<p>Thanks for the correction, librarian 377, I was looking under the "P"'s and didn't see The Peabody Institute further down the list.</p>
<p>NASM accreditation means more than just curriculum. They also adhere to standards regarding deadlines/acceptances and generally accepted professional behavior in terms of dealing with student acceptance/admission. </p>
<p>S was accepted at Eastman & UNT (both NASM accredited) & the language used was very clear and similar about the May 1 deadline, about not committing to other schools once you had accepted, about informing the other schools, etc. S was also accepted at Berklee (not NASM) and we were very turned off by the letter. No response deadline was given and language implied that if he didn't accept soon, his place might be taken by someone else. When clicking on the link for admitted students, there was a list of #1, #2, #3, etc. steps to follow. #1 was pay deposit. #3 referred to scholarships. The letter had stated that scholarship info would follow 1 week after acceptance (which it did), but the list of steps made it look like you wouldn't receive scholarship info unless you paid deposit first.</p>
<p>We just didn't like the feel of the whole thing, especially when compared to the professionalism of the other two. And the audition experience was very much on a par with the correspondence. We were not impressed. </p>
<p>S chose Eastman anyway which was his top choice.</p>
<p>Tango, what instrument does your son play?</p>
<p>You probably can't get much more "apples and oranges" than Eastman and Berklee! They are two extremes of the spectrum, at least for jazz, with one being much more standards-based and straight ahead, including two years of classical (Eastman), and one a much bigger program, with completely different emphasis (including no classical).</p>
<p>My son was also accepted at Berklee (he isn't going), but we didn't feel turned off by their letter (which came by Federal Express or something. This was the only one to be delivered this way, which was kind of neat!). The presentation was different than the NASM schools, but I didn't think it unprofessional at all.</p>
<p>There are some absolutely stellar players we know going to Berklee next year, and kids for whom it is a good fit, can certainly find an excellent experience there.</p>
<p>Guitarist's mom-S plays sax</p>
<p>Allmusic-You are right about "apples and oranges." S was focused on jazz and was open originally to all options. Some great people went to Berklee and he received sales pitch on it from others. But audition confirmed completely in his mind (and ours) that it wasn't for him. He's looking forward with great anticipation to in-depth classical study which is an area he's not nearly as familiar with and current goal is DMA rather than full-time performing career. Of course, we know since he's just starting that that may change!</p>
<p>Actually sent a mail to NASM on the ramifications of an undergrad program not having NASM accreditation. Really nice that NASM does not allow you to see the currently accredited schools without paying $20. We have a 2008 list from a college info book. Agree it is odd that Berklee and Julliard are not on the list. Also true that these schools’ requirements might be off in one or two areas that prevent the accred. seal of approval - thought the 40+ year war between Julliard and NASM is a bit bizarre. With Julliard’s world-wide rep and 20% acceptance rate - they should even care?</p>
<p>Here is my concern for our son who will be an undergrad in a year+: Will the lack of accreditation by NASM for an undergrad program prevent him from getting into a masters/graduate program in music? This is often the way it is in other disciplines. I actually have sent this query to NASM.</p>
<p>Rice is not NASM either and their students have no problem getting into other programs. It is the audition that gets you in for performance major.</p>
<p>MAasamom, I don’t know how old the data is, but there is a search-able list here [Member</a> Lists](<a href=“http://nasm.arts-accredit.org/index.jsp?page=Member+Lists]Member”>http://nasm.arts-accredit.org/index.jsp?page=Member+Lists).</p>
<p>As they publish in the spring. (per the website), my guess is the info in the database is from '08 or '09. I could be wrong. </p>
<p>The absence of NASM accreditation in and of itself should not present problems. When I looked in early March (from the search-able database), Mannes, MSM and SF Conservatory were not on the list .</p>
<p>All are well respected institutions. </p>
<p>Now if the program is new, or “iffy”, I can understand your concern. Without knowing which institution, one cannot say for sure. But in that case, it may be the program, not the lack of accreditation that is the issue.</p>
<p>I think it’s a bit more confusing when you add to the mix that certain conservatories are accreddited by the national association schools of music, when they are not in fact called SOM’s. Just a thought.</p>
<p>Accreditations are generally used by programs accredited to make the case that they meet certain standards, that they follow some set of standards. Public schools, for example, go for accreditation to show to their constituents that they are maintaining some standard (sounds great to say you are accredited). Private schools do this to assure prospective students they have good programs, and alternative programs like online homeschools get accredidated to show they are legitimate. </p>
<p>Places like Rice, Juilliard, Peabody etc may not see a need to get certified or they may not think the standards fit their idea of how to educate their students. More importantly, they have the kind of reputations where being accredited probably would do them little good in their eyes, these are places that already attract high level students from all over the world.</p>
<p>In the end, who knows why some schools don’t belong, above are just my thoughts.</p>