<p>I’ve seen almost no official communication from Northwestern over the years about where recent grads are working. What little I know – for example about the 3 recent grads on Broadway plus those on National tours, at Regional Theatres and doing film/TV – I’ve learned about via word-of-mouth. The same is true with Showcase results - I only hear about kids signing with agents and getting work via our D and the parent network. As I say I’m glad the staff is busy doing things other than PR, and I suppose this info could be construed as confidential (?), but it would be fun to hear more news. </p>
<p>I have yet to hear of undeserving kids (are there any?) getting work, and as expected the guys seem to find more work more quickly than females.</p>
<p>My observation in terms of my kid’s alma mater…
She did her MT training at NYU/Tisch/CAP21 (though for her last 3 semesters were in Experimental Theater Wing studio, not MT). CAP21 has a website and they do post news of what some grads are doing. HOWEVER, for example, I never see my D’s credits mentioned in their news and I realize this is because I am pretty sure an alum would have to SUBMIT some piece of news to them to publish and my D apparently doesn’t do that. She has been working consistently in the field since graduating 5 years ago. Even significant awards she has won are not mentioned in CAP21’s “news” and again, likely for the very same reason…it tends to be those who self report. </p>
<p>So, really, how would a program be able to list what all their grads are doing unless they surveyed them regularly and most chose to report back. And even then, it is ever changing. I know my D thinks that it can take a few years post graduation until things can really take off and so what is of interest isn’t just what this year’s grads are doing but what people are doing 5 or 10 years out, etc. </p>
<p>By the way, while not the case in 100% of cases, I do notice that some of the grads from my D’s cohort that are professionally successful, were cast well when in college. </p>
<p>And @alibabba808, my girl is in the same boat . . . typing out as older. It’s been on her mind for a while and caused her to re-think some things. We should talk . . . I’ll email you soon. </p>
<p>@kksmom5 and @alibabba808 – Our D is probably not going to be a character type, but she is also someone who has never read young on stage. So far all of her professional roles have been older, which means she often auditions with the 35-year-olds who can play younger rather than with younger actors. I’m hoping soon her “stage age” will catch up with, and maybe even some day surpass, her actual age but time will tell.</p>
<p>@kksmom - Great TED talk, thanks for sharing it! I agree that “Success” is only an event, whereas “Mastery” is a lifelong pursuit. I also like how the concept of the Near Win as being uniquely motivational applies both to casting and to nightly performances. I’m guessing we’ve all seen that play out in many ways with young actors.</p>
<p>Something that came to mind during her talk was one of my favorite scenes in Submissions Only, where they notice Hugh Jackman in an adjacent studio. He is clearly immersed in learning a tap routine. I’m guessing that as a famous movie star he has little need to study tap, yet it seems clear that his focus is not on success but rather on a continuous process of increasing mastery. Very cool!</p>
<p>@ManVan - That’s very nice, and it even looks current as they show one 2014 grad on Broadway. Thanks for sharing it! I wish NU did something similar. The alumni list on the Northwestern website looks like it was last updated for 1997 grads, even though I personally know of 2014 grads currently on Broadway in Cabaret, Book of Mormon and The Real Thing, plus lots of Film, TV, National Tours, Regional Equity Theatres, Summer Stock, etc. </p>
<p>Hah – I suppose this thread’s title could refer both to recognizing “rising stars” who are still in their program and those who have graduated. </p>
<p>As has been pointed out, though, whether or not schools recognize their “rising stars” isn’t particularly relevant to how well a school cultivates a culture of Mastery versus a culture of Success, and perhaps students who are overlooked in college casting do gain some motivational advantages through frequent Near Misses.</p>
<p>I saw that episode of Submissions Only @momcares! Yes, that’s the immediate future for my girl too, to compete with 35 year-olds. She’s figuring it out though, and knowing that that is a real possibility is forcing her to think about it and plan accordingly. </p>
<p>Sometimes, non-Equity tours cast older roles with younger actors - often, for more “mature” roles, either people have already become Equity, or, if they haven’t achieved that, may not still be seeking the touring life.</p>
<p>I should say for clarity that I by no means feel that D is an overlooked rising star (haha). In my opinion she has enjoyed a nice level of casting success to date both in college and elsewhere - including an ample share of Near Wins - and I certainly value the fact that her program has so many talented kids that no one performer has ever dominated their casting. My interest in the subject arose from a conversation D overheard a couple years ago, which got me wondering if many (or any) MT faculties have a strong track record for recognizing which of their students would go on to future performing success.</p>
<p>I suppose a related question would be whether any talent agencies have a particularly strong track record of picking future “winners”, and if so, which ones? Or do all agencies, like most schools, select a cross section of talent, provide what training and support they can and hope for the best?</p>
<p>I’m really confused about this thread–What are folks meaning by ‘rising stars’? Is the question whether the school recognizes current students who are rising stars within the school by casting them in college shows as they presumably deserve? Or is the question whether the school boasts about the rising star alums on their website?</p>
<p>I think the original poster was asking about schools who perhaps failed to cast people in leads in high school or college, but then those individuals went on to have successful theater careers even though they were seemingly overlooked by their schools. I do think this happens all the time. Sometimes it is because a school doesn’t recognize the talent. Other times, perhaps the student’s talent is still being developed or the shows that were being done didn’t have a role that would be appropriate for them. Sometimes when someone isn’t cast, it makes them work that much harder. and through sheer hard work and tenacity they have a successful theater career despite not being cast in school. There are all sorts of reasons for someone not to be cast in a lead.
Th thread seems to have taken a bit of a turn, however, and many are now discussing whether schools highlight their successful alumni. I agree with the poster who noted that schools rely on graduates to let them know of their accomplishments. So many times they go unreported because the school simply isn’t in the know. Actors need to be their own best PR person. Send any bits of news related to what you’re doing to your schools! And I think most of the schools could improve their websites to make this info easier to find. Sometimes it is there, just hard to uncover :)</p>
<p>I think the question is whether the schools recognize rising stars within the program but this is a tough one if you throw the larger programs into the mix. My guess is that a program that takes 20 kids is going to hope they are all rising stars or at least rising working performers and then boast about them which is basically boasting about the school. That’s why they do it. Some of these schools also take a pretty active role in helping students secure work in the first year so they have something to boast about. A larger, smaller, less connected, or less PR conscious program is not going to care so much about that. And, not all grads care, either.</p>
<p>In my PG year I helped cast Billy Zane as Matt in a student-directed high school production of The Fantasticks. I don’t remember being blown away by him but he was the obvious choice, both because he could act and because he was the best looking guy trying out. But then I had absolutely no theater experience and was just helping out my overwhelmed classmate. (Still think I should be able to say I launched his career. )</p>
<p>The one working actor I can think of from my high school (someone you’d recognize) didn’t come to acting until he suffered a lacrosse injury and had to bow out for the season. If I remember correctly it was sophomore or junior year. I don’t think anyone but the drama teacher recognized his talent, but the teacher worked with him and supported his application to Juilliard, to which he was admitted. He’s currently on a prime-time series. </p>
@connections - as both the Original Poster AND the one who later helped the thread take the confusing turn (sorry about that), the reason I later brought up colleges updating their almuni web pages was that I was trying to answer my original question by watching to see if the kids that I knew who were well cast in our D’s program graduated on to successful careers. It’s hard to tell if the staff had recognized their future working actors without being able to tell who went on to get what work. :)</p>
<p>And the reason I found the topic interesting in the first place was D overhearing a group of professors who had apparently taught several people who went on to very high levels of professional success saying that they usually failed to recognize which students would do so, at the very same time that some of D’s friends who had NOT been well cast in their BFA programs were graduating to considerable professional success. </p>
<p>Veering off-topic: It’s a bit concerning to see parents here using "stardom’- even ‘rising stardom’ - as a measure of success and “at least a rising working actor” as a half-measure. A working actor, that is, an actor who works at all, is an extraordinary success and a very unusual entity. He has risen.</p>
<p>A little reality check here from AEA’s reporting: Of Equity’s 43,000 members, only about 17,000 achieve any (even a single day) of employment in a calendar year. Of those with reported earnings a couple of years ago, about 40% earned less than $5000, another 30% between $5000 and $15,000. 79% of the working members had annual earnings of $25,000 or less under Equity’s jurisdiction. About 11% of those with reported earnings fell into the $25,000 to $50,000 range. Approximately another 10% earned between $50,000 and $200,000. The remaining group – 70 members – earned over $200,000 during the season. That’s 70 out of 43,000 and that 70 includes all the TV and film names who spend hiatus in the theater, so the number reaching middle class (for NYC) earnings, is minuscule.</p>
<p>The vast majority of actors do not work - about 95% of SAG-AFTRA’s 165,000 members earn nothing under the union’s contracts. The remaining fraction, for the most part, do not earn enough to qualify for union health insurance or pension benefits. It is very important to build these facts into our sons’ and daughters’ understanding of the marketplace they’re hoping to enter. Better to drop the idea that the goal is to be a ‘star’. A fulfilling career as an actor is about creating strong work, making art, building community, and if you are very lucky, earning enough to send your own children to college some day.</p>
<p>@vocal1046 - Great reality check, but I seriously doubt that many cc parents view becoming “a star” as our kids’ likely career trajectory. I’m guessing that even by the time our kids were deciding on college programs, most of us had seen plenty of talented adult actors struggling to make ends meet.</p>
<p>My interest in the subject of this thread is not AT ALL in trying to figure out how to know who has star quality, but rather as a reminder that virtually no one – not even those who have spent their entire professional lives selecting and grooming young talent – can reliably predict the confluence of talent, training, genetics, work ethic and dumb luck that combine to produce those fortunate 70/43,000 well-paid actors. </p>
<p>In other words, people who wish to be performing artists should never allow any single college program head, director, coach or casting agent deter them from pursuing their dreams, nor should they heed predictions that they are certain to become “the boy who lives”. :)</p>
</p>
</p>
)</p>