<p>Hi, I've been looking at some of the college's showcase page, like CMU... CMU</a> School of Drama | Showcase 2012 / Acting .....all of them are really REALLY good looking people..so I must ask, do colleges take attractiveness into account?</p>
<p>Remember that directors (either in school in or real life) have to cast a variety of characters and those people have to look like real people. Remember that there are plenty of stars who got their start somewhere who aren’t perfect looking.</p>
<p>Also remember that those headshots are those actors looking at their absolute best. If you look at the video you see some of them are very average looking. I agree, I don’t see any character types, which I think does say something about CMU. They do have a reputation for selecting more “Soap Opera looking” actors. Not all schools are like that.</p>
<p>Yes, looks matter. I think anyone that told you otherwise…obviously, schools need a variety of looks but the one thing that was most striking when we attended the Unified auditions in New York was the number of beautiful people there. I had never in my life seen such a collection of good looking, charming, poised young adults—In a way, it has made some of the rejections a bit easier because it is obvious that, in addition to what talent these students have, they also pretty much to the person had “the look.”</p>
<p>The people at CMU have often boasted that they “train the leads.” :rolleyes: And as Mommy5 pointed out, some of those actors don’t really look like their headshots. They are totally over-retouched and the first thing industry people are going to tell them in meetings is that they need to get new ones ($$$) that really look like they will when they walk into a room. Actually, an actor showing up for an audition that doesn’t really look like his pics is probably the #1 peeve of casting directors everywhere. Well … Coming in unprepared is probably #1, but it’s definitely a close #2 …</p>
<p>Just my opinion, but I think CMU looks for interesting/unique looking people, not necessarily magazine beautiful looking people. Exhibit A: Christian Borle.</p>
<p>Exhibit B: Josh Gad.</p>
<p>All promotional materials - whether for schools, corporations, resorts, hospitals, etc. - will show better-than-average-looking people. I think that theater programs will always say that they want variety, but better-looking performers are likelier to be employed (especially in film and television). Not everybody has to be conventionally “pretty,” but I’d say that less attractive candidates will need to be prodigiously talented. They might accept one or two “character” actors per class, but will always prefer versatility. Tall male actors will always be preferred, despite the proliferation of short actors - they are simply easier to cast up against any actresses.</p>
<p>Exhibit C: Supermodel of the world, Cherry Jones. ;)</p>
<p>Zachary Quinto…played Spock in 2009 Star Trek movie.</p>
<p>There was a funny exchange about choosing a collegiate ensemble between Thesbohemian, Doctorjohn and others in the earliest days of the archived threads that might be worth re-posting:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Haha ssjjkk!</p>
<p>The joke at CMU is that they admit just one not-beautiful person per year. Or maybe this is just a joke among the techies (who look like real people). I’ve seen several CMU shows and most (though not all) of the actors were gorgeous (and talented, of course). There were different types–but they were all beautiful. Nor should this surprise anyone who watches television or movies in this country.</p>
<p>When we went to the FSU audition, I was shocked at how stereotyped the freshman students were who were shepherding us around. There was the drop-dead gorgeous black/Asian girl, the tough as nuts short black girl, the tall angular Eastern European looking guy (with an accent even!), the short, Hispanic guy, etc. I thought, how could my son who looks so average possibly fill a niche here? And he didn’t–he didn’t get a callback!</p>
<ol>
<li><p>I’ve seen a number of character actor-types among students at primo schools, so many do go for variety. </p></li>
<li><p>Mentioned this on an MT thread but you might find it amusing: Syracuse dance audition rubric has three boxes for body type: “slender/elongated,” “tight/compact,” and “pedestrian.”</p></li>
<li><p>CMU has a definite reputation for going for looks, plus they want a well-rounded ensemble of different types.</p></li>
</ol>
<p>Does pedestrian mean “a person walking along” or “lacking in inspiration”?!</p>
<p>“not a dancer”</p>
<p>Of course how you look matters.</p>
<p>At their admissions events CMU makes a big point of the fact that their intention is to graduate a group of actors, all of whom are ready to and the school intends to have working directly from graduation. One implication of this philosophy about which they are explicit is that this means admitting more men than women, as there are more roles available for men than women in the real world. Now, if you asked the admissions people if this means admitting primarily attractive people, I don’t imagine they would admit to that, but you do the math. Obviously talent/ability/commitment are key, but even after you reduce your applicant pool to those folks, you’re still going to have a relatively large group (relative to a final class of 16 - 18), and if your stated purpose is to train people who will have a leg up on being employable . . .</p>
<p>I want to be clear that I don’t object to CMU’s approach, and if you do get in then you have a nice endorsement that you have a good chance of making it in show business. At the other end of the spectrum (in a sense) is NYU Tisch where it’s pretty obvious that not everyone they admit for acting (300 or so per year) will be able to make a living as an actor. Yet this doesn’t mean they are admitting people who don’t have the talent/ability/commitment to make it. Rather, I believe it enables them to admit a broader spectrum of aspirants in terms of looks, level of previous training, maturity at admission and other criteria (including, perhaps, an intention to pursue less lucrative, more experimental work). </p>
<p>The selection of the “winners” at NYU (and other larger programs) occurs, I think, more organically and over time, both before and after graduation: some people self-select out, some don’t get the better roles in school productions or get selected for the showcases, and many make it to the post-grad “natural selection” process. </p>
<p>And, from the perspective of good looks, I think this approach gives the school more leeway to admit a significant number of men and women who aren’t drop-dead gorgeous or even traditionally “attractive” but who may end up the next Philip Seymour Hoffman, Marcia Gay Harden, or Camryn Manheim, (or great character actors) of tomorrow. </p>
<p>So you pays your money and they make the choice. </p>
<p>Break a leg, everyone!</p>
<p>OneToughMommy, you spoke of “making it in show business” in connection with the fact that most schools admit a very high percentage of physically attractive students, and you used the word “winners.” You also mentioned “less lucrative, more experimental work.”</p>
<p>I think there is a middle ground: students who will have a good chance of finding work in theatre, but not necessarily, in the long run, as actors. Some of the students who are admitted to performance BFAs are very appreciative of the acting training, but find that they prefer directing, for example. These are schools of theatre we’re discussing, not simply schools that turn out actors.</p>
<p>At my son’s school, Boston University, where each class of BFA performance majors numbers about 40, the students choose either an Acting or Theatre Arts track at the end of freshman year. Many of them find that they prefer a wider theatre education than the Acting students receive, so they happily choose Theatre Arts.</p>
<p>My son says that he feels that BU’s acceptance criteria for BFA performance majors run along the lines of, “we’re looking for interesting people who have good potential for careers in theatre.”</p>
<p>This may be the case at NYU too, though of course academic performance is another major criterion for acceptance there.</p>