@rhandco - this is not a sports team or a Broadway show, it is a degree program. The students are paying for an education and to me, the contract, implied or stated, is that if they satisfy the criteria for admission, complete the curriculum according to the standards for grading set forth, and do not violate any university policies, then they are granted a degree. Including potentially arbitrary processes into a degree program seems well beyond the educational model to which I assume universities aspire. Degree programs should not be a zero-sum game.
Ditto what EmsDad wrote in reply to rhandco.
I truly believe that while they are in this period of their training, students need to feel free to try things that are outside of their comfort zone, to take risks, and to have some things that don’t work out for them. You learn as much (or more) from your “failures” as you do from successes. How on earth can a student comfortably take chances and do those things which really push their growth envelope if they are always concerned about being eliminated from their program? Similarly, cut programs rarely can develop a true sense of teamwork and camaraderie when students feel they are competing against one another to stay in a program. It just seems that the culture this kind of “retention audition” program, as well as quota based cut systems would engender goes against what is considered best practices in an arts education environment. I understand that some students don’t succeed in a BFA program for a number of reasons, and it is right for a school to “redirect” a performer who is no holding up their end of their training responsibilities, but that is not what the email from the OP seems to describe. It pays to ask a lot of questions once the power dynamic shifts and you end up being the one who gets to evaluate the programs that you have been accepted to. I think it is easy for students who have been through this highly selective, ultra-competitive process to just be happy that someone accepted them, without looking hard at what they are signing up for.
They are cut due to height, weight, eye color, too many girls, too many redheads…they cut to get the numbers they desire. It may have to do with grades or underperforming, but many times it doesn’t have anything to do with that.
If we are to villify cut programs (and some of them deservedly so) let us please be accurate about what programs are actually of this type. @cptofthehouse CCM DOES NOT have a cut program, and has not had one for years.
Perhaps I find this less shocking because my kids have gone to school in a place where you apply, interview, and test in to kindergarten, middle school, and high school. Passing through the gauntlet does not mean that the school will not ‘counsel out’ your child in later years if they feel the fit is not good. It happens all the time in private and selective public schools. By all means avoid schools with policies you cannot abide but imagining that this process or anything else in life (especially in entertainment) will be ‘fair’ is unrealistic. One evaluator’s ‘arbitrary’ is another’s ‘justifiable’. No one who enters will be ‘safe’ from emotional injury.
This is a fascinating thread. (Complete w/real-talk.)
Could this whole, “you-got-in-but-now-we-see-you-may-not-have-what-it-takes-to-be-a-professional-but-we-admitted-you-so-we-can-either-keep-taking-your-money-or-redirect-you” situation be unintended by-products of:
A.) The proliferation of BFA Musical Theatre programs.
B.) The proliferation of Audition Coaching/Knowledge.
A.) If you have the desire (and money/ability to get a loan) to get a BFA in Musical Theatre, and you are willing to go anywhere, you can get one (even with marginal to low talent.) How can I say such a thing? Cause I personally know many kids I’ve directed over the years who love the theatre experience, (but do not have the minimal-chops to earn a substantial vocal solo in a high school show) get into programs. (Harsh, but true.) And don’t get me started on the acting and dance elements.
B.) The Coaches, audition services, special classes, seminars, books, blogs, (etc.) have the distinct advantage over the schools when it comes to “the system.” They remind me a little bit of the sports-betting commercials I hear on the radio, “This weekend only call for my 100% iron-clad Lock!” The coaches have analyzed and broken down the essential elements of an audition from the school’s perspective. They coach the kids in pushing the right buttons and avoiding the wrong buttons. They even point kids towards specific schools by type and talent level. This is inherently helpful for the actor and not evil, wrong, or even cheating. It’s smart. But…does it take advantage of a system where a limited number of staff from a school wade through hundreds of 5 to 8 minute auditions looking for “potential” and “it-factors?” I would say the skill of auditioning and the skill of performing in a show can be very different. But there is no other system in place. The excellent auditioners have the advantage.
(Let the hate begin…)
Man Van, interesting input. I will confess that when my D was going through auditions for college I could not (and still can’t) understand a process whereby you get 5 minutes (if that) in front of a few people and they can magically in that time make decisions. Boggles my mind.
I think 5 min is more than enough to determine if someone has raw talent- which is not a particularly rare commodity. What it will NOT tell (and is far more important to success in a BFA and in life in general) is a person’s work ethic, whether or not they are a “team player” or diva (though I think we might be surprised how much the later trait pops out) and a dozen other things.
@ManVan, the opposite is actually true. Cut programs have been steadily eliminated as musical theatre programs have proliferated. U Arizona is one of the only ones left who openly disclose a “retention/continuation audition program.” For better or worse, depending on your point of view, these appear to be relics of a past age.
I think that all these programs make mistakes, but they have so many choices that it hardly matters.
with regard to A: I agree. A lot of kids that are getting MT degrees of some variety with little or no hope of ever becoming an MT star, or supporting themselves by performing. But how does this differ from a History major, political science major, etc? Most History majors do not become Historians, write books, teach, or otherwise employ their knowledge (save winning Trivia Crack) to make a living. Why single out MT’s as being subject to the BIG rip off?
With regard to B: I do believe auditors can tell alot about what you DON’T have in a 5 minute audition: They can definately tell if you don’t have classical voice training, good pitch, good taste in clothing, good grooming, or the ability to know what you can actually sing, as opposed to what you actually can’t sing. You’d be surprised how many students make this basic mistake. And if there is a dance call, they can certainly tell if you don’t have ballet training, coordination, flexibility etc. Really, there is a wealth of information in those minutes!
I am more concerned with what they cannot necessarily see: perseverance, teamwork, compassion, etc. That comes by way of your resume, your grades, your EC’s and your letters of reference. It is imperfect delivery, but I do believe a lot of info is before them if they take the time to really evaluate it.
And as far as the good auditioner having an “unfair” advantage, that doesnt go away. Good auditioners continue to have an advantage throughout their careers. Why not choose students based on this skill? That’s how they will be chosen for a job. In fact, that is their job.
Yes. Cut programs are on the way out. There is a lot of competition for students and the CC Community, I think, is an example of why they are going the way of the Dinosaurs.
This statement:
“We do require students to audition for retention in the program at the end of the Freshman Year and at the end of the Sophomore year. If they are retained in the program, they are then guaranteed a main-stage role each semester until they graduate. They also are guaranteed a spot in our Senior Showcase.”
makes complete sense. I studied engineering, and there were students who were directed away from our program. Even now we have students who are directed away from pre-med where I teach. The only thing that might not make sense is if they hide the retention auditions from applicants, or if they are not trying to teach what criteria is needed for passing the retention auditions.
Is the consensus that UMich’s decision to retain everyone, whether or not they get a major role in their 4 years (per the letter), is better?
Or the CMU board with students complaining about no freshmen or sophomore allowed to audition?
http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/musical-theater-major/1685152-cmu-not-performing-until-junior-year.html
It seems one needs to pick their poison. Wouldn’t you rather your child transfer than not get any roles?
(My nephew is a pianist who studied musical theater, and he was getting little work within the college, so he dropped out and is doing musical theater direction, as well as playing, around our metropolitan area. He was frustrated both to be forced to take courses in singing and stage direction, yet he wasn’t allowed to be in musicals due to older students being given opportunities. He has played at Lincoln Center twice and it was immaterial to his advisers. They drove away the kind of student they are trying to retain. But right now, he has two years of college and no degree, and may not ever get a college degree.)
For starters, I much rather my kid go to UMich or CMU to study MT than to Arizona which has a cut system (whatever they wish to call it).
So what if a kid doesn’t get a major role in a college production? My kid went to a BFA in MT program to get a college education and MT training. Being in productions is one small facet of that. While she did get to play major roles in college productions, it would have been OK if she had not. There are also summers to perform and student productions to be in, etc. As far as CMU goes, their policy to not be in shows the first two years (though you can perform in the Playground shows) isn’t so terrible. The program is small and so juniors and seniors typically get a chance to play significant roles those two years. Their graduates seem to fair just fine. At my kid’s school, NYU/Tisch, you can’t be in productions in freshmen year. College is about way more than this.
I expect my kid to be able to complete the four year degree once a school accepts them except if he/she is failing courses. I have been a college teacher at five colleges. I have failed students in courses. But if someone is doing the work and meeting criteria for good grades, they deserve to continue and graduate. The college is not responsible as to whether they are successful in their careers. A college can guide a student. A college can decide if their students should be in a showcase. But if a college accepts a student after a rigorous and competitive admission process and as long as the student is meeting criteria to achieve a certain GPA in the program, is attending classes, doing the work, etc., they deserve a chance to finish that education. Those who don’t have the required work ethic to pass criteria for grades in courses and fail them, do need to be redirected. If a school thinks a student isn’t talented enough to succeed in the field, but otherwise is doing everything being asked of the student, the student deserves to finish that education, and could be counseled, but should not be cut.
Ooh, large amounts of snow and ice across the eastern half of the country is so much fun! Tomorrow will seem so boring.
“Wouldn’t you rather your child transfer than not get any roles?”
Are you KIDDING? The purpose of my child going to college is to get training and a degree. Sure, ideally it would be nice if she gets to be in some shows while she’s there, and that is certainly a valuable experience that supports the training, but that is not the PRIMARY purpose of being there. If I had to choose between “staying at the college she loves but not getting cast in shows” or “getting kicked out and having to deal with that trauma along with the stress of re-auditioning for other colleges as a transfer student,” I would pick the first option EVERY time.
As for comparing this to a sports team cutting players: NO. The purpose of a sports team is to win games. The purpose of a college is to EDUCATE its students.
A professional sports team kicking out players would be more like a Broadway show, where the creative team feels that a certain actor they hired isn’t working out for some reason and replaces him. In a professional environment, that’s fine. NOT in a college where the kid was accepted, IS doing the work and getting good grades, and has paid the tuition.
I thought most schools wouldn’t even accept transfer credits in these specific professional training programs anyways?
I do know of a sophomore that had to start over as a freshman in MT when he transferred.
So for me it has nothing to do with the ‘shame of getting cut’ or ‘emotional injury’, its about losing a year or two of tuition.
Many decades ago I was in an extreme cut program (half of the class was cut each year) and I’d say that, at least in the case of that particular program, it served to feed the ego and (often abusive) power of TPTB far more than it served the students.
Not to mention that a cut type of program can breed a competitive atmosphere, rather than a nurturing, collaborative one. It also can breed fear in general and make students less apt to take risks. Students are there (and paid to be there) to get an education. If they are flunking, not doing work, not showing up to class, etc., they deserve to have to leave. Otherwise, they deserve to see it through. College is no guarantee of a successful career in any field and if the faculty think the student might not succeed,they can guide them, but the student has the right to obtain the education if they are making the grade.