<p>A couple of interesting threads that attempted to discuss admissions odds prompted me to think the time has come for a more general discussion about today's competitiveness in MT programs. I don't often start threads but I thought the time has come for this one.</p>
<p>The "Glee Factor" has been kicked around for quite a few years now as a reason to expect increased competition in MT programs. Meanwhile there has been some supply/demand response from the universities that have included opening new programs or beefing up existing ones in ways that didn't exist pre-glee and thus, more training options. As of now, Glee as a show is probably on life support. So I'm not entirely buying it.</p>
<p>Is the Glee factor still a thing? How is Glee different from other TV series like "Fame" (dating myself) that came before them or movie musicals like "Rent", or the High School Musical phenomenon etc. in terms of driving MT wannabees to MT? Hasn't that always been a thing that actually Glee just glommed onto? Are there more "truly talented" MT prospective students moving through auditions like a herd now than before? If so, why and how? </p>
<p>I'll throw out a discussion starter to propose that the number of truly talented hasn't changed because we are not deliberately breeding to create more MT talent.... at least not yet. What has changed is the number of already well trained because people are more informed about what it takes and are starting earlier. </p>
<p>I suspect it’s a combo of Glee – which started in 2009 (incidentally when the number of kids from our HS auditioning for MT started to increase each year. I can’t think of a grad <2009 going to college for MT, and yet it has gone up each year since then.)</p>
<p>PLUS, a lot of approachable modern musicals that appealed to teens - Rent, Spring Awakening, Avenue Q, In the Heights, Legally Blonde.</p>
<p>And… yes, Disney / TV musicals - High School Musical - 2006 </p>
<p>And… that our kids came up through the explosion of singing shows - American Idol, The Voice, etc.</p>
<p>PLUS, the growth of after school / summer youth theatre programs, dance studios, etc. meant lots of kids in the pipeline started being attuned to auditioning and “the process” and doing all these licensed shows, getting the “bug” earlier. (When I was growing up, youth theatre mainly involved a lot of original plays or fairy-tale theatre. We didn’t have little kids doing licensed Broadway shows. Today, there are kids theaters doing “Into the Woods Jr.” and “Beauty & The Beast Jr.”</p>
<p>But for us, the factor that drove my kids interest in going to COLLEGE FOR MT most of all was seeing / knowing an older HS student they admired who would go through the process successfully – for us it was a VERY talented boy who graduated in 2010 and went to CMU. THAT more than anything showed my kids what their path might look like in 2012, and gave us our first glimpse into the process of auditioning, Unifieds, etc. </p>
<p>I think the number of people in the pool who have trained, been coached etc is a tipping point factor- not just for MT, but for MANY aspects of the college process. Sports, Science, Arts- there is an expectation that kids who want to go on to the college level have extensive backgrounds. As mentioned on a different thread, there are “Cinderella” stories, but unless you have extreme talent, those more likely to be the exception than the rule. Has anyone else read articles etc about how kids are relentlessly scheduled these days with sports teams of elementary age kids that practice for several hours a day? That the idea of a B…or heaven forbid a C is tantamount to failure…better get a tutor? We may not be breeding MT yet, but we ARE trying to push our kids into excellence. </p>
<p>@prodesse Agreed. I think parents are more open to allowing/encouraging kids to pursue their passions. I wanted to major in Technical Theatre back in the day. My dad said, “I’m not paying for that. Pick something else.” So, I knew that when the time came, I would support my kids’ choices for in their post-high school endeavours. The ‘practical’ side comes in teaching your kids to be innovators, self-motivated and creative. What will you do when you are not working as an actor? </p>
<p>I, for one, get excited about things like Glee, SMASH, Sound of Music, musical epiosodes of TV shows et al. More opportunities for MT people to work!!! Have you all seen the trailer for ABC’s new show ‘Galavant’??? OMG… It is Spamalot meets Princess Bride. It is going to be amazing!</p>
<p>@MTTwinsinCA though I think you are likely right, I go back to the question of, is this really new?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>More than before? Partridge Family, Star Search, Glen Cambell Show, Donny and Marie, Jackson 5 Variety Hour, heck, even the Brady Bunch turned into a singing group. OK now I’m REALLY dating myself again.</p>
<p>Musicals that appeal to teens also include Les Miserables, Annie, Chorus Line, Grease, Rocky Horror Show and many others and I’m just sampling the 70’s and 80’s. </p>
<p>The growth of after school and summer youth theatre programs… hmm… you may surely have something there. </p>
<p>MTI has been licensing Broadway shows since 1952 but I’m not sure when they started their “junior” collection. But even my own grade school took a crack at shows like “Oliver” and my younger sister did “Sound of Music” and I’m talking grade school, not even high school where the tradition of a school musical has always been a thing. I don’t think we can call the Disney influence new either since I remember very fondly waiting for every Sunday when Tinkerbell would flit across the TV screen for the start of (or was it the end of) the “Wonderful World of Disney” show. MANY of the shows on that program were… musicals. </p>
<p>National coaching is relatively new isn’t it? Personally, I think that at the upper end of MT training kids are going into some of these schools pretty darn close to the level where they used to come out. That’s based on knowing some old MT’s. </p>
<p>Hmm… the parent factor. Could be. Maybe we are all getting back at our parents for not letting us follow our dreams. I wonder what Freud would have to say about it. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Have you seen the movie, “Race to Nowhere?” </p>
<p>Back to the competitiveness factor / Glee factor in terms of sheer numbers of truly talented kids moving through like a herd. Is it more competitive than before? There are more training programs for MT now than before. So is it true or do we just think it’s true?</p>
<p>@flossy national coaching I guess is relatively new so there may be something to that. I don’t know how many of MaryAnna’s students are matriculating to MT programs because you can’t tell from her website. I did count the MTCA students headed for MT and it’s 96 (probably 15 are on a BA track.) So if you believe some earlier math in another thread about there being about 400 BFA program seats, that’s a big chunk out of one coaching engine. On the other hand, these numbers don’t tell you anything about how talented and relatively competitive these students are nor whether or not the fact that they were coached made any difference in the competition for those seats. Undoubtedly many of them would have gotten at least one of those seats coached or not. Perhaps others would not have been in the game at all were it not for the coaching but I’m not sure that makes the college hunt more competitive. It just swaps out one relatively less talented (or less trained) student for another. </p>
<p>Interesting point about the upper end going in pretty close to where they used to come out. I’ll bet that is true. Same can be said of sports etc.</p>
<p>Great discussion starter @halflokum. I am one that thinks we are in a zero sum gain in terms of applicants. Meaning there are more every year but the ratio of kids who are actually going to compete successfully for the slots has not changed all that much. The number of slots has risen at the same time as the number of applicants, It is a supply and demand game. I would guess that in any year 50% of the people are truly not competitive and that this percent has not changed, only the raw number, and that the slots have grown to meet that demand.</p>
<p>More schools using pre-screens may reflect their response to the increase in applicants, among other things. One of the schools that accepted my son estimated they offered auditions to 35% of the kids who sent in pre-screens.</p>
<p>More schools are also using prescreens now because the technology to record and upload has gotten so easy and accessible to everyone. That was not the case 10 years ago. </p>
<p>Does an increase in the applicant pool make getting into an auditioned MT program more competitive? I’d argue not for those that are actually competitive. There has always been more demand than there were seats and even crazily talented students rarely got in everywhere they applied. So what difference does it make if you are turning 1700 uncompetitive students away while welcoming 800 or turning 500 uncompetitive students away and still welcoming 800? On the ground for that 800, it looks and feels the same and in prior years, there may have only been seats for 500, instead of 800. </p>
<p>Thought of another thing. What hasn’t changed at all is the tendency for applicants to gravitate towards certain programs making those programs the most competitive. Popular has always been popular and people tend to assume that what is hot = what is best whether true or not. What has changed to some extent though is which schools those popular programs are at as well as how many of them there are. </p>
<p>Maybe access to info has a lot to do with it too? The kids follow all their favorite Broadway actors, composers, directors online. I distinctly remember my boys knowing very early on knew that Darren Criss went to Michigan, and that Josh Gad and Rory O’Mally went to CMU, and Lin-Manuel went to Wesleyan and Chenoweth went to OCU, etc. I remember observing rehearsal hall conversations that went something like, “oh we have to apply to XXXXX College because XXXXX and XXXXXX went there.” I don’t think I could’ve name which colleges my favorite stars went to when I was in HS, nor did I even think people went to “college” to be actors, save for the occasional Juilliard student. It was SO not my world, even though I was a super fan of pop culture, I had no idea of the path and other than teen magazines, had no way to know their stories.</p>
<p>In my observation, MTTwins’ point about info access is THE biggest factor. I have been involved in education of high school theatre students in some form or another since 1992, and YouTube and Facebook are the biggest game changers in terms of allowing kids to find someone or something that appeals directly to their own sensibilities and then follow it, as you say. The good of this is that kids in the past 2-3 years (and parents) in general have much more accurate knowledge of skill standards and are taking training for singing much more seriously across the board than I have ever seen. The down side is that the people, institutions, and even skill sets (singing as opposed to dance) with the biggest or flashiest online presences sometimes get a disproportionate amount of student and parent attention. </p>
<p>@MTTwinsinCA - you make a valid point, I had no idea where my favorite Bway stars went to school when I was a kid…I know NOW that Judy Kuhn went to Oberlin Conservatory - but only b/c I heard her talking about it with Seth Rudetsky on Sirius recently. There was a thread I saw of here on cc that was a running tally of where “everyone” went to school.</p>
<p>@halflokum - MTI started offering “Jr” shows in 1994. I have been directing elementary/middle school shows for a summer theater program for the past 10 years (both MTI and RnH offer them) We’ve done Into the Woods, Guys and Dolls, Once on this Island, Oklahoma…all sorts of stuff- it’s a GREAT introduction for kids. So I think the point about kids getting exposed earlier is valid, by the time they get to high school lots of them have been in dozens of shows- and are thinking more seriously of acting as a part of their future</p>
<p>Great info all! Thank you for jumping in. Seems to me that the things you are mentioning, especially the access to information is what created the interest and that Glee and even the need for those Jr. shows actually became a thing because of that interest. In other words, the egg was there before the chicken. </p>
<p>Maybe this means what really has happened is that the definition of competitive for MT programs has simply changed. The readiness bar has been raised as flossy, CoachC and many others have pointed out. However, that doesn’t mean it has gotten “more competitive” it just means that in order to compete, you have to be more prepared because you’ll be up against competitors who have prepared in ways they didn’t used to have to. The game has changed. But now, as was always the case before Glee and the rest of it, you also have to be talented not just interested.</p>
<p>I guess my conclusion is that it isn’t “more competitive” now, it’s just differently competitive. </p>
<p>And before the advent of ubiquitous internet usage, how would anyone know what was going on in the “greater” world? Unless you subscribed to entertainment magazines - and even then, who in “middle” America knew what was going on on Broadway and how people got there? I grew up at CCM’s doorstep and knew they had a “REALLY good” musical theatre program (didn’t realize it was “new” at the time). I LOVED musicals, owned and memorized several cast albums, did musicals in H.S. and in a H.S. church choir program (JCS and Godspell), but never got to see a professional production until I was in college (I had to “imagine” what the story of Pippin might be). The only musicals I got to see on a screen were the ones presented by Disney (yep, tuned in every Sunday), the yearly airing of CInderella and those REALLY OLD ones with Doris Day and Robert Preston (remember when JCS, Godspell, Fiddler on the Roof and Tommy - oooh, lied about my age to see that one - made it to the big screen??) There was even a girl two years older than me at my H.S. who “made it out” - a dynamite Lola in our school’s “Damn Yankees” - and got into the prestigious Jacobs School of Music at IU, but we all (my musical-loving friends and I) KNEW you had to be “born” to it, like being “circus people”, it had to be in your “genes”. Or you had to “go away” to get “real” training. We knew you had to be “crazy” talented, but no adults helped us make the connections to the WORK involved (funny, we seemed to know what it would take to be a world-class instrumental performer. . .). Several of my friends toyed with the idea of going into MT, but there was no one to REALLY advise you on HOW to get there. Our parents had no clue - even if they would have “let” us - and most of our parents (mine at least) were much better at telling us what you COUDN"T do.</p>
<p>With 24/7, 360* access to the internet, kids today (and for the past decade) can find out for themselves how people got to Broadway/Hollywood - including the “disadvantaged” backgrounds and missteps along the way. I think they (the serious ones) have more of a sense that “if I work hard enough, even I can do this”. Also, we as parents have more access to information. Rather than waiting for our child’s voice/dance/acting teacher to “hand” us information (or opinions), we can find out for ourselves. Perhaps the world-wide sharing of ALL information, everywhere, everyday, is what is making the difference in numbers (whether real, or perceived).</p>
<p>Just had another thought, according to CCM, they are the “oldest” MT program in the country (approx 1970-75, give or take). Not going to argue who was first, but surely there was a long period of time before the 20th or 50th MT program was formed. So maybe my “generation’s” view that you had to be “born” to MT is not far off the mark. Since up until that time dreaming of going to Broadway really was like running away to the circus. I can’t speak as to when other “legit” programs came into being, but perhaps it has taken our generation to become parents to “legitimatize” sending our kids to college to follow such a crazy vocation - kinda like encouraging your daughter to aspire to anything other than a teaching or nursing degree (or Mrs. for that matter). So if you’re gonna “let” your daughter be a rocket scientist, why not encourage your son to sing and dance for a living. . . (I SWEAR I had nothing to do with that. It was seeing Broadway Across America’s Joseph when he was 11 the hooked him. OK, so may I’M the one who took him, but after that, there was no holding him back.)</p>
<p>I absolutely love everything you wrote @mom4bwayboy. Waiting for Leslie Ann Warren once a year for Cinderella, once a year for the Wizard of Oz… yep. Been there / done that as well as all those old movies. Saw Zero Mostel in Fiddler on stage. Thought he was a god. The Camelot album was the equivalent of “rock and roll” in my house and… well that and the “Singing Nuns” which was not a show just literally a bunch of singing nuns. Clearly my family was not very hip and cool back in the 60’s.</p>
<p>CCM’s website says theirs was the first in 1968. Tried to find others. Tisch’s undergraduate offering started in 1974. That’s as far as I got. You are so right that people like us wouldn’t have grown up with the slightest idea of how to pursue it which worked out just fine in my case because I also only had interest… no talent.</p>
<p>I do enjoy watching some of those old movies. Gosh there are some pretty famous actors that were just terrible. But they rose to fame anyway either because of luck, or they were the best of who was playing back then. People still envied them and wanted to be them. Different playing field. Different criteria. It’s sort of like teeth. Look at the teeth on all the “hot” leading men/women in movies from the 70’s. Now compare that to the “hot” leading people today’s teeth which are all perfect, straight and gleaming white. The game changed. Even teeth changed. ;-)</p>