<p>I can read upside down, even bad handwriting, and have learned all kinds of interesting things over the years. Is that what your daughter can do, Flossy?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This won’t help anyone this year, but perhaps for those here thinking about next year (and beyond.) And it isn’t a knock on how any school runs their auditions. If their process works for them, great! But there are schools that take more time with those auditioning. Schools that are looking for/at potential. Schools that are building a company to work with for 4 years and so want students who are eager for the opportunity to train and grow in that environment. Schools where the faculty want to get to know the prospectives to see how they respond and take direction/feedback during the audition process. So my advice would be to research and put one or two of these schools on your list if you feel that is type of audition environment would “benefit” you/your child.</p>
<p>LOL. It’s amazing to me how far she can see and yes, upside down numbers, which box was checked, a cast list carelessly lying on a desk across the room. She sees everything! Sometimes it’s helpful, but not always.</p>
<p>I have no doubt that adjudicators can almost always tell within a minute or two if somebody fits what they are looking for. I work in the publishing industry and it’s the same for literary agents and editors. Like adjudicators, agents/editors are looking at potential new talent daily – a thousand book pitches or more in a year. After a while in their jobs, they know very quickly what they want and what doesn’t work for them. </p>
<p>An agent can tell by reading a short summary (a few sentences) of a book pitch if it’s something they want to see more of. A writer basically has a 2-paragraph pitch letter, or roughly 30 seconds, to get an agent’s attention, and to get the agent to ask to see more. Editors who request to read a manuscript based on a pitch will usually know by reading the first ten pages if that manuscript is the right “fit” for their list. </p>
<p>And it doesn’t matter how amazing the book is, or how talented the writer is – an editor will look at a manuscript and know it could be a bestseller, but if she’s not the right person to edit it, she’s not going to buy it (granted, there are probably a few exceptions). Agents and editors have to have passion for the types of books they represent or buy, or else they’ll hate their jobs, because they will be spending 18 months or more working on each one, reading and editing and re-reading and editing some more and proofreading and doing final edits…they’re going to have to read that book 5-10 times before it goes to print. They have to be passionate about it from the start. And every agent and every editor loves different things. Just like every adjudicator has different preferences.</p>
<p>The way I see it, these adjudicators know what they’re looking for. They know pretty quickly who will be a good fit for their programs and who won’t be, because they see thousands of auditions each year. After a while it becomes very easy to spot the type of actor they’re looking for. And someone might absolutely blow them away, and they might think, “this kid is going to make it for sure,” but they might feel like they’re not the right trainer for them. And so it’s a no. </p>
<p>Agents and editors don’t have enough hours in the day to try to explain to writers why they aren’t a good fit for their team or their list. And sometimes it’s not something they can explain–it’s a feeling. There’s not always a concrete list of things that an editor is conscious of when she looks at a manuscript and doesn’t get that thrill of excitement. Sometimes a brilliant book is just not a good fit. For those of you who enjoy reading, you understand this–you might hear about a book that is flying off the shelves and you pick it up and you just don’t get what people see in it. You might say “It’s well written, but it just didn’t do anything for me.” It’s a little like that, I think. Personal taste/preference is prevalent. </p>
<p>My guess is that it’s similar in this industry. The adjudicators probably can’t always explain why they are drawn to one actor and not another, and it’s not always something that can be verbalized–it’s instinct, or a feeling. And they have to have that initial feeling if they’re going to be spending 4 years with that student, working scenes or songs over and over again with them. Someone might have the most amazing ability, but if an adjudicator doesn’t “fall in love,” that actor might get a no. Like the editor who has to love a manuscript enough to be willing to read it with care and passion ten times over, an adjudicator has to have the gut feeling that the student standing in front of her for 4 minutes is somebody who she will still be excited about after 4 years. And after doing what they do a few hundred times, I imagine adjudicators know very quickly who is a good fit for their program and who isn’t.</p>
<p>All of which can leave the actor confused and wondering why she failed, when very likely she didn’t fail. She just didn’t fit. Which is hardly comforting when she’s going through this, but once she finds her fit (and that isn’t always through traditional BFA means), she will likely be very glad things went the way they did.</p>
<p>This business is tough. Like publishing, “the talent” is only the talent once he finds the right fit. And that takes a lot more than talent. It takes tenacity, persistence, and luck. The more persistent and tenacious a talented person is, the luckier he tends to be. </p>
<p>Just a quick note on perspective. Our youngest, who is currently a sophomore in a musical theatre BFA program, offered some rather interesting notes after helping with auditions for prospectives. I believe he helped last year and this year. He is usually rather quiet about his opinions on this, but outspoken at the auditions regarding information and his own experiences. He “confessed” that he understands now how difficult it also must be for departments to make decisions about the final group of students to receive offers. He has seen his faculty study prescreens. He was present for many initial auditions. He has seen excellent talent displayed. His school is one that works individually with the student in a second phase of their oncampus audition. He knows how much time they spend with each student. Not only does he understand how difficult it must be for the program folks to choose a select few when they would usually like to accept more, but understands also how tenuous the navigation is from April through May when they must round out the final class after students decline their offers. It is a very subjective world during the education phase and just as subjective in the “real world.” All the student can do is their absolute best at that moment in time in that room. I am sure their are faculty out there every year who believe that some very talented kids could have been an asset to their program, but they declined their offer, had an unusually “off” audition and didn’t get accepted, never applied to their program in the first place, etc. There will be disappointment on both sides. Hopefully, the artists on both sides can give each event their best and then move on to the next opportunity to bring their best to their world. Best wishes to all as you hear your final results!</p>
<p>I wrote a long post quite similar to AsstTotheMT’s post, and hers was so well-written, I’m only posting the following section to tag onto her idea:</p>
<p>@raellis123 and others . . . regarding how the school reps can make snap judgements in such a short period of time . . . if you are interested in that sort of research, you should check out the book “Blink: The Power of Thinking Without Thinking” by Malcolm Gladwell. A section in the book that supports what AsstToTheMT wrote was about art authenticators and how they could spot a fake in a glance. They might not have known in that second why it was a fake, but they knew it nonetheless. It’s really a fascinating book . . . “Outliers” is still my favorite of Gladwell’s, but this book is fascinating as well. </p>
<p>I agree very much with austinmtmom. Some programs do not feel that they can make such snap judgments and rank people based on numbers. Some programs do. If you do not value being judged based on snap judgments, this is good information to have for those going into this process next year. You can decline to audition for programs that base admission on such snap judgments and choose to audition for programs that take the time to get to know you. Or if you feel you like narrow, defined parameters, if you feel that way you know what they expect, then you can audition for those sorts of programs.</p>
<p>However, the real world is not an apt comparison. In that case they are considering whether someone is good for a single show that may run for a few months. True, you can eliminate people who just won’t match your needs. But then you are left with those who might. So you have callbacks, and often you have several callbacks that may go on for months. That is just for one show. So just for a single show, they may take a while, sometimes a long while, to decide on which ones are the matches. </p>
<p>In this case, it’s a college that runs for four years. I myself believe that while you can eliminate the ones who aren’t a match pretty quickly, you are still left with, say, 30% who might be. After that, I believe it takes time.Personally, if I were going through this -thankfully I’m not! - I would be more attracted to programs that take time to get a sense of the whole person. But that’s my own style and preference.</p>
<p>Well said @connections. I 100% agree that the preparing for the real world analogy is not necessarily appropriate when discussing college! </p>
<p>This is not helpful to those of you awaiting decisions, but can be for parents of juniors and younger: Before my D (now a junior) fell in love with MT,she was in middle school & thought she wanted to be a professional violist. Her private teacher, an accomplished violinist (Eastman grad) nurtured her talent and advised me on how to help her navigate the competitive environment. She told me that I HAD to send her to a different camp each summer so that she could meet, and make connections with college faculty from her top prospective university programs. She said I should not rely on a short audition to get her into a good program as it would not be enough time to show what she had to offer. When my D switched to MT, we hung on to that advice and it has served her well. She is by no means assuming that she will get into any program just because she has met the director before, but she will be much more at ease because many of them know her by first name and already know what she has to offer. At least, if she doesn’t get into the programs of those she has met, we won’t wonder “what-if?” about her audition.</p>
<p>AsstToTheMT, kksmom5 - thanks for the good info.</p>
<p>Regarding comparisons to the real world, I know these processes aren’t the exact same, but there are similarities. People are going to me making those snap judgments, at least in the early auditions.</p>
<p>But I also have to admit to a karma moment yesterday. After my last post D & I headed to Kent State for her final audition (yea!). During the Q&A the program director mentioned that they don’t tend to get the “beautiful butterflies” (her words) to be polished up. They get the “scrappy caterpillars” who transform into “beautiful butterflies” over their time there. </p>
<p>D’s schools have covered the spectrum of competitive levels and all talk about improving people while they are in the program. But KSU was the first I’ve heard admit that they don’t tend to get the top layer of talent. I appreciated what she said. But I was also laughing at myself based upon my earlier post.</p>
<p>Now off to our D’s final show choir competition. How bittersweet the senior year is… </p>
<p>I think both methods are valid. Having worked at auditions myself, I can tell you that people can be eliminated based on less than a minute. Acceptance takes a lot longer. Make that first minute count, and have solid excellence to back it up. Also, be pleasant to the “help.” If you aren’t, believe me, they will find a way to let the decision-makers know about it. People who are jerks when they are stressed out at auditions, can’t be trusted to behave themselves when they are stressed out at rehearsals and performances.</p>
<p>Regarding the post from raellis 123 about the comment by the program director at Kent State…while I appreciate his/her candor and his/her intention and ability to transform a “scrappy caterpillar” into a “beautiful butterfly,” I think my D would have a hard time going to a school where the director considered her as “less than” to start out with and where her peers all accepted that they were so as well. He/she would do well to think of new phrasing!</p>
<p>Okay, I actually love that analogy and so would a lot of kids who have figured out that they are not top tier candidates at this time. It does not mean they can’t get there and a school with that mission is actually an asset. I like it. </p>
<p>@raellis123 you are spot on. The degree is what matters to employers, and they don’t usually care where it comes from. When a kid earns a degree in any field they demonstrate that they have a work ethic, can set goals and achieve results, can work with people, etc. Sometimes life and careers evolve on their own accord in ways that we can never predict, in spite of our dreams and goals.</p>
<p>When it comes to a career in MT I’m not sure if the degree itself matters either - people running professional auditions probably don’t dwell on the education section of a resume when they’re trying to cast a show. What matters in the end is the training that the student receives that makes him/her a better performer. Sure, they might pick up some industry connections in school that give them a leg up, but connections only go so far. Does it really matter if your kid only gets into a low to mid level school? Probably not. It is up to them to make the most of their training no matter where they go.</p>
<p>Look at it this way - the so-called top 20 MT schools collectively graduate about 400 kids a year. If you combine the entire world of professional MT- regional theatre, cruise ships, educational positions, Broadway, TV, film - you a talking about WAY more than 400 positions.</p>
<p>On another note, even if a kid never works in MT in any capacity, a BFA degree still has value. I read an article somewhere (I can’t remember where) that listed all of the skills that kids pick up in an MT BFA program that apply across a broad spectrum of careers. Skills that people in other career fields don’t necessarily develop. For example, I know engineers who are brilliant but you can’t carry on a conversation with them. On the other hand, I know MT kids who are friendly, outgoing, communicative, cooperative, and smart as hell. These skills translate well into any career field. </p>
<p>; </p>
<p>I don’t disagree with any of this but the part about this magically wonderful skill set that kids who don’t make it in MT are going to receive as a benefit of a BFA program does seem a little like rainbows and unicorns. I know we need rainbows and unicorns. But, who is seriously going to spend 50K a year hoping their child will develop strong communication skills? Most of them already have those, anyway. There are certainly employers who are going to say, “You studied singing and dancing at some school I have never heard of. Great. Next.” and we do have to be honest, too. For the record, I’m worried. </p>
<p>@actingmt upon reflection I would have to agree with you. In some ways I am also worried - when I read the book “Making it on Broadway” I thought, well this sounds like a miserable life. While a career in MT is our daughter’s dream, I’m concerned that her BFA degree may only lead to a career filled with frustrations that she can’t imagine at this point. I hope that I’m wrong, and maybe I’m deluding myself about the skills that she’ll pick up.</p>
<p>My point is that if after college a career in MT doesn’t pan out all is not lost. Life evolves in ways that we can never predict. However, at this point this is a subject that I’ll put back in my pocket and hopefully will never have to revisit. Not really appropriate at the college search stage.</p>
<p>The cost of tuition is one of the most important factors in deciding which college she will choose, and she understands why it is important. How will a career in MT ever provide the means to pay back a student loan of $50k or more? Fortunately she’s good with her money and realistic about ours. That subject probably requires the most honesty to our kids and ourselves.</p>
<p>I don’t think getting any sort of theater degree is any different than getting a degree in the liberal arts. And many liberal arts graduates pursue all sorts of great careers. Some find they have to go to graduate school to pursue their new chosen profession. But that is ok. One example: I have a relative who got an undergraduate degree in economics. What do you do with an economics degree? She had no interest in being an economist. Guess what? She is now a dentist. She had to go back and take some science courses on the undergraduate level before she could apply to dental school. But she did it. She now is a successful dentist with her own practice. I have seen dancers and actors who have gone to law school. We’ve all seen actors become politicians. The communication skills and creativity are definitely valuable assets to anyone interested in going into sales. So many performers are great in the sales arena and there are all sorts of sales jobs available in many different industries. So I think it is ok to get a degree in the performing arts. You never know where it will take you. But be happy your children are studying something they love and are passionate about and that they are going for their dreams. They are learning to be disciplined, persistent, be a good team player (as a member of a cast), etc… So don’t fret. I don’t think there is any difference in our children and the kids who are getting a BA in whatever. They all still have a world of possibilities open to them even if they eventually decide performing is not what they want to do.</p>
<p>Thanks, and I do think that’s true. The nice young man who sold my D her college laptop has a psychology degree from a pretty good school. He works at Best Buy. That was probably not his plan, either.</p>
<p>I may have posted this in the past…but I find it interesting.
<a href=“9 Ways a Theatre Degree Trumps a Business Degree | Change Agent”>http://changeagent.■■■■■■■■■■■■■/2013/09/13/9-ways-a-theatre-degree-trumps-a-business-degree/</a></p>
<p>Bisouu I like that one… another great link we share with parents: <a href=“10 Ways Being a Theatre Major Prepared Me for Success | Wayfarer”>http://tomvanderwell.■■■■■■■■■■■■■/2012/01/16/10-ways-being-a-theatre-major-prepared-me-for-success/</a></p>