<p>There is a lot of good healthy discussion elsewhere on CC about so-called "second-tier" or New Ivy" schools (although it's still outweighed by the unhealthy fixation on HYPS). The NY Times has had a number of articles on the subject lately -- mostly pretty bad articles -- and then there's this from Time</p>
<p>Anyway, I was wondering what are the equivalent of outstanding, lesser-known music schools. The conservatory / music school fixation on brand-name schools seems a microcosm of the broader fixation on the Ivies, so it would seem reasonable that there might be some music schools analogous to Sarah Lawrence, Pomona, Bowdoin, Macalester, etc., or to Honors Programs in larger universities.</p>
<p>I would agree. I don't think there is any comparison between HYP hype and the status of conservatories or music schools. Juilliard is the only music school with any sort of national recognition among the general population. Besides musicians, no one knows Curtis or MSM or Eastman. Among musicians, I doubt that there is a big prestige issue. There is little to go by for ranking different schools. In addition, students often make a selection due to an individual teacher. That almost never happens for undergrad academic programs.</p>
<p>I'm talking about musicians and their parents. As the idea of pursuing a performance degree forms, there are the brandname schools which people learn of first and many latch onto. I'd say Juilliard and Curtis are analogous to HYPS; and NEC, MSM, Eastman are the rest of the Ivies, maybe with IU being your Berkeley and Michigan your... Michigan.</p>
<p>I think the hype around prestigous schools is just as prevalent among music schools as with colleges in general. And the same dynamics that are driving lower admission rates at HYPS are at work at conservatories: a baby boomlet, a higher level of achievement among high school seniors, and multiple apps. At a number of music schools I visited this past year, record numbers of applicants were cited by teachers and admissions officials.</p>
<p>So, lesser known high quality music programs...?</p>
<p>I'm with edad on this one. Among the music majors and their parents that I know, the buzz is about individual teachers rather than the school where they happen to teach. Then there are the competing pedagogies involved. A harpist brought up in the Salzedo tradition would probably consider BU or Temple a more suitable school than Juilliard or MSM, which have long been associated with the Grandjany tradition. Similarly, a bassist interested in Rabbath technique would have Rice University a lot higher on their list than any of the New York City schools, which is mostly Simandl territory.</p>
<p>Im sorry manenyou, but UCSB is one of the last Music departments that I would recommend.Especially in performance---I transfered OUT of there this year. As a voice student I found that the level of students admitted was not the best . Performance opportunities are not good. And with only 2 1/2 full time faculty members in vocal music.....well what can I say.</p>
<p>Vocaltoo99, I was thinking of instrumental music -- but I didn't go to UCSB myself, so I defer to you on that. For piano, anyway, they seemed to have a lot of good master classes and other music opportunities going on, but a small faculty.<br>
My impression has been that music students (at least the ones who go to competitive festivals during the summers of their high school years and at least pianists) are very status conscious -- with Juilliard being the be-all and end-all -- and that certainly was reinforced in our experience, with my kid's teacher and music friends really pushing it hard. Curtis, on the other hand, seems unattainable and is not heard about so often. Many other conservatories seem to be in a second, big tier in students' minds -- NEC, Oberlin, CIM, Peabody, Eastman, etc.</p>
<p>My sense of what the OP is getting at would include schools like Lawrence, Hartt, St. Olaf's -- but I tend to think that all this ranking stuff is problematic and mostly unfortunate.</p>
<p>Somehow I feel like I should be qualified to speak on this. My oldest went Ivy, my second is at Juilliard, and my third will be a music performance major in an unheard of music program of a state u. So I feel like I should be able to argue that they're all the same and it's just a name. </p>
<p>But I don't feel that way at all. I don't feel that my d's academics will be equal with my S1's experience. And I don't feel her music education will be equal with S2's. She is going there because she is not her brothers, and she would have been lost with either the academic or musical intensity of the other schools, and had no desire to even try.</p>
<p>I think what the OP wants is schools that are excellent and success driven, but are less well known. The reason the analogy falls apart somewhat is because a musician is looking for something so different. As people have mentioned, yes, you might find a good trumpet teacher at Podunck U, and a great flute teacher at Boonie College. But finding enough great teachers and great students and putting them together tends to create a "name" program that aspiring musicians aim for.</p>
<p>The name schools (although I would draw a wider circle than just Juilliard and Curtis) DO have something different -- they tend to attract fabulous teachers, excellent, driven students, have wonderful orchestral experiences, high standards, performance ops, and so on. I'm betting my d's orchestra at MiamiU plays to a much smaller crowd than my S2's... and perhaps with reason.</p>
<p>It is also very difficult because most schools, even the top ones, have stronger departments and weaker ones. So while School X is fabulous for piano, their viola department is somewhat lacking. Looking for a conservatory is more like choosing a grad school than it is looking for an undergrad program. Harvard may have the best reputation, but if they aren't doing the kind of research you want to do, you aren't going to go to grad school there, regardless of the reputation. Musicians need to find teachers that will meet their individual needs. The fact that several schools have wealth of talented teachers doesn't necessarily mean that a particular school will be a good choice.</p>
<p>I agree that ranking of music schools is unfortunate. Certain schools may have a more well-known name, but at the end of the day the teacher at the school plays the largest role in the decision process. When auditioning for most pro jobs, most will be asked not where you studied, but who you studied with. As long as a student has the talent, with a good teacher, and spends a lot of in a practice room, it does not matter if they go to one of the so called "ives" of music schools.</p>
<p>There are some teachers who are at multiple schools -- For example, Richard Aaron, on cello, who just moved to Michigan from CIM, is now on the faculty at Juilliard; certainly the experience of going to Michigan and going to Juillliard would be very different, especially the range of non-music options (which are virtually nonexistent at Juilliard). And there is Andy Jennings, who teaches violin at Michigan at Oberlin -- one a top large State University the other a top small liberal arts college. That is in part why the ranking is a little more subtle for music.</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Musicians need to find teachers that will meet their individual needs. >></p>
</blockquote>
<br>
<p>Agreed. DS will be attending NC School of the Arts as a grad student. The instrumental program is good, and at the same time is growing. There is a new chancellor, a musician, who sounds like a dynamo. BUT the main reason DS is there is the instrumental teacher on his instrument. There are ample (and varied) performance opportunities, and a terrific applied teacher in a small studio.</p>
<p>While I agree that Juilliard has the best reputation amongst non-musicians and Curtis among musicians, from overwhelming personal experience I would have to disagree with mamanyu that students choose top tier schools over teachers at lesser known schools. Amongst my child's friends, (she has very talented friends-I don't know of one that wasn't accepted into that circle of 4-5 top conservatories), quite a large minority chose to attend "less prestigous" schools, many of whom turned down some sensational monetary incentives. Note, I did say minority, not majority. But I, thinking at the time that no one turned down those schools, was stunned at how large this number was.</p>
<p>While I would also agree either of these 2 schools at the top provides the best music performance preparation to the largest number of students, it does not provide the best for everything. I specifically know of a recent graduate from one of these 2 schools that applied to a grad school at a lesser known school and was not accepted. That person intends to reapply again next year, stating that they think their best chance of a future on this instrument, lies with this teacher.</p>
<p>Which brings me to my conclusion. Forward-thinking students study with the teacher they feel will be best able to prepare them to win that audition at the orchestra job of their dreams. No matter where they are.</p>
<p>DS, as an undergrad, chose a major university with an excellent applied teacher (and fine music program) over three well known conservatory programs. The teacher was the reason. He will graduate this week. The decision was a good one.</p>
<p>While the studio instructor is in most cases the primary criteria in selection of choice, here are a few other issues that some examine as well. These can include the depth and number of performing organizations including chamber music, playing under a specific conductor's baton, access to a "name" in-residence ensemble, institutional support (grants) for festival/competition attendance or instrument acqusition. </p>
<p>Sometimes it's like a Chinese menu... one from column A, one from column B.</p>
<p>There are a number of considerations and, as someone else mentioned, it's a bit more like applying to grad school in that a conservatory or music school is a professional school. So maybe it's not really possible to discuss the question outside the particular's of one's instrument and musical aspirations.</p>
<p>But the premise of the original post is that the dynamics which have led to increasing numbers of higher quality undergraduate programs in general -- described in the Time article -- should have also led to an increased number of quality music programs. There are ever more talented kids coming out of high school, the top conservatories have not expanded to absorb the supply, and there are ever more talented teachers needing a place to teach (probably related to the lack of growth in performance jobs). Something's got to give in terms of the availability of quality teaching.</p>
<p>For example, Rice's program is rather new and the result of a university commitment, and successful execution, to have a top music school over a short period of time. I wonder if any other colleges and universities are making similar commitments to create a top program. While the decision of students are largely based on an individual teacher, what creates a critical mass for new faculty to come to a given school (which then attacts more top students and creates a top program)?</p>
<p>This is a very informative thread for those of us still in the early college search process. So I have a question that hopefully fits in this thread. If it shouldn't be here, then I'll start a separate thread for this question </p>
<p>Im beginning to understand the importance of finding the best private lesson teacher early on. Then, the best possible teacher/professor in college, graduate school, and so on...<br>
So when its all done and the college loans are coming in, the purpose of all this preparation, was to hopefully result in a better job/position? Are the truly talented musician/students overlooked that didnt graduate from one of these brand name colleges? Im coming to the conclusion if your child does not choose to attend the top colleges or conservatories, then he/she should find another profession. I understand one should not choose an obviously lacking institution. But what about 3rd and 4th tier schools? Do employers, symphonies (or whatever the future dream may be) give first consideration to the student from a higher ranking school over a 3rd or 4th tier? I dont read anyone actually admitting this but it feels this way. It puts a whole new slant on college.</p>
<p>Again, I'm only in the research phase and am not for or against one school over the other. But it is all about money at this point.</p>
<p>Bard has a new conservatory that appears to want to serve that demographic. Even with some top name teachers, they appear to be having more trouble getting going than one might expect. They are a special case in that they require all music majors to also major in some non-musical field. They also do not yet have a complete symphonic orchestra, which is more important to some students than others.</p>
<p>There are a number of schools that have recently (in relation to the trends you mention) overhauled their performing arts facilities or announced plans to do so - Susquehanna, and the Universities of Maryland and Virginia, to name a few. Oberlin is starting down this road for its Jazz program. Typically, this requires a lot of money either from very large individual gifts or a big special fundraising campaign. A lot of things have to go right to get it to happen, but there are schools out there that have noticed the trends you mention and are trying to do something about it. It takes a while to get the physical plant in place, longer to get a good faculty signed on and longer still to get students to notice and create the critical mass needed to make the program successful. I am not familiar enough with the history of the conservatory at Rice to know how long it took there, or why it may have been quicker to happen there than elsewhere.</p>