<p>Big Al makes a valid point, that you may want to be careful about being worried about not getting into the right program, that if you don’t go to Juilliard or NEC or CIM you are somehow doomed, etc. Keep in mind it also depends on what you are going to be doing down the road as well, and your own personal drive and ambition as well. I worry about that as well, and ‘making it’ is such a complex process that there are no ironcal rules.</p>
<p>Yes, known ‘high level’ programs do have some advantages.Programs like Curtis and Juilliard et al generally attract and admit students already near the top of the game for the most part, at least technically, and that is a natural incentive for people who go there to be pushed to run at a higher level (kind of like running a marathon with the incredible runners who come out of Kenya as an analogy). They also offer advantages in contacts, people who teach in such places generally know a lot of people at the highest levels of music, have hooks into things that can help someone (for example, when Delay was at Juilliard, if she mentioned one of her students was a standout to managers or to maybe an orchestra looking to book a young soloist, it would be a leg up). In some circumstances having those places on your resume might help get you a leg in the door, but from there talent is what does it and whatever auditioners are looking for, etc.</p>
<p>Put it this way, I know of a violist who got their undergrad and grad degrees in performance from Indiana, and today they are basically a nobody (though from their ego you would think they were Michael Tree or Heidi Castleman; and if this seems a harsh judgement, this person deserves it, one of the most unpleasant people I have ever run into) and there are lot more who went to ‘top programs’ and went nowhere, and there are people who went to ‘lesser programs’ and have done well. </p>
<p>Yes,it is true that the ‘better programs’ have a lot of alumni in high level orchestras, chamber music, etc,but that reflects I suspect the fact that they are more competititive and draw a lot of very talented students, it is like why Notre Dame turns out a lot of NFL players over pee wee state, it is because Notre Dame can draw a lot of very talented players…butt kids from pee wee state make it and flourish as well:). And sometimes, a program with a great teacher on X might be better I suspect then being lost in the wash of another school. A friend, who studied at Juilliard under Galamian and De Lay, said that in that particular famed salon if you weren’t one of the superstars, you ended up with assistants and often getting a lesson at 1am or having to drive to Delays house on a Sunday night, and you were pretty much just one of the pack, and others have said it might be better to find a high level teacher in a more modest program and get the attention. </p>
<p>It is like the normal colleges (i.e non music), where there is this big push that going to an ivy league school is going to make or break you. Other then in some professions (investment banking comes to mind, that still live in the 19th century), going to an ivy school might get someone a foot in the door at the beginning of things, but assuming that two students, one from an ivy league school and one from not, show equal talents,down the line what is going to matter is how the person performs, and having an ivy league education in most fields is not going to count for much, if anything, other then in certain instances, it is what you do that matters.</p>