<p>I have spent a lot of time perusing this forum. I find it interesting that the "top" schools (and I am using quotes b/c I know there is a lot of controversy about what the "best" or "top" schools are...but I am taking these 10 schools from MTPragmatist's analysis) will often accept kids while a school not on the top 10 (and sometimes VERY far down on the list) rejects them. </p>
<p>The "top" 10 schools according to this analysis (again, I am using this list b/c I have nothing else to go by) is:</p>
<p>(The first number before the school name is the # of shows graduates are in, the 1st number AFTER the school name is the # of roles, and the last number is # of ensemble)</p>
<p>So, in other words, when I look at last year's class final decision background thread, combined with the acceptance thread by member name, I can see that there are a few kids (very few) who get in almost everywhere. Setting those kids aside, the next tier of kids who get into these top schools are often rejected from schools that do not have as good a reputation. Why is this? </p>
<p>Is it "fit"? If so, what is fit? I have read the other threads on fit, but it seems to me that the definition changes for every school, and goes beyond type. Do our kids have any power over whether the appear to fit into a particular school or not? </p>
<p>Is it yield? Do MT programs think, "This kid is really good...they are going to get into one of the top schools and they are never going to come to my school, so why should I waste an admission slot on them?" It just seems curious to me that a kid would get into, say, Ithaca and BoCo and NYU and waitlisted at CMU, and get rejected from school X. (I am not going to put a name to school X because I know I would insult people, and I don't want to do that. But I think you all know what I mean.)</p>
<p>This happens a lot. I remember a thread a while back where someone was explaining how some of these lower ranked schools recognize when kids are too highly trained for the program. Basically, they would be bored because what that school is teaching Freshman these students learned long ago. </p>
<p>I’m sure that’s not always true. It may not even usually be true. There is also a huge random factor. But it’s interesting.</p>
<p>This is partly due to the fact that the acceptance rates are SOOOO low at most of the BFA in MT programs (between 2-10%) that every school must reject some highly qualified and talented kids that meet their admissions criteria. They just can’t take all that they may want or who fit what they are seeking in a candidate. Then, there is the female/male balance of the class and the “types” they need to make a well rounded group of diverse actors/singers/dancers. So, some of this is solely due to “odds.” Also, since so much is subjective in an audition, what one school may like, another may not. Also, the student him/herself may have given a good audition on one day and not quite as good on another (ie, sickness, nerves, first or later audition in the season, etc.). So, given the odds at all programs, it is not far fetched that we see some kids get into what is considered more “competitive” programs and yet rejected at ones that are not considered quite as “tops,” but still have extremely low acceptance rates and/or are very small programs. </p>
<p>Personal example…OP mentions an example of getting into NYU, BOCO, and Ithaca, and waitlisted at CMU, but not accepted to X. This sorta fits my kid and while we will never know the reasons, she got into NYU/Tisch, BOCO, Syracuse, Ithaca, Penn State and Priority waitlisted at CMU, but was deferred EA to Emerson and then rejected to their BFA (got into Emerson academically). Who knows the reason? And I don’t even give this as an “excuse” but for example, Emerson was her very first audition. She came down with a cold the night before the audition. After that audition, she changed one of her songs for the rest of her auditions. Two girls from our rural public school auditioned for Emerson’s BFA in MT in the Early Action phase and both were deferred. (it is pretty rare for anyone from our school to audition for a BFA, maybe one kid per year might) In this case, the other girl got into Emerson in spring for MT, but was rejected at NYU/Tisch (and not due to academics as she was salutatorian at our high school and an excellent student) and my daughter got into NYU/Tisch but not Emerson. There is no sense in trying to make sense of it. I chalk it up to the sheer odds of the very low acceptance rates and that no matter how talented one may be, it is highly unlikely to be admitted to EVERY school you audition for.</p>
<p>Veritas, you hit the nail on the head when you say fit is different for every school–that’s kind of the definition! Rather than trying to figure out how to “appear to fit” at different schools, I think our kids should be looking for places where they really do feel like they fit. It has to be a match both ways…and the college faculty do have a good sense of whether or not kids are faking it. Not everybody will thrive in certain environments or do their best work with all kinds of people–colleges (both for performance and just regular old college!) are looking to admit students who will stay there and excel and love the place. I can see how it would be tempting to chalk it up to a kid being “too good” for a certain program, but these schools see hundred, even thousands of auditions each year and the auditors seem to have a pretty good ability to read the audition and think “yeah we would like to work with that student and he/she would do well here.”</p>
<p>At BoCo’s orientation yesterday, the orientation leaders (upper class men), about 25 of them, each explained when he or she knew that BoCo was the right fit. The stories were individual, meaningful, and moving, and simply illustrates the importance of fit (for the student). Additionally, the variety and diversity of individuals on that stage clearly illustrated the attempt to build a rich and diverse student body. Regardless of reputation or rank, find the right fit for your child and he or she can thrive and grow his or her skill.</p>
<p>I am so glad you posted this, I was thinking the same thing. It seems logical if you are accepted to NYU and CMU you’d be accepted everywhere. My S was way ahead of my on this. When I told him my theory he said “mom you can’t go by that, you’ve got to be talented but they also have to need your type”. I’ve also read a lot of posts advising to not try to figure it all out, examples where people were sure the school had no interest in them immediately after the audition and they ended up accepted by those schools. So now my motto is “he’ll end up where he’s meant to be”</p>
<p>I disagree with " some of these lower ranked schools recognize when kids are too highly trained for the program" I dont think that is the case. I know a ton of people who got in a ton of places and got into some really “lower ranked” schools. I think there might be a problem with fit and type. Type is a HUGE role at a lot of schools if you are a larger character man and they already have 3 in the class above you they might reject you just on the basis they don’t need your type. I think its also a lot of connecting with the faculty in the audition everyone has different styles and therefore some auditors are gonna connect with some people.</p>
<p>Yes, logic would dictate that if you are accepted at UM, CCM & Elon - that you would be accepted everywhere - if logic where the key factor and if all other factors were equal. Whatever you think the “top” schools are matters not - you will see this seeming discrepancy occurring all over the board. Much of these forums speak of the “fit” in reference to students choosing the school. What often gets lost in the shuffle is the fit from the school’s perspective. While schools are not “casting” when they audition for admission, they do need to keep a rough idea of now many soprano, alto, baritone and tenor voices they admit, also, they are aware of heights, looks, leading character types, character character types, and so on. These kinds of things can account for the variance in acceptance. Also, I think you assume that all your auditions are equal - they are not - sometimes you hit every note wonderfully, sometimes not - sometimes you hit every beat in the monologue or not, sometimes you hit the triple fine, sometimes you might slip a bit. Further, some schools are looking for triple-threats, and others might be more concentrated in voice, dance, or acting. Then there is a myriad of unknowable factors - how focused was the audition panel the very moment of your audition ( they may not quite have settled in after a break or they may seriously be in need of a break), did the song you sang remind them of their favorite alum from 10 years ago? There are so many elements that go into a decision process. You cannot concern yourself we these things. You need to go into each situation as prepared as possible and give each moment your best - the chips will fall as they may.</p>
<p>So, that was said on one of these threads by a representative from a program and I don’t remember which one or have the search skills or time to try and find it now but it sounds reasonable to think that it could happen. Obviously, the programs are looking for students who are appropriate talent-wise and academically. I also know very high stat kids who were rejected from very middle of the pack programs and accepted to the upper end GPA schools, only. Thus, I do think it happens for those reasons, as well. Some of the well-known coaches can look at a student and discuss which schools would be more likely to accept them. There are schools known for appreciating this or that vocal type, physical type, strong dancer, etc. And nobody ever mentions financial fit until it’s too late and they can’t go. Counselors routinely say why not try.</p>
<p>Actor12, it’s different with academic admissions, and you’re correct that kids will sometimes be waitlisted (if not rejected) from programs for which they’re overqualified, especially if they haven’t shown the infamous “demonstrated interest”–those schools DO base their decisions at least in part on likelihood of attendance (i.e., yield). </p>
<p>Re: financial “fit,” you seriously NEVER know, and financial aid has become increasingly unpredictable for both academic and performance programs. My colleagues in college counseling at our school believe that the economy plus the ever-rising competition have contributed to the situation. While my youngest kid’s financial aid offers were all over the map last year, my older two (2003 and 2008 h.s. grads) had very consistent offers, and it was much easier to predict what we could afford. Last spring my son saw everything from full need met, to big merit/talent awards but nothing needs-based, to about half needs met but no merit/talent. Based on what I’ve been hearing, this was not at all unusual, so the counselors who say “why not try” are probably correct, at least right now!</p>
<p>And you are SO right about “type”–not every program admits by type, but plenty of them do.</p>
<p>We were all over the board as well on financial aid. It was very hard to predict. Schools I didn’t expect to see much we saw alot while others I thought we would at least get our need met we received nothing. I also found in state schools the worst for financial aid.</p>
<p>b’way 95 - Don’t forget that many of the state schools are already heavily subsidized by the state tax payers. One might pay 30 - 40 - 50K at a private school. The state school costs as much to run, the reason tuition is only 5 - 10 - 15k is that the taxpayers are picking up the rest of the tab. In essence - you already have a sizable tuition aid in the state school (you could think of it as an automatic $30,000 scholarship!)</p>
<p>Mine got great financial aid from two of his non-auditioned backups, which were state schools (UNH and URI). Both would have cost the same as going to my son’s wonderful in-state option, James Madison University. Go figure… But one of them was 100% needs-based aid and the other included substantial merit aid. Seriously confusing!</p>
<p>True mtdog71- one instate school was 7k more thana lot of her options and that’s the cheap school. The other she wasn’t interested in and they are notoriously high and known for not giving much money especially to instate students.</p>
<p>Wouldn’t we all love to be a fly on the wall in the rooms where these decisions are being made! My daughter had what she thought were absolutely fabulous auditions at 2 schools that she didn’t get into. At one of them the auditioner actually said, “I shouldn’t be showing my cards like this, but that was absolutely amazing.” He didn’t even have her do her monologue because he could “already tell” how talented she was. At the other, my daughter felt great about the audition and callback, but after it was over she hung out with a friend who already went to the school, and met a lot of the other students who ALL told her how much she looked like another student who already went there. Upshot: rejected. Not even waitlisted. Not saying that was the reason - who knows, maybe she bombed the audition and didn’t realize it and TOTALLY misread the auditioners - but she felt very confused by the outcome. You just never know. My friend’s daughter auditioned a few year’s back at another school and after her audition the panel stood up and applauded. Have you ever heard of that happening? The kid was stunned. P.S. She didn’t get in. You’ll drive yourself crazy if you try to analyze it. But the schools do like to brag about yield so I can imagine a scenario where they’d think, “This kid is going to get in everywhere and never come HERE.” In which case they can do one of 2 things: not accept them, or shower them with money in hopes that would make a difference. But that’s speculation because really, I sometimes wonder if, with so many talented kids coming through, they sometimes, behind closed doors, just flip a coin. ;)</p>
<p>“I can imagine a scenario where they’d think, “This kid is going to get in everywhere and never come HERE.” In which case they can do one of 2 things: not accept them, or shower them with money in hopes that would make a difference.”</p>
<p>In my experience schools will accept students who they would like to have in their programs. Most schools accept more students than they want to attend… it is assumed that some will not attend because they choose to attend other programs.</p>
<p>Admission to programs is subjective… all schools are all looking for something slightly different. It is impossible to know why a student is not accepted, or is accepted to a particular program and not to another.</p>
<p>Many moons ago when I was still performing, I remember being on tour and sitting in the dressing room with the other 9 women in the cast trying to figure out how/ why we were the 9 women chosen for the show when the producers had auditioned thousands around the country. We came to the conclusion that there was no way to know, and simply to be happy for the job. </p>
<p>We all had had experiences where we had not been hired to work for what were perceived to be “lesser,” or less “prestigious” performing jobs in the past… did this mean we were not talented, or that the companies thought we might not accept the job, no… it just meant that we did not book that job for reasons that we would likely never know.</p>
<p>College is slightly different, of course! But, in both situations all could drive ourselves coo coo trying to figure out why things work out the way they do. In the end some doors open, some don’t… in the end we all keep working and putting yourself out there and life will move forward and happen. :-)</p>
<p>Getting picked for a job and getting into a school are very different things if “yield” is something the school needs to be concerned about. I guess this has been discussed before, and it is probably different for different schools, and will we ever really know? It sounds like the reasons kids do or do not get in can range from gender to hair color to having a certain coach to being a certain “type” to – a million different other things that may or may not be acceptable or even legal in other life scenarios, all under the umbrella of the term “fit.” But realistically, if you are a school and you can only offer slots to a certain number of applicants, and your boss cares about your “yield,” wouldn’t you be more likely to choose the kid that you think would be more likely to accept your offer? Isn’t that part of the “fit?”</p>
<p>Wow, thanks for all the thoughts! Actor12, you said “the programs are looking for students who are appropriate talent-wise” and I think you hit the nail on the head. And Calliene, you said “I can imagine a scenario where they’d think, ‘This kid is going to get in everywhere and never come HERE.’ In which case they can do one of 2 things: not accept them, or shower them with money in hopes that would make a difference.” Agreed! </p>
<p>I think it goes beyond fit and type. I think the kids who are really, really good are being rejected from some of these programs with lesser reputations because the schools just don’t think they are going to attend. So in that sense, for some of these kids, these schools that they are using as “safeties” aren’t really safeties. (Yes, I know that NO auditioned school can truly be a safety, but you know what I mean.) Because really, do you guys think that any school would look at an incredibly talented, sure-to-make-it kid and say, “Gee, we already have two altos! We don’t really need another one, so we’ll pass.” Or, “Wow, that kid is unbelievable, but … he’s from liberal NYC, and we’re out here in the middle of nowhere in conservative country…he won’t fit in.” Or “Love that kid’s voice, acting and dancing, but she looks a little all-American, and we’re looking for edgy, so …nope.” If the kid is talented enough, it will surpass all that fit stuff. Or it should. </p>
<p>And yeah, I would love to be a fly on the wall when these schools are making their decisions!</p>