<p>Yes, I agree that there are plenty of students who do not do well on tests who are perfectly smart. Personally I think the SAT’s and ACT’s are flawed…and I say that because I have seen my own D’s scores go up and down without any reason on both the SAT and ACT in multiple sittings.</p>
<p>But I bring up the point that academics are not just GPA. So hopefully a talented kid will meet the academic benchmark for the school with either strong enough gpa’s or test scores-- to allow a school to see that they are capable students and can survive the academic challenges of college.</p>
<p>To me, this sounds like regular high school activity noise and not necessarily something that gets a theatre kid a bye on grades. Think of athletes, mathletes, debate teams, kids with afterschool jobs, etc. Theatre kids do not have a lock on the extra stuff they do in addition to academics and I’m not so sure creative, out of the box thinking has to equal a reason to not do well in academic subjects and nor does it necessarily mean these kids are less structured in how they approach learning. There are just too many examples to the contrary to say it is a stereotype to buy into.</p>
<p>But I do think that kids that do professional work outside of school which is well above and beyond the normal high school activities noise are in a different situation. And I’m not sure how that is measured by colleges in admissions and if there is (or should be) forgiveness on grades because of it. I have no strong opinions one way or the other I’m just raising the question for discussion.</p>
<p>I am not saying that thinking out-of-the-box or time spent on extra curricular activities (like shows/ portfolio classes) should be an excuse for lower grades. And I’m not saying that all artistic/ creative kids reveal that in their applications. What I’m saying is that in a talent based program where a student is already accepted for their talent, the schools will tend to show some lee-way (and allow the students these “excuses”) because they want these particular students in their program already based on their talent and feel that these student’s academics are strong enough to justify them being admitted and ultimately being successful. </p>
<p>So my younger D with the 90 average and 2000 SAT might not have made it into NYU for an academic major (like English), but was safe academically at NYU as long as she passed the talent component for studio art. Her SAT’s showed she was lopsided (above 75th percentile for verbal) which was important to the art department and her resume indicated a dedication to art and theater that (could be argued) affected her grades.</p>
<p>I should add that when my older D met with the head of Vocal Performance at NYU and he told her she was “in” for talent, he did ask for her SAT score. D was upset with them at that time and was actually taking them for a third time the following day. (Her math was stuck at 650 and she wanted a higher score.) So she answered “1350, but I’m taking them again tomorrow.” His answer was, “Don’t waste your time. You’re fine.”</p>
<p>I think with the combination of “yes” for talent and a 1350 SAT, he knew at that moment that he could get her in. He didn’t even ask for her GPA (98+) or know that she was President of her school, etc. etc… I think that was the only combination he needed. Of course, he couldn’t say that she was “in” for sure, but after that comment I was fairly certain.</p>
<p>And when younger D’s portfolio was reviewed by the NYU professor prior to applying, he, too, asked about her SAT scores. That’s when she was told not to worry about her 610 math (because her total was 1330.) Again, grades were not asked for.</p>
<p>Unskoolfish, I bet there is no need to sweat SAT scores across the board in the 600’s with a strong audition for any of the schools we have mentioned. I’d even add USC into this mix. I’d say it’s scores in the 500’s on each section that could get a bit tricky.</p>
<p>I agree. I think that scores of 600+ are probably enough ammunition to get kids into the top academic schools once they pass the talent criteria (especially if there is a push by the department to get them in and their gpa is decent enough.) But that would not necessarily get a kid into non-talent based programs.</p>
<p>What about for technical theatre (specifically theatre design)? How much more important is the portfolio than GPA/test scores at a school like Carnegie Mellon or NYU?</p>
<p>The portfolio is much more important than GPA and test scores at CMU. They also seem to value the intangibles shown in the interview and your experience (school and otherwise, although they’re not looking for professionals). I would imagine that there is a lower limit to your grades, if only because they want students who are hard-working and ambitious, but I don’t know that for a fact. 3.0 or over seems to be fine. Some math aptitude is very useful for technical directors, as well as designers, however I don’t know if it is a requirement.</p>
<p>I would add this: gpa and test scores seem to matter when it comes time for scholarships! I mean, at all these programs there are REALLY talented kids applying. My son ended up with more academic $$ then talent $$ from everywhere he was accepted, and that was based on about a 3.4/1900 with ap and honors. My take: the audition gets them in. The grades make it (somewhat) affordable. :)</p>
<p>agreed dramamama014! My son’s scores are good but not that good. (3.4/ 1660) with ap and honors. We are hoping against hope for more talent money! </p>
</p>