Prestige vs. Opportunity in Music School Choice

College Majors Music Major
61

<p>Interesting about the nonmusic majors and professional outcome. My daughter went to a top LAC and is graduating with a psy/neuroscience degree. She began playing violin at age 7, went to festivals for three summers during HS. The college she is graduating from had a Julliard grad as a violin teacher whom D worked with for the past four years. D loved this woman and grew tremendously. However, there were many days she did not get to practice due to academic demands.</p>

<p>Long story short-we offered a summer music festival to D as a graduation present. She submitted a video of her last recital along with the required excerpts. She was offered admission and scholarship money covering about 1/2 of the total cost. Granted these festivals were not the top of the pile elite ones (she chose to attend Brevard), but I was amazed that she could still compete and even get in.</p>

<p>I agree, that with an excellent teacher, progress can be made in a liberal arts setting. D was fortunate to have this teacher. She doesn’t plan on a music profession and I doubt could get into any of the programs mentioned here for grad school. Still it is interesting to think of outcome. Herbie Hancock is an alumnus of her LAC along with quite a few impressive individuals who have gone on to do great things in music.</p>

62

<p>As with everything in music, there is usually the caveat "it depends’ added on the end. Hornet’s post is interesting, it shows that in some ways you can still achieve things in music without going the music major route. </p>

<p>That said, there are some caveats here, and important ones I think. For example, in voice or in classical music, you might be able to point to alumni (as Hornet mentioned in his post) who went to an LAC and then ‘made it in music’, but you have to be careful because things have changed a great deal within the classical sphere, and what might have been possible 20 or 30 years ago might not be true today. Herbie Hancock in Hornet’s post is different story, he was/is a jazz/pop oriented musician, and that is a different world in terms of getting into it as a musician (plus Mr. Hancock broke in close to 5 decades ago
). People often cite people like Yo Yo Ma (BA from Harvard, History I believe) or Gil Shaham (Columbia university), but what that leaves out is they already were playing professional solo gigs before they went to college
</p>

<p>The other thing is music, specifically in the classical realm, takes such a high level of musicianship that it can be very difficult to achieve the kind of levels required and do an academic program at an LAC (can be done, of course, not impossible, just difficult). I am sure people will come out of an LAC, studying with a private teacher, and make it into a top level grad program and/or as a classical musician out of school for the forseeable future, I just think it will continue to get more difficult to do so (for what that is worth, just my opinion, obviously). </p>

<p>There is an old joke, about always have a one armed accountant, because you avoid the statement “on the one hand
but on the other hand
” (I know, old groaner)
but in music, it seems like that is always the case, that very little is that cut and dried, it always ‘depends’ <em>smile</em></p>

63

<p>Good points musicprint. I agree that the music world is very different from Hancock’s day.</p>

<p>Just thought I would add a bit more about Herbie Hancock for fun. Hancock was classically trained beginning at age 7 and debuted with the Chicago Symphony at age 11. He became interested in other genres as a teen.</p>

<p>Another non-conservatory case-Joshua Bell (again he debuted in the 80’s so the world was different). Bell did not attend a conservatory but was fortunate to grow up with access to Indiana University. His drive to make music was obvious at age 5. He graduated from his hometown public high school (even played on the tennis team. I am not sure how he did all of that!) Like Hancock, he was in an excellent location to develop as a young musician.</p>

<p>The common thread I see with folks who attend LACs or public universities and then go on to top programs/orchestras, as soloists, etc is that there was an amazing talent obvious from quite a young age and the musician had access to excellent teachers during childhood (as Hancock did-he grew up in Chicago and attended symphony concerts at an age most kids could not stayed seated long enough to make it past the orchestra tuning-early childhood).</p>

64

<p>Hornet-</p>

<p>Just as an fyi, be very careful with the story of Joshua Bell, the whole story about being an all american kid from Indiana who grew up on a farm, played tennis,played video games and so forth is really misleading (reminds me of all the parents of prodigies who go around saying the kid is driving it, they have nothing to do with it, it isn’t their egos
meanwhile they have tons of You Tube videos up, appearences on tv shows, etc). He studied from a relatively young age with Josef Gingold and while he didn’t get a BM, he got an artists diploma from Indiana, and he was working hard from the time he was 11 or 12. Bell himself has commented on that, looking back he said it was a weird trip, that he spent more then a few years being a ‘14 year old, all american’ kid until he was 18 or 19 <em>lol</em>. It is like people who tell me Yo Yo Ma didn’t go to conservatory and look what he has done (Neil Tyson De Grasse, the astrophycist who went to Harvard when Yo You Ma was there, said kids in the dorm were ****ed at him because he kept doing these impromptu concerts in the dorm lounge when they wanted to watch a game or something on tv
)</p>

<p>I think the answer to the question about why the graduates of top music schools seem to dominate is as someone else pointed out, that the top music schools tend to draw the best students, it is kind of like a self fulfilling prophesy in that the schools have a name/mystique/whatever, and that tends to attract the top students, which in turn adds to the mystique
and as they say, when you have top level product coming into the system in the first place, it tends to turn out top level product on the other end (kind of like using prime grapes to make wine). And as others have pointed out, one of the things you have in such environments is students being driven forward by the peers they are around, and for many kids that is a major inducement to achieve. </p>

<p>The point here is that music is so competitive, that kids who already have achieved a high level to get into a top music school, and are driven forward by being around so many high level players, may have a significant advantage over a kid who let’s say is equally talented but goes to a program where the average level is less. It doesn’t mean it is “Juilliard or Bush”, “NEC or Die” or whatever, it just means that it all has to be balanced out. Coming out with a huge debt load to go to Juilliard UG when they could have gotten a near free ride at a program with a great teacher and so forth might not be very wise, though getting a full ride from a pretty non competitive program may not be that great an option if the teaching and such leaves the kid behind, enough that they would have trouble getting into grad school. It is funny, when you talk to people about getting into med school, about how hard and expensive it is to be a doctor, a kid could easily end up paying as much as a doctor does to get an education, but unlike a doctor face a reality where a well paying job or jobs is still a struggle. You can do well at an obscure college academically and get into a good medical school and get a good job as an MD because with academics there isn’t that much difference in terms of a pre med track; whereas with music, it isn’t one size fits all, and where you go to school has a direct influence on how well you do. A more direct parallel to music IMO is if you want to go to an ivy league medical school, then where you go to college does matter, you are way more likely to get into an ivy league medical school if you have gone to a top academic school like an ivy, MIT, etc, etc then other schools (whether this is snob appeal or reflects better prepared students, I’ll leave to another board) and where you go to college matters more then it would if the goal is to get into medicine, period.</p>

65

<p>

This is something that comes up for discussion frequently. I have noticed (and I’m sure I am guilty, too!) that people tend to generalize their own experience towards everyone else. My father-in-law went to a small college in Ohio and ended up as a professor in an Ivy League medical school. He is of the opinion “it doesn’t matter where you do your undergrad work” because for him it did not. I also hear this truism from people who are in fields like engineering, and even law. I’m sure there are some people who would benefit from their advice, to disregard the undergrad institution. If my daughter wanted to be a physical therapist, it might be foolish to borrow money to send her to an Ivy League school when she could attend the local state school for almost no tuition. It is not the same for music. Of course, if you try to explain to them the differences between a music education and an engineering education, you open yourself up to a lecture about the dire job market in music. If we follow this line of thinking to its logical conclusion, then everyone will go into a so-called practical profession, and the arts will all be abandoned completely in our society.</p>

<p>The truth is that there are many complexities to consider when preparing for a career in the arts, and these can rarely be covered in a perfunctory holiday dinner conversation or polite phone call. If someone is of the opinion that it is foolish and self-indulgent to attempt arts training at conservatory level, that person will have no shortage of ammunition in terms of negative articles about the arts economy and anecdotal examples of famous artists (most of whom came of age in the 70’s and 80’s) who did not attend conservatory. It would be exasperating to try to take such conversations to a more detailed level, as found on this forum. </p>

<p>I agree with musicprnt, to take the bios of superstar performers with a grain of salt. Part of the marketing strategy in developing a superstar career is creating a sense of miraculous genius. In the case of a superstar (and true prodigy) who grew up in our area, the party line is that she was a normal high school student throughout her meteoric rise to fame (which began at about age 9.) One of my daughters happened to be in a class taught by the same 5th grade teacher, years later, and the teacher confided that the child showed up for school only a few times a semester because she was practicing all day – and recording, and debuting with the NY Phil
 But if you ask her mom, the mom will say that she practiced “one hour a day.” The truth is that even the most prodigious geniuses work at their craft and benefit from intensive study with their own mentors, even if they bypass the ordinary conservatory route that most musicians require to attain a professional level of competence.</p>

66

<p>GH-</p>

<p>Well said.One of the best statements about going into the arts was an analogy, that to go into arts means never looking down, because not only isn’t there a net, it appears at time there isn’t a wire there, either:). The chief music critic of the NY Times, Anthony Thomassini, was fielding questions from users on their web site, and someone wrote in asking about how hard it was to go into music these days, about how competitive it was, etc, and he said something wise. He said that it always seems like it is difficult to go into music, that music always seems to be in perpetual trouble, in a recession, etc and that seems to have been true probably going back to when cavemen started dropping rocks on other people’s toes and liked the sound (thank you, Mel Brooks!) and yet people continue to aspire
and Mr. Thomassini’s answer was that you have to have faith in yourself that if your love for music turned out to be greater then your ability to get into it that you will find a way, either to still be in music, or can find another path and still have music in your life. </p>

<p>As far as the work it takes to become a performer and the whole mystique about kids having normal childhoods, etc, etc, GH is dead spot on, that is generally PR. With Joshua Bell, articles about him in recent years have dispelled much of the myth and he himself laughs at it, Gingold was not the type of teacher to demand anything less then perfection from a student and Bell was doing much more time at Indiana then school from the time he was 11. The “prodigy parents” who claim their kid is ‘normal’ are putting that PR out, in part, because they know if people knew the truth they would probably be freaked out (and not unjustifiably so, I think most prodigy parents should be charged with child abuse, because they are doing it for their own sake, not the kids). Hillary Hahn entered Curtis when she was 11 or 12 I think and was there until she was 19, and that wasn’t a pre college program, it was full blown there. A young music student just took second place at a major music competition, and not only was she playing her instrument by the time she was 3 and a half or so, she was practicing >7 hours a day from the time she was 5 or 6 (that is verified folks, that isn’t rumor). </p>

<p>Obviously, it also depends on the instrument/area, it is different with vocal music because they develop later, it is different for piano and violin and cello because you can start playing them much earlier then brass or most woodwinds, but the reality is that in music, the idea or ‘normal’, of balance and such, is often thrown out the window, as it is for example with gymnasts and ballet dancers. A generation ago, as happened to one of my son’s teachers, you could be a ‘recreational’ player on an instrument in high school and get into a top conservatory and get serious, then get a high level job; today kids are getting into top level conservatories playing at the level in general that many kids graduating from conservatories came out with back then, which has pushed the training earlier and earlier.</p>

67

<p>Kidadulthood. Music is not alone with this problem. Sports–doctors seeing injuries at an earlier age because kids are playing a single sport for too many hours a day. Academics–parents demanding “homework” for preschool as mentioned in the the recent NY Times article. And unfortunately Music, with string players expected to begin their instrument before age 7 (if not earlier) and practicing 5+ hours/day if they have any chance of making it into a major conservatory. </p>

<p>But reading the posts over the last couple of months on the application and decision process participants have gone through has given me hope that, at least in music, kids are pretty well grounded. They are able to pass muster academically, some continue to play a sport and maintain physical health, and most importantly, they still love to play their instrument. Whether they will make it or not as a professional musician almost seems moot, they have found teachers they want to study with, in environments–whether conservatives, universities or LACs that are suited to their temperament. They have learned things about themselves by going through the grueling audition process; they know that success requires hard work; nothing will be given to them, they will have to earn it
whether they are a Juilliard or a Carnegie Mellon graduate. The Music World has changed over the last 30 years, and will change again, but they will adapt and be ready for it. And even if they find a different career than the one they begin seeking, they will always be able to play. And isn’t that a great gift?</p>

68

<p>nicely put, cookerdee, sometimes I think we focus on the goal and forget about the path or the other intangibles playing music or being artistic has. Put it this way, I have seen a lot of people who concentrated on the brass ring outside the arts, to reach for the ‘golden career’ llike lawyer or investment banker, who did the academic grind to get into a top academic school, went to professional/business school
and came out the other end finding they didn’t have much:).</p>

69

<p>Unless a parent is also an artist it is often difficult to understand what drives a child of theirs into musicland. Why so many kids of professional musicians sit at or near the front of their respective orchestra sections is not so much a matter of genetics as it is that the parents understand the “why” that makes the “how” tolerable. Often a love and proficiency of playing music comes as an extension of great intellect and not an unstoppable need to create art.The brass ring of music is more often than not something completely intangible non musician parents and is only understood by the one who forges it. Thank God so many parents just let the kids go with it. As a musician I understand the “why” and am learning the “how” of classical music and kudos to all of you who love your kids enough to have the “damn the torpedoes” attitude that gets the money together for a music BA. There never have been any jobs. You invent your own career path.</p>

70

<p>Cookerdee and musicprt 
 both of you said it so well. The path to music can be as important or more important that the final destination. Bravo.</p>

71

<p>jb1966, I wish I had your insight before my D was born. She is an artist/musical type born into 2 engineers! Thankfully we finally saw the light before we crushed her spirit.</p>

72

<p>snowflakeVT- As a musician myself it was easy for me to understand the scary sacrifices required but more of a leap of faith for an engineer. The orchestra conductors, private teachers and eventually college staff I’ve talked to do understand the the difficulties that non-music parents and their kids sometimes have, as many of them were once in the same situation with their parents. If my daughter had gotten all lit up on say, biomathmatics I would have been in the same situation that you are in. I would just have to trust. Faith is a beautiful thing to experience.</p>

73

<p>jb-</p>

<p>It is scary as hell, our S is very, very musical, it literally is a part of him (if it weren’t, I suspect we wouldn’t be so supportive of him going into music, especially the area he is in, classical violin). Even with the help of places like CC, or with the professional musicians we have come into contact with, it can be very hard to understand that passion, especially when it flies in the face of conventional wisdom, especially these days, that if it isn’t about ‘getting ahead in a dog eat dog world’ it doesn’t matter much. And then the advice you get, most of it well meaning, well, often makes it worse, not better:). I think the best piece of advice we got on that was when my S and I were on a flight, returning from a music competition, and a guy on the plane saw my son’s instrument case. Turns out he had gone to grad school for vocal performance but ended up in investment banking, and he told my son something wise. He said if you wake up in the morning, and all you can see yourself doing is music, if that is the most fantastic thing in the world to you, then do it; but if you can see yourself possibly or seriously doing something else, you may want to do that. He said that is exactly what happened with him, he apparently already had an UG degree (I would guess business related), went to conservatory for vocal performance, got out, did some performing and then woke up one morning and realized as much as he loved music, there were other things he prob should be doing.</p>

74

<p>Personally I don’t agree with that whole “if there is anything else in the world you could see yourself doing, do it” rather then music. The world would be missing alot of talent if everyone thought that. Once upon a time that would have been true but there are no safe careers these days - many in the world are struggling to find jobs in every field- those with no experience as well as those with 20 years of experience. I have a nephew that finished med school and can’t find an internship - crazy! While music is a very, very tough road and no one should take the path lightly, I think if a performer has a great passion for music, even if they could go to med school and enjoy that route, they should take the chance if it is their clear first choice. Taking the chance in your youth is vastly different from trying it at 35. I would hate for my children to live with regrets which is why I encouraged them to stay with as many passions as possible until they had to make a choice, which in my D’s case was graduate school. Where there is a will, there is a way. Her decisions at 21 were so much clearer then at 17 when she graduated high school. I’m glad she took the time and had the insane schedule that she did during her undergraduate years. Music may or may not be the career she has in 10 years - but she is doing what she loves and is giving it her best shot.</p>

75

<p>I know that there is a lot of drama and emotion present when the idea of being an artist as a career choice is discussed but there are people that view being a musician as a trade. That is not to say that they are in any way less passionate about it, but it is also a profession and not a bad one for those that are self starters and are willing to create jobs where there aren’t any. I’ve been doing this for almost forty years and I work with musicians my own age who have families and regular lives and we all look at it as an art and a profession without a lot of fanfare. Right after my D was born I was given a couple of weeks to live ( I got better! ) and the one thing that struck me right off was that I had absolutely no regrets about anything including this crazy, unsteady wonderful heartbreaking pursuit. But if I were to ever wake up not already hearing music in my head I’d give it up in a second and not look back. Life is too short.</p>

76

<p>The thing about music, at least where I see it, is to make it an avocation and a career you have to have the passion I am talking about, the kind of focus where as JB said (and thank you, thank you so much for your posts, it is valuable to get that perspective:) where if you aren’t hearing the music the way he said, it can be very hard to make it happen, it is what the guy on the airplane I think was saying (and this is just my perspective).</p>

<p>The analogy I would use between a standard career path and being in the arts, especially music, is kind of like the difference between someone who goes to work for someone else and someone who is into founding new businesses. Someone who is an entrepeneur is willing to leap out there, they are willing to take the risks of no benefits, no real idea of where things will be going with their idea, and have the passion to convince others of your vision, either funding it or coming on board, and passion is what drives that (having worked for start ups or new ventures, believe me, takes a lot of that).</p>

<p>People when they talk about music on hear often tend to put it in terms as if it is just another career, they use analogous terms to what you go through in a standard career. You train in your instrument/voice (major in a field in college), you meet the hashmarks, gain proficiency, and then you audition (interview), and do or don’t get the job. Especially the way most musicians work these days (and prob always have, jb kind of alludes to that) very few audition for the NY Phil or Philadelphia orchestra and spend the next 4 decades doing that, with all the pay and benefits such professions do; even if they do attain that level,most musicians spend their time before that patching together a variety of things to live, gig work, teaching, etc, and that takes passion because those are not necessarily things where you have steadiness (if you go to work for a company, on the other hand, you know your pay, your benefits, etc), and you have to forge through, living on that love, and maybe do so for the foreseeable future; like the guy running his startup or even those working for him/her, the passion has to be there because it can be very uneven as an experience. </p>

<p>And given that more and more musicians are not going to be doing the traditional thing (or what passes for the traditional thing), where they are going to market themselves, create new opportunities, rather then going to audition to audition to get into a top level orchestra, broadway pit or opera stage, if that passion isn’t there, that singlemindedness, that music is this incredible thing that you wake up and only want to do that, as jb and the guy on the plane said, I don’t know how someone can go forward given all the questions and uncertainty, much the same as an entrepeneur faces. Given that music is a path that is like entrepeneurship, that it can take many years of struggle until something big happens (studies of successful entrepeneurs who create the next big thing more likely then not show a track record of unsuccessful ventures, often long ones, before they hit the big time), or at least where they feel like they are doing what they want, passion seems to me a requirement, a big one and it would seem to be single minded. </p>

<p>It doesn’t mean if you try music and end up not doing it it is a big disaster, or even encouraging people not to try music, I don’t believe that trying and not making it in something is a disaster. If someone truly feels they want to try music, has that focus, then go for it and if you fail, you will find another path, I am convinced of that. What I am trying to say is if that single minded focus isn’t there, given the realities of music, it is like the entrepeneur without the passion, it isn’t likely the person will make it, that’s all, too easy to get discouraged, too easy to give up, if you don’t have that IMO (and that is all it is).</p>

77

<p>I chose Temple for vocal performance because of gut feeling and the teacher, but the added prestige and connection to Curtis helped. I honestly think that undergrad is all about your teacher and how you feel at the school and then graduate school is about the name. Plus, if you go for “the name” for undergrad you may be paying 45k+ a year because undergrads usually do not get as many scholarships.</p>

78

<p>Valhos, you need to read more and post way, way less. Your posts make it clear that you do not have a very broad idea about how music school works.</p>

79

<p>Input from my S who claims that since networking is important in the music world, a more prestigious school might offer better networking opportunities. All that being said I think “prestigious” is open to interpretation. A truly "un"prestigious school might not offer the same networking opportunities both from a staff and from a co-student standpoint.</p>

80

<p>drumdad-</p>

<p>Your son is correct, some schools offer better networking opportunities then others, and location plays a role. Going to a school in NYC like Juilliard or MSM offers a lot, in terms of getting to know people, doing gig work and introducing yourself to people, so there are advantages there, plus the people you meet can end up being valuable contacts
and that goes into the whole discussion of the program, about things like environment and so forth. </p>

<p>The meaning of the thread, though, was to avoid blanket statements that you have to go to a ‘prestige’ school to make it in music, that somehow the name alone (rather then opportunities it provides) will mean something, lot of kids enter some of the major conservatories with the attitude that because they are there, have the name behind them, that the world is going to beat a path to their door, that if they do into an audition that having the name "juilliard’ or ‘NEC’ or "Curtiss’ on their resume will mean they will get the job, and there the name means nothing
same way if someone is an arrogant fool they are likely not to be able to network well, and will find a very rough road when they get out and find people don’t want to deal with their attitude:)</p>