Aww @bisouu not thinking that at all! You’re always very encouraging on this forum! 
I think for those going through the audition process in future years, this is a great discussion. There are some schools that do spend real time with the students who are auditioning. I am too far removed from the process to know a current list of all those that do, but Coastal Carolina is a school that spends a lot of time with students who come to the on campus audition. There is the audition, the master classes, lunch with faculty/students/parents, and an interview. They are looking for students who are a good fit for the program - students who will thrive in the program.
I understand the real world audition process, when you may only get 8 bars in the room. But that is a job interview. And hopefully part of what students learn in their college program is how to audition “well.”
No process is perfect. But let’s remember, first of all, that the student has submitted a full application, essays, academic record (that shows work ethic too), recommendations and resume. However, in the artistic portion of the admissions process, the audition is a subjective assessment of talent. This is true in several admissions processes such as professional undergraduate degree programs in dance, music, film, and architecture. There is a review of the talent and potential itself and what they are seeking in that regard. It is not exactly like professional auditions, because indeed the college has collected more information about you, than the audition itself. But there still is that talent/artistic assessment.
Several schools DO talk to the student. From my recollection, I recall at the very least, that NYU/Tisch, Syracuse, Penn State, CMU, and likely others, talked with my kid during the audition and asked her questions. CMU and Penn State even worked with her a bit. I realize not all schools do that. It makes sense to me that a school WOULD do that, though I understand time constraints too. If I were an auditor, I’d likely want to include a little chat or Q/A into the mix.
An added point to consider is that auditioning is a skill in itself. Some kids are very talented in singing, etc. but not necessarily great at auditioning.
All of that said, let’s remember that even if the auditors could find out how awesome your kid is and what a terrific work ethic and all that good stuff, they cannot nearly take all the kids who are a good fit and have the talent to succeed at their school. If they are accepting about 2 to 9% (as most BFA in MT programs do), they are turning away SOME kids who are every bit as good in terms of talent and fit as the ones they accept. So, SOME of it is not a commentary on your kid’s fit or worth or talent, etc. etc., but the sheer numbers and low acceptance rates. This happens with schools such as the Ivy League too. Extremely qualified kids get rejected there, including those with perfect test scores and GPAs, etc. Also, in both elite college admissions and the competitive BFA in MT programs, it is VERY common to see a highly talented qualified applicant accepted at school A but not school B and some other highly talented applicant gets into B but not A. I am sure we can all come up with examples like the ones I know who got into U of Michigan but not Penn State and CCM but not Michigan, or NYU but not UArts, etc.
As I believe someone else said, make the most of where you do go. The school you attend isn’t the ticket to success. You are the ticket to your own success.
My D had a wonderful experience with the on-site audition process at Coastal, @austinmtmom. It was such a relief to her to spend the whole day with professors and fellow students, as opposed to 2 minutes.
I’m glad this is being brought up. While my own kids have had good outcomes - so I’m not speaking from ‘sour grapes’ or because I have any ax to grind - I have to say I object to the practice of a 2 minute audition. Before I go on, I want to say that I totally understand from the school’s perspective, that they can’t spend hours with each student. But I wish there were some sort of happy medium. I don’t know what’s possible from the college’s perspective and I do sympathize with their challenges. And some colleges do spend a lot more time than 2 minutes-- I happen to agree with their audition methodologies.
I do feel that there is just no way a college can see if they want a long term relationship in 2 minutes. Yes, they can certainly exclude some students. Unfortunately, there are going to be some kids who are an easy no, just as there are in anything else. There are also very rare kids who are an easy yes. But you’re left with a sizable portion who are not an easy anything–this is the majority. In my opinion, in most cases, a 2 minute audition (sometimes with a single person on the panel) cannot reveal whether that young person will be a good fit for the next 4 years. There’s no use pretending it can. In my kids’ cases, I think what bothered them most was when that happened–when they got the clear sense that the auditor or auditors viewed them as so much meat that, no matter how good or talented, could be easily replaced with other meat. I personally don’t think that attitude speaks well of a program.
I agree with @austinmtmom-- I don’t think this should in any way be compared to a professional audition. First, they are not professionals; they are students. And secondly, a professional audition is trying to find a suitable person for a single role in a single run of a show. It is nothing like what a college is looking for. A college is looking for a student for the next 4 years - as opposed to 12 weeks - during which time they will 100% grow and change as they are not only learning, they are going from age 18 to 22. A college is trying to look at potential, as opposed to whether the person fits right now. And a college is also looking to balance the class in a way that a show is not; and a show is not looking to market anyone or place anyone in the distant future.
I do agree that most programs are looking for students whom they guess - based on their years of experience - will be most marketable in 4 years. The programs are under a lot of pressure. The more students they place successfully post-grad, the better their reputation. Lately, with the pressures of immediate results, some colleges have additionally been pressured to accept students who will be likely to immediately be placed: mainly, for MT, ingenues, and ensemble belting triple threats.
I’m not sure how aware people are how much the type matters–many colleges are looking for certain types, either a type that conforms to their vision, or a type that blends with the class. This has nothing to do with talent. It has to do with future marketability. Type will matter all throughout their career - their height, their gender, their race/ethnicity, their body type, and their overall looks. Some schools go for a more ‘commercial’ look. Some go for an ensemble belting triple threat crowd (see above). Some schools go for a range–one of this, two of that, etc. But type will matter, and there’s really nothing one can do about that, except to know your type. Don’t present yourself as an ingenue if you’re not. If you have quirky looks that naturally make people laugh, try to hone your comedic skills. And so on. A good coach should help you with that.
I do agree that all admissions are unfair, but at least in a regular admissions, they’re looking at a set and range of data over a long period of time. Your grades are the result of 3.5 years; your SATs can be taken many times; and your resume is built for years. Whereas for some auditions, it’s 2 minutes.
NOT speaking about any particular program! And NOT referring to ALL programs. But I do think the process can be improved on for some colleges.
Great post @connections! All your points are spot on. I also like that you brought up type as that also factors into it and there is nothing you can do about that…except embrace your type.
D had a variety of audition experiences both a the school and at Unifieds. I think the Wright State audition was different because there was a workshop day 1 and then audition day 2, so therefore seeing a little more of the applicants. Also Samford University had a really nice dinner for applicants and staff only at the end of day 1 (D had her dance audition day 1) and then day 2 had vocal and monologues. This audition was one of the better run and they spent time with applicants.
@connections you and I are are on the same page. YES! They are not professionals…therefore it should not be treated as a professional audition…it is not the same.
I can totally understand the ideas and frustrations being expressed here- but I wonder- what is the solution? One would be to cut back severely on the number of kids being seen. If that is done via prescreen aren’t the same 2 minute decisions being made? Granted, you didn’t have to travel, but for ME - the “impersonal” rejection (they never even SAW you) carries the threat of a sting. Another would be to either have the staff spend WAY more of their time on auditions (which would take away time spent with students actually enrolled in the program) or hire more staff for auditions (which would raise tuition rates). None of those sound ideal to me.
I also think that we need to recognize the fact that we are part of the problem. I read over and over here in the last few years that audition numbers at schools have skyrocketed. People here talk about the NEED to audition at 15-20+ schools… that takes time. Time for us (travel etc) and time for them watching the auditions. Now I do NOT think everyone should audition at 3 schools (reach match safety, and of course there IS no audition safety) but I often wonder- are people with 20 schools really equally interested in all of them? If not, isn’t your audition there taking away time from someone who is?
I realize these may be unpopular opinions - but maybe also food for thought
How about they admit all students academically as BA students and then after a year of watching and seeing how these kids perform they then let them audition. This way you know who really wants to be at your school, the student is invested and committed to the program. So many kids audition at schools they would never actually attend. Waste of time.
@bisouu I do like that idea as well
I dislike this idea quite a bit. There a few problems with that approach.
One is (speaking of my own kid’s experience, but truly this applies to lots of MT kids I know), that the student would not typically have chosen that particular university if not for its MT program. The selection criteria to attend a BA school would be a different set, at least for kids like mine. Her college list was made up of all BFA programs she liked. If she was going to attend a college and not be in a BFA, she would have had an entirely different list of colleges! She chose the colleges on her list primarily due to selecting their BFA in MT programs.
Another big problem would be that a student would then have to attend a BA school with the HOPES of eventually getting into their BFA MT track and may not get into it, when they could have had a BFA in MT acceptance elsewhere. For example, my D got into Emerson, but not its BFA program. I don’t think it would have been better for her to go to Emerson with hopes of a chance to audition into a BFA track (if that were their procedure) when she was capable of getting into a bunch of BFA in MT programs elsewhere and that was the type of degree program she wanted. It’s one thing to attend a BA as a second choice or even as a first choice, but silly to do a BA if you can get into BFA programs elsewhere and have that as an option and WANT that kind of program. The whole idea of going to BA colleges (in any field pretty much) is that you don’t have to commit to the major before you attend. The BFA track typically is for those who feel ready to commit when applying to college. IF you CAN be admitted to such a program track, and WANT it, why settle for the BA school where you may or may not get into that track later?
Another issue that would have pertained to my kid and likely to SOME other applicants…is that she was an excellent student academically and preferred challenging academic environments. A small number of BFA in MT programs are located within very academically selective universities. She ideally wanted a very good BFA program and strong academics, but since not all very good BFA programs are in the most difficult type of academic settings, she was willing to attend as long as the BFA was strong. Had BFA schools not been an option, she would have applied to much more academically selective schools than the ones on her BFA list. She would not have chosen some of her BFA schools if purely an academic admit, for academic reasons.
Another issue is that at many colleges (not all), if you are going to do a BA in theater, it is better to do it at a college that does NOT also have a BFA program. In other words, I prefer a BA in theater at a college that ONLY offers a BA track and that is the core theater program, and not a “back up program” per se. Most of my BFA applicant advisees put BA schools on their list as a back up and don’t use their BFA schools as a back up if they don’t get into the BFA to do the BA track at those schools.
As far as having to prove you really want to be there?..well, I just gotta say that my own children and I emphasize this greatly with applicants whom I advise, should ONLY put schools on their list where they want to attend. A lot of research should go into selecting the college list. Campus visits also help, if possible. Do not put any school on your list that you really do not wish to attend. It is natural to prefer some schools over others, but you should be genuinely interested in attending any school you apply to.
I’m saying offer NO BFA options until after you are at that school. So you would need to be happy with the school even if you didn’t get into the BFA. You would continue in their BA program.
My D definitely favored the schools that spent more time talking to her, especially if they did so in an in-depth, “un-superficial” way, even if that only lasted 2-3 minutes. UArts, NYU, UAB, Molloy/CAP21, and Shenandoah stand out as places which did this with her.
I think it made her feel like she wasn’t just a number or just a talent to them–that there was more to her, and that this acknowledgment from them meant that these schools would care about her individuality, whole being, and intelligence more than the ones that just shuttled her in and out. Was it necessary for her to have this component; did it make her write off schools that did not engage her in this way if she was accepted? No; she did consider a couple schools that did not have an interview portion or just had a brief “do you have questions” one. But, it did make her just shrug her shoulders easier if she got rejected from them; she felt no connection to some of these. Conversely, it did make rejection from one of the places which did this harder.
Yes, they can glean information from applications, and it was apparent after acceptances came in that a couple schools that had no interview component or a very cursory, superficial one had paid attention to the applications because two heads of the departments referred to specific essays D had written. Still, D appreciated these short discussions during the interviews.
I agree with others that this component can’t be compared to regular professional auditions. D had experienced many of those throughout her life and never felt slighted or disconnected with the in and out/cursory nature of them when that happened; it didn’t mean anything one way or the other, and seeing the talent and the look was the only thing (unless one had a reputation). The two are just so different. Just like D placed great importance on finding a professional, challenging program that was also nurturing and focused on individuals while knowing from experience that directors and other professionals are not always nurturing and being perfectly ok with that and able to handle it… She described it as wanting her program to be her “home base,” and that personal connection, nurturing, and focus on the whole person component was important to her.
Incidentally (or not), she’s at one of the schools that she felt had the most meaningful interview portion.
I’m not sure if post #31 is in response to my post #30, but I understood what you meant in your original post that I was responding to. If you are not addressing my post, never mind. 
Ooops sorry @soozievt If all the schools were BA’s until maybe JR year and then they branch out maybe it would help. I honestly don’t know the answer. 
@myloves…I agree that college auditions are not the same as professional casting auditions, as you are trying to get into a four year educational program, not simply a show. A lot more is riding on the line in terms of experience, years, and money! The artistic portion of it can be similar often in format though.
As I also indicated, NYU/Tisch was one of the many schools that did talk to my D in her audition. There was only one auditor (I think they have since changed this, and I didn’t like that idea itself). However, there was a chat/interview included with the auditor. As it turned out, my D’s auditor was not in the MT studio, though my D was admitted to the MT studio (which was CAP21 at that time) which was her first choice. In my D’s final 3 semesters of college, she did Experimental Theater Wing (ETW) studio. In senior year in that studio, my D what they call an “independent project,” which in her case, was to write/compose an original musical that she staged and starred in. Her advisor for the independent project turned out, in fact, to be her original auditor for college auditions! A year or two after graduating college, that professor hired my D to be in a choral concert of hers in Germany. My D had come full circle with her auditor! (I still remember my D saying that the auditor looked at her resume and remarked how fun going to All State Chorus must have been)
It seems like there ought to be a way to match up kids to programs. I do think people audition at schools they don’t think they want to go to just in case. We read on here all the time about kids doing a walk in at a school they didn’t really appeal to them, and it turning out to be the perfect match.
If they had to apply and start at a school and attend for 2 years before they knew if they got in… I can’t imagine the numbers who would end up disappointed and looking for a BFA their junior year!
If they all ran a similar process with the goal of giving as many students as possible a “place” and they weren’t competing for the same kids… it seems like you could have a sorority like match system.
Maybe even independent adjudicators who scored students objectively. Like Trinity Music Exams in the UK. Then armed with their scores and perhaps a video of their exams… students could meet and interview with colleges, maybe take a master class to see if they were a good fit. They would list their top 10 schools in order of preference and the schools would like their top 100 students in order of preferences and voila a match would be made.
None of this running around the country, trying to figure out what each school is looking for, etc. etc. keep it simple and as objective as possible.
As to this question specifically, @MThopeful99, there was an older thread with lots of great discussion on this topic that might be worth revisiting. My thoughts on this have evolved a bit as our D has been out of college and working for the past few years, but I think that discussion is still completely relevant.
@KTVoice, that’s how the New York City high school selection process is done. You tour schools, then you do whatever selection criteria those schools want (some just go by grades and test scores, some are zoned by where you live, some require a special test for admission, some want an interview, some performing arts high schools are by audition, etc.) Then you fill out a form ranking up to 12 schools in order of preference, and the schools rank all the kids who applied in order of THEIR (the school’s) preference. And then a computer algorithm looks at all the lists and gives each kid a match. (Well, almost all. Every year about 92% of kids get matched, but the rest don’t, and then they have to go to Round 2 with whatever high schools still have seats left.)
@KTVoice, what an interesting idea! Sort of like matching for medical schools.
Whatever they do, though, I do think they should have more than a 2 minute physical audition, particularly one with a single adjudicator. I just think that is a waste of time, energy, and money, and I do not believe it is a good way of gauging a future class.
Even for a professional MT show (actually, even for a college show!) you would not have a single audition with a single person–How much less you should do this for a 4 year program, particularly when you are trying to figure out not only their talent but their potential for growth, and their other very important qualities - attitude, stamina, ability to take direction, ability to work with others, sense of who they are as a person (their interests) and how they can add to the program, etc.
Obviously this is not a scientific process, and obviously no program is going to always accept the ‘right’ kids for the class. That’s just not possible.
But here would be my dream recommendations:
- Have stringent pre-screenings. Eliminate any student who is a definite no. Be rigorous about this. It stings, but it is so much better to be eliminated via prescreen then it is to shlep all the way there, and be eliminated after 1.5 minutes. Pre-screening would help with the numbers. If you wouldn't ask them for a callback or would not be interested in interviewing them, why ask the to audition?
- Have a minimum of 10-15 minutes for an audition, for all students. This also includes an interview.
- There should be at least 2, preferably 3 people on the adjudicator panel, including a top person who is responsible for the school vision eg the Dean or Principal.
I really dislike different ‘gateways’ to callbacks - single adjudicators with random students, and each adjudicator separately, not in consultation, deciding whether to have a callback.
That is actually the one thing I’d definitely change if I had a magic wand–If I knew in advance that my kid were going to have separate gateway auditions for 1-2 minutes, I’d cross the place off the list. I don’t care if it’s a top program.
@soozievt, I also remember Tisch having separate adjudicators, but my S spoke with his adjudicator for a good 15 minutes and she took the time to know him as a person, what his interests were, etc. It was a positive experience for him. It’s not ideal to have 1 person, but if you must, at least get to know the person.
Coastal Carolina, to use one example, has a wonderful method of an all day audition. When my D auditioned there 4 years ago (or was it 5?) I was talking to the then-head, and he was saying how he didn’t understand how any program could do it differently. He was saying how much a 17 or 18 year old will grow, that they are so young, and that being with them all day helped the panel really get a sense of their potential development.
Unfortunately, I don’t have a magic wand… I also don’t know all the financial and internal pressures a program may be undergoing. I’m sure that must factor into this process in ways we can’t really know from our end