<p>For the record: Carnegie Mellon does not participate in Moonifieds. Any students of MaryAnna’s that auditioned for Carnegie Mellon did so either on campus or at one of their Unified auditions just like any other student.<br>
There are schools that do go to Moonifieds - usually those who are already in the area for the North Texas Drama auditions. Most of these schools used their auditions at Moonifieds as pre-screens. If students were fortunate to pass the in-person pre-screen they were invited to go to that school’s campus or to Unifieds to do a full audition for that school along with all the many other students who either did their pre-screen in person or via video. The process was no different except perhaps that the prescreen was in person rather than by video.
There were a few schools at Moonifieds that used those auditions as their complete and final audition, but that was not the case with the majority of the programs. And it was typically the smaller, lesser known programs who did so.
As has been noted on these boards many times, the theater world is very small. So it would be unusual for someone like MaryAnna to not know the people at Carnegie Mellon. None of them should be faulted for knowing one another or supporting each others good works. I do think they all act with the utmost integrity and would never compromise themselves, their schools, their students or anyone else for the sake of placing a student in a certain program. None of them need to do that and I am sure none of them do.<br>
It is sad to me that good people and good programs get dragged through this murky river of suspicion but I guess that’s the nature of the world we live in these days.</p>
<p>I just don’t get this discussion. </p>
<p>So last year in October coinciding with a “Thespian Audition” opportunity in my state (which I didn’t know even existed until practically a week before it happened) my not fancy uncoached daughter’s voice teacher sends out an email inviting her senior students who were auditioning for MT programs to sign up for a masters class with the person who was in town from U of Oklahoma whom I guess she must know somehow? My daughter attends this master’s class and he works with the half a dozen or so college bound kids that are there. My daughter sings, “Sailor of My Dreams” in sort of legit soprano way and stops her and tells her: “No, you are a sassy red-head. You need to own your type and sing it like that”. She slinks away probably somewhat deflated and thinks about it.</p>
<p>The very next day she goes to this regional thespians audition thing and takes that same audition song and does what he told her to do with it for the first time ever publically. I’m describing a scene of a group of auditors from various schools watching each kid individually and it is mid-October and some of CC’s beloved schools are actually there along with others that generate little buzz. Among other things she passes the U of Oklahoma prescreen which was decided by the same master teacher she saw the day before and gets invited to campus which as it turns out, she decided not to pursue anyway. How is this different from what people here are upset about? I know about the historical concerns with this particular coach but ignoring it for a moment: Is it different because it isn’t on somebody’s website and there no matching tote bags and I think that master’s class cost $25? Little points of light happen all throughout this process without much notice.</p>
<p>Well, the biggest difference I see with your example is there doesn’t seem to be the same mutually beneficial business arrangement. I’ll promote you to attract students to me, then I pay you to teach them and then they apply to your school where you are the ultimate decider and when they get in I promote that to attract the next crop of students. It’s different. But it’s murky.</p>
<p>People get upset routinely at the end of this process when they realize that others had an advantage they were unaware of. And it is an advantage. If a school wants a short, brunette belter and knows one from two years of workshops another equally and perhaps even more talented short, brunette belter won’t get in. And it’s not just CMU. Actually, I think there are far worse offenders.</p>
<p>If it’s not for the money I don’t know why dept. heads would do this. Talent is falling all over themselves to get into these places.</p>
<p>kwrinkle, yes, I think that is what the problem seems to be, no distance between the parties. I don’t fault the coaches either, while it may have appeared that way. They are trying to run businesses, and I never said that they were bad people. If they find partners from universities who are willing to engage in this type of business arrangement, then who can fault them for wanting that? However, as someone who has been in positions of authority in an educational institution and taught for many years (still teaching btw), what they are doing in terms of allowing their outside business to conflict with their departmental duties is absolutely not ethical- sorry parents who support this, but this isn’t Broadway. I think there might be confusion about the setting here. The head of the dept. is in a position of authority and dealing with students - it is frowned upon in the “academic circles” that I know, for one to conduct herself in this way, plain and simple. This isn’t the Carnegie Mellon rocket science issue; this is abuse of one’s academic office. I don’t think I can be any clearer as to why this is wrong. If she isn’t the only one doing it, then it still doesn’t make it right. All the professors in question would be compromised. The disservice is to the students, and if it is not your child who is affected by it, again, it still doesn’t excuse the misconduct. I really have nothing else to say on this. If some agree with the behavior, then they do, and best of luck to them, but I don’t on so many levels, and that is from an educational, ethical, and parental perspective. I fail to see what makes any of it okay.</p>
<p>My last post on this topic. The only real defense that I’ve seen here is that there is no actual impropriety. I have no reason to dispute that. My minimal interacation with Barbara is that she’s a very generous, warm and caring person. </p>
<p>I don’t see how anyone can seriously argue that there is no “appearance of” impropriety. If you are, how do you explain the reactions in this thread? Obviously, for many people this connectedness between acting coach and college decision maker with economic incentives running both ways doesn’t feel right to folks. </p>
<p>So the questions is – are we all okay with an appearance of impropriety? Whats the big deal if we think they are all good people and making decision based on talent alone? Because confidence that the system is fair is important to the process. All this discussion about how Hollywood is about people you know so you might as well start now is completely off point in my opinion. CMU is not a Hollywood studio. It is arguably the most respected MT/acting BFA program in the country. What’s the big deal to the college coach or the faculty to remove the web page endorsements and avoid having the college coach sponsor the master classes. Barbara can still have master classes. Moo can still invite her kids to attend them as can other coaches. The kids come out in just as good a shape. But the appearance of impropriety is gone.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Just quoting this because it’s well said.</p>
<p>Trying to sort out where the mutually beneficial business arrangement that many are talking about is obvious. Help me out because seriously, I think I’m missing something and I’m not trying to be provocative. The only $ I ever threw in MAD’s direction (and it wasn’t me it was my husband) is to buy the $12 or so book. At the end, there are lots of quotes from various college representatives and teachers related to audition tips from auditors including one on page 98 from an NYU teacher in Atlantic (my daughter’s school but not her studio.) and yes I did just go dig for this book beneath a pile beside my bed where it has been amongst its undusted friends for longer than I’m willing to admit. </p>
<p>Is this what you mean or are you describing something more akin to: you go to CMU and you’re offered coffee and when you set it down, it rests on MAD inspired paper coasters? There is surely a difference between the two and that I would agree with. Which scenario is closer to what you are describing? I really don’t know. I offered up our one “inside thing” which I thought could be stir controversy but clearly it was a ho hum. Can somebody explain who actually knows? If I go with just what I’m hearing here, I’d draw a specific conclusion. Would that be accurate or not?</p>
<p>I hesitate to add to this intense discussion, but am going to nevertheless. </p>
<p>First, I come from a very similar standpoint as that which MTCoachNYC did (could have taken the words out of my mouth, actually! - somewhat ironic! :D): I am a music and acting instructor and decided to start coaching kids after seeing some very talented kids not get in anywhere because they really didn’t understand what to do. I make my living teaching, but I’ve never been paid to coach; I simply do it because I want to see my students, your children, anyone who has the passion for the arts, have the best shot possible. </p>
<p>In order to best help my kids, I’ve visited many colleges and established contacts with folks within theatre departments. This was not to get a leg up for my students, it was to understand what the programs were looking for. I’ve worked with CMU (since we’re talking directly about them), and I feel compelled to say that I believe Barbara MacKenzie-Wood would do nearly anything in order to help a student get into her program, regardless or who they are or where they come from. </p>
<p>I realise this will not end the debate (which I see validity in the arguments on both sides), but I ask you to consider:
- teaching master classes is standard practise for academics and other professionals in the fine arts (and has been for the last millennium when visual artists started doing workshops)
- if every potential auditor recused them self of sitting on an audition panel, having possibly worked with either a handful or many of the potential students (at a master class, as an adjudicator at a competition, etc), there would likely not be many auditors left at any given school (and I understand that doesn’t necessarily make it any easier to swallow)
- if a child has talent and showcases it to their fullest potential, chances are they will be successful in their audition season: coach or no coach, prior interaction with auditors or not
- understanding the audition process in general is complex, and between finding proper material, presenting yourself in the most effectual manner and choosing to audition at the schools which you’re best fit (for starters) will be far more lucrative for the student who has a person or network of people who have been through this before to help guide them, be it a teacher, a website like this, or an audition coach</p>
<p>I have every respect for both sides of the argument, and truly believe BOTH that the auditors at CMU and most any other program keep their fingers crossed with each new student who walks into their room that they will be the perfect fit for their program AND that the audition process in theory and in practise has its flaws. All best to everyone.</p>
<p>I think you made some great points MTCoach. I’m new to CC and I picked my name and then saw that I copied yours and I felt so bad!!! I even tried to change it, but you can’t! But now that I see that we have similar views and backgrounds, I feel better 
I hope to use a lot of your wisdom in the future!</p>
<p>Maybe there is a bigger issue here. Maybe schools like CMU, where they only have 12 kids in each program, can not be guaranteed after a 10 minute audition that a kid has what it takes. Talent is just scratching the surface. They would also need smarts, drive, an incredible work ethic, be able to get along well with others, a stable home life with parents who can pay for 4 years without pulling the kid out mid-training, etc. etc. How can they be guaranteed in 10 minutes that someone has it all? They can’t. But a trusted friend/advisor who also has that eye for talent, who has known the kid for a year… would. It’s the best “reference” a kid could have.</p>
<p>I still don’t think this current system is fair, and future applicants without a connected coach should know before paying their $85 audition fee (plus the application fee), that their chances of acceptance at these schools, are less than what it would seem. Which is already incredibly low. But I don’t think it is about money for Barbara. I think it is about guaranteeing her notable program continues.</p>
<p>I do find it very distasteful that CMU states right on their website that they don’t recommend being coached and that they want to see the real you.
Really?</p>
<p>Not coached means don’t come in here and parrot somebody’s interpretation of the piece, show us what it means to you.</p>
<p>This is fascinating thread. I completely can see the argument from Acting Dad and can see where it hit a nerve with others. I am just relieved that my son made it through auditions with four solid offers without summer programs, acting coaches, master classes or private auditions. Not that I don’t think all of that is wonderful…I do…it is simply not affordable in our current situation as child number 3 enters college.
I just hoped that he entered each audition with a level playing field and perhaps that wasn’t always the case. All very informative.</p>
<p>halflokum, “not coached” means “not coached.” Doesn’t make sense, considering that the school offers a summer program and endorses (or de facto endorses) a popular coach. That statement should not be on the website, as it invites confusion, at best. And their adjudicators should refrain from endorsing and doing paid appearances for coaches until the retire. </p>
<p>The school administration may not be aware of these inconsistencies, but it’s in their best interest to appear to be beyond reproach.</p>
<p>Well, now it’s starting to sound like an extended pre-screening process, which actually makes some sense is slightly less disturbing. For newer programs, obviously they benefit big-time by attracting better talent and getting their name on the “hot” lists.</p>
<p>It’s still gonna be a shocker though to those who go into the process without this knowledge.</p>
<p>I also find it ironic that a school would state that they don’t recommend audition coaching and then work directly with an audition coach giving classes to their students who are prepping for their college auditions. </p>
<p>I happen to think coaching is a good thing. But that statement from this school is confusing in light of their practices.</p>
<p>A school does not dictate the terms of how one prepares, they only want you to prepare. If uncoached means no coaches the only students they should ever look at spent 18 years of their life living in a hole only to emerge one day and say, “I think today I’ll apply for a musical theatre degree”.</p>
<p>By way of example, a couple of years ago my son (who is not my MT kid) performed in a recital for his voice teacher’s students. He absolutely stole the show partly because everyone would have expected what he did from my daughter, and they didn’t know he had it in him. Like many parents, I recorded his performance. </p>
<p>I’ve watched it hundreds of times since. Though wonderful there is not a single gesture he is making that has anything to do with him. Rub your chin at this part, extend your arms at this part, nod and wink here was coached by his voice teacher. They were her moves and the only thing missing was the marionette strings. If he were to sing it again, those same moves would all be used in exactly the same places. Because I know him so well, I could almost see him thinking “ok, this is the part she told me to wink at the audience” instead of what he should have done which was to identify with what he was singing and decide by himself what if any gestures were needed for emphasis. The kid was coached.</p>
<p>In contrast think of scene work with an acting teacher (who is also a coach). If you’re working on a monologue from Antigone and you tear up somewhere to emphasize the emotion of the line and your acting teacher (coach) asks you, “what do we know about Antigone? Would she ever let anyone see her cry?” Is that coaching? If it is, it’s good coaching no different from the dance teacher that reminds you to point your feet. </p>
<p>I think what CMU is saying is don’t come in and do what my son did. Though he was great it wasn’t him.</p>
<p>CMU should remove the recommendation for no coaching from their website. It is obviously totally inconsistent with their actual admissions results. It is hypocritical: say one thing, do another behind the scenes. Other than that, I have no problem with coaching, master classes, etc. Just be upfront about it.</p>
<p>Sent from my DROID BIONIC using CC</p>
<p>I had said I wasn’t going to comment anymore on this subject, but once again I must set the record straight – this thread makes it appear that there is something inappropriate going on between one coach and one school. Please be aware this is not true. These are all professionals that are trying to help your kids by sharing their knowledge when possible. -CMU has relationships with many audition coaches and training programs - not just one as has been insinuated. . This is not the case of one school and one coach. these are top professionals in their field trying to help students with big dreams achieve their goals. there is nothing suspicious or inappropriate about it. Yes they offer masterclasses with Moo. but Look at the list of classes MTCA offers as part of their coaching services. The same classes with the same professionals. They too had kids accepted at cmu this year. The students were chosen because of their talent and because they fit a need - not because of who their coach was. Is there something suspicious about the MTCA acceptances? I dont think so. Nor do i think there is anything inappropriate about the acceptances Moo’s kids received. ArtsBridge also prominently touts their relationship with and access to these same professionals as part of their audition training program. Are they too doing something wrong? And as far as the school goes, be aware it is not just CMU who offers these classes and has relationships with these organizations - the same type of classes are offered by Michigan, Pace, Baldwin-Wallace and many others. Are they all wrong for sharing what they know with families interested in their perspective? I think the fact they all work with students in master classes is amazing. What a great opportunity for those students fortunate to participate to learn more about themselves, their audition material and the audition process before the actual auditions. Lucky them! We should be happy for their good fortune, happy for those few kids who were accepted to these top programs and embrace the ones who are hurting because they didn’t get in. My hope is, coached or un coached, they all find the place that best suits them to learn and grow as artists. Let’s all start supporting one another, sharing these great opportunities offered by the schools, coaches and training programs and help our kids navigate the audition process as prepared as they can be. And when we don’t get the results we want, let’s not point fingers and try to find someone responsible for the rejection. Not getting in just means that isn’t the right place or its not the right time for your student to be at that school. But there is a place that is perfect for them. Spend your energy on finding that perfect place - not on being suspicious and accusatory.</p>
<p>You are right that master classes are offered by some BFA programs with other coaches or preparatory programs. And CMU is not the only school that does this (which is why this really should not be on the CMU thread). I only know of one coach that holds private college auditions with a number of college programs. As I wrote earlier, I was surprised that colleges would engage in that and they don’t publicize that as audition dates on their sites. I think that CMU’s statement about preferring no audition coaching does not fit in with their practice. </p>
<p>These are my opinions that have nothing to do with my own kid’s outcome as we were very happy with her admissions results even though she did not have these particular opportunities. I do believe that the accepted students, both coached and not coached, do get in on their own merits. Some apparently have more face time with the auditors than kids who just show up on audition day.</p>
<p>I don’t think people are accusing, they are just saying it looks bad. Some schools are recruiting year round through specific coaches or performing arts schools or other programs and have probably picked some of the class very early in the process. That’s not wrong but it makes other people feel they didn’t have a chance. </p>
<p>I do agree they should take not being coached off the website if the head of the department endorses a coach.</p>