<p>Hey, sorry to point out the typo–just couldn’t resist 
The words cachet, prestige, etc., definitely carry a weird kind of baggage, and I think it pushes people’s buttons on these boards, perhaps because most of us (yourself included) DO know it’s absurd. On the theater and MT forums, asking about which program is better according to those criteria is kinda like the kids who come on and ask people to “chance” them. It’s just all SO personal. We do learn a lot about the different schools from hearing each other’s experiences and opinions, and lord knows my son’s search for a program wouldn’t have been anywhere near as effective and interesting without the CC information. But it’s hard to interpret (or edit) in terms of tone on here. I didn’t read those earlier posts as defensive so much as confused…and for the record, my own response was tongue-in-cheek, not a result of feeling insulted! I do feel grateful for my own education, but did not encourage my kids to attend Middlebury for a host of reasons. And one of the few things I can do better than they can is…SPELL! :D</p>
<p>As a parent of a senior at NYU Tisch – as well as someone from the great state of New Jersey where Rutgers is our flagship public university – I think I can speak fairly. Tisch certainly has a high profile both in the entertainment industry as well as to the general public - nationally and internationally. I have every expectation his attendance there will be an asset when he begins his professional career in earnest. Nonetheless, Mason Gross has an superb reputation within the industry, especially in the theatre world. Mason Gross actors are known to be highly trained and serious. Either would be an excellent choice. Good Luck!</p>
<p>There is some evidence that prestige, or a name brand, can help you get a job. Usually maybe a first job. More than at a lesser known school? That’s not really quantifiable - so much depends on one’s personal qualities, luck, timing, and interests. Most quality arts programs have faculty and alumni who are connected in the field, and most can point to some - maybe even the same - number of satisfied, working alumni.</p>
<p>I’d like to respond to the Juilliard vs. Podunk school comment. I’ve seen so many results from life paths that I’d have a hard time calling any school “Podunk” (and I’m not sure here if that means unheard-of, or low quality - I’ll just go with the former for now). Considering that there are 4000 or so colleges and universities in the US, I think it’s pointless to consider 10, or even 100, of them so important to your career to go to that you would be afraid - or even would refuse - to go to one of the thousands that are left over. </p>
<p>Does a Juilliard grad really “usually” have a better career, or a better life? I’d wonder about that, too. I’m familiar with some pretty prestigious academic programs, and I wouldn’t say that about them - lots of frustrations, drop-outs, changes of focus, etc. Once you spend time in broader parts of the US you find that a very high percentage of people with “Podunk-like” pedigrees do pretty well. Probably no higher or lower percentage than the people I know with “prestigious” degrees.</p>
<p>I like the word “quality.” It leaves a lot of wiggle room for personal preference, but it implies an intrinsic value, not something based on outside opinion. I recommend leaving “prestige” - along with “best,” and even “well-known,” neither of which are at all possible to define here - at the door.</p>
<p>I currently teach with a person who graduated from Harvard. Worst teacher on the planet and should never have chosen that career. College is what you make of it, any college, and unless you apply what you’ve learned or experienced it’s a worthless piece of paper no matter where it came from.</p>
<p>Oh, and I was incorrect. The school I mentioned only has 2 acting females this year. (Certainly not a Podunk school by any means!)</p>
<p>MG is hostile to MT, so advise your S or D to be mindful of this attitude in applying. Several students from our school system were admitted to MG for music ed. and that’s what I recommend MG for. BTW, MG is the most competitive school at Rutgers.</p>
<p>Highly recommend COLLEGES THAT CHANGE LIVES to see difference between ‘selectivity’ and ‘quality.’ If you are searching for the best ‘deal’ in a college, you are already off the mark.</p>
<p>TischDad…can you elaborate on why they are hostile to MT? Is the school competitive to get into as well as among the students once they are in? Is that what you mean? Do you know how many kids are in the BFA acting program?</p>
<p>At Rutgers (MG) acting students can’t take dance or voice as electives. So if your child is an actor who also wants to keep up their dance and voice training they will have to do it outside their program at Rutgers.</p>
<p>Rutgers isn’t hostile to MT per se. They just don’t do musicals in the BFA and don’t offer MT training. It seems like I’ve heard of the BA students doing musicals as student directed projects although I don’t know if the BFAs are allowed to participate or not. </p>
<p>Also, the main acting technique they emphasize is Meisner and while that training may be a perfect antidote for breaking the hammy, presentational habits often encouraged in American youth theatre musicals, it can be difficult for students who were applauded for them in high school, community theatre and the various summer camps to suddenly have all that yanked away from them and even find themselves being chewed up one side and down the other for falling back into them. Then, Vicki Hart, the head of the Meisner Extension at Tisch happens to have been trained in and approved to teach the technique by William Esper when she was on the Rutgers faculty (See Training of the American Actor by Arthur Bartow), so the same students would get a dose of the same medicine there as well. Practical Aesthetics which is taught in the Atlantic studio is also closely related to Meisner and they don’t suffer much of that kind of Tomfoolery, either.</p>
<p>Oh, and Mommy5 will be pleased to know that Carl Forsman who is the new Dean of Drama at UNCSA got a double degree in Theatre and Economics from Middlebury before moving onto Minnesota where he got his MFA in Directing. :)</p>
<p>LOL, Fish, “hammy presentational habits.” I think we all know what you’re talking about, but I have never seen it described exactly that way before.</p>
<p>My D’s acting teacher simply calls it “gimmicking.” And there are a WHOLE lot of audiences and even directors who don’t even know it when they see it. It can be big and noticeable and people think it is good acting. It’s not!</p>
<p>My son just calls it “MT Acting.”</p>
<p>That’s a good point about Rutgers, it’s essential to know what Meisner is all about, because many programs teach a range of techniques and Rutgers does not.</p>
<p>^ They also get a semester of Michael Chekhov technique with Lenard Petit sophomore year plus more text-based British approaches when they’re in London junior year. But yeah … If you don’t want to do Meisner and you do want MT, don’t go to Rutgers. </p>
<p>P.S. My all-time favorite is “schmacting.” :)</p>
<p>Interesting OP. I think the two cents by everyone who has gone through this process is that if you are serious about acting and can afford the application fee, you should apply to both, (unless, of course, you really hate Meisner, which means you would not be a good fit at Rutgers). In terms of prestige and reputation, you can’t go wrong with either in training, and regarding ease to get into, both are like one of the posters said, it’s like applying to Harvard and Yale. In fact, when S was accepted at NYU Tisch, someone listening in to the news I was relating to a friend said “Do you know how difficult that is? It’s like getting into Harvard.” And numbers wise, it is. People say NYU is one of the easier ones to get into (they take 350-400) but when you look at the auditions, it’s really tight. And at Rutgers, well, hell, it’s like winning the lottery. </p>
<p>Am glad you are asking the questions. Instead of wondering about prestige and reputation, ask whether you really want to study Meisner (Rutgers) or go to a big city university in a studio setting? </p>
<p>Good luck with your journey this year!</p>
<p>I feel compelled to clarify what MT actor training looks like at the college level. I don’t believe reputable MT programs are training students to be “schmactors” and nor was that what Fish said (right?). Her post referred to youth theatre programs, summer camps and the like. Indeed there is plenty of schmaltzy schmacting that goes on there for sure. Good MT training programs will be more than happy to beat that out of an adult student the second they cross the their threshold and halleluiah for that. </p>
<p>Didn’t want a lingering impression that reputable college MT programs are like that because they are not. And many very fine actors are also on the MT stage.</p>
<p>At my son’s school (Ithaca) and at many others, the MT majors and the Acting majors are all taking the same acting classes and are not segregated.</p>
<p>Careers go in unexpected directions and today’s students need to be prepared for that.</p>
<p>Oh, I suppose I’ll go ahead and step in it knowing full-well that I don’t have time to wipe it off my shoe … </p>
<p>There’s a lot of smaltzy schmacting that takes place on the Broadway stage, too. I’m out on location right now and don’t have it on my Kindle to give you a straight up quote, but there’s a section in Making It On Broadway in which one of the actors talks about when he was taking a Meisner class during the day while performing in “Les Mis” at night and started applying the principles in performance. Some of the other performers looked at him like he was on crack with the implication being, “What are you doing? Stop it! I don’t feel like acting today!” There are certainly plenty of great MT performers who are also amazing straight actors, but there is a long-earned stereotype and a legitimate reason why even some Broadway legends can’t get arrested to do anything other than musicals. </p>
<p>There are definitely some MT schools that are known for turning out strong actors, but it would be a stretch to say “most” or even “a lot.” I’m sure an effort is made, but the efficacy is questionable. Then, that really isn’t confined to college MT programs. I once had a master class with a prominent theatre director who when asked about the weight of college training on one’s resume summarized the problem as being, “There are too many schools turning out too many badly trained actors that weren’t talented to begin with!” I thought it was a horrible thing to say at the time, but the more I see, the more convinced I become that he was right. Add the necessity of being a good singer and at least a somewhat competent dancer into the admissions process of the partial list of 56 MT programs highlighted on the MT forum knowing that true triple threats are really kind of rare and you start to get the picture as to claims of “strong actor training.” You certainly can’t begrudge anyone majoring in what they love to do in college, but you have to take it for what it is. A college major pure and simple. OTOH, it should also be made clear that a truly talented kid can go just about anywhere and do well with some additional post-graduate coaching as long as the training isn’t really bad and destructive. </p>
<p>Then, I work in TV and film where there are no doubt people making a lot of money who are really kind of awful. Just turn on the CW Network and feast your eyes although I’m not sure if that would be properly termed as “schmacting” or its close cousin “hackting.” But, as my countrified grandmother would spin it, “They sure are purty!” 
And if you want to see what a typical aspiring LA actor looks like, just subscribe to a month of iactingstudios.com and check out the students in the classes. A few are actually pretty good. Like there’s a CCM grad in Amy Lyndon’s audition class who’s exquisitely talented, but you have to look at most of them and think, “Are you kidding me?”</p>
<p>Thank-you FBF! This is all so refreshingly true and it’s so nice to hear it from someone other than my daughter when she is grumbling about some irritating casting decision. The reality is that acting is frequently the weakest link in musical theater programs and we visited at least one popular school where that was very, very clear.</p>
<p>After all, if 2/3 of the training is in voice and dance it’s hard to argue that the actors would be as well-trained as someone studying acting full time. I am really starting to rethink the goal of turning out triple-threats.</p>
<p>Alice Ripley, Montego Glover, Sierra Boggess, Nicole Parker, Eden Espinosa…just to name a few amazing MT actors.</p>