<p>MM-
I think that is the right attitude to take. When people ask me about Juilliard, when I discuss what the merits of going there (or another NYC/area school)on of the things is the access to music that is available there. It isn’t just Lincoln center, it is a ton of events, performances, programs that are there. That is definitely a plus for Juilliard, MSM or Mannes or NYU or Columbia (I am not talking the relative level of teaching at the schools, or implying any is better or worse then another that way), they all have access to what is here, and it is a plus. On top of that, it is the ability to interact with professional musicians and see what the reality is as well…to me that might mean more as a plus in a decision going to Juilliard then assuming it somehow is so much better then NEC, CIM, or other high level programs in terms of what they can offer…</p>
<p>Yes, when weighing the pros and cons of our child’s final conservatory choices, being in NYC (and finally Juilliard) won out over some very, very fine schools not in NYC. It was tough to decide considering our child has some musical interests he hopes to persue down the road besides his primary instrument. The music scene (in the city) seemed like a perfect fit to prepare him–hope we’re right. Like I said earlier–so far all is well and child is happy and contented where he is.</p>
<p>MM-
That is all that matters, that they are happy to be doing what they are (as long, to quote certain teachers, they aren’t too happy,which means they aren’t working hard enough! <em>smile</em>) and being in the place they are in.</p>
<p>I believe it is fair to say that whichever conservatory one intends to apply to, it would be advisable and desirable to go through some mutual “try out” process, either through sample or ad hoc lessons or summer study, if resources, time, and distances permit. No one can possibly call that an attempt to “bribe” or to nurture “connections”. Least of all would any professor be likely to push any undeserving candidate through an audition simply because he has taken a few lessons in a summer camp or elsewhere with him. All of them will know that his conservatory is not the only conservatory the candidate is applying to, and he is not the only professor the candidate is “trying out” for. If he wants the student so badly that he sticks his neck out in audition (where it was possible) to ensure he sails through and hopes he will end up with him, there must bed a very good reason, likely to do with the merits of the student. To suggest that going to a summer camp or having pre-college lessons with a professor of Juilliard amounts to some corrupt transactions with the staff member and this pervades in Juilliard to corrupt its admission process is so wrong. If one were to read the threads posted on summer camps so many musicians, pre-college or undergrads, are going to summer camps simply to identify possible teachers in various conservatories. many of them get financial aid doing so. I hope students will continue to do so without having to feel that they are part of some corrupt collaboration to oust better candidates at the next audition.</p>
<p>I had previously thought that the possibility of getting admitted into Juilliard was so remote that I would not like my child to apply for fear she might feel discouraged by a rejection, as she did not attend pre-college and knew no one teaching there. Furthermore I did not believe it was the “be all and end all” destination. Child was encouraged by 2 previous teachers to try and apply anyway, so Juilliard was included in the list. The mutual “try out” process was conducted with regard to a number of professors in several conservatories on the list. Thousand of dollars were spent, but they were expenses for travelling and fees for lessons and camps that any student would have to pay unless they past the means test for financial aid. Families who fall outside the line have to make economic sacrifices, like we did.</p>
<p>Does that make the parent or student partners of some unspecified crime of corruption or shady power play in every conservatory the student was admitted to? If not, why so for one particular conservatory?</p>
<p>I agree with Musicprnt that the presence of perceived possibilities of “unfairness” in any process never justifies trashing the whole process, short of evidence of specific mechanisms which make it inherently unfair.</p>
<p>MM-
Well said. If Juilliard is corrupt, as implicated in the start of this thread, then so is every other auditioned music program, because they all pretty much operate the same way as far as I can tell. Is there equal access to these programs, is it totally egalitarian and the like? No way. Classical music is not egalitarian, it requires significant resources to get into it at a high level (conservatory or professionally) for the most part, and if someone is of modest means it requires access to financial aid or foundation support to be able to pursue it (it is ironic that one of the most cost intensive fields to get into also tends to be one of the least renumaritive in terms of pay, same with other arts fields). </p>
<p>As you point out, the ‘corruption’ isn’t in buying your way into the program, it is the ‘edges’ students have to get into programs, and gaining access to those is not necessarily a fair process. Someone living in a rural area is at a disadvantage, because it may be difficult to find a high level teacher to bring their skills up to ‘that level’; likewise, in some areas there isn’t the access to performances there are in bigger towns and cities, that make a difference. Living in the NYC area, my son has been able to sit in on master classes by top musicians and teachers, as well as participate in some; it is an advantage to be in a high level prep program, and so forth. These ‘edges’ are not totally fair, they give some students an advantage over kids who may even be better then they are.</p>
<p>And it comes from the fact that teaching music is not like teaching math or chemistry, it is a one on one, individual thing, that the personal connection there has to work for their to be success in teaching. It is why everyone on here talks about sample lessons and making sure teachers can work with you, and it is also why teachers get to choose their students.
My take on it is that music is more like an apprenticeship, where a master takes on the apprentice workers who have already demonstrated talent in the area and who they want to work with, and quite honestly I don’t think it would work well if they pulled names off the list in test order and assigned kids to teachers based only on the order of the list. One of the problems with that is that audition scores only measure limited facets, it doesn’t measure things like, for example, a student’s attitude, their ability to work in an ensemble, etc, all the elements that make for a top notch musician. Playing paganini perfectly is a feat, but it is only one skill.</p>
<p>Likewise, people often use measures, as Mystery did, that may have no direct meaning on how fit a student is to attend a music program. One of the admissions people at Juilliard in a seminar my wife sat in on at the pre college said that when kids are rejected, they often get calls and such from parents, protesting that their kid was all state concertmaster, had won this competition or that one, etc, and what they have to try to explain is that while those are honors that measure a certain level, they don’t necessarily mean someone is at the level to get into a high level program. Competitions are especially problematic, because what they measure is basically that someone played well enough over the course of the competition to be the best one there in that competition at that time; it doesn’t speak to whether their level was good on the audition, or whether the criteria measured in a competition even match what the audition panel is looking for…but people assume that winning a competition or whatever means the person is ‘the best’, while what it means is simply that person in the eyes of the judges on the panel played the best of anyone there
(which explains why there are a ton of people who have won top level competitions who never go anywhere…).</p>
<p>This is no different then what goes on with competitive college programs, where the kid who had incredible SAT’s, ec’s, GPA’s, etc, don’t get into Harvard or Yale and the answer is ‘it is fixed’, when in reality it is that the admissions panel for whatever reasons decided there was someone else more deserving, someone qualified but in some way felt to be better <em>shrug</em>.</p>
<p>My closing thought is, if Juilliard is supposedly so mediocre, then why would anyone care if it was corrupt or not, or that someone didn’t get in there? Sounds like a fundamental conflict to me.</p>
<p>If I may share one interesting fact: while my child was accepted at all 9 conservatories she auditioned for including Juilliard (mostly after passing pre-screening), the only school in which she did not even pass pre-screening was Mannes (and it was more or less the same set of recordings submitted elsewhere)! Are we supposed to think it was fixed and the pre-screening process at Mannes was corrupt and manipulated? Would anyone care to say that? </p>
<p>It didnt cross my mind there was any complaint at all. There must have been so many CDs to listen to, and it was hardly surprising if somehow attention lapsed or someone had a subjective negative view on the performance.</p>
<p>Bottom line regarding Julliard or any where else for that matter getting with the best teacher and best teacher match you can find is paramount. Many students have been accepted into big name schools including Julliard only to find poor teacher matches. There are many of these schools that have no teacher for my son and this very likely includes Julliard. I am sure he would enjoy having Julliard on his resume for the “oh wow” factor, but when it comes time to audition for work none of that matters, at all.</p>
<p>About the only place where the Juilliard “Oh Wow” factor might work I would hazard a guess might be with someone who goes into teaching and trying to attract students or maybe applying to some music programs as a teacher, that cred might weigh heavily.You see a lot of teachers who in their ads list “Juilliard grad” as one of their credentials/background, and I wouldn’t be surprised if some music schools (I am talking in general here, not college level specifically, or community, or whatever) who might hire someone at least in part because they went to school there. </p>
<p>In terms of professional work, I would guess that a Juilliard background works more in terms of networking, of people they went to school with or were taught by, that might generate some freelance jobs and such, then the name.</p>
<p>And the name also could, believe it or not, have cachet in terms of people who switch professions, such is the reputation of Juilliard, even beyond the music world, that on an employment interview that could bowl over some people (There was a guy who was the COO of a securities firm I worked for at the time, who had gone to Juilliard, and the story on him was that he got his entry position into an investment bank, when he had little background at that point, was because the big boss saw the Juilliard name and assumed it meant the guy was already above other applicants…). </p>
<p>But in terms of audition work other then maybe getting wind of an audition from networking contacts, it won’t help there, all that matter is the skill of the player. It could help on getting a high level teaching position (especially when applying to Juilliard itself) I suspect, but accomplishment probably means more I would gather.</p>
<p>All points are well taken, and I did not mean to imply corruption in the process, only that part of the application process does involve (usually) making contact with faculty, and receiving from them encouragement to go ahead with the application, and possibly, guidance as to the studio choices to be put down.</p>
<p>After reading musciprnt’s post about the Juilliard pre-college program, I realized it was actually funny that I wrote what I did as my son was accepted into the pre-college program without having ever met or taken lessons with any of the faculty, or received any coaching at all on his application. I’m not saying this as a boast, just to validate that it is possible.</p>
<p>However, speaking from my professional perspective, it seems to me that for a music instructor, accepting a student into the studio is commiting to working with that student over a period of years and that choice can be a very personal choice. I compare it to my own willingness to advise doctoral dissertations which had to be based on whether I thought I could truly guide the student and work productively with them. It could be the case that a more worthy dissertation was written by a student I chose not to supervise, than was written by my own advisees. I am sure that many who are turned away are just as worthy as those who are accepted, some possibly more so, but in some cases, simply didn’t find the studio that would have accepted them.</p>
<p>That said, in response to something else written above, I feel it needs to be pointed out that not every family–even with epic sacrifices–has enough margin within their finances to send their children year after year to the summer music festivals, or to fly them around the country to meet with faculty. By sacrifices I am not talking about giving up a summer vacation, but giving up necessary medical care, not able to afford eyeglasses, dental work, new clothes, necessary repairs to the home, parents wearing shoes literally in holes etc.)</p>
<p>Not every family can even afford to take their child any significant distance for auditions at application time, or to send them any distance to the conservatories that would require travel to and fro on top of the tuition. Being able to afford really wonderful instruments and to maintain them, to be able to pop in to a music shop for adjustments before every competition, being able to fly to the competition: some of these things are beyond reach for some, even with every possible human sacrifice and then beyond. Please be compassionate of those who are less blessed than you are in terms of material gifts and fortunate results.</p>
<p>These, in my opinion, are the points to take away from this thread</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Violadad-</p>
<p>A nice summary:)</p>
<p>Thanks. How’s the eye? ;)</p>
<p>Stringkey-</p>
<p>It is possible to get into the pre c program without working with a teacher and it is difficult. I also will add that it is a fairly large program, so I can only talk about the people I know of, which though not a small number, is still not the whole thing:). Actually, you should be proud, because it means your child really did great on their audition:)</p>
<p>Thanks, musciprnt! It is a great program and I am so pleased he had a chance to participate.</p>
<p>Thanks, violadad, for the perfect wrap up.</p>
<p>Violadad - Over the years I have come to really respect your thought processes and intelligence. I think you should run for president.</p>
<p>I’ll vote for you Violadad!</p>
<p>Years ago I made a promise to my wife that I would never run for anything.</p>
<p>ViolaDad,
Thanks for the summary.</p>
<p>StringkeyMom,
We all would recognise and understand there are many disadvantaged students out there. hence the quote “the world is not fair”. I have a lot of respect for them and their parents, and have been using them as examples to teach my own children. The point I was trying to make is that for those who can manage to spend the money (a) they may be still making sacrifices in one form or another - it’s just a matter of degree, and (b) more importantly, there is nothing improper about it. There is no reason why it should be suggested that they are therefore partners to some "</p>
<p>There is nothing illegal about going to a place like Aspen (also known as Juilliard-west), Bowdoin, or Meadowmount, but they do give a leg up into admission decisions at Juilliard. You can pay your way into Juilliard, whereas at a place like Curtis, you have to be flat out good to be accepted. The music conservatory industry is a business, and not completely all about playing ability as I have shown with my video demonstrations which do not lie!</p>
<p>Could it be that the reason this thread in particular has gotten the amount of attention it has be because there is a certain amount of truth to it? Of course, and as I expected when I started this conversation, the Juilliard parents would come out and defend the school’s name by insulting me and my professional experience. I do not think showing two video examples of a faculty member (who simply plays at an unprofessional level), and a full scholarship student (who plays under the level of students at less prestigious universities/conservatories/pre-college level conservatories) is irrelevant to this discussion on whether or not ability is the <em>only</em> element that is considered in being admitted to Juilliard (which the Juillliard PR has made you all believe it is). Clearly it is not, and these video examples are pertinent.</p>
<p>Someone brought up the orchestra’s level to be the testament to the school’s great success. Well sure they are a pretty good orchestra, but there are conservatory orchestras that play just as well if not better at Curtis, Eastman, NEC, CIM, and many other places.</p>
<p>Move along, people. Nothing to see here.</p>