<p>I was looking at the audition requirements for CMU, and it says, "You should not have been coached, as coaching often obscures natural ability and instinct. We do not recommend it." I doubt we would hire a real coach, but son will probably work with a local director to prepare for auditions. Don't a lot of kids do that?</p>
<p>Interesting, since I know they took a couple of VERY heavily coached students last year. But I do very much wish that were true.</p>
<p>^^i just read this too and had a similar mixed reaction to yours. I agree with the observation that coaching can camouflage or undermine a student’s instincts, and yet of course all kids needs feedback–hopefully from more than one source–about their monologues. We struggle with a similar issue at our school when we discuss the overuse of tutoring (especially for kids on honors/AP classes). And it can send a message to the student that “you can’t do this without an expert adult leading you by the hand.” How does anyone (CMU included) distinguish between teaching–as in, what you learn from a classroom teacher or director–and coaching? There’s a fine line. </p>
<p>I believe we all have to be really thoughtful and open with our kids about what kind of audition preparation is really necessary and appropriate, and whatever we choose, it should be–like good tutoring–undertaken with the ultimate goal of removing the “training wheels” and letting the kid know that he or she is ready to take off independently. I know lots and lots of CC families believe ardently in coaching, but we have met lots of kids in the “real world” who’ve had great acceptances without it! For that and other reasons, my son doesn’t want to use a coach, but he has been able to attend a couple of great summer programs, and he’s also willing to do the hard work of reading plays and identifying good monologues for himself (again, with plenty of suggestions and feedbacks from teachers and friends). Whether or not he’s admitted to a “dream school,” he wants to take the primary responsibility for the process and the results. As Flossy points out, we all know that CMU does admit some “heavily coached” students, so it’s really a decision that’s up to the candidate and family. As so many folks have said on this forum, there are many paths…!</p>
<p>D absolutely refused coaching, and she is very happy where she is. I really sympathize with young people who want to do it on their own. But the people I’ve known who went to CMU were very much coached, and I could see the difference it made in their auditions. I’ve also seen several young people go through a year of applying without a coach, get no BFA acceptances, use a coach the next year with great success. It’s 3 minutes to show what you can do, 3 minutes out of a day when the auditors may see 100 auditions. (Though, of those 100, 25 at most will be boys.)</p>
<p>You can just look on the MTCA website and see some of their students who were admitted to CMU. My son used no coaching (other than his school teacher- but most was on his own) and got into NYU. My daughter only used her voice teacher- that she had been going to way before her college auditions that she would have needed anyway. For her monologues, most of it was her own instinct and she went to a friend who is a professional actor maybe twice just to get a little polish and for another pair of eyes. She got into a great BFA Acting program. Both of my kids are very happy and feel like they are being well trained at the prospective programs. Personally, I just didn’t stress out about my kids needing a coach. We all relied on what they have learned throughout the years and their natural instinct. My philosophy was colleges want to teach, mold, and develop. That’s where the rewards are!</p>
<p>This was our experience; my D did her first audition last year in early December. She chose to prepare for this audition without any outside assistance except for talking about monologues with her directors at her high school. She did “ok” on that audition, but went in feeling a little overwhelmed by the process. She did not get accepted into that program. After that experience, she decided she did want to have someone help her before her subsequent auditions (she ultimately did 6 auditions total.) She knew what she wanted to change about her monologues, but wasn’t completely sure how to get there. </p>
<p>I asked around for some names of “coaches” from some theatre folks who I trust and was referred to a lovely young woman who is a graduate student in directing at one of our local universities. She was in her late 20s and my D connected with her immediately. My D only met with her twice, but went into her next auditions feeling strong and confident and much more prepared. For her, having someone who did not already know her work give her a few suggestions and affirm her strengths was a huge confidence booster. Her results from that point on were very good (acceptances at all the rest of the schools except for CMU.)</p>
<p>My point is that there are lots of different definitions of the word “coaching.” Each child is different. Coaching might mean just a couple of sessions with someone to do some fine-tuning. For my D, I believe it was a game changer. Regardless of the outcome, she walked out of those last 5 auditions feeling like she had done her best and given her all and I think part of that was the confidence she got from those couple of hours with the coach. Well worth the small amount of money it cost us.</p>
<p>supportive, maybe I got this wrong but I thought you’d said your kids went to an excellent performing arts high school, where the classes would have prepared her as coaching does for kids from regular schools. In that case I’d guess coaching would be de trop.</p>
<p>Gwen- my kids did go to a performing arts school and did classes outside of school. They did get an acting class in school but I have also written how the teachers really didn’t help them. They never saw any of my daughter’s pieces before her auditions and so they never gave her any feedback nor did they ask her about her auditions when she came back from them. The advantage would be that they were surrounded by the arts and had some resources- such as plays- but they received no individual coaching. Both of my kids chose their own material with no help from their teachers. Personally, I saw kids from other schools locally and throughout the state that had a much better theatre program with teachers who really cared about developing students than the school where my kids attended. I was very disappointed in the school. The arts teachers missed class all the time and they could have spent so much more time working with the kids on the classics and preparing for auditions than they did. They do, however, like to take credit for certain successes.</p>
<p>Ahh…thanks, supportive!</p>
<p>No problem. I was so jealous when I read a post from someone who did not attend a performing arts high school who said their teacher took them to New York and had professionals work with the kids. That teacher also worked with each theatre student individually. I remember the post had so many great things about it that I believe should have been at my kids’ school. When I took my kids to visit the best college theatre program in my state, they didn’t even know who the theatre director was from their high school. She has been there for over 25 years. If I were in that position, I would have tried to have made as many connections as I could to help my students. I would have also tried to expose my kids to as many theatre opportunities as I could. The teachers at their school couldn’t even be bothered by thespian competitions. Okay, stepping off my soap box now!</p>
<p>I teach at an auditioned college theatre/ musical theatre program… not CMU, so I cannot speak to that particular program. We accept both students who have been coached (by coaching “individuals/ firms/ collaborative,” HS teachers, college teachers from other schools, etc…), and students who have not been coached at all. The only problem I have seen with coaching is with students who are coached to the point of not being able to take an adjustment. Meaning they cannot change their approach to the pieces even after direction from the school for which they are auditioning. In this case we cannot see if the prospective student will be workable within the training model in our program. </p>
<p>Coaching could be helpful to a student, but a prospective student should not appear to be over coached. With or without coaching a prospective student auditioning for a program needs to be flexible, and able to take direction.</p>
<p>We have some HS programs that we are more familiar with, but not because the HS teachers have worked to forge connections with us personally (although we are always willing to connect with HS teachers and if time allows go to their schools to do information sessions, or they have time to bring groups of students to us… and there are some teachers we know more than others), rather because we have seen many applicants over the years who seem well prepared for auditions/ portfolio reviews/ interviews. Ultimately, our knowing a particular teacher at a schools does not influence our decision. We are looking for the individual prospective students we think will be the best match for what we have to offer. I obviously cannot speak for all of my colleagues at others schools, but the ones I have spoken with express similar sentiments. :-)</p>
<p>I would think, as a non-performer and just a tag-along at all this acting, that bad coaching results in an audition where a student is performing someone else’s interpretation of a monologue. So then when the audition panel asks the student questions about the piece or asks them to take it in another direction, the student is confused because they did not form their own opinion and ideas from the beginning. The student only mimicked someone else. The monologue will appear almost identical each time it is performed. The panel can sense the coaching when the student can’t make the change.</p>
<p>On the other hand, my D will work on her monologues with her trusted acting teacher who does happen to be in New York. They will approach the monologue as they do all their work and my D will understand the play and the character and the result will be an authentic performance based on real emotion which will not be exactly the same every time. Her teacher will guide my D to bring out my D’s best interpretation but will be careful not to imprint her take on the piece. Acting is re-acting. It is not copying. Bad coaching or bad teaching by a drama teacher results in a performance that is more copying than acting.</p>
<p>This is what I’ve gathered along the way in drama class so far. :-)</p>
<p>When this has been discussed here before, it has been noted that the majority of the students accepted into the most selective programs have one or more of the following advantages:</p>
<ul>
<li>An arts high school.</li>
<li>Summer program(s) in theatre.</li>
<li>Private coaching.</li>
<li>Extensive stage and/or film experience.</li>
</ul>
<p>In order to be competitive with these students, coaching can be necessary. </p>
<p>CMU’s advice that was quoted above reflects the fact that bad coaching is worse than no coaching. If somebody uses a coach, it should be one who is very familiar with the college audition process…and, ideally, has had students whom he or she has coached accepted into top programs.</p>
<p>A good coach can be an invaluable help in selecting monologues, which is really the most challenging part of the whole audition process.</p>
<p>What is sorta ironic with CMU is that the head of the program will give audition workshops and such with private college audition coaches for their advisees and so that goes against their recommendation as they seem to fully support the private college audition coach industry. :rolleyes:</p>
<p>And yes, many kids who are accepted to programs such as CMU, have had some coaching on their audition pieces.</p>
<p>I agree with where this conversation is going. CMU has probably seen too many auditioners who have had “bad coaching” that really has obscured their natural ability and instinct. With the result that it looks “overcoached”. I think I have seen a couple of auditioners like that.</p>
<p>But then the fact is that CMU has indeed taken folks whose audition was the result of “good coaching”. Good coaching will not obscure an actor’s natural ability and instinct. It sounds like the good coaching comes from folks who know what they are talking about. Theatre students, professional actors, and so on. This can even come from the way supportive’s daughter simply went and talked twice with a friend who was a professional actress.</p>
<p>Realistically, there is no way that someone who knows little about theatre is going to be able to compete for places at a school like CMU, because they will be competing against folks who have lived and breathed theatre most of their life.</p>
<p>Like KEVP noted, my s ran his monologues and songs by his school drama teacher, a community theater teacher and a professional actor in the community. He took their feedback and mulled over it (which was sometimes diametrically opposing views) and created his product. This is no different than taking a director’s and scene partners’ advice in creating your role for a performance.</p>
<p>I second where the conversation is going and drew the same conclusions. “Bad” coaching can theoretically be worse than no coaching; to me, bad coaching creates an inflexible unfelt performance that not only can’t respond to directions but which completely obscures the actual talent of the individual. Maybe CMU had gotten a rash of such coaching lately?</p>
<p>However, good coaching, if you can afford it, definitely gives you the leg up. I felt we couldn’t afford it at the time, but were fortunate to have a director offer her time to help my daughter. As for my older son–he had almost no coaching and no professional experience, went to a public school and had no summer programs, and to be honest, I think his monologues - in retrospect - were pretty amateur & definitely overdone–but even though he broke all the ‘rules,’ he got into top programs. I do believe that some programs make an effort to recruit what they see as ‘raw’ talent, so it’s not entirely true that, as KEVP says, “Realistically, there is no way that someone who knows little about theatre is going to be able to compete for places at a school like CMU, because they will be competing against folks who have lived and breathed theatre most of their life.” I wouldn’t say ‘there is no way.’ But can I bring up that boys have a far easier time getting in than girls? In many auditions, girls outnumber boys 10 to 1 yet they are admitted 50/50. This is simply how it is; so good coaching for a girl, imho, is even more imperative than a boy. </p>
<p>My D’s own outcome ended up being just what she wanted, but that’s somewhat chance; if I were doing this again with her, I’d make more of an effort to have had her with a really good college coach. It just would have given her more of the ‘edge.’ Even three or four sessions are better than none. </p>
<p>So I’d hire a coach based on CC recommendations for your area and/or Skype if it suits you. In this climate, especially for a girl, I’d fork over whatever is in your budget. Just make sure the coach has a good track record with college acceptances and is up to date with what colleges are looking for now.</p>
<p>Perhaps it depends on the particular day of auditions, year or program…when my s auditioned last year, nearly every school was about 50/50 boys/girls (for straight acting, not MT). At one school audition that auditioned on one day only, 70% of the students auditioning were boys. When you add MT to the mix, perhaps there are a lot more girls. Or maybe its because girls wear much more memorable outfits to the auditions…</p>