<p>I stand by my statement that academics matter considerably at highly-selective BFA programs. Schools like TSOA want students to stay for the full four years and that means thriving in the classroom and studio. And I imagine that parents want their students to do much more than ‘pass the audition.’ If academics are a distraction, then no one is served because students will leave the studio (and/or leave the school).</p>
<p>Tischdad,</p>
<p>I totally agree that academics are very important at NYU, but not to such an extent at some other highly selective school like CMU (for their talent/ audition/ portfolio majors.)</p>
<p>Younger D has a close friend with a strong art portfolio and weak(ish) academic record. She was accepted CMU with merit money, but rejected by NYU. NYU may have a wee bit of flexibility in terms of academics for talent majors, but a student will not be admitted if they are way below their average for GPA/ test scores.</p>
<p>Older D did MT summer program at NYU Steinhardt a number of years ago. The most talented kids were told that they did not have to audition again for NYU’s undergrad VP (MT) program. The head of the dep’t made it very clear, though, that academics would be considered as well by admissions, so even though that select group would be “in” with talent, it was NOT a guarantee of admission. Out of the 12 kids who were “in” for talent, at least 5 were not accepted by NYU in the end because their academics did not meet the mark. One of the boys was unbelievably talented and had been featured in the end of summer showcase. He later got into some other top programs, but NYU was a no.</p>
<p>“Older D did MT summer program at NYU Steinhardt a number of years ago. The most talented kids were told that they did not have to audition again for NYU’s undergrad VP (MT) program. The head of the dep’t made it very clear, though, that academics would be considered as well by admissions, so even though that select group would be “in” with talent, it was NOT a guarantee of admission. Out of the 12 kids who were “in” for talent, at least 5 were not accepted by NYU in the end because their academics did not meet the mark. One of the boys was unbelievably talented and had been featured in the end of summer showcase. He later got into some other top programs, but NYU was a no.”</p>
<p>^^This very same thing happened after the BUSTI summer program at BU.</p>
<p>Marbleheader, could you explain/expand?</p>
<p>There was a boy that went to BUSTI two summer ago (this sounds like the beginning of a bad limerick!), who was very talented. He did a real audition at the end of the program (you can choose to do a mock audition for feedback, or you can really audition for the BFA - rising seniors only), and the faculty told him that despite his great audition, they just couldn’t help him because of his low GPA/SATs. The university would not accept him - despite a positive response from the School of Theatre. He is at a different program and loves it, so it really does all work out in the end.</p>
<p>At NYU’s summer program the kids didn’t have a specific audition at the end (although there was a showcase.) But they had all worked with faculty members in various classes and individual lessons throughout the program. The faculty ended up reviewing their work and making a recommendation. If they were at a high enough caliber, they were notified by the program director in September that they were accepted for talent. They then had to apply and go through the regular channels, but their application showed acceptance for talent to admissions. But if their academics did not meet the standards, they still were not accepted. And their green light for talent did not get them in.</p>
<p>Huh. This is really interesting about NYU & BU’s summer programs. (Perhaps others are in the same boat? Maybe CMU?) I had no idea that one could attend these kinds of programs and in theory, do well enough artistically to be done with that portion of the admissions cycle before actually applying. There are many threads in CC that speak at length about how these various summer programs do not provide an admission advantage. Seems like that is not necessarily true.</p>
<p>Sure, you don’t pick a summer program thinking that attending it at a school you covet will give you admission advantage. But anyone that doesn’t think having multiple cracks at impressing a school over the course of several weeks isn’t an advantage isn’t doing the math. On the other hand, that also gives a talented prospect multiple weeks to blow it as well. I suppose it could be a wash. In any case, this is news to me. Huh.</p>
<p>But back to the OP. Does GPA matter? I can’t prove it but I know a very talented biracial male whose only shortcoming a couple of years ago was that his GPA barely cracked 3.0 and his SATs/ACTs scores were bleak. That student had an enormous resume of things he did professionally during high school and I suspect that had an impact on his grades because no way could you do what he did and do well academically. Something would have to give.</p>
<p>He was rejected from all of the top theatre schools that he applied to that were not straight conservatories (universities/colleges whose names you can guess as they are often discussed here.) He ended up at a top conservatory that did not have an academic component but one that certainly is respected for talent. Was he rejected from the other programs because of a sub-par audition “in the moment” or for grades? I have no idea. But this is how things shook out for him and all else being equal and a great audition which I would have expected because the kid really was strong, male, desired type - I would have expected an application sweep. That did not happen for this young man.</p>
<p>It’s not really advertised and means nothing in the end but some of these very selected tippy top schools are recruiting all year long. Whether summer programs, coaches, high school award shows, Young Arts, professional work, or summer programs there are going to be a couple of students who are “early picks”. But, there are plenty of spaces left for the regular audition cycle so it’s interesting, but that’s about it.</p>
<p>Honestly, grades have to matter at some point even with a stellar audition. An extremely talented person with poor grades won’t be able to do the gen ed work at the tippy top schools. I suspect this candidate would probably have the same outcome as the young man that halflokum mentioned.</p>
<p>One issue is we don’t know the actual numbers in these stories that people are sharing.</p>
<p>I’m not speaking about any particular program, but in general it has been said that in most programs if a theatre department really wants a particular student, they have some pull in convincing the university admissions to cut a little slack in the academic requirements. Obviously, there has to be some limit to how much “slack” can be cut. But this does mean that on average, in general, you can get into a theatre program with lower academics than needed for the average program in the same university.</p>
<p>KEVP</p>
<p>KEVP I don’t know if it is that critical to have the exact data on the students we are discussing. In my example, I do know the exact data but I’m being deliberately vague because there are a handful of CC readers/posters who may know whom I’m talking about and it’s not my place to share his exact stats. </p>
<p>I think it is sufficient to say that we are all referring to students whose GPAs and test scores fall well below the average at the academic institutions in question. Some of these students are incredibly talented as is the lad is in my example - but that appears to not have been enough in his case. Or his audition at the schools I’m talking about just didn’t go well. That I can’t know but I seriously doubt that was the case. As I mentioned, he is strong, has a great resume and a look that most programs would kill for since he is handsome and racially ambiguous. </p>
<p>As GSOMTMom points out above, a student will need to demonstrate that they can handle the GenEd work as well as the studio work in some of these programs and if their stats suggest otherwise, it can be a “no.”</p>
<p>In general I would say there is a little more lee-way in terms of high school grades in talent-based programs. However, having two D’s at NYU in these programs (one vocal performance and one studio art) I would say that all of the students accepted are able to keep up with the academic side of their requirements and are all bright kids. So I don’t think admissions is purposely allowing in kids that they feel have lower academics. I think they are making allowances for grades for kids that pursue the arts and have spent a lot of time outside of class in these pursuits.</p>
<p>My older D would have gotten accepted to NYU with any major (98+ GPA, 2130 SAT, great EC’s), younger D might have gotten accepted with an academic major (90 GPA, 2000 SAT, great EC’s.) Younger D’s academics and test scores were brought down by math (610 SAT) but countered with strong verbal scores (720, 35 English.) So NYU saw a somewhat lop-sided kid with excellent reading/ writing skills. The boy who was accepted for talent, but rejected for academics had more like an 80 average with 1700 SAT. Program director tried to pull for him, but knew as soon as they had their initial discussion in September that it would probably not happen.</p>
<p>Is this about NYU or BFA programs in general? Because from everything we’ve heard NYU is more the exception rather than the rule. This is not the case for instance at CMU. That I know with certainty. And, many other very highly regarded programs are located in schools which are not academic reaches for the average student. GPA matters, but not as much as guidance counselors seem to think.</p>
<p>I don’t think it is just an NYU thing and I would not disagree about the potential lee-way afforded to high school grades in talent based programs. I’m sure NYU, BU and others are no exception though ultimately, there is an obligation to accept kids that they feel can do the work. I agree that there are plenty of examples to suggest that CMU’s approach is different and I know of examples that would back that up. (My daughter is at NYU btw.)</p>
<p>This is an interesting point and one that I’ve often wondered about:
</p>
<p>With few exceptions (I actually don’t know any but I’m sure they exist), the high school aged students that I know who have spent a ton of time outside of class doing professional and semi-professional theatre during the school year were home schooled. Those that were not home schooled but did a lot of theatre during the school year were not particularly good students in their regular high school environment. I suspect that was more a reflection of competing time commitments than of ability and intellect though I confess I don’t know enough about these kids personally to know if that is true or not. </p>
<p>But if that is true, what would a regular high school reference for that underperforming but otherwise capable student actually look like? And then, what does a college that does claim to consider academic performance in admission decisions do with that information? Is all forgiven because of the resume? I’m thinking not necessarily because of the examples we’ve cited above. So back to the question: Does GPA matter? And I’d add, do high school references matter? I don’t know the answer. But in my slice of the world, the kids that applied to MT and theatre programs that ended up with the most acceptances were both talented AND good students. Read into that what you want.</p>
<p>Maybe we are thinking about this backwards. Maybe it’s partly good grads and test stats that have gotten some kids into these top academic school programs. Many kids have strong auditions. Perhaps in part school auditors are looking at these other factors when picking students. I mean how many mega talented kids are there in any audition cycle. I’d say most of our kids would be lumped in the middle somewhere, that’s why they all want training in college.</p>
<p>Halflokum, the same holds true in the world of professional teen tv and movie actors. Most are homeschooled or are enrolled in online private or public high schools. It is a struggle juggling public or private school with auditions and periods of work.</p>
<p>^^shacherry I have no doubt that is true and I’m positive it comes with the territory. It is beyond practical. My point was that for the kids I know that stayed enrolled in regular HS while doing the same - something surely had to give. I suspect some of the lower GPAs were for that reason. Not because of lack of academic ability. :-)</p>
<p>Again, I can only speak specifically for NYU. Basically there are two criteria going on at the same time that are eventually cross-referenced. The “talent” part of the application is being screened by the theatre/ film/ art or dance department. This is through pre-screenings/ auditions and portfolios that are only seen by the department heads/ screening committee (not admissions). At the same time admissions is assessing all other aspects of the application. A list is then created by both and cross-referenced. Academic acceptances by admissions who are not “in” for talent are rejected. Talented students who were accepted by the department’s committee, but were rejected by admissions may have the department go to bat for them, but per the department head, their pull is minimal and seldom changes the outcome.</p>
<p>When I mentioned that there is some allowance for artistic kids in terms of grades, I wasn’t even considering professional work. I was thinking more of kids who put in many, many hours with high school shows, community theatre, voice lessons, music lessons, acappella groups, art lessons, etc. And also that there would be more leeway with grades in general since some creative minds think outside the box, are less structured and grade oriented while still being highly intelligent. My younger D was put at ease during an art portfolio pre-screen when she asked about her 610 SAT score in math (620 was 25th %- ile for NYU). Professor smirked and said his was a lot worse. But I’m sure that her 720 verbal helped and that her writing and verbal analytical skills were important as a balance to math for the admissions committee.</p>
<p>Going back to the OP, I would say that higher academics are important to most highly ranked schools and are probably considered 50-50 with talent. The exception being CMU that considers talent considerably more than grades for theatre, music and art. For other less academically challenging schools, you are still better to be at whatever the 50th percentile would be.</p>
<p>halflokum–</p>
<p>When we talk about academics being 50% at NYU, that includes both gpa and test scores. They are both part of the academic 50%. So GPA may be lower because of time commitment, less study time, artistic temperment. But generally test scores are going to reflect intellectual capacity. So you might find a bunch of talented kids admitted with not so stellar gpa’s (more at the 25%ile range) balanced with higher test scores. (Like my daughter’s 720 verbal and 35 English on ACT.)</p>
<p>I tried to avoid saying that strong SAT or ACT scores would be a good substitute for less than stellar GPAs as an indicator intellectual capacity when HS grades don’t suggest the same. Could be but it opens a whole other can of worms. I know plenty of kids with really wonderful GPAs that are dedicated students who simply do not have the test scores to go hand in hand with their academic records. I’m not sure what to conclude so it isn’t something that I wanted to propose.</p>