<p>Great post, thank you (and I appreciate the description of the sigh as “cleansing”)!</p>
<p>sjstxmom,
Your post #40 is excellent. When in the midst of the college admissions process, it is easy and natural to get so immersed in all these things and stress over where the student will land and so forth. But in the end, most kids will land some place and will get very good training and will likely be very happy with their experience. A lot of these worries and concerns will be long gone and the kid will be happily going off to college. It is hard to see that while immersed in the process but it really is how it often ends up and is easy to reflect on that once removed from the nitty gritty of the whole admissions saga!</p>
<p>Although more subjective to be sure this is not that far from a typical fit/reach/safety conversation. I’m not sure why it’s such a sore spot on this forum.</p>
<p>I agree about Texas State, though. I don’t know how such a new program can realistically have any reputation at all. Basing reputation on expectations is just bizarre IMHO.</p>
<p>I think marketing has something to do with it. It is also a common tactic, and a smart one, to offer huge scholarships to the kids who truly wow them at the auditions. Then the graduates will, if successful, become ambassadors for their school.</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>I think it felt different when our younger scientist S was waitlisted by Stanford, after submitting his paper-only qualifications, than it would have if MT D had been “rejected” by a school where she had auditioned. Even with only 2 minutes of audition, the MT rejection feels more personal, both for the kids and their parents. It makes sense to me that the spot is a bit sorer for MT kids.</p>
<p>Btw, we’ve met lots of amazingly talented kids, but I can’t think of a single one who went all the way through the audition process with no rejections. Remember that kids at “top” schools obviously landed in great places BUT many of them, if not most (with the exception of ED kids), were not admitted to the school that started out as their first choice. There’s plenty of evidence that performers with ANY background can succeed, but it’s also true that even “top” training won’t prevent most from always needing to hustle to find steady work.</p>
<p>I’m sorry I’ve made you all sigh with exasperation. Sheesh. Remember, I am not here with a bias. My D isn’t in a school…yet. Maybe she won’t get in anywhere. IDK. Several of you asked me where I got the idea that the “top” schools can get their students better access to agents, etc. Well, here are 3 examples (although I admit I can’t find the main one I was looking for, which was an article last year where casting directors actually listed the schools that they think have the best kids…I remember they were CMU, maybe CCM, BoC, and OCU).</p>
<p>1) in an article last week, Mary Anna Dennard stated: “Casting directors and agents are inundated with showcase invitations,” she says. Those can number 60 or more during the showcase season, which begins in March and extends through June, an often-numbing procession of scrubbed, earnest seniors holding hands and doing jazz squares.
Only a handful of college showcases attract top-tier managers."</p>
<p>2) on this very forum, Mtdog71 stated on 3/8/13, in a thread called “Senior Showcase”: “first string agents attend CCM, Umich, etc top tier school’s showcases and send minions (or no one) to schools that are deemed by the NY community as lesser.” No one seemed to argue with him/her then.</p>
<p>3) In a NYTimes article discussing schools and training, Bernard Telsey was quoted as saying ''When an unknown does come in, my eye automatically goes down the r</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>I have no idea how big the advantage really is, or how far after graduation it persists, but I do know of at least two kids who were recruited on two different MT campuses for major professional roles this year, so in some (probably rare) cases the advantage can start even before Senior Showcase.</p>
<p>I think the key point is that college training doesn’t make or break truly talented and dedicated performers, so whether or not any particular set of college auditors selects a particular student is by no means the ultimate word on future success.</p>
<p>The original question is interesting and I’ve seen that happen, as well. Another thing I have seen happen is kids get in nowhere (or nowhere they like) but then be accepted by one of the schools with very late auditions or one that is in-state. It does make you wonder if potential yield is a factor.</p>
<p>Training is part of this equation. It’s not just talent. Most people in the very top programs have much previous training. Not getting in does not mean you are not talented, at all. But maybe just not ready for that level of training.</p>
<p>Maybe they are not easier to train, exactly. But rather taking it to the next level.
Yes. I know, not always.</p>
<p>sjstxmom - Regarding your post #40: THANK YOU!!! You said what I was thinking in a much more caring, tactful way than I could have hoped to have done myself at this point. I haven’t posted in weeks. My D has just started her Freshman year in the MT program at U of Utah. She really likes the program, but the transition has not always been smooth and my emotions have been raw (empty nesting now). I haven’t wanted to share anything too personal about her current experience and have been fearful to come off as jaded when giving advice. </p>
<p>I will say that I agree with sjstxmom that there is so much not in our control and that we will never know the answers to these why’s. Why did our child get accepted/rejected to a program? Did we/they choose the most appropriate schools to audition for? Did they apply to enough/too many programs? Would they have done better if we considered schools outside of our region? Bigger/smaller schools, or BA’s? I read CC avidly during my D’s Junior and Senior year and it helped quite a bit, but these discussions are almost moot. Do research, make choices that feel right, be as prepared as possible, and hope to have options. Not everyone does. Have gratitude for the option(s) your child is offered. Believe he or she will find his/her way no matter where they attend school. </p>
<p>I need to add that you can’t determine the quality of a program by statistics of how many alums are on Broadway at a given time. Really! Don’t bother! I agree it is interesting, but after graduation casting is about what you do when you walk into the room, and countless other things you will never ever know was in consideration. It is difficult to know if the “top programs” (ugh - I hate that term) are top because they attracted stellar talent to begin with or if they are attracting the talent because of the training. Actors are always training. Forever. This is just the beginning. Growing as a person is just as important as the program’s training - it is hard to anticipate which school your child will be able to experience the most personal growth…</p>
<p>So, let go a little, trust that the future will unfold. There will always be good days and bad. Have gratitude for the good and learn from the bad.</p>
<p>Shaun hits it on the head. There are tons of things that potentially go into choices. Type to me is a big one. I pointed out one with my D not being a belter. Another program was very explicit in saying they were looking for folks that were not only talented but also would fill out the total student body in MT to meet needs. So they had several taller sopranos and my D didn’t get a spot. Throw in the high likelihood that not every audition goes the same and it becomes easy to see why acceptances can be so varied. As for the idea of top schools I would only say that in the original thread about that I indicated that the analysis seemed flawed in that it assumed an answer (I.e. programs with leads must be the best) and then fit the data to match the preformed conclusion. Happens a lot in different studies.</p>
<p>Well, I do know a girl who graduated from one of those “top schools” a couple of years ago. She works at the Olive Garden. There are no guarantees from any of these places.</p>
<p>Kids from CMU come out with a definite edge. No doubt about that. I think it has a lot to do with brand name and a look, but also obviously great talent and good training. That said, I don’t think the training is any better at CMU than at most of the other legit programs tossed about here. </p>
<p>I’ve seen enough theater here in Pittsburgh, professional and at CMU and Point Park, to know that it is extremely difficult to watch a production and say “that’s a CMU kid” or “that’s a Point Park kid” or “that’s a Penn State kid.” The people who are getting hired in the summers are good, and there is no detectable difference. </p>
<p>But why do some get accepted at the “top programs” and rejected from some good, but not supposed “top tier” programs? Harder question, but it is a crap shoot, even for the biggies.</p>
<p>I agree with Shaun having watched this process for a few years now. One can easily make the chicken or the egg argument. Some top programs, having the “pick of the litter,” can take kids who are “talent 10, looks 10,” or “talent 10, look that’s in right now 10.” </p>
<p>I agree that type is huge, jeffandann. Nobody will ever readily admit that, but it is definitely the case. Sometimes they get caught up in their types, looks, and marketability, that they miss something right under their nose.</p>
<p>Given the financial aspect and the ever growing gap between the tuition at some top programs and the financial aid packages they are offering, the playing field is going to level out over the next few years.</p>
<p>I bet that the minute CMU thinks its hot school status is declining, they will become much more generous with financial aid grants and merit money. They can afford it.</p>
<p>although my D loved CMU from her intital visit(sophmore year and it helped the current lead in Newsies was her tour guide) She always knew it was a lottery school but as time went on in her senior year and she did more and more research if she were being totally honest with herself - it did not have some of her requirements. </p>
<p>Statistically you can not argue that many of their alums do great - however I believe they want a more polished performer and they appear to want a very commercial look. I do believe they have great training and not saying if my D had won the lottery I am sure she would have wanted to go there but if she really checked her list of what she wanted out of a program they did not match. Her main problem with them was not having the opportunity to perform often and not getting to audition for 2 years(yes I know they have student directed shows), but for her the idea of waiting that long and not getting to be in many shows was not what she felt she needed. </p>
<p>We were thankful she did have choices and they may not have been in the “top schools” or at her reaches, however the school she picked is a “lesser known” program but they do a many shows and she is already in a show and working with guest choreographers in the biz.</p>
<p>The moral of this story I guess is to not discount any program. Really decide what you want out of a program, take the name out of it (unless that is what you really want), sit in on classes and see if it feels like home. You can be in the “best” program and not get much out of it and in a “lesser” program and thrive. Much of it is what you make of it and if you are open to the experience, enjoy it and learn. As you continue in your growth you will always be evloving and training. </p>
<p>During the process it is easy to get caught up in they liked me, the didn’t like me, why didn’t they pick me, unless we are in the room we will never know. I know it is very hard when your D or S come out of an audtion knowing they nailed it, feeling like they really liked them and then they get rejected…that is the hardest part to get past because it seems personal, but once they get to their school in the fall and start taking classes and immerse themselves in the department it really does become a distant memory.</p>
<p>We visited CMU when my son was a sophomore. It was his first college visit, and I expected him to be blown away. He told the recruiter at Texas State that the only thing he had liked about CMU was the smell of the theater. Huh?</p>
<p>^^We visited CMU my son’s sophomore year too, and he liked Pittsburgh and the overall feel of the school but did not like the vibe in the theater department. It wasn’t an “official” visit with tour, etc.–we just wandered around, got a sense of the people and atmosphere, etc. I don’t remember the smell…but in a similar vein, when my daughter visited colleges, she had this compulsion during every tour to hang behind the group when we visited a theater and go down and <em>touch</em> the stage–she wanted to see what it was made of, as I recall! She eventually majored in theater with a focus on set design, so I guess the hands-on thing was a sign of things to come. 
Maybe that “smell of the theater” thing is similar for your son!</p>
<p>Also, for what it’s worth, D did very thorough school research including a summer at MPulse and discussions with industry professionals including many working Broadway actors, and only 4 of the schools on the OPs “top 10” list were on D’s list of 12 schools. NONE of these schools were in her top 3.</p>
<p>I mention this not to dis any programs on the OP’s list, but as a reminder that fit is very personal, both from the perspective of the schools and of the students. So while it is very true that every year talented kids are rejected by “lower-tier” programs, it is equally true that top students reject many programs before audition season ever starts.</p>
<p>Fit is a two-way street.</p>
<p>MomCares…good point that fit is two way street. A lot of people comprise their college list based on just reputation of the program, but fit is way more important. For example, most would agree that CCM is considered one of the top programs and it is indeed an excellent program, but my daughter had no interest in applying there, though applied to some other well regarded programs.</p>
<p>Vertias - just to follow up on your points:</p>
<p>1) That article was referencing the success of Baldwin-Wallace students at their 2012 NYC showcase. B-W isn’t on the top 10 list you originally posted. Yet clearly they had a successful showcase:
[Baldwin</a> Wallace = Broadway Worthy; when Victoria Bussert’s students hit New York, they don’t just show up, they stand out | cleveland.com](<a href=“http://www.cleveland.com/onstage/index.ssf/2013/08/baldwin_wallace_broadway_worth.html]Baldwin”>http://www.cleveland.com/onstage/index.ssf/2013/08/baldwin_wallace_broadway_worth.html)</p>
<p>2) Showcases are not the only way schools have to get their students access to agents/casting directors. And students from schools other than those listed do get seen/signed by “first string” agents from their senior showcases.</p>
<p>3) From a Backstage article:
[Casting</a> Director Bernard Telsey Shares Advice for Actors | Backstage](<a href=“http://www.backstage.com/news/casting/casting-director-bernard-telsey-shares-advice-actors/]Casting”>http://www.backstage.com/news/casting/casting-director-bernard-telsey-shares-advice-actors/)</p>
<p>And please understand I’m not exasperated with you at all! You’re here asking interesting and important questions and providing an opportunity for real engaging conversation. I came here and learned so much when my D was going through the college audition process. So like many others I stick around and try and pay it forward. And for me, letting go of the “heirarchy” and embracing the “fit” was invaluable. YMMV :)</p>