity, often the student will leave of their own volition. Some students flunk out too. Some students can be guided toward a more appropriate path but not forced. Are these schools worried about the level of talent shown at showcase? Simple....one solution is to require auditions for showcase. Another is let the market decide who will get representation and who will get cast. You know, sometimes the schools are not right on in their assessment of who will make it as performing artists. I mean I know kids cut in some programs who successfully got into other programs and/or cast professionally. Likewise, if the program is so accurate in their assessment of who is gonna make it or not, then what accounts for their misjudgement as to who they admitted in a rigorous and highly selective audition process ? How do other highly selective and renowned BFA programs manage to graduate all their students who want to stay (and are not failing) and also maintain good reputations for their programs? I mean, it IS possible to do!</p>
<p>In any case, the schools that have cuts are surely EXCELLENT training programs. I surmise that the fact that there ARE cuts would impact the atmosphere, tone, and philosophy of the program and that is something to examine if contemplating such a program. Further, if I were to consider applying to these fine programs that have cuts, I would want an ARTICULATED RATIONALE for the cuts and a VERY SPECIFIC list of criteria and/or rubric on which the cuts will be based. Then, I'd feel fully informed and could decide for myself and surely some are content applying to such programs and the programs are not hurting finding willing applicants. Surely selecting colleges is about FIT and these schools fit some students and there are others who are uncomfortable with such policies and procedures and should choose accordingly. </p>
<p>Fish wrote:
[quote]
what comes first and foremost to me and what I would assume is most important to the type of student who would do well at CCM is the professional training.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>What is important, then, is that CCM figures out at the point of admission who they feel will do well in their type of atmosphere and training. They have the pick of the litter, to be sure. </p>
<p>I agree that the professional training is paramount. I can tell you that my kid thinks similarly to you in that she cares about the intensity, level of challenge and level of her peers and about getting as much training as possible. She cares WAY more about this than the showcase. And I agree with you very much that there are students who think they want a BFA program who are NOT well suited to this type of intense training. I have come across such students in my line of work and I try so hard to explain what it really is like and I do not believe that some have the type of drive and work ethic to do this type of program. I think the schools in their admissions needs to examine a LOT about each kid and not just who can sing, dance, or act well, but look at who can succeed and this may involve their academic record and how they handle challenges, their recommendations, personal statements, interview and so forth. You can be talented but not cut out for a BFA degree program. </p>
<p>Also, let's say, for example, the school is concerned that a student has some mental health issues OR alchohol/drug abuse that is interfering with their success. I am not convinced that cutting such students is the way to go. I feel that intervention is needed and the program could require such intervention. The program could ask the student to take a leave of absence and return when ready. The goal should be to help the student succeed before giving up on the student. </p>
<p>As an educator myself (I have taught college), I definitely have HIGH standards. Still, I want each student to succeed and would do all I could to make that happen. If the student is failing, I'd suggest help, probation, and if the student continues to fail, then the college may not be the right path at that point in time. But the anecdotes I am hearing from various BFA cut schools is that students were cut who were getting very respectable grades in their BFA classes and I would still wonder that if a student truly is wrong for the program to the point of having to be eliminated, that all along the way their grades would reflect that and that there would have been a slew of intervention before it got to the point of kicking the student out. </p>
<p>In any case, "fit" is important in college selection, both for the student selecting colleges, and for the colleges selecting students.</p>
<p>I couldn't agree more with what you have written. In all these posts I think the one thing that everyone has avoided saying about some school's cut systems is that they are not simply based on the students abilities and attitudes but subjective feelings of the jury panel. Let's face it the panel is made up of individuals with human biases and I am sure that some of these are applied to their decisions. Some of these biases can be legitimate as they pertain to performance and the passion that they witness, but could some of them be personal?</p>
<p>Since human error and bias is always possible, the cut system seems exceptionally flawed. If a prestigious instituion like CMU can reject the cut system that they embraced for years, it stands to reason that they felt it was inherently flawed and there was a much better way to evaluate the students. There does seem to be a certain amount of arrogance in these cut systems and if anyone had read the responses about the UofA cut system, even though the UofA educators tried to explain it with clarity, there still seemed to be something that they could not explain. The choice of a cut system over the specific needs of the students that they had accepted.</p>
<p>I think the difference between juries and grades can be illustrated by this story: a student in my D's class (Syracuse) works very hard in class -- assignments always completed promptly, attendance and attitude good, and as a result gets A's and B's. But at auditions and juries she is unable to control her nerves, and sings badly. Everyone knows she is capable of better work -- but she can't deliver when the pressure is on. So she doesn't get cast in the musicals, and gets low grades on her vocal juries. Now, Syracuse does not have a cut system, so she has been asked to re-take certain music performance classes in the hope that her confidence will improve.</p>
<p>I'm sure there are other explanations for the apparent dichotomy between juries and grades -- that's just one example that I know of personally.</p>
<p>And that also demonstartes why a cut system is not necessary to any legitimate educational objective. She didn't get cut, she was forced to retake classes. If she does not meet with success, how long does anyone thing she will continue to retake classes (at the delay and expense incurred) until she decides of her own volition, and perhaps with Syracuse's urging, that this is not the right direction for her. Maybe she will switch to the BA program (which I understand to be there for just such a purpose) or maybe she will change majors entirely. In the meantime, Syracuse's artistic integrity and excellence are not compromised. The student is not getting cast (which is another reason she could end up making a change on her own if this continues).</p>
<p>Onstage, that's a good example. And Michael, that is an apt analysis of the philosophy that some of us are espousing that we'd feel more comfortable with.</p>
<p>Well, I had an interesting conversation on the way home from rehearsal. :) The woman with whom I'm sharing a ride to save gas money is an old-school Catawba College MT grad from the days when Aubrey Berg (CCM's chair) taught there. I actually had no idea that he had ever been there and really don't even remember how it came up. I think we were just talking about tough teachers. Ironic how she's the one who first got me into acting - thereby possibly saving my life - and I'm now for some reason the only one who seems to be standing up for the practices of Berg's current program even though I don't attend. Hrmmm ... Interesting Karma. Must be a psychic lineage thing! LOL</p>
<p>Actually, I'm not really even standing up for it. I'm just saying that's the way it is and that there is a certain type of student who wouldn't have it any other way. Others would be crushed by it, however, and anyone who decides to go should really make sure they know what they're getting themselves into. It's a tough training designed to prepare you for an even tougher world of professional theatre to the utmost. Most programs don't do that with anywhere near the consistency of CCM. Also make sure you know the difference between nurturing and coddling. I seriously doubt you'll receive much coddling at CCM although you will be nurtured if you take the time to look up the meanings of the two words. ;) You might even end up being nurtured more than you can stand and if you can't digest it all and pass your juries you could be ... cut.</p>
<p>Whether you respect them for their "educational context" or not, there are programs that are essentially professional studios that just happen to be located in colleges and universities or sometimes BFA granting stand-alone conservatories and there are students who do best in that kind of environment. It's not just because they are dummies who can't handle academics, either. I, for one, wouldn't touch the acting programs at Tisch or UArts with a ten foot pole for a lot of reasons. I do, however, respect that there are students for whom those might be the best schools. I sometimes wish there were a single standard of accreditation for the depth and breadth of training that must be offered to grant a BFA -as long as it offers what I want. ;) I realize, however, that there are also good things that come out of there being as many programs and standards as there are needs for different types of students.</p>
<p>As I'm sure you all know by now, I attended a lower-intensity BFA first semester freshman year and was miserable there. I have kept up with some of my classmates, though, and most of them couldn't be happier. There's one guy in particular who is an amazingly talented MT performer who had been accepted to CCM with a big scholarship and, in my opinion from knowing him, very wisely turned them down. The thing is, he doesn't even want to be a professional actor. Instead, he's double majoring in Biology with plans to go to med school. He is also in love with the theatre, however, and decided to major in it at that school because he wanted his college experience to be as part of a very good and somewhat selective theatre community. I.e, he found his perfect fit. How could I deny him that?</p>
<p>But, back to whipping the CCM cut dead horse ... As I said before, I see absolutely no evidence of anything sleazy going on with their cuts like there appears to be in some other places. Based on what I was told by a former student, I would also trust Aubrey Berg's judgement on those matters although I would probably also on occasion harbor homicidal thoughts much like she did. LOL Then, I sometimes feel that way about certain faculty members at my school, too. It's an interesting dynamic that relationship between trainee and drill sergeant ...</p>
<p>My understanding is that the cut process has something to do with their conservatory accreditation??? Boston conservatory also has a cut system..</p>
<p>I don't think that's true.</p>
<p>I kind of doubt it as well as many BFAs are conservatory programs and do not employ cuts.</p>
<p>We were told that they need to cut to a certain class size in order to be considered a "conservatory". Therefore, before the conservatory portion of the training begins, usually junior year, a program with more than the requisite number of students will need to cut to that number to get their conservatory status. The schools without cut programs generally have a low enough number already where they don't need to cut students to be considered a conservatory. The schools that take 1-3 students over the required conservatory number often do not need to cut because of natural attrition rates. This is what we were told by Emerson.</p>
<p>That is all very interesting. </p>
<p>First, I am wondering about the use of the term "conservatory." For instance, at my D's school, Tisch, they say they offer "conservatory training." They have way more students in the program than say, CCM. They do not cut, however. </p>
<p>Then, let's take UMich.....they do not cut. They have approx. 20 students in a class (though recently graduated a larger class than usual). That is about the same size as CCM takes into each class. </p>
<p>UArts....doesn't cut. Isn't it a conservatory as well? Doesn't it have more than 20 freshmen in a the BFA program?</p>
<p>And what is this magic number? CCM has about 20 incoming students. Does it need to cut to reach this number? I don't think so because some years, they have cut only one student. They take in about the same number per year but have varying numbers cut per year.</p>
<p>Also, even IF there is a certain number related to accredidation, why must a program admit a lot more than this number and then cut? They could admit just this number in the first place or one or two over the number in case of attrition.</p>
<p>Yes, it is all really vague. The way NYU gets around it is because the classes are divided for training purposes so the students in each section are within that magical conservatory number. I could never get anyone to commit to an exact number, although it seems to be around 18.</p>