<p>Anyone know of what schools would be typically categorized as "safety schools?" And by this I don't mean a poor program, what I'm thinking is mid-level programs that tend to admit larger numbers of people and also aren't as academically rigorous. I guess what I'm looking for are places that are easier to get into than the elite schools so I can be more confident that I'll have someplace to go eventually. Thanks.</p>
<p>East Carolina University has a rather large theater department and they have what seems to me like a very good program (plus cheap tuition :D). Thats one of my "safety schools". My other is Christopher Newport University, a small in-state college that just got a new 1,700 seater auditorium (Ferguson Center for the Arts, designed by I.M. Pei). They have a decent MT program and the 5-year masters program</p>
<p>If you are looking for a true "safety school", make sure that you have at least one school on your list into which your guidance counselor is pretty sure you will be admitted academically, that DOES NOT require an audition. No program that requires an audition can truly be con sidered a safety school. </p>
<p>There are a few threads on the baord where schools are discussed in terms of their selectivity. Soozie seperated many of the schools out into auditioned, non-auditions, BA, BFA, etc... </p>
<p>Good Luck!!</p>
<p>I don't think you can treat any audition based program as a "safety" school simply because the number of students auditioning will be vastly greater than the number of available spots and even in the "larger" programs maybe there are 35 openings for 600 -800 or more students who audition. Bottom line, from what I've observed, no matter how you may characterize a school's "selectivity", you still have a range of about 3% - 8% of applicants accepted, depending on the school. And it is based on criteria which are tremendously subjective!</p>
<p>If you are looking for a "safety", find non-audition BA programs where the only criteria are the "normal" admissions factors with which all students contend. GPA, test scores etc. At least then you have objective measures by which to evaluate whether the school is a "safety", "match" or "reach". There are many very fine BA theatre programs that do not require auditions. Muhlenberg and Northwestern are 2 that come to mind. Muhlenberg is audition optional for merit scholarship purposes and at Northwestern you must audition after your freshman or sophomore year if you want to be in their Musical Theatre certificate program.</p>
<p>I agree with the wisdom of KatMT and MichaelNKat's posts. No audition based programs, whether BA or BFA ones could be considered safety schools. The odds of admissions to all BFA schools are difficult and to a lesser degree but still challenging odds, the BA audition schools, generally speaking. However, some BFA (or audition-based BA) programs have a less competitive applicant pool than others and so while the admit rate is still low, the odds are a little better at some "less elite" programs than some others relatively speaking. But as others have said, a TRUE safety school will be a NON AUDITION BA school that is ALSO an ACADEMIC safety. How "safe" a school is academically is relative to a student's qualifications and profile. For the most part, Northwestern would rarely be considered a safety school for anyone even if the candidate's stats are in the BALLPARK of admitted students to Northwestern because the admit rate at Northwestern is fairly low and they must turn away many qualified candidates. If one's stats are in the ballpark for Northwestern, it may be a Match (50-50 chance) school. Again, for most students, it is not a safety or likely bet.</p>
<p>As far as the BA schools (either auditioned or non-auditioned), be realistic as to whether you are within a schools admit range academically. In most BA programs there is a limit to what can be done to help someone be admitted who is well below the schools acceptance stats, and there wil be some students who would have been accepted into the MT program who are not admitted to the school academically. At many schools the audition can certainly can help some, but there are others whom admissions simply say "no go" to.</p>
<p>This is also the case at some BFA schools, so check out the policy at each to school to determine how grades and scores figure into the admissions picture.</p>
<p>Kat, I see a lot of kids who pick out BFA in MT (or BA ones too) schools because the schools offer MT but without any regard to their academic qualifications to get in. Their college lists are unrealistic. While the audition is a main component, a student needs to be academically admissable and their college lists need to be in the ballpark of their personal academic profiles. Picking an appropriate list of colleges for MT has to do with artistic odds of admission, as well as academic odds. It is not simply a matter of picking schools that offer MT.</p>
<p>One additional point for the OP (bigred)......do not be misled if a school accepts "larger numbers." That doesn't make the school less selective to get into. It isn't about the size of the program but about the ADMIT RATE. If a school accepts 50 students or if a school accepts 10, the one that accepts 50 is not necessarily easier to get into, if both accept 5% of those who apply/audition. When looking at selectivity, therefore, it is not about the number admitted but about the acceptance rate of admission. And for BFA programs, there is also a layer as to the competitiveness of the applicant pool, as well.</p>
<p>Soozie -- You are so right... It does sound as if there are very few schools where the MT program works completely independently of the academic componant... somewhere a while ago there was a thread that talked about the "weight" of the audition vs. the academics. I think the only school where it seemed that the academic stats of admitted MT students could be significantly different than the stats of those seeking admission to other majors was Carnegie Mellon. A few other schools seemed to weight the audition more significantly than the academics, but others would not even allow students to audition unless they were admitted to the school first. Your advice to create a well rounded list (in terms of both academic and artistic odds) is so important.</p>
<p>How much does the audition weigh vs. academics at different schools (i.e., UMich, NYU, CMU, UCLA, OCU)? You have said some weigh the audition more and some less, but which schools are which? Do you know an estimate, like 50/50 or 80/20, etc.?</p>
<p>from what I have seen for the most part is that conservatories and conservatory-style programs tend to weigh more on the audition than academics, whereas non-conservatory style programs might weigh on grades and SAT scores</p>
<p>Charlotte, while the percentages of weight between audition vs. academics is an interesting point to consider, that is not really the main point. What matters at most of the colleges is that your academic profile passes muster with the level of academics of admitted students to that particular college. For instance, academically speaking NYU and UCLA require stronger academics than Pace or Point Park, no matter how much of the decision is academics or audition. You still have to have the qualifications to be admitted to the school academically speaking. </p>
<p>As far as YOUR question.....</p>
<p>NYU.....academics is 50%, audition 50%
UMich.....must pass academic review to be invited to audition, and then when being considered for overall admission, academics matter and it is a fairly selective university
CMU....academics 10%, audition 90%....but again, academics should meet a certain standard and when competition is fierce, academics could mean the difference between two superbly talented applicants
UCLA....academics is a big part of admission there as it is a BA program and it is also a very selective university, and even more so for out of state applicants
OCU....I don't know the percentage breakdown but I believe OCU is a two part acceptance.....an academic acceptance and a BFA acceptance. The academic acceptance would require you to meet a certain level of qualifications but the academic selectivity at OCU is not as difficult as NYU, UMich or UCLA, for example</p>
<p>In examining a college, you need to look at the selectivity (admit rate), the mid range of SAT or ACT scores of admitted students, the class rank of admitted students, the avg. GPA of admitted students, the required HS curriculum and level of rigor expected of applicants, and so on. This all has to be factored in no matter where you apply and no matter what percentage academics counts in the decision. Even if academics counts only 20%, you still have to qualifty academically for that part of your application review. One's audition must be great to get in. But that alone can't do it if your academic profile is not remotely in the ballpark for the college. If your stats are just below the mid 50%tile, certainly it is possible to get into what would be an academic "reach". But if one's stats are WELL below the profile of accepted students to a college and if that college has a low admit rate as well, acceptance is not likely, even if the audition is great. When there are plenty of students who pass the talent test and too many for slots available, they can make sure the candidates that they admit can meet the academic qualifications that they deem are necessary for success at that school. Picking a BFA program in terms of realistic odds means balancing the list in terms of artistic and academic selectivity. But the academic end needs to be realistic. If you are not anywhere in the academic ballpark of published stats for a particular school, then the school is a very unlikely bet. Picking a college is more than just picking schools you like or schools that offer your major. You have to pick schools that are realistically appropriate for your academic and artistic level/qualifications. Even then it is a gamble (when admit rates are so low), but a reasonable gamble, not an impossible gamble.</p>
<p>Soozievt-</p>
<p>Thank you so much for your insightful and thorough reply! Sorry for getting off topic... :-/</p>
<p>Charlotte....your question is not really off topic as it relates to the original question. Usually in a discussion, one thing leads to another! </p>
<p>I like your posting name....so cute!</p>
<p>Just a couple of additional comments to add to Soozievt's sage advise. In looking at the websites for some schools, it often appears that the academic or testing requirements for MT applicant's may be somewhat relaxed compared to what is normally required of students applying in more traditional areas. For example, at NYU students are generally required to take SAT II's but for applicants to Tisch, SAT II's are not required (but may be recommended?). Other schools may have differences in expected h.s. curriculum. At CMU, the normal academic rigor and achievement required of applicants to other programs is relaxed for performing arts applicants both in terms of expected h.s courses, GPA, SAT scores and whether SAT II's are required (they are not).</p>
<p>Not withstanding this, it has been my observation over the last couple of years that more and more MT applicants seem to be presenting themselves with academic profiles that would be highly competitive for any program at the particular school i.e. the student would be strongly competitive with the general applicant pool for the school. The academic distinctions of the past between the "artistic" and the "scholastic" college applicant seem to be eroding even at conservatory style BFA programs. Because more H.S. students intending to major in MT are immersing themselves in high levels of pre-college intensive artistic training, colleges are being presented with larger pools than ever of highly talented and skilled applicants. As Soozievt points out, academic achievement is becoming a more important way that a school may distinguish from among a pool of highly talented and artistically qualified applicants. Plus, the academic aspects can also play a very significant role in the MT applicant being offered merit scholarships. So even if it appears that the academic requirements for MT applicants are not on par with the rest of the applicant population, the closer you can match the "regular" academic profile for the school, the better off you are.</p>
<p>Thanks for all of your responses, but I think I wasn't really specific enough in my question. I already know a lot about the differences in BFA vs. BA and that selectivity, and I am confident enough in my academics to get into most places (outside of the Ivys, Stanford, etc.). What I'm looking for is BFA schools on a less elite level with a less competitive applicant pool (such as the East Carolina option vs. somplace like Michigan or CCM). I'd like to find a professional training program and I'm certainly looking at the schools in the Michigan vein but I'd also like to look at some of the less well-known and less exclusive programs. Does anyone know of schools more like that?</p>
<p>Bigred, I also addressed a bit about what you brought up. I mentioned that you can't judge the competitiveness of a BFA program based on how many students they take, but it is competitive because of the low ADMIT RATE no matter how big or small the program is. Most BFA programs have an admit rate between 2-10% (so no matter the exact admit rate per school, it's LOW). So, there is also the academic selectivity of the school to figure in which varies greatly. For example, the academics of admitted students to NYU, UMiami or UMichigan varies a lot from those required for Boston Conservatory, Millikin, Montclair State, Shenandoah, Roosevelt, Marymount Manhattan, or UArts. With regard to artistic selectivity, even though the admit rate to all BFA in MT programs is low, the applicant pools to certain programs are not as competitive as to others. I don't want to get into a detailed rating here of which schools are more artistically selective than others (and all are chancy anyway), for fear of upsetting someone. I'll try to give a small example from one end to the other and not as much in between, because I think these examples would be agreed upon by most people in comparison of the two groups. These examples are NOT INCLUSIVE, but just one example. </p>
<p>Some of the most competitive BFA in MT programs (artistically speaking) but NOT ALL are included: CCM, CMU, NYU/Tisch, UMich</p>
<p>Some much less competitive BFA in MT programs (artistically speaking) but NOT ALL are included: Montclair State, Drake, Millikin, Pace, College of Santa Fe, Ball State, Roosevelt.</p>
<p>While it is likely "easier" to get into Roosevelt's BFA than UMich's, for example, NO audition based BFA programs should be considered "safety" schools, which is what other posters have advised you, as well.</p>
<p>In building your college list, you need to balance out schools in a range of academic selectivity in relation to your academic qualifications and schools in a range of artistic selectivity, also in relation to your skills/talent, and include some BA non audition safeties. </p>
<p>I hope that helps some.</p>
<p>Soozievt has summed it up succintly and accurately in my view. One additional comment that warrants mention. Even at schools that are deemed less selective academically, there are a lot of students with excellent academics applying because of the quality of the artistic programs. This has a two fold impact. </p>
<p>First, as has been mentioned either in this thread or a related one, if presented with 2 students with comparable artistic skill and talent, the one with the better academics may be more competitive not simply because of the better academic profile but because strong academics may be seen as a predictor of whether the student has the self discipline and ability to handle the rigors of a demanding college curriculum.</p>
<p>In addition, academics can play a material role in merit scholarships. For example, I know of 3 students who were accepted at UArts for 2007 who received Presidential Scholarships. Each of them had better than a 3.5 gpa and took Honors/Ap classes in high school. One of them had an unweighted 4.0 with 3 AP courses in her Jr and Sr years. </p>
<p>So, don't take academics for granted even at schools that are considered academically less competitive. My observation is that the pool of applicants even at these schools is changing because of the intensely competitive nature of BFA programs and the record number of students applying to them.</p>
<p>I COMPLETELY agree with MichaelNKat just wrote. Thank you Michael! Academics matter at any BFA program (or the schools would not ask for transcripts, test scores, essays, recs, etc.). The academic range or bar is not as difficult at some schools than others in terms of qualifications needed to get in. This is true with all colleges, not just with BFA schools. BUT a VERY GOOD academic profile (rigorous courses, very good grades, very good test scores, very good essays, achievements of note, activities, recommendations) is ALWAYS going to help no matter the college. When BFA programs are so selective and when there are MORE artistically talented students than they can accept, it is always going to help to have a strong application/record. As well, even at the "easier" academic colleges, a strong profile is going to help garner scholarships. When college costs this much money, getting great scholarships really helps. Always do your best at school. I also agree with Michael that a person's high school record is a reflection in many ways of work ethic and the self discipline to handle the rigors of the BFA program. </p>
<p>But back to selecting the schools, one needs to find colleges where their academic profile is at least in range of accepted students to that college.</p>
<p>We have visited both Emerson and Roosevelt. My daughter liked Emerson, though it is not really well known. Has anyone else had experience with these schools? Are they good "safety school" candidates for MT?</p>