<p>I know a student who has a parent on faculty at Julliard. This student also attended Julliard PreCollege. The were not accepted at Julliard but are now happily attending Curtis.
You would think that if they were “political” in their acceptances this would be a time where that would be evident.</p>
<p>Srw-</p>
<p>It is obvious, the student’s mother was rich, so she bribed Juilliard not to admit the student, and then bribed Curtis to make sure he got in there:)</p>
<p>But don’t many of you agree that since Juilliard is an international, household name this always means they have a large pool of applicants/ parents willing to apply and the public image is so strong that they are assured of major interest/apps each year. It would take awhile for it to spread that this is not “deserved” if that were to be the case.</p>
<p>Individual actions might not matter that much as compared a smaller/lesser known school which is easier to observe and “track?”</p>
<p>Maybe an individual area could be affected on occasion. Note clearly that I have no information whatsoever about this, I am only remarking that Juilliard is in a very comfortable situation compared to other schools that may have to “prove” themselves more clearly, more often.</p>
<p>I am not making an allegation just mentioning that with such a situation, there may not be a system in place that most of us would clearly disagree with. Still, individual questionable situations could theoretically be witnessed at a top school, like the OP writes about.</p>
<p>I am not associated with Juilliard in any fashion, but well remember a public (booked) tour yrs ago when the student tour guide (a volunteer, I assume) went out of his way to tell all of us outsiders how difficult it was to be admitted, and admonished us to contact teachers for lessons many months in advance, if we were going to give that a try - we lived so far away that we were unable to make personal contact with faculty. We couldn’t plan for 5+ months in advance on a certain date/time owing to multitude of other… music commitments and logistics. Understand I know well it can be difficult to contact faculty at other schools, too, though it seems usually worth a try.
My sense was that locals to NYC region (or kids whose wealthy parents fly them in for regular lessons as I am told happens) really had an advantage in that sense. The overall tone was not encouraging. It was hard to be clear on specifics about the school though I admit the facilities/location are clearly glamorous. Right here let’s give a shout out to those students who attend music schools in less than glamorous locations because of intelligent choices about the school, program, and faculty! -Those are the ones who have to “explain” to puzzled relatives and neighbors back home. I feel I don’t know Juilliard, while it is possible to get to that level with some other similar institutions. </p>
<p>The word is transparency - some schools have more or less of that.</p>
<p>Another point, on legacy admissions, here is my anecdotal story: I live next to a major university (not ivy but very close to that and overflowing with applicants who have top credentials). I read the student newspaper often. Several months ago there was a story indicating 30% of admitted students have legacy connections. I am sorry I don’t have a weblink (not sure they have any info online anyway) and I think I threw out the student newspaper (If I find it, I will cite specifics) so I don’t have “proof.” However, I was surprised at what I took to be the high figure in this article.</p>
<p>Legacy might not be a word associated with music apps, but connections could be. If we put it in a kinder way, let’s say that networking likely helps musicians to a lesser or greater degree. </p>
<p>What I take from multiple yrs of music applications is the need to get a solid handle on various institutions, teachers, ensembles, environments - and some institutions make it much easier than others. Thanks to CC - this is an outstanding source of info.</p>
<p>You make some very good points. I do think that there are times when connections definately help an applicant.</p>
<p>Again, I don’t think the “truly” gifted or talented musician is affected by much of this as they would get in no matter what. But if a school is going to accept 100 students, I have to believe that those in the #80-100 spots might be affected. Look at it this way: if the kid on the “bump” has no connections/legacy but the student who is a few below the bump has been at the pre-college for a while or has a famous parent, it would be easy to justify taking that student instead. </p>
<p>Now, I’m not saying that I know anything about admissions at Juilliard or any other conservatory because really I don’t. I do however believe that “favors” are called in now and then, as happens in all of life, and occasionally the better applicant (whether for college or a job) loses out.</p>
<p>The problem is with the sweeping nature of the allegations, which cry out for solid backup, while the evidence tendered to support the propositions was so pathetic. Have we not all heard too much about how major competitions are even more often rigged by politics amongst teachers who are often themselves in the judging panel? For those who have not, you may care to check out discussion blogs on violinist.com. To suggest that simply because someone has won some major competition but didnt get admitted to Juilliard is itself evidence of a personal vendetta by one single teacher who happened to “chair” the “audition committee” (I am not sure if there is such a thing!) is simply untenable. The “full scholarship student” example is even worse. Scholarship awards at Juilliard are based on a mixture of merit and need. It probably means the recipient is one of the most needy candidates, but may not necessarily be the top student. The personal attack on one video lecture of one teacher as a concert performance imputing on the standard of the school is venomous, lob-sided and meaningless. If that is how my child would learn to judge and malign her fellow musicians after receiving her “professional credentials” through music education, I would rather she not have any music education at all.</p>
<p>No school is right for everyone. Don’t like Juilliard? Easy. Don’t apply. I don’t understand the personal vendetta against them. Didn’t get in? Go elsewhere and make 'em sorry by being amazingly successful! </p>
<p>There are many music schools. I don’t believe any of them gets perfect 10s across the board. My S chose not to apply to many, many great schools because they didn’t have what mattered to him. Perhaps a quality program, but not a great teacher on his instrument. Maybe a great program, but a weak orchestra. Whatever. Do your research.</p>
<p>This thread is valuable in letting folks know that Juilliard does not control your destiny, whether you get in or not. A similar message can be said about any school, but it is more important to say about top schools, because there are always people who believe for some reason that their life is over if they don’t get into HYP…, and others who think the same about Juilliard/Curtis.</p>
<p>Not everyone who studies music makes it big. That idea has been discussed over and over, and yet it is still necessary to keep it forefront. Some people get good jobs. Some people cobble together an existence, and some people change paths. This is true for almost any college major. I think it’s a bit unfair to point to someone who graduated in 2003 and say they are a sham because they aren’t famous yet. My S is taking auditions with folks in their 30s and 40s. The pursuit of a music career is not for the fainthearted, nor for the impatient.</p>
<p>The world is not fair. The music world can be especially unfair. On the other hand, don’t we on this board advocate meeting professors, taking sample lessons, going to summer programs, entering competitions… These things are done for a number of reasons. Hopefully, the primary reason is to become a better musician. Also, perhaps to identify fit to a particular program, or teacher, or music in general. But if the networking helps, is that bad? Why do you have to list prior teachers on the application, if it isn’t supposed to matter?</p>
<p>At Juilliard, each department runs its own auditions. Therefore, we cannot generalize on the basis of the one we experienced. Hard to say what they take into account; it is a subjective process. My kid (plays horn) got in cold - never met any of the teachers, nor had a sample lesson. But they had his resume in front of them, and he had a killer resume. He also walked out of the audition room feeling like he’d hit a homerun with his performance. His exacts words were, “If they don’t like that, then Juilliard is not the right place for me.” If it makes people happy to think it was dumb luck, or imagine some connection we ourselves are unaware of, well, have fun.</p>
<p>I would be suspicious if I saw someone apply to a range of music programs, and ONLY get into Juilliard. I haven’t heard of this happening. Chances are good (just guessing) that students admitted to Juilliard also had another school or two willing to take them. Did they have connections at all the schools, or only Juilliard? </p>
<p>Prior to the release of August Rush, we were very used to blank looks when we mentioned the school our son attended. It is known and respected within the music community, but not outside of that. (Same with Curtis, which is probably even less known.) We were in Germany when our son was admitted, and I can probably count on 2 fingers the number of people who had heard of the school. (We explained it by saying it was like the Mozarteum.)</p>
<p>One of my D’s violin teachers, who was Japanese, and went to Indiana, said that in Japan, everyone knows IU, and no one has heard of Juilliard. On the other hand, Juilliard is well-known in Korea and China.</p>
<p>Affirmative action has been a subject of discussion many times. In the classical music field, African American musicians are still underrepresented. I’ve seen Juilliard give certain students a chance, but not necessarily at the expense of another, more talented student. I’m aware of at least one situation, where they opted to add an extra student to the dept in order to give someone a chance who seemed to have great, but underdeveloped potential, without displacing anyone. I’m also aware of students who have been dismissed from a studio for lack of progress or other problem, and a student who was asked to redo her senior recital because it did not meet performance standards. They are not necessarily gentle, and do not lower standards once you’re in. I am not aware of any student admitted without talent. </p>
<p>Reputation is important - to all schools. With a great reputation inevitably comes those who want to tear it down with destructive rumors and smack talk. Be selective with what you allow yourself to believe. Consider the source. By the way, the most recent edition of the Juilliard Journal has an article about their piano tuners. I am happy to report that they state unequivocably that there are NO razor blades between the keys.</p>
<p>lateparty: I don’t think that anyone here disagrees with the possibility that “individual questionable situations could theoretically be witnessed at a top school, like the OP writes about.” Posters have repeatedly said that no admissions process is perfect. </p>
<p>However, we would disagree with the last part of your statement (“like the OP writes about”). The OP is not claiming that individual questionable situations could theoretically be witnessed; rather the OP is claiming that absolutely everyone that gets admitted has connections and the OP has claimed that he does not believe any of the other poster’s claims that their children “got in cold” (i.e. without connections). The OP suggests widespread corruption in the admissions process, despite plenty of evidence to the contrary.</p>
<p>For the record, no money in mystery envelopes passed hands during S’s audition 
!</p>
<p>lateparty-</p>
<p>No one is denying that the process at Juilliard (or any other high level program) is totally fair and equitable, no one is saying that. As far as transparency goes, I am not sure any of the big conservatories or music schools are all that more transparent then Juilliard in regards to admissions, any more then universities are with their admissions standards. </p>
<p>Yeah, with universities there are ‘objective’ criteria like GPA and EC’s and so forth, but in the end most people know of students they thought would be a shoe in who got rejected from the school of their choice, when someone else gets in who seems to be less qualified…it is why issues like affirmative action, diversity initiatives, reverse discrimination (like, for example,at Berkeley where Asians at one point were being admitted only with a near or at 4.0 gpa, while for other groups they would go as low as a 3.5, to try and maintain diversity and such) are hotbed topics, because people want a ‘fair’ process and in the end, it isn’t, there are just too many students applying, the school has goals that they want to meet, and in the end it is unfair to some. But like Jury trials and other issues of judgement, unless someone can come up with some sort of scientific way to decide admissions, this kind of stuff is going to go on because humans are flawed. </p>
<p>Legacy admissions are a factor, but then again, what we have to ask ourselves, which applies directly to music admissions I think and the ‘connections’ that have been mentioned, is if all those people with legacy background got in simply because they were legacies or of they were qualified and it gave them an edge over similarly qualified non legacy candidates? Satistics like 30% of admissions are legacy doesn’t mean much, if they said that 30% of those admitted are legacy, and 90% of them didn’t seem to meet the basic criteria for admissions, that would mean something. I would be willing to bet pretty good money that if analyzed, a lot of the legacy connected admits are at the levels generally associated with admissions, that they are qualified to be there (yeah, there are glaring examples of course where it is obvious the other way).</p>
<p>In terms of music, there is no doubt there is influence there, but when you are talking a program like Juilliard, they have such a name (whether it’s mythical status in some quarters is deserved is debatable), that they attract tons of applicants, many of whom are at incredible levels of achievement, so it is even worse at programs who at least I believe are just as good, it is supply and demand and with Juilliard, they get to pick and choose from a ton of applicants.There are also a lot of people who audition, or try to audition there, who have been told they are the next heifetz, and are nowhere near the level they would need to be, those are easy, there are mininum standards/scores in the process, a level, that if a student doesn’t make it they don’t get in, and I am pretty well convinced that no amount of influence would get someone in below that line, the other teachers would not stand for it, they are very territorial and such, nor would they take a student whose father supposedly bought their way in (keep in mind, one of the strengths/weaknesses of auditions is that no student gets admitted unless a teacher wants to teach them; assuming some rich dolt was being pushed by the administration, what teacher would want to teach them?).</p>
<p>It is among the remainder where things can be unequal, I would be a fool to deny it nor would I want to. A teacher may know a certain student has auditioned, either because they have had contact with them or have been told to look for them, and they can ‘hold’ an open slot until they get to the student’s place on the list. The same thing may go on with things like ethnicity (I say may because I have zero proof of this at Juilliard or elsewhere, but for example a Russian teacher might be more inclided to take a Russian student he/she doesn’t know then a non Russian) when dealing with the ‘unknown’ pool.
That power of the teacher is strong, and it does cause cases where students who are pretty darn good don’t get in, where someone actually lower on the list gets in, that is 100% guaranteed. </p>
<p>The only way to make the process fairer might be to make the medicine worse then the disease; you could make the audition process where students enroll and then students are assigned teachers on a lottery basis, which would eliminate teachers ‘bringing in students’ they wanted to teach (heck, do the auditions as a blind audition behind a screen, so the gender/race/etc of the student or how they looked or acted wouldn’t be a factor). The problem there is the teacher/student relationship is critical with music, and that would probably end up with a lot more unhappy students and teachers then the current system gives. As you can see from the board,people emphasize trying to do research and find teachers you can work with, there is a reason for that, because that relationship is critical.I note that as far as I know, no music program does that, teachers choose which students they would want to teach and students in turn decide who they study with (if they had multiple choices). </p>
<p>It isn’t fair, but that is different then saying they are taking in incompetants or losers as students, that is ridiculous, we are talking relative levels of performance where all the kids making the cutoff are at a level that would make even many music teachers eyes open, it is relative, among a pool of people who are already up there (again, in part because Juilliard is such a draw). </p>
<p>And unfortunately music, especially classical music, especially on the really competitive instruments like violin, piano, cello, etc, is unfair for many reasons, and getting into Juilliard or a top program is only the tip of the iceberg.</p>
<p>Speaking in the violin world, the cost of lessons, the cost of music programs like orchestras, the cost of instruments (a top level flute or clarinet might cost 6 grand or so, last I checked; a decent student instrument can cost 3 or 4 times that on the violin), the time required to shuttle kids to lessons and so forth, already eliminates a lot of people (some people of modest means do manage to turn out high level music students, but usually it is because they have found ways, through foundations and aid, to be able to do it, but that is not easy). There isn’t equal access, and even assuming that school music programs can produce students capable of getting into high level programs (which I doubt for the most part), these have been cut way back, which means parents are footing a huge bill just to get to that level.</p>
<p>Then, too, there is the unfairness of something like China’s state music program, that for all its faults identifies talented students, which they have a huge pool to draw from, and from an early age provides instruction and training that literally forces only the very best to the top, and many of those kids are who ends up in the elite pre college and college programs, whereas someone in the US or Europe has to do that all on their own (it is much like Olympic sports, and the costs of training for that, versus let’s say China). Is that fair? No, but it is the way it is. Likewise, as I noted in another post, there are situations where well off parents in places like Korea will dedicate huge resources towards getting their kid into a high level program somewhere in the west, generally Juiliard or Curtis are considered the top targets (I got this from teachers who have taught some of these students, so I have to assume it goes on)</p>
<p>As late pointed out, things like access to high level teachers is an advantage, and yes, studying with a teacher privately who teaches at Juilliard does give people with access to that an advantage. Not just in the admissions decision process (where presumably the teacher teaching the candidate before would want to take him as a student), but also because the teacher would know what audition panels were looking for, so the student would be able to work on the things that could be a showstopper, either technically or stylistically. Likewise, kids who live near large towns with large cultural offerings, and a number of good teachers and programs, have an advantage over someone growing up in a rural area.</p>
<p>And sometimes from what I have heard people are not admitted because the audition panel decided the kid was arrogant, or had some other fault. It is a form of bias, but it has nothing to do with corruption or money, it is a human reaction, same thing happens all over.</p>
<p>What people, including myself, are objecting to is taking a fact, that the admissions process (at Juilliard and yes, other schools, which they mysteriously give a free pass to, for some reason) is not always equitable or fair, and turning this into a claim that Juilliard is nothing but no talents, brought in by teachers and by the school, because of influence peddling or bribery, and that is a different story, that is a major distortion and frankly it is an outright lie that serves no one. There is a difference between a process that has its unfairness to it, and another to claim the whole thing is a sham, big difference. </p>
<p>Part of the reason the process seems unfair is that Juilliard has this mystique among many people (including I would bet pretty good money on, mystery) that if you don’t get into there, you don’t have a chance, or conversely, if you get into there, you are guaranteed to come out and be a famous musician, and that myth is what drives the ridiculous competition that in turn spawns the inequities we are talking about. Other programs, that are equally as good IMO, get less people applying, and I suspect that because of that, the range of people they admit is probably wider then Juilliard, so the inequities aren’t quite as pronounced. Because Juilliard has this incredible reputation, they are literally getting such a hyper pool of audtioners that the range there is small, so someone who elsewhere would be considered a star is ordinary, and when they get rejected it seems like they have been discriminated against, or the system is rigged. In part this is because few people have access to the auditions, they don’t see the other kids on their instrument auditioning, so they don’t know.</p>
<p>I used to have some doubts about the audition process myself, but what I can tell you is that at the college level (and for the most part, the pre college level) that whether I like their style or playing are not, the students there deserve to be there (unfortunately, there are also a lot of kids who didn’t get in who I think should be there, but there is limited room). </p>
<p>The real answer to me is understanding that Juilliard is only a school, one of many great schools of music in the world, and that setting it up as the only place is bound to lead to a lot of disappointment and frustration and anger, and also frankly is shortchanging other programs and potentially the students themselves (it could very well be that another program would make a student better prepared then Juilliard, and maybe with less grief, like actually have affordable tuition:). People like mystery set so much store that Juilliard is the king maker in music (something Juilliard PR doesn’t exactly discourage) that they also frame rejection from there much, much too heavily and then assume it has to be a totally rigged process, which it isn’t (it is more like dice that are loaded in some way, but the loading changes from day to day, and no one really knows what it fully is, so it a really weird roll of the dice each time:)</p>
<p>Binx-</p>
<p>The vendetta against Juilliard is based in what you and others, including myself, have either hinted at or spoken outright about, that sadly many people seem to believe that getting into Juilliard is either the only option, either you don’t make it if you don’t get into Juilliard or if you go to Juilliard, you become a big, successful musician automatically, which is part of the myth I mentioned in a prior post. To give you an idea, I read a music book recently from someone who was there in the late 70’s, and the author said that with the young Korean women there, that having a Juilliard degree was considered a plum thing to have, that it would help attract a successful husband, so their families in effect viewed it as a finishing school of sorts, which is a bit different then achieving musical success (I make no claims whether that is true or not, it was one person’s claim). Thus when they have someone they believe is really successful and talented (like talking about a competition or competitions won as proof they were deserving) and they don’t get in, it immediately is because Juilliard is evil, corrupt, biased, whatever.</p>
<p>Your son had the right attitude to take, that if Juilliard didn’t want him, then he was better off elsewhere. Unfortunately, a lot of people also tie their self esteem into getting into Juilliard, and then are dashed when it doesn’t happen, or when a child or student doesn’t get in there.</p>
<p>Interesting your story about the Japanese violin teacher and IU, I would have thought Juilliard would be the big name there because of Midori, interesting how these things happen.</p>
<p>One of the ironies of this thread is it finds me in effect defending Juilliard, which being someone who has been critical of the way things are run there, is kind of weird <em>lol</em>. But Juilliard is no more inequitable or corrupt or whatever then the other top programs that attract a lot of talented students, and it certainly is no more unfair then music itself is <em>shrug</em>. Kind of the nature of the beast.</p>
<p>My D’s violin teacher is older than Midori. Perhaps things have changed.</p>
<p>Having sat on many an admissions and financial aid committee, not to mention, job hiring committees (academic context), I have personally seen that some candidates have prepared their admission in some way (through contact with faculty etc.) There is a certain amount of professional recognition granted to the student or protege of a colleagues, and a certain amount of camel trading and calling in of favors.</p>
<p>With regards to conservatory acceptance, we were told from an early stage, that it is advisable to have made contact with faculty (usually in advance of the application year) who have indicated they are likely to accept you in their studio. (This is often done at summer music festivals).</p>
<p>In addition, I can imagine that at a conservatory like Juilliard or Curtis, the faculty are more likely to have in the past produced many successful students who now in turn have produced wonderful young music students, who come with a strong recommendation and endorsement. I think it is not unrealistic to recognize that most faculty will have planned to set aside a certain amount of studio space for these students. This makes the actual number of available openings even smaller and the competition for the truly unconnected talent even keenr. </p>
<p>I don’t want to be intrusive, but I am curious to know about the relationship or contact with teachers that parents whose children were accepted to Juilliard may have had. Did anyone truly arrive with no previous contact with any Juilliard faculty whatsoever, audition only formally (i.e. not meeting with any teachers outside of the formal process), and receive an acceptance? I’m not saying it’s not possible; a good friend at age 17 hid in a boxcar in a train from a small farm in the Midwest, arrived in NYC, brushed the dirt off his overalls and bass case, and won his audition on with the New York Philharmonic and is still playing with them today. (No conservatory degree at all…)</p>
<p>Just stopped in to see that this thread is back on track. Evidently, issues can and are being debated, without resorting to naming specific faculty or students to their detriment.</p>
<p>Thank you all for complying with Terms of Service.</p>
<p>String-
I can only talk about the pre college, and there a lot of the kids seem to have studied privately with one of the teachers before getting into the program.I cannot talk specific numbers since I don’t know them, I can only say it seems to be a common path. </p>
<p>There are advantages to doing so, including knowing what the auditioners are looking for, knowing the trip points (a couple of years ago, my son’s teacher told him that on the concerto he was preparing, in a certain section, if his vibrato was done in a certain way it could disqualify him; that could have been a motivational tool of hers, but I have heard similar things from other students in the program and some of the teachers, that certain things, even stylistic ones, could be a killer. Not to mention knowing things like the expected level of intonation, etc. I suspect every program has different parameters, that even something that would be praised in school A might be a black mark at B, wouldn’t surprise me.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>My S did have a sample lesson from any faculty and did not have any direct contact with any Juilliard faculty in advance. (Although after his audition, one of the teachers waved at him when he walked by. Does that count?) However, he did win an important international competition the previous year, and at least one faculty member attended the conference. (I have no idea if that teacher actually attended the performance of my S at that time, or even remembered him. It was on his resume, though.) However, rather than call that a connection, I would call it evidence of talent. But that’s just me.</p>
<p>My S’s private teacher in high school got his master’s at Juilliard. However, the teacher he studied with was no longer there. S’s teacher did not know any of the current faculty personally, only by reputation. I do not think of that as connections, but rather, having a talented and accomplished teacher.</p>
<p>We moved to Germany while S was in high school, and therefore he had the opportunity to study with some truly great international horn players. Several of them offered to write recommendations for S, but Juilliard doesn’t take recommendations (except from an English teacher). If any of those teachers contacted Juilliard, it is without our knowledge. I have heard that, within the small music world, it is not unheard of for folks to talk to each other. I guess it could have happened. I wonder if they contacted CCM and CIM, too? </p>
<p>My great-uncle attended Juilliard (it was only a grad school then) for voice (basso). He died 9 years before S was born, and I seriously doubt anyone there now has ever heard of him. Besides, different last name. I don’t think of that as a connection, I think of it as a long family history of music.</p>
<p>There were four horns admitted the year S was admitted. As near as I can tell, none of them had any true connections. I know one of them had a sample lesson. Don’t know about the others. We are firmly middle class, and our S probably comes from the wealthiest family of all of them, so I seriously doubt anyone was paid off.</p>
<p>Quote:
"I don’t want to be intrusive, but I am curious to know about the relationship or contact with teachers that parents whose children were accepted to Juilliard may have had. Did anyone truly arrive with no previous contact with any Juilliard faculty whatsoever, audition only formally (i.e. not meeting with any teachers outside of the formal process), and receive an acceptance? "</p>
<p>Our child had dreams of going to NYC after graduation so when the high school junior year came around we visited three conservatories in the city. 3 lessons were booked based on reputatation. We knew no one at Juilliard, (or the other 2 schools) no family or close friends had ever attended. We had no clue if our youngster had talent equal to those admitted. We knew, based on state competitions that our child was right up there but since there had been no top music festivals, national or international competitions, we went in blindly --mostly, curious what the teachers would say. We came away happy that all 3 teachers encourage our child to apply. We depended on child’s local teacher (who is not well-known and not connected to any school child applied to) to advise us the rest of the way. We have never donated money to the school and we are a medium income family. Child is very happy!</p>
<p>Too late to edit my post - should read “did NOT have a lesson with any faculty…”</p>
<p>musicprnt, I hate to say that I know some kids on a very competitive instrument - not strings - are fortunate to have parents who have paid many tens of thousands of dollars for the instrument. An instrument like that must be pretty cool to have…I imagine there aren’t many in this position (better than what some teachers play!), but there may be some slight advantage. The world isn’t fair ;)</p>
<p>For a certain instrument we know, it’s thought of as so competitive that I am told there’s typically a hair’s worth of difference between applicants (by no means only at Juilliard) for very few slots (at the more competitive schools/conservatories, of course). Knowing specific inside tips for auditions, so one can prepare in advance for that, must be very useful in this scenario.</p>
<p>I think it might be a good idea to mention the fact that our child’s “dream” of being in NYC for music training is due to what NYC has to offer not for the false dream of “making it big” at Juilliard. That is not part of child’s personality–quite the opposite. Being able to go to performacnes at the Lincoln Center venues, and CH, etc, etc are top priorities. There are many other interests than the instrument–Let’s hope child does well with the up-and-coming jury ;)</p>
<p>musicprint, LOL, of course you are right!</p>
<p>late-
No reason to say you are sorry, it doesn’t surprise me that some non string instruments go for that much. I was basing on that with my experience with the clarinet, where a pro level Buffet can be had in the 5-6 k range…with the string instruments it goes from the ridiculous to the sublime. There are kids in the Juillard pre college symphony playing 200 grand instruments, kids come into auditions there come in playing very expensive instruments (some are on loan from foundations, others are paid for by well off parents or something like that). And yeah, it isn’t fair, because a kid playing a modest violin is going to have a very different sound then someone playing a high quality one (though price on a violin doesn’t always translate to sound). Teachers are supposed to be able to discern which is playing and which is the instrument, but that isn’t always a given. </p>
<p>I second your thought, the competition on certain instruments is out there (at a high level, they all are). The violin, the piano, and to a large extent the cello are very, very popular instruments (because I would guess they are the major solo instruments, which is appealing), and so the competition has always been high. With the enthusiasm (or mania) that these instruments have generated in the Asian world (China, Korea and Taiwan, Japan to a certain extent), the level has been ratcheted up quite a bit (not to mention interest among Americans and Europeans of Asian descent). As I have posted before on here, at the pre college level Juilliard will have 130-150 kids applying for piano and violin (I am not sure about cello numbers), and in the end they admin maybe 10. And the level between making it and not making it is kind of like Olympic sports where 1/100th of a second or point can be the difference. Kids can have the same audition score, and one would make it and the other wouldn’t, because they decided based on certain criteria one was better then the other (or maybe one had a teacher teaching them, the other didn’t).</p>
<p>For all instruments by the time you get to the college level it is competitive as hell, relative levels become meaningless, and the margins are tight from what I can tell.</p>