<p>My D has gotten into the BFA acting at Purchase, Rutgers Mason Gross, Pace, Fordham and waitlisted at Juilliard (I'm sure that's out). She just received final callbacks for the Guildhall School in London and London Academy of Music and Dramatic Arts.</p>
<p>She is sooo confused. She's only 18 and not sure she wants to be out of the country but always admired the training the London schools provide, and loved the faculty she has met from those schools. A director she has worked with in Regional theater has always told her she would benefit most from training in London if she doesn't get into Juilliard. </p>
<p>Is anyone familiar with studying in these London schools and the work opportunities after graduation? I don't know how to steer her at this point. I was having a hard enough time between Purchase and Mason Gross!</p>
<p>There has been much discussion on these boards in the past about study abroad. If you use the search function you will be able to look over these discussions. I’ll mention some of the main points that I remember: There are visa restrictions on staying overseas once a student graduates and those time limits have recently been shortened. Some feel that a student overseas is cut off from forming important relationships in the U.S. and from “staying in the loop” for U.S.-centric work opportunities. Your D can take advantage of the Mason Gross study abroad or NYU RADA opportunities and have the best of both worlds.</p>
<p>If she is accepted at either school, you should give it very serious consideration. The training at most schools in the UK is superb. It is almost impossible for Americans to work there, but your daughter’s training at one of those schools would serve her very well in terms of a career here in the US.</p>
<p>Seems to me that given your D’s passion for London, Mason Gross may present the best of both worlds for her if she’s unsure of spending her entire college career there!</p>
<p>Depending on her ability to handle the culture shock of moving to London at 18, I’d hands down recommend LAMDA over even Juilliard absent a big scholarship if she gets in and I’d give a nod towards Guildhall. She won’t necessarily come back with the connections, but UK training in general and the standards to which they hold their students is light years ahead of what we have here in America and it’s for only three years so she’d have the fourth to start establishing herself in one of the big markets. Check me on this, but I think I heard something about LAMDA having actually started showcasing in both New York and LA, too. </p>
<p>Fishbowl-This is really getting off the topic of responding to the OP but I must point out that comparing the LAMDA and Tisch films is comparing apples and oranges. The LAMDA program film is of graduating actors who have had two full years of recorded media and film work. The Tisch Stonestreet Actors at the time of filming have only had 1 or 2 semesters of film training. Up until this point they have done exclusively stage theatre work. They are not finished with their training. I also know that Stonestreet is a collaborative training ground for students from the Tisch film and dramatic writing departments. I’m not sure who films the LAMDA work. All I’m saying is that I would not have used this as an example of why the OP should encourage her D to go to LAMDA. I do think LAMDA is a wonderful opportunity, but it’s important to consider in a mature manner all the student’s goals socially, academically, and professionally when making these hard decisions.</p>
<p>^ No. It’s comparing apples to apples. It’s examples of work from two different schools that hold themselves out to be professional training programs. Who look like professional actors who could hold their own with anyone and who for the most part aren’t even close? </p>
<p>The LAMDA students weren’t finished with their training at the time, either. They were in their third year and some of them had also been out playing young roles in professional British theatres which happens to also be part of their third year training. We can’t know for sure which, but a lot of those Tisch students were in their fourth year when those films were made ostensibly to be entered into festivals. Some of them may have even done the British study abroad programs which in no way hold “abroad” students to the same standards as those in their three year programs. Don’t make excuses for the Tischies based on the fact that it’s on-camera, either, because the problem with a lot of them isn’t camera technique at all. It’s basic acting skills and they’d supposedly had at least two years of professional training prior. Wax on about educational philosophies all you like, but the OP’s daughter is looking for professional training programs by the appearance of her list.</p>
<p>I didn’t have to go looking for that stuff, either. The Stonestreet site was linked on a professional actors’ group by an older actor who has a bone to pick and was using it to denigrate college training in general. The LAMDA film came from an American student who had seen it on an indie film group and was frustrated by the fact that she’d had to “spend sleepless nights slaving over my my own scripts, scrounge money, scratch, claw, herd cats and pray that nobody flakes to get anything approaching the quality of this while in school and in no way would I think about attempting to shoot an ensemble piece like it with more than four characters.” It is what it is …</p>
<p>Thanks everyone for your comments. My D is looking for a great professional training program that she can thrive in. She has basically ruled out Tisch as she has seen some students who have gotten accepted there which surprised her. She did apply there but realize their MFA program is better. She wants a program she would not need to seek an MFA after the BFA. There is a big concern as to loss of connections back in the states with three years abroad. Any thoughts on this would be helpful. Are there showcases done in NY and or LA. Any thoughts on the comparison of these London schools as well as Purchase and Mason Gross. I think if she stays here she is leaning toward Mason Gross. But the jury is still out…</p>
<p>The training in the UK is excellent at many schools, I don’t think anyone disputes that. The chance to work there afterwards is nonexistent if you don’t have the ability to get a visa, which most kids don’t. They also run on a different yearly schedule than schools in the U.S. which can be problematic if your student wants to work in the U.S. on summer break. </p>
<p>London is a wonderful city both to study and to work in theatre. My D has been there since graduation, working without any periods of unemployment, and, amazingly, a Tisch grad without an MFA! ;)</p>
<p>Congratulation to your D, alwaysamom, on getting that rare visa and steady work.</p>
<p>Fishbowl-I’ve noticed you on CC for the last eight years with a “bone to pick” against NYU/Tisch, quite a long crusade, I must say. Wonder what initiated such strong feelings?..Hmmm. Anyway, the OP is interested in conservatories, which is why I recommended Mason Gross here and on another thread. I only mentioned NYU, as the OP said she was also awaiting that decision, realizing that it was not a front-runner for the OP.</p>
<p>^ I’ve never had a bone to pick against Tisch other than they’re absurdly overpriced. And recently it’s become obvious that they don’t seem to maintain very high standards. Watch the films. The “acting” speaks for itself. Not that someone couldn’t go there and hold him or herself to a higher standard and do well. I know some good actors who went there. </p>
<p>Between Purchase and Rutgers, it’s really a tossup of which training style she’d prefer absent the year in London. I’d personally choose Purchase because of the complete Lecoq training they offer plus they’re less expensive, but that’s just me. </p>
<p>Fishbowl – what would your current thoughts be about quality of training at UNCSA versus Purchase or Rutgers? My daughter does not have the option to pick between them as she only got into UNCSA. In a post a while back you thought the new dean might push the school even higher. Still feel that way? Thanks for your thoughts.</p>
<p>^ They’re right there in that same group of schools along with the straight acting track at CMU. I believe they get more media and MT training worked into their schedule than the others and they do the occasional musical if your daughter is into that. </p>
<p>Let’s see … HA! This popped right up on a quick search. It appears to be a silly, self-devised thing with a lot of inside jokes thrown together by some of their senior guys as an intro to their Intensive Arts week … [Mission:</a> Intensive Arts 2012 UNCSA - YouTube](<a href=“- YouTube”>- YouTube) You could probably find more serious stuff if you have time to look. There’s a lot being done there, but it’s kind of burdensome to sort through what was done with the film students themselves doing the acting, older local actors from the outside or by the high school kids in the summer film program. There are also a lot of dance and physical theatre pieces from their Intensive Arts thing floating around. </p>
<p>It may tick some homers off that I’m pointing it out, but these days you really can get a feel for the level of work being done at some of these places by just looking around online as long as you can separate what appears to be serious from the kids just playing around doing something silly with their iPhones. And you can sometimes even tell things from that even if it really only comes down to getting a feel for the general personality of the place. It’s also fair to question if it’s what you want your own work to look like as an upperclassman - especially if it’s faculty directed and approved to be shown - because it probably will be if you just go with the flow and let yourself be dragged to the middle. </p>
<p>Growth as an actor involves breaking through barriers. This can be tough and it could be tempting to back off from the challenge when you aren’t being pushed and see your classmates getting away with mailing in mediocre work. But it’s definitely possible to go above and beyond. The girl I quoted a couple of posts back has some stuff that’s as good as the LAMDA film and a reel that left my agent’s assistant who is now a junior agent with dollar signs spinning around in her eyes, but it’s not indicative of what you’d generally see from students at her school since she went way out of her way to make her own work on her own time - mostly during the summers.</p>
<p>I’m not remotely qualified to assess the programs themselves, but I find the LAMDA handbook really impressive and fascinating to read. It’s so clearly structured, and the information about assessment (“retention” and “weighting”) definitely resonates with me–much more than all the talk about cuts and juries that we usually see on here. Assessment is such a difficult topic in the arts, and LAMDA’s is an approach I haven’t seen anywhere else. I’m going to bring it up with my colleagues just as a topic for discussion. Thanks for posting the link, FBF!</p>
<p>Hmmm, I think she’s saying it a good idea to look at these pieces and draw conclusions based on about the quality of work that’s getting approved.</p>
<p>I think “faculty approved” and “approved to be shown” are good things, actually. It means the program is supportive of creative exploration and that students are getting faculty attention and the chance to put their work out there even if it’s not perfected yet. I think this article touches on that independent, creative spirit that some programs are known for:</p>
<p>One telling quote; “I learned through making tons of mistakes on my short,” Ford says today. “Years later, a little wiser, we pulled off the feature version and I found myself at Sundance."
And another:"“They encourage the independent spirit and vision with students,” says Michelle Satter, founding director of the feature films program at
Sundance. "</p>
<p>An important part of growth as an actor is the chance to take risks and make mistakes and go on to learn from them. Sometimes a program can be so concerned about their “reputation” that student work is stifled.</p>