<p>Can someone explain how 2 students can be accepted to supposedly one of the top 2 MT programs and they both are rejected by a supposed lower tier school? I will not use names of the schools but the reputation of the 2 schools is basically Alpha and Omega. This is not to disparage one of the schools--I just cannot figure out how the selection of talent can be so divergent.</p>
<p>Some guesses - 1) my list of the top 2 MT programs may be vastly different from someone else's. 2) Some schools are looking for a class of 8, some for a class of 40-60, others somewhere in between. Even though the "odds" may be worse at a school that takes a larger number, due to a larger audition pool, it doesn't work like a math problem. 3) Some schools ask where else students have applied -- School X may well think the student will end up at School A, and don't want to "waste" an acceptance on a student they don't think will enroll in their program. 4) Different schools have different standards. If beauty is in the eye of the beholder, so too is talent.</p>
<p>And, possibly most important -- it has often been said that a large part of the decision making on students' parts has to be about that nebulous "fit" - well, so too for the schools. Is this a kid they think they will be able to work with for the next four years? Is this a kid they think they would enjoy being around for the next four years? Is this a kid they think will blossom in their program?</p>
<p>Bottom line -- some things are just unexplainable.</p>
<p>Thanks-what is odd is that the top tier school takes very few students and the lower tier takes more. And since it is 2 students rejected and those same 2 accepted by the other school, it takes it out of the coincidence category. What did the auditors see or not see that caused them to reject, and (assuming the quality of the auditions were the same) what was seen that caused an acceptance. Bottom line, given the utter vagaries of this process, any student who is accepted anywhere should feel very lucky indeed!</p>
<p>Triumph,</p>
<p>You are so right. When S auditioned at CMU, we were just sitting in the room with the students, and you would be surprised how many of them said CMU was their ONLY acceptance, especially among the acting kids. They said it was a crap shoot, really. People can have good and bad audition days, too.</p>
<p>One thing to also think about: not every student who auditions (no matter how talented and accomplished) is always on top of his or her game in EVERY audition. In other words, performances at auditions vary from day to day and audition to audition. A kid who has a fabulous singing audition at one school could have a less-than-great singing audition at another, and so on. In addition, auditors are BUILDING a class as much as they are looking at individual talent. That's why pple on this list have said, over and over again, that it truly is impossible to predict who gets in where.</p>
<p>HappyMom08: I am confused. If you were talking to kids at the CMU AUDITION, how could the students say that they had already been accepted by CMU? I am sure I must be misunderstanding something here. Or perhaps you mean that the CMU students helping at the audition claimed that they were ONLY accepted at CMU? If that's the case, that seems, well, odd to me. Then again, I cannot pretend to know the backgrounds of most CMU students, though I do know that one girl who is a freshmen there now whose mom used to post here regularly got into a number of other very highly ranked programs. If I am misunderstanding you, please forgive me! :)</p>
<p>NMR-what you say is true about quality of audition--but when you have 2 students accepted and rejected, did they both have great auditions for the top school and bad ones for the other? Seems too coincidental. What this does show is that those accepted at the top programs were not quantatatively more talented than other students not accepted and their acceptance was based on some "thing" that had nothing to do with their talent. Also, their rejections say as much about them as their acceptances.</p>
<p>Schools also like to accept students who will be more likely to accept their offer. If the "lesser" school felt that they were a safety for that student they may have held back that spot for a student they felt showed more genuine interest in their program.</p>
<p>I can second what NMR said. My D was sick as a dog for her first 4 auditions and, not surprisingly, was declined by those schools. Two weeks later, in better health, she auditioned for 4 more schools and has gotten 2 acceptances so far (one of which was a reach school).</p>
<p>My fiance has in his courtroom a DA who has a degree in theatre from U Mich. She applied to 25 schools for theatre and was declined by half, most of them far lesser schools than the one she chose to attend. So there is no formula to predict who will get in where.</p>
<p>Yes, to all of the above. There is very little rhyme or eason to auditions, especially when comparing one school to another. The quality of your audition does vary, when you audition can matter - was it late in the day and the auditors were "fried", was it late and you were (finally) just the person/type, personality they were looking for, sometimes programs are looking for and/or have filled various types - is you daughter a short blond legit singer - maybe they already have twenty of those and are more interested in a heavier belter with dark hair! Finally, I have to whole heartedly agree with some who said what you percieve as top tier and second tier might not necessarily be the case. Finally, some mentioned the numbers - a program that only accepts eight could be harder to get into than a top tier progam that accept 60. My advice is to not try to logically understand auditions for schools, shows, or commercials - that is very frustrating. Best of everything in the future!</p>
<p>I've also heard that schools keep in mind the shows they are putting on when accepting students. Now, I know this may not be true for every school, but it could possibly be that those two students didn't fit the particular type of role in future productions. Also, some schools weigh dance ability on different levels. A great singer/actor with mediocre dance skills could get accepted into CMU but get rejected from the much more dance oriented FSU. </p>
<p>It is true that "types" are also a huge factor. If a school has already accepted enough "brunette belting" types, they may reject the next brunette belter who auditions no matter how talented they are. From what I've heard, being in the right place at the right time is a huge factor in the whole process. It is so much more than merely having "talent"--no matter how unfair that may seem.</p>
<p>With all due respect, I do not believe that schools choose a freshmen class that they are casting their shows. I would guess that they would cast the shows once they have the freshmen class.</p>
<p>This process is absolutely no different than any other casting process. Sorry, but each and every school, and individual is looking for something different. All schools also know who their constituency is and will look to make offers to those students. </p>
<p>Talent is subjective.</p>
<p>I tend to agree with what mtdog said about the schools keeping somewhat of a balance of certain "types" -- especially the smaller programs. If they've already accepted three tall, thin baritones and their class size is 10, they're unlikely to take on a fourth, no matter how talented he is. I'm not saying that's necessarily what happened in my son's case, but he, too, was accepted by two top programs and rejected by two "lower tier" ones. It happens all the time.</p>
<p>There was a fun exchange about all this on Theater/Drama a few years ago ...
[quote]
By Thesbohemian (Thesbohemian) on Wednesday, June 02, 2004 - 09:24 am: Edit </p>
<p>Heres a fun question to keep the thread going. Is there any uniformity in what the better theatre schools are looking for as to types for their freshman ensembles? Most say on their websites that they dont discriminate as to sex, race, etc., but is this really true? For instance, are they generally trying to keep an even balance between males and females? Are they looking for a rough percentage of leading men and ingenues versus character actors? What about minority actors? Is it really even a rough percentage or do some actually have a given number of slots for each type? Im just wondering who Ill really be competing with in the auditions. Will it truly be everybody or just the rest of the people of my type? How many blonde ingenues audition for the top schools each year? LOL That could almost be made into How many does it take to screw in a light bulb joke. I say three ... One blonde ingenue to screw in the light bulb and at least two others to stand around arguing about who could do it better and who the one actually screwing in the light bulb had to screw to get the role. Could my jokes BE any older?
[/quote]
[quote]
By Doctorjohn (Doctorjohn) on Friday, June 04, 2004 - 05:46 am: Edit </p>
<p>Thesbohemian: </p>
<p>In response to your question, here's a mind experiment: suppose you're the chair of a theatre program, you're looking for a class of 20, and your 20 most talented prospects are blonde female ingenues. Would you take all of them? If so, what benefits and problems could you anticipate? If not, what would you do instead? </p>
<p>Have fun.
[/quote]
[quote]
By Thesbohemian (Thesbohemian) on Friday, June 04, 2004 - 05:01 pm: Edit </p>
<p>Doctorjohn,
That'd make me chair at USC, wouldnt it? I suppose the all-female thing has been done to death. Maybe Id need to adapt the training model taking cues from some of the historically all-female schools. All blondes? Hmmmmm
Certainly a challenge for the design people. I guess I could create diversity by banning all hair coloring outside the department. Yeah, thats it! I can see the signs now. THIS THEATRE IS A NO PEROXIDE ZONE. What I'd probably really do is admit 35, put the 20 blondes four-to-a-room on the same floor of a dorm, and introduce stage combat in the first half of the freshman year with real blades. THATd get me back down to 20 students in no time. I dont think Id have many eliminate themselves from excessive partying. The 20 blondes would just go to a club and stand around outside wondering why they needed to be 21 to get in. Brain cramp! Theres a punchline here thats eluding me! Grrrrr It must come from portraying the flirty blonde waitress from 11:00 to 3:00 all week. A BFA in table-waiting (as my mom calls it) might not be so bad after all. Its a performance opportunity, right? Almost $800 my first week! Better than my cousin whos using his Business degree at Blockbuster ... </p>
<p>Twenty blonde ingenues at the top of the talent pool? Like, Omigod! Now I'm gonna have nightmares. Maybe a screenplay is in order ...
Hillary, Olsens, and Kirsten, OH MY!
[/quote]
[quote]
</p>
<p>By Wct (Wct) on Friday, June 04, 2004 - 05:04 pm: Edit </p>
<p>Doctorjohn- </p>
<p>I had to chuckle when I read your post because in my heart of hearts and to be realistic there has to be some kind of balancing act when accepting talent into an ensemble pool. No matter what is said by reps from a particular program there has to be some kind of thought behind the numbers game. I would think there would be some flexability considering you usually have seniors as well as juniors in productions during the year, even though many programs say you don't hit "main stage" until your senior year, I have seen under classmen (women) in main stage productions when it was necessary to do so. So there is some amount of flexability on the stage. But then, there is the place where most of the work is being done...the clasroom. So you would need a certain amount of balance for students to do scene work in class with fellow students of different "types". So there you have it really. There just has to be some kind of formula. I would find it hard to believe otherwise.
[/quote]
[quote]
By Doctorjohn (Doctorjohn) on Friday, June 04, 2004 - 05:37 pm: Edit </p>
<p>That was my point, and you and Thesbo clearly understood it, Wct. When programs say they take "the most talented" regardless of race, sex, religion, I have to smile. It's just not possible. Nor is it fair. If you take 20 blonde ingenues, you will inevitably pit them against each other for casting opportunities. It makes more sense to put together a fairly balanced class, reasonably divided between men and women, voice parts, coloring and "types". That way, each actor is encouraged to develop his or her unique humanity, rather than being focussed on being better than everyone else. So, Thesbo, the real answer to your question is that, in most cases, you're competing for entrance with other equally talented people who look like you. Realistically, you're not competing with the dark-haired male baritone who auditioned just before you. </p>
<p>But I'd really like to see a movie with 20 blonde ingenues...
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Thanks for finding that thread, fishbowl. It was fun thinking about the class of 20 blondes again... ;)</p>
<p>You may not believe it, but in a question and answer session with the director of a program for one of the schools my D auditioned for, the director straight up said he is "absolutely" casting shows in his mind as part of the audition process. It is possible this particular director may be the exception and not the rule, but you can't make a blanket statement that schools are not making casting decisions as part of the selection process. My point, with reference to the post that started this thread, is that it's not always just about talent, but "need" enters into the equation. This very same program director, who is from what most consider a top tier school also specifically said that if he has four 5'10" slightly built blondes and needs no more that fit this description, that the next slightly built 5'10" blonde who walks in the door is not getting in no matter how talented she is. By the way, he was only using slightly built 5'10" blondes as an example.</p>
<p>Well, then I apologize and stand corrected! In the end, of course, all that matters to the student auditioning is if he or she gets a letter of acceptance. The "why's" behind it all certainly are interesting in a theoretical sense, but that's about it.</p>
<p>Paul....I actually agree with NMR that they are not looking at casting specific shows when they hold the BFA auditions. That would be nearly impossible. I know at my D's college, there are LOTS of shows every year and they have not even selected the shows past the coming year at the most. But what I think I am observing in the comments that the director of the program made that you are decribing is more along the lines of what others have posted about.....they are creating a class of a mix of types.....looks/body, gender, diversity, voice type, etc. and in THAT regard, that relates to casting down the line because they will need all types in order to meet the casting needs of various shows that will be put on. So, the director may have used the word "casting", but I think it wasn't for specific shows but more what others are discussing....having a very diverse class of types. </p>
<p>That is why getting into these programs can be unpredictable. Yes, you must have the talent to be considered. But after that, since there are less slots available than the number who meet the talent criteria, there is some luck of the draw as to whether you fit a slot in that make up of the class they are building. That is why in such a process, you can't over analyze why Susie got into top tier BFA but not lesser known BFA and then Johnnie got into the lesser known one but not that same top one and so on. You have to look at the overall results of someone's admissions process. </p>
<p>Just one minor example......in my D's year....it was unusual for us in our HS but two people were trying for a BFA in MT (not very common here)....my D and her very good friend. Good friend was rejected to NYU/Tisch but got into Emerson. My D got into NYU/Tisch but not Emerson (not the BFA but got into the school itself). It had nothing to do with academics as both are very strong students academically. BTW, the girls look nothing alike.</p>
<p>soozievt and nmr:</p>
<p>I think soozievt's assessment is probably correct, that although the program director I was referring to specifically said he was casting shows, that he likely meant he was looking for a mix of students, thereby making casting decisions easier to make such that he would have available to him types in terms of body, hair color, acting capabilities, voice types, etc.</p>
<p>I remember at more than one school, the people saying they are not looking for a particular mix, they are looking for talent.</p>
<p>But I also remember that everywhere we went, someone said something totally different than the last school!</p>
<p>I don't think there is ONE answer to this question. Every school really does seem to have their own way of doing it, and it apparently works for them. We can second guess them all we want, and then comes down to, well, obviously I don't know!</p>