<p>I have seen the "cut" system discussed on several school threads here recently. As you and your talented MT kids sit down to make your final decisions and add this element into the mix I feel there needs to be some "clarification" of this cut/evaluation system so here goes! This is information I have garnered from my daughter, her friends at various programs, and my friends here who have kids in other programs, for what it is worth. </p>
<p>Whether or not a particular school has a "cut" system in place or not, be advised that most, if not all of these programs have some sort of evaluation/jury system in place by the year, semester/quarter, and/or for midterms. In the cut system the school- admittedly or not- accepts a larger freshman class than it expects to have by sophomore or junior year, when some students are "asked to leave" or "to consider another track".</p>
<p>In the evaluation/jury system at some point early in the training process- freshman or sophomore year- the student goes before the faculty in voice, dance, and/or acting and is given a review (a "temperature reading" if you will) of where that particular student sits as viewed by the faculty. From here one can pass, pass with warning, be put on probation, and/or eventually be asked to leave and seek another option. This is the way the program keeps its students strong. Who among us would want our child to be working and training really hard only to be surrounded by kids that are slackers, do not care, or party too much and cannot keep priorities straight? Not for the energy our kids are putting in to their studies or the money it costs. This is by no means a "piece of cake" course of study; most BFA and BM programs are VERY course and time intensive. Other MT kids self-remove themselves from programs as they discover they have lost interest, their hearts are not in it anymore, or it is just too much work.</p>
<p>I just wanted to clear the air because IMHO if a school has no evaluative review for it students then perhaps you should look way more closely at that program before committing your child and your money there for the next four years.</p>
<p>GOOD LUCK TO EVERYONE AS YOU MAKE THIS FINAL DECISION. MAY EACH OF YOU OR YOUR CHILDREN LAND WHERE YOU CAN GROW AND THIRVE!</p>
<p>Thanks for the insight on the cut system. I have read a bit about this on another thread and think you are right on with the positive of it. Most students that have lived through the cuts say that it usually doesn't come as a surprise for most kids that are cut. Faculty is usually on their case ahead of time and letting them know that they are in danger of being cut well before the juries/cuts arrive. It's better to find out earlier in the college career instead of later that maybe they are not cut out for all the work. I don't think the cut is a matter of talent but of work being done in the program (classes attended, work turned in, punctuality, and work ethic). It probably doesn't feel any less terrible knowing this if you are being kicked out of a program.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Who among us would want our child to be working and training really hard only to be surrounded by kids that are slackers, do not care, or party too much and cannot keep priorities straight? Not for the energy our kids are putting in to their studies or the money it costs.
[/quote]
Holla that! IMSO, who you train with has every bit as much impact on your development as who you're trained by.</p>
<p>That is about as nicely framed as ever I have read regarding schools that have cut policies. For my money, I'd rather attend a school that is top tier in it's quality of training - but also only accepts people they expect to graduate. These programs usually have fewer students in their freshman classes and provide closer mentorship through out each students development. Yes, sometimes students do simply fail out of these programs because they are not up to the work - no admissions system is flawless. This is contrasted to schools that take money from large freshman classes with no intention of graduating them. I'd like to know a program believes in potential of every student they accept.</p>
<p>My D ran into 2 extremes during auditions. Carnegie Mellon insisted they do not cut - that they stay with who they admit. Just playing Devil's advocate here, what is wrong with that and why couldn't or wouldn't other programs do that? </p>
<p>On other end - Emerson told my D flatly there would be a cut. They had a set number being admitted and a set number they would be cutting. Didn't matter if those were talented or slacking or whatever.</p>
<p>MOAP,
I agree that CMU has a great philosophy and wish more schools would adopt it. Even in the programs where the class size is small- 10 to 16 - there are still juries and sometines in all of these programs either kids are warned or self-remove themselves for a myriad of reasons. No system is perfect in predicting that the kids they take will in the end work out. I wanted to add that these juries/evaluations can occur every semester of every year at a lot of these programs, as one is continually given input by the faculty as he or she progresses through training. For the most part these juries are very insightful and help prepare the students for the harsh reality of the real world and the auditon process they will face, where very often one gets typed out even before the talent gets a chance to be displayed!!!!</p>
<p>in fact, i would advise students to make a wise decision when deciding whether or not to pursue a degree at emerson. yes, there is no debate that the program is FANTASTIC and it is up there with the best in the nation for studying MT. However, that said, the school is kind of turning up the volume on their cut policies. Beginning next year, the PA dept has announced that they will be cutting their classes to 12 MTs instead of the usual 16. This has a big affect especially because this year's freshman class was accepted based on the old numbers: therefore, there are 28 freshman MTs and they will be cutting down to 12 at the end of next year...thats more than half! Emerson has a great program but I think they are a little cut crazy at this point in time, and you may be risking acually graduating with a BFA by enrolling.</p>
<p>I have a friend who attended CMU as an MT major back in the very early 90s. Apparently they used to be the type of school that accepts more than they plan to graduate. I remember he said that their cut system had a bit of controversy surrounding it because what they were basically doing was taking these kids' money for two years then booting them from the program. Obviously things have changed there.</p>
<p>I believe in having juries at the end of the Sophomore year so the students and the faculty can "know where they stand". Kids that are troublemakers/slacking/not doing the work should be asked to leave the program, because they're obviously not committed. But I don't believe in accepting more kids when you KNOW that you won't be passing all of them to achieve some ideal number of upperclassmen. </p>
<p>School should be a nurturing enviroment, it's the last oasis before the real world. You shouldn't have to be scared and worrying about your future...you already were applied and accepted to the program! Now should be the time to experiment, learn, take risks: if you do the work you should be allowed to stay. Your grades should reflect how you're doing in the program, like in any college program. If you're in danger of failing, then it should be for the student to decide whether the program is really for them or not. It shouldn't be a numbers game, this isn't grad school. Just my opinion.</p>
<p>I completely agree.
That is one of my main problems with CSUFullerton and one of my reasons for transferring. Kids are being denied an education after investing 2 years into this school that treats them poorly and is a giant cesspool of political and judgmental bologna. And because of the juries there is no level of comfort so that actors are allowed to take risks and explore. Everyday is an audition and if you mess up once, it could ruin you. The jury system at CSUF is pointless, dumb and more beneficial for the school than its students.
Well, thats my 2 cents for what its worth. </p>
<p>I have a more cynical take on actual cut systems - where the school sizes the freshman class larger than the number of students that is intended to be kept for the sophomore or junior year. Such as system is entirely exploitative of the students. Think about it; you get accepted to a school, work your butt off, make a load of progress and suddenly, $25,000, $50,000 or even $100,000 later, your are unceremoniously booted from the program because of a predetermined number of students designated for retention and a subjective determination, fraught with all of the same vagaries of your original admissions audition, that your relative ranking puts you below the cut mark. (What if you are booted because in casting the program, the school really only needed 2 students of your type and you are now the odd man out.) All so that the school can maintain some notion of "exclusivity". In the meantime, the student has a load of performing arts credits that probably won't be accepted as satisfying performing arts requirements at another school's program (most transfers start out as performance freshmen at a different school and at best get credit towards non-performance courses), are behind the 8 ball on liberal arts and core courses if they transfer to a BA program and are out a ton of tuition money which may cripple them financially from completing a degree program elsewhere. And of course, in the process, the school has increased its revenues substantially from students it never really intended to keep.</p>
<p>This is in stark contrast to a system of juries and evaluations designed to measure a student's progress, inform an student of where they stand and be instructive. Many high quality schools have such a system and if a student is not progressing as expected, the student is given guidance and opportunities for improvement to enable them to meet the school's expectations and standards. Student's who continue not to meet the school's standards ultimately weed themselves out or are urged (or even forced) to seek a different and hopefully more productive and successful direction (and who wants to continue to be told they are a "failure" at what they are doing, even if couched in kind terms). Even if ultimately booted from the program for failing to make expected progress, at least the student has a degree of control over their destiny based on the effort and work ethic they invest.</p>
<p>The differences between the 2 approaches really reflects a fundamental difference in operational philosophy. A true cut system, I suspect, is driven by pure business values based on the school's interests. The latter approach is driven by the values one would expect from an educational institution run by educators who, while expecting excellence, are invested in promoting a positive outcome for each of its students. I know where I would spend my tuition dollars.</p>
<p>So, while I agree that a system of evaluations and juries is an appropriate and necessary tool to make sure that only students who are highly motivated, invested and capable remain in a BFA program, be wary of schools that have actual cut systems. Look them over carefully; you may find that their educational goals and priorities are not consonant with yours.</p>
<p>LizMT, maybe you can confirm some information regarding CA State Fullerton. In my mind it is a little different than most "cut" programs in that no one auditions to be accepted to the program as a freshman. As I understand it, at the end of the sophomore year, the students audition for the small BFA program. I heard that about 1 out of 7 girls will be accepted, and 1 out of every 2 boys (but I don't know that to be fact). Those not accepted to the BFA program can continue and graduate with a BA degree (and I have heard that some graduating from Fullerton with that BA degree have become successful professionals in the "biz".) I understand that it is an excellent program, but I think it sets up a very competitive atmosphere from the very beginning...instead of being supportive, the kids are always checking out their competition...trying to guess whom the teachers "like best" and what their chances are to be chosen for the BFA program as juniors.</p>
<p>That is how it is run. But as for not making it into the BFA at going for the BA, plan to spend an extra year in college because a lot of the classes you take as a BFA "Wannabe" don't go for the BA. The odds are more like 1 in 10 make it. </p>
<p>The enviroment it sets up is one where students are too afraid to take risks and where BFA selection is NOT BASED ON TALENT, but on butt kissing.</p>
<p>In response to an earlier comment ... I think that a few (very few) of the very tippy top of the popper programs have been able to, for the most part, almost entirely do away with cuts because they have the reputation and financial resources to fill their classes with the "picks of the litter" each year. By that, I don't necessarily mean the most talented. IMO, the necessary natural talent is dime a dozen. I'm talking about the necessary talent plus an obvious, demonstrated history of a work ethic that stands out. That's not to say that such a work ethic doesn't exist in some of the programs somewhat slightly down the totem pole. That would be absurd. However, it might not be as obvious in some of the prospies coming staight out of h/s that some schools take and may need to be proven once in a program thereby making at least the the threat of a cut necessary. </p>
<p>That being said, I feel something that also factors into some programs having no need to cut has been left out of the conversation. That is peer pressure. If someone in my program started slacking and wasting my time, I would at first be surprised and try to figure out what was going on. If there wasn't a really good reason for it and it continued, however, there would soon be no. love. in. his. world ... at ... all ... And I probably wouldn't be the first person he'd hear from! I can't say that was the case at my first BFA. While some of my classmates in that program were every bit as talented as anyone I work with now, I didn't sense the same kind of intense focus and self discipline. That program didn't have cuts per se, but there was the possibility of being "redirected" before junior year if a student wasn't getting it done for whatever reason.</p>
<p>I realize that we as consumers are interested in knowing the % of actors employed after graduation and the successful alumni list of these schools. And I realize that graduating students that the schools think will "make it" is important to them for that reason. But what I don't understand is why this doesn't work the same as any other degree. Other colleges don't pre-judge whether the accountants or attorneys they are graduating will "make it" and cut them. There is a set GPA such as 2.5 or 3.0 and if you fall below it you're kicked out. </p>
<p>So can someone explain to me why it doesn't work like this in MT? If you're scoring low grades in your acting, singing, and dance classes resulting in the same assigned GPA threshold, why can't that be the criteria for removal?</p>
<p>The answer to that was given earlier - perhaps not so bluntly. Her it is - schools that accept large freshman classes and do not plan to graduate half of those fresnmen do it to collect large sums of money to support their program. On the other hand, there are programs that do, in fact, have a minimum gpa, combined with reviews and counseling that do have to redirect or terminate students who do not meet the performance and/or academic standards.</p>
<p>No other field I'm aware of is nearly as competitive as theatre. Lowest unemployment for AEA ever (I believe) was 87%. </p>
<p>But, then again, I hate any program that cuts students because "they won't make it." That is quite simply arrogant. Ask the folks who started Steppenwolf if they were "good enough." </p>
<p>I don't mind places that cut due to a lack of willingness to train. That seems reasonable to me. Predetermined cut rates are ridiculous. This sets up artificial competition within a confined group. Something that never happens in the business. You aren't competing with the others in you company / ensemble.</p>
<p>I agree Coppelia BUT I do feel it is important for these kids and families to be aware of the schools that do make cruel cuts like CCM( 2G 2B this May), BOCO( not sure of exact # but hefty), Arizona( ~10, see thread) and others so they go in to the process with eyes wide open and aware as they start the audition process.</p>
<p>CCM does not cut to a number, they cut for a reason. This year it was four, last year it was one, about half the time classes graduate complete.</p>