<p>Hoosier, most kids who want to go into this field tend not to be risk adverse. They have the attitude that they can conquer the world, and so they should as this is ever so important for success in this type of work. As parents of such kids, however, we have a different take on things. We want a few more years of maturity for the kids, a safe haven, a training ground. We don't want them out there auditioning quite yet, even though we know that these years are precious in a business where looks and youth and freshness are so valued. We parents are willing to pay for this safe haven of college and support our kids through the audition process, expensive and grueling in itself.<br>
So why would we want a danged cut school? We want to be able to breathe a little bit while they are in college before they hit the stages and streets. So the kids will probably not pay much mind to such polices as the cut polices, but parents, I'm sure are very sensitive to it.</p>
<p>I believe that a cut system has its place. It is a tough profession and if an MT student is not measuring up they should know it ASAP. As far as the "educational contract" is concerned (MichaelNkats term) you might actually be able to achieve a greater return on investment by redirecting $$$$ to a major where your child has a better chance to excel!!!! In my experience, I have seen firsthand a number of graduates with great academics holding degrees in disciplines where they do not have the requisite skill set or aptitude to succeed. I believe strongly that a cut process early in their academic training could have helped redirect many of them to a more appropriate path.</p>
<p>Programs with cuts are seeking to provide the best training possible for the most talented students they can attract. Contrary to what many parents have stated or speculated on this forum students who attend these institution feel strongly about the quality of the education and the collegial relationship they have with their classmates. As the first MT program in the country, CCM has been successfully graduating students for careers on Broadway for a long time. I think they know what they are doing!!!!</p>
<p>"It is a tough profession and if an MT student is not measuring up they should know it ASAP."</p>
<p>Ah, bardmuse, there in lies part of the conumdrum. (And let's take this out of the context of CCM specifically. No one is contending that CCM does not provide first rate excellent training. But, as has been stated, there are a lot of schools that also provide first rate excellent training, successfully graduating students for professional careers, that don't have cut systems.) The issue seems to be whether a "cut system" is really a better, more accurate and reliable metheod of determining whether a student is or can "measure up", is it a necessary and effective tool for such purposes, or are there better ways to achieve those purposes that are not fraught with the "arbitrary and capricious" qualities and inequities that seem to attend a true cut system. </p>
<p>Part of the problem, too, is that it's difficult to make sure that when the term "cut sytem" is used, that everyone is talking about the same thing. I am not opposed to a system of measuring student progress and holding a student accountable for achieving certain levels of growth. What I object to is a "cut system" that is really designed to be a tool for "elimination" such as a "cut to the numbers", a "1 shot re-audition", or where it is used to eliminate an incumbant student to make room for a new applicant or transfer. (And I'm not contending that CCM has such a system, there seems to be some debate on this thread aboout whether CCM does or doesn't.)</p>
<p>I also don't think, however, it is a particularly valid system of assessment where a "jury" is the sole determiner of a student's continued participation in a program because of the vagaries of such an inherently subjective process. And, in my view, such vagaries exist anytime a decision to take adverse action is based on "artistic discretion". I see it out in the "real world" in the labor and employment work I do for certain groups of performing artists all the time but at least there you can build in safeguards such as joint audition commitees, peer review commitees, or review by outside independent parties. In a school setting, there is, of course, no structure for negotiating such safeguards; instead, the educational context and the "educational contract" I've posed are the available safeguards - or at least should be in my view.</p>
<p>Cut systems do have a place. CCM does well with theirs, as do a number of other such school. I think the parents who pay the tuition should understand exactly how these schools differ from the non cut programs, before they invest in it. If they are looking for a possibility of an early cut, fine. But if they want the opportunity for a safe haven, more of a typical conservatory or college structure, then they should beware of such schools. </p>
<p>Many more kids go into MT or theatre that do not end up as professional performers but are able to parlay their learning and talent in other fields. I don't have a problem with a "no talent" kid learning the ropes of MT. It can benefit anyone who wants to this in many ways. Not a problem at all. THere are also many kids who do not go through the MT or Performing arts tracts that have been enormously successful. Look at the credits or lack thereof in a program. In this field, some of the drop out and flunkees have great potential for success. The only reason I want mine in college for this period is for hopefully a maturity process to take place. Not sure that the actual conservatory training is that essential for kids who have IT to make IT.</p>
<p>It seems that a program with cuts based solely on performance whose mission is to prepare students for work is not really offering a BFA. The balance is not there. They should be offering an undergraduate artist diploma. That better describes the emphasis and there would be no misunderstanding.</p>
<p>I could not disagree more with cartera45, CCM academics and skill requirements far exceed the requirements for a BFA. If a student is seeking a BFA and has no desire to work in the profession I would suggest the go elsewhere. </p>
<p>At CCM there is not one student who is not striving to work in the profession.</p>
<p>I didn't have CCM only in mind - but cut systems generally that do not factor in academics at all for the decision. So you would support CCM doing away with the BFA and calling it an AD? It would be more of a trade school. </p>
<p>I was not suggesting that those at other schools with more of a balance are not striving towards working professionally in the theater BTW. I think unless a student has successfully completed two different programs and then entered the work force, there is no way to compare. I don't know anyone who has done that.</p>
<p>Again I disagree with your logic, a BFA can co-exist with a conservatory education which utilizes cuts. By "balanced program" do you mean a program that includes some students seriously training to work in the theater and others there "just for fun". If you do, I believe that students of any of the programs with or without cuts would be offended by having individuals around them who do not share the same level of passion.</p>
<p>A BFA is classified as a professional degree. Wikipedia defines it as follows:</p>
<p>"The BFA is a professional degree which differs from a Bachelor of Arts degree in that the majority of the program consists of a practical studio component, as contrasted with lecture and discussion classes. A typical US BFA program consists of two-thirds study in the arts, with one-third in more general liberal arts studies; for a BA in Art, the ratio might be reversed"</p>
<p>I could buy your argument if we were talking about a BA degree where I strongly believe that the introduction of a cut system would not be appropriate. The BFA, however, has a targeted objective of professional training which I believe is consistent with the conservatory approach.</p>
<p>By balance, I really meant a true mix of performance and academics - even if it is 2/3 -1/3 slanted towards performance. If staying in a program rests completely on performance and it is possible to do well in all the academics (including performance classes) and still be asked to leave based on a performance jury then the focus is truly just on the practical aspects of performing - on the trade. That is closer to what is achieved with an artist diploma. A bachelor's degree IMO is, by definition, an academic degree and has some focus on the student as a whole.</p>
<p>bardmuse, when you say you think a cut system is appropriate for a BFA program, what do you actually mean by a "cut system"? There would seem to be some very real substantive distictions between a school that admits more students than it actually intends to keep and then "cuts to a number" regardless of the growth and progress of the students who are cut, a program where a jury is used as a "1 shot re-audition" in which you are competing to keep your spot with new applicants and transfers, a school that uses juries as the controlling 1 shot "final exam and if you don't pass, you are out, and a school in which failing the jury results in you being on "probation" and you are given guidance and mentorship in an effort to assist the student in passing the jury the next time around but if you don't, you are out.</p>
<p>And while I think the definition of a BFA program you cite is a fair characterization of the difference between a BFA and a BA program, there are BFA conservatory programs that don't "cut". CMU is one of the more interesting examples because of its national reputation and the fact that it used to be a "cut school" but concluded philosophically that a "cut" system was not appropriate to the educational values it felt belonged in a BFA professional training program. Other schools, that also meet the definition of a BFA professional training program don't "cut" but use grades in studio classes to put students on "casting restriction" or to compel students to repeat studio courses and restrict them from advancing to upper level classes until achieving the expected level of progress in the lower level classes. These approaches would also seem to serve the goals of professionalism and seriousness of purpose that you suggest a cut system serves.</p>
<p>I am a little confused by this discussion of "cut programs." When we were on the school visit-audition circuit, the "cut" question was always asked by someone in the group, and the answers were not clear at the time. On reflection, and after reading this thread, I have come to the conclusion that ther are at least three kinds of "cuts." My S did not visit or apply to Arizona or DePaul, which are schools that seem to accept way more students than they plan to graduate. This is the first kind of cut. These programs seem like the "unfair" cut by the numbers programs that many posters seem to be opposed to. We were, too, and so did not look into those schools. </p>
<p>Interestingly, a second group of schools whose representative faculty members stated that they did not have a "cut" system really seemed to. For example, at BU and PPU my understanding was that students were sent in two different tracks, at some point in their undergraduate studies--a BA in something like "theater arts" and a BFA in acting. The STUDENTS said that the CHOICE was not always theirs, but instead resulted from faculty evaluation of some kind, and most often an audition was a part of that. That is certainly a "kinder" cut. And, it seems to be an approach that might characterize programs that admit a relatively large number of freshman. At least at these programs students are not out of school all together. But, they may not end up with a BFA.</p>
<p>CMU is always mentioned as a top notch school with no cuts. I think it falls into a third group of schools. Indeed, sometimes students ARE dismissed, i.e., leave the program but not at their own choice, and, by report, not because of failing grades. We heard stories like this one at several other schools. . .with the dismissals justified (by the students) most often as "we are an ensemble; they just didn't fit in" or "they were not progressing in the art." These schools do not plan ahead to cut X number of students, but, as a result of SOMETHING (sometimes something clear, like failing 2 juries, and sometimes something not so clear) a few students are counseled out in the first year or two.</p>
<p>So, I guess I'm thinking that this BFA course is a risky one, where paying tuition and getting passing grades may not get you THAT degree, no matter where you decide to go. More power to those kids and their families who have decided to give it a go anyway!</p>
<p>They have done away with that track system at Boston University, apparently. The faculty used to decide which kids would continue in the performance track and which would do theater studies, but that has changed. It is now entirely up to the student to decide which track to take, and reportedly, theater studies (which can include more liberal arts choices and courses in directing, etc.) has become more popular than the performance track. Boston's faculty has stated that routing kids into one or the other without their consent/desire created resentment and a feeling that those who were not selected for performance were "second class citizens" and wanted to do away with those.</p>
<p>Of course, Syracuse and Ithaca both use systems where the faculty decides (on the basis of class performance, juries, etc.) who can move on in the BFA track and who cannot. Is that a cut system? Not technically, as a kid who is not permitted to go on in the BFA wouldn't have to leave the school. But to a kid who wanted to go on in the BFA, it may well feel like one.</p>
<p>Bottom line: be aware of these possibilities when you make up your list of schools to which you plan to apply/audition.</p>
<p>There are inherent "cuts" in all programs. Not just MT. If student is not making progress as dept feels, most depts will let student know. With some schools, however, there are juries and an official cut system that is prominent in their system. That is where I object as a parent. Like I said, kids and others in the field accept the cut throat way it works, which is necessary for survival ultimately. As a parent, the reason I am paying for 4 years of college instead of sending kid to NYC to bus tables and audition (what I am paying in MT program could really support him for those years valuable for those in show biz) is for a safe haven, maturity and exposure to more normalcy in terms of a college setting. I don't need that compromised more than necessary. The situation regarding cut systems should be something that the parents; ie the payer of the tuition and costs should know about this and decide if they want that element in the package.</p>
<p>I just don't buy the argument that it's a tough business and the college cutting you because you haven't got the talent and aren't going to make it anyway is valid. If you are paying tuition and meeting some required GPA of 2.0 or 3.0 you should be allowed to stay. People studying to be accountants or zoologists or lawyers are not set down individually and evaluated if they will succeed in their field. They meet the GPA, graduate and then find they can't get employed or clients if they don't have the talent in their field. I see no reason why an educational institute instead of the market has to perform this function.</p>
<p>Perhaps the schools want to show that 100% of the kids they take to the NY showcase get agents and jobs... and the smaller the number, the better the chance that that will happen...</p>
<p>Bway Rocks....I think that is part of the rationale for their cuts. I agree with HoosierMom in letting the market decide who will succeed. I don't think that is the role of the educational institution. However, if they are worried about the talent they portray at showcases and who gets agents from them and all that, they simply could offer the showcase by audition for students whom they feel are ready to present in such an event. There are some schools that do a showcase by audition. I see nothing wrong with that. The purpose of the education is not to make a showcase. You can get the education and training and even be a success without being in the showcase. The showcase is one way to transition and be seen in the industry. Schools do not owe you that really. They owe you the education once they accept you as long as you are passing above the minimum level as any college would require in order to graduate. The college can control its showcase while not cutting students. Some schools do and this is a viable option. Obviously, these schools can do what they want and people have to choose programs whose philosophies match their own.</p>
<p>PS, one more thing....there are BFA programs out there with very well regarded reputations in the industry and they do not have cuts and somehow they maintain a good reputation and somehow many of their students get representation and jobs in the field.</p>
<p>I think the point about the showcases is correct but is just one of many aspects of the rationale that is used to justify cuts. And as soozie notes, there are many schools that require auditions to be in the showcases, which would seem to effectively serve the same purpose of putting the school's "best face forward" when out in public. I think the reasons for cuts (as I have been using the term, not merit dismissals for poor grades, conduct etc) go deeper than that, however, including a desire to create an aura of an "elite program", other institutional interests and a certain mindset on having control over matters involving the "artistic gestalt" of the program. If you line up all the articulated reasons that are put forth to justify a cut system, you can line up corresponding ways to accomplish the same specific objectives that are equally effective, that do not involve a cut system and which are used by many well regarded schools with graduates that achieve professional success. </p>
<p>So then why do some schools employ a cut system and others of equal stature do not? I think it goes to fundamental differences in base line value structures underpinning the philosophical foundation of a program. The directors of those programs that have cuts at some level believe that a cut system is the only way to ensure the program meets their artistic vision and that they should be empowered to take any steps they deem appropriate to preserve that vision regardless of the impact on individual students. Schools that don't have cuts recognize that there are other steps that can be used effectively to maintain artistic excellence and that as an educational institution there are educational values which must be given weight instead of achieving the artistic vision of the program's directors at any cost. </p>
<p>The more I think about this, the more I see similarities between the reasons put forth to justify cuts and the justifications I hear from artistic, music and executive directors about why they need non-reviewable and unimpeded artistic discretion in determining whether a performer stays or goes. So often, once you peel back the "objective" rationales asserted, it can boil down to issues of control and ego. In the professional world there has been an acceptance of reasonable checks and balances found in many collective bargaining agreements for performers that limit the unfettered adverse exercise of "artistic discretion". In the world of college programs, there is no "bargaining power" to change the structure at schools with cuts other than economics and accordingly at some schools change is slower or does not occur at all.</p>
<p>Do 100% of the kids who graduate from CCM MT each year get agents from their showcase and get work in the field? That would surprise me, not because CCM isn't a wonderful school, but because it would surprise me if 100% of kids graduating from any college program (not just MT!) would end up employed in the field they studied. Doesn't happen that way in the real world.</p>
<p>I thought I remembered seeing this ... For those who haven't seen it, I've Xed out the name of the school out of respect since this was a one-time poster and there's no telling whether or not he/she has any real credibility. Anyway, I think this is what a lot of you are afraid of ...</p>
<p>
[quote]
Viewed from the admin side of things, I find these 'cut' discussions rather humorous. Everyone is so focused on what is fair or not fair, as if fairness has anything to do with most decisions. </p>
<p>First ... the facts:</p>
<p>Fact #1: XXX is a private university. Private universities do not do anything that will lose money.</p>
<p>Fact #2: The only decisions that are made in the name of 'art' are those decisions that do not impact budget.</p>
<p>Fact #3: There are more talented people out there who want to want to enter conservatory than can be accomodated.</p>
<p>Fact #4: Based on the extent of facilities, staffing, and the time available to put on productions, only a certain number of students can be adequately trained through the full 4 years.</p>
<p>XXX takes the same approach as most similar programs. They knowingly admit 2 to 3 times as many freshmen than they typically graduate. The conservatory courses are NOT like normal curriculum courses. It takes an inordinate amount of time and effort to train students for these types of careers. So ... the size of a class WILL be reduced based on factors outside of an individual students control (e.g. overall # of upperclassmen, staff salaries, department budget, etc.) It is the ONLY way to fund the program for the remaining juniors and seniors. </p>
<p>As far as some of the comments made by others in this thread above ... don't be naive!</p>
<p>OF COURSE there are 'hatchet men'. It is their role to cut a class to the optimal size. They will do and say whatever it takes to get rid of certain students and to protect the university from lawsuits. Right or wrong, this includes discouraging and disheartening certain students, contriving progress reports, and if necessary, failing a student based strictly on 'showings'. Remember, talent is totally subjective ... so anything can be said.</p>
<p>OF COURSE personal biases exist. It is normal that people with the power to make cut decisions will allow factors other than talent to influence them. They will factor in personality, overall group mix, the right 'look', gender, hair color, race, work ethic ... who knows, the list is endless and subjective.</p>
<p>OF COURSE there will be dishonesty. Whenever there is uncertainty among the faculty about who should stay and who should be cut, there will be mixed messages conveyed to the student. </p>
<p>For those considering XXX, most importantly, do you own research! Do not be afraid to demand the answers to the following questions, and to ask for the answers in writing on school letterhead signed by the department head:</p>
<p>Over the past five years ...
1) What was the number of students by class (freshmen,soph,junior,senior)
2) What was the breakdown of each class by gender</p>
<p>The numbers never lie. From these figures you can make your own determination as to whether or not XXX has a cut program. If the overall number of upperclassmen (juniors & seniors) is reasonably steady over time, then there is a high likelihood that an unwritten policy is in effect.</p>
<p>Make your own judgement based on facts.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I disagree that this is the approach of "most similar programs," but perhaps there are some I'm not familar with that don't "officially" cut to a number when they actually do in practice and lie about it to prospective students. That is not my experience of how theatre people behave, but I've admittedly not met all theatre people. Maybe the "monster sugar tit" (as my Mom calls it) of university tenure, salary and benefits can make an artist sell her soul and become hardened. </p>
<p>I think I agree with what Michael said about the insistence on artistic discretion by the faculties, but my tendency is to believe that there may not really be a better way unless you're operating under an extremely benevolent institutional umbrella and already have a reputation like CMU or UMich that pretty much gives you your choice of "can't miss" students. I suppose CCM could do the same if they chose, but maybe their experience is that they need to at least maintain the right to cut students and use it now and again. Then there are others like Cal State Fullerton that apparently have a law that says they have to make their program available to transfers up to Junior year. I'm just speculating, but maybe it's the same at UA? I like to joke about how things will be when I start my program, but I think the reality might be that I would have to make a lot of compromises based on what the parent university is willing to give me financially. Makes me wonder if it would even be worth it.</p>
<p>Just thought I'd throw something else out there for y'all to chew on. :)</p>
<p>These days, when a college is ranked, the return rate and graduation rate is taken into account. At this time most of us are not familiar with MT programs as the popularity of them have been on the rise. I never even heard of such a thing until my son brought it up, and it was a learning experience for both of us as there is little out there about it. His school was of no assistance in this area. One thing we got very early is that this is a highly selective program. Difficult to get into MT programs. Particularly at the better known schools. </p>
<p>As time goes on, and as these programs become more common, which seems to be the case here, there will be more access and advice given on these programs. I think that parents who are footing the bill for these things will be very interested in stats like whether or not the kid graduates from the school in 4 years or so. Just as we looked at grad rates of athletes at the schools that my oldest, a recruited athlete, investigated. I think CC has been a major force in bringing MT program features to the forefront so that all those interested can "read all about it". DOubt if the kids would care about cuts, being the nature of a kid who is into this sort of thing, but the more pragmatic parents footing the bill are going to care, I'm sure. We went this route so that S could be in a college and have a chance to get a degree. Don't think he could have stood a 4 year regular curriculum, and I am still holding my breath and will continue until he gets degree in hand. Don't need any impediments to this. If it's not doing MT and living it at college, he would not be in college but out there auditioning, something he will be doing soon enough, in my opinion. I just want a little time for him to grow up a little more. Cut programs do not cut it for this parent.</p>