<p>I think the cut system is all to the advantage of the school and no advantage that I can see, at all, for the student. There are plenty of really good MT programs that don’t cut and that, if a student works hard, attends class, and is basically a good citizen of the school, will take that student all the way through four years and then let the market decide if that student has what it takes to be a professional. I don’t get why anyone would apply for/audition for a school that cuts. Why do it, when there are so many fabulous places that don’t? And by the way, I know a really talented, hard working kid (not my own … a friend of my kid’s) who was earning A’s in her studio and other classes at a cut program BFA and got cut, so don’t tell me it doesn’t happen. It does.</p>
<p>That was my suspicion, NotMamaRose. I’m sure it does happen, and I suspect it will happen this year at Emerson. Thanks to all for your thoughts and advice.</p>
<p>I auditioned for Emerson and immediately after talking to the head of the department at auditions took it off the list. I’m fine with evaluations so that the faculty can assess your progress and make sure you’re on the right path, but to cut purely based on a number is a stupid thing to do.</p>
<p>This is my last word on the Emerson subject and I don’t exactly know why I care. Not a school I attended, not a school my daughter will be attending. I have absolutely no horse in this race.</p>
<p>Just over a year ago when I started reading CC for real, I had the impression that certain schools (several that I had never heard of) represented the real top MT experience and that other schools like Emerson were not worthy of a look because nobody in the forum ever talked about them. Fast forward to a year later my impressions after visiting a number of schools and going through auditions my opinions changed quite a bit.</p>
<p>There are many fine MT programs that are never talked about at all on CC. In my now not as rookie opinion, Emerson is one of them. It doesn’t look like anyone with a current student at Emerson nor anyone from the administration at Emerson going to step up to defend their program in CC. It’s not my problem but I do feel an obligation because of all of the excellent info and advice that I read here on CC over the last year to say as a parting shot to everyone that is now starting the process: decide for yourself before dismissing schools like Emerson… warts and all. If you are cut program adverse, cross Emerson off the list because potentially (although not definitely) there is one. If it isn’t a deal breaker, Emerson is worth a look. OK, I’m out.</p>
<p>@halflokum, I am not saying Emerson is not a good school. On the contrary, I hear a lot of good things about it, and my D and I are going to their senior showcase to check them out. I just wanted a reality check on whether it is worth it to apply given the apparent randomness of their cut program. The school is gorgeous, facilities amazing (their black box theater was ridiculously beautiful), location perfect, training supposedly great, dorm rooms modern and nice, and they even say the food is good…I guess it becomes, as you say, a personal choice as to whether you can live with the cut program hanging over your head. It’s a shame they do it like that…I wish they didn’t. </p>
<p>I also agree with you that there is a ton of great info on CC, and my feelings about some schools have also changed drastically over the past year. In fact, I started this thread b/c I was expecting to hate Emerson, but adored the facilities/location, etc., so I was confused and reaching out to others for their thoughts. I don’t think you and I are that far apart on this…it is definitely a personal choice, and frankly, I don’t know if it is worth the risk. The head of another MT program said this about the cut programs (and I am paraphrasing): “Cut programs set up unhealthy competition among the class. If you have to spend your years in college constantly looking to the side to see where you stand next to your classmates, how can you move forward?” Yes, the MT world is harsh, kids will face rejection all the time. But one theory is that college is a time to learn, not only your craft, but how to work as a team/class. There will be plenty of time for cutthroat competition later. And I think every MT student knows that. Why start it during college?</p>
<p>BRAVO monkey 13. I think this says it all. </p>
<p>“Cut programs set up unhealthy competition among the class. If you have to spend your years in college constantly looking to the side to see where you stand next to your classmates, how can you move forward?” Yes, the MT world is harsh, kids will face rejection all the time. But one theory is that college is a time to learn, not only your craft, but how to work as a team/class. There will be plenty of time for cutthroat competition later. And I think every MT student knows that. Why start it during college?</p>
<p>This is such an interesting thread. We never considered a college with a cut policy and, in fact, never even knew they existed back in the old days of my son’s application and audition process (Fall 2009). Though I think Halflokum makes some valid points about dealing with the risk factors in the selection of certain schools, this particular college does seem to take a random approach to cuts. Which is hard to believe, actually. Would be great to hear from an Emerson rep on the subject. Think about how many truly talented kids will pass on their school simply because of the cut policy. They should seriously rethink their policy.</p>
<p>Still, I’m happy to congratulate and welcome Halflokum’s daughter into the Tisch New Studio family! My son will be an MT junior next year. Feel free to pm if you would like them to connect!</p>
<p>I think when considering each school’s policy, we should be careful to not group all schools together. For instance, I think there is a big difference between a school that cuts to a predetermined number, versus a school that cuts from a talent perspective versus a school that has a promotional system. I think each could and should be debated on it’s own merits.</p>
<p>monkey 13: The sole reason my D did not apply to Emerson was for this reason. She is OK with juries that fairly assess progress, actually excited about this prospect, but is not OK with keeping numbers down for the sake of numbers, especially after each student was selected via audition to begin with.</p>
<p>For the same reason she cut out a well-regarded CA program which has even more drastic cuts at the end of sophomore year. Then there is that “other” school that has the worst cuts of all and breeds a class that is pitted against each other. We know a girl who just voluntarily left that program junior year when down to 3 MT girls left! Not good. Competition within performance is bad enough and let’s face it, talent isn’t always the deciding factor in castability.</p>
<p>First: Emerson Bfa acting was my D’s first (actually only) choice.
She was accepted Bfa early and, YES, she is going.</p>
<p>Second:We did not get the impression that you got at all about the “cut.”
Students told us the only ones who got cut (and I believe for acting last year they said it was 1) didn’t show up for class or just weren’t committed.
We live in Chicago and have been very familiar with the depaul cuts (in the past - they just replaced it with a brutal audition process) and Emerson seems nothing like this. When you have a small dept and some kids are just not committing it hurts the whole program, so I get that. I also like that there are very good options for those few for whom the Bfa is not the best choice. Remember how certain you were about what you were doing with the rest of your life at 18? Having the option to branch out into so many other arts and liberal arts options or to double major after two years is really not such a bad thing. If you’re in a straight conservatory and you change your mind, chances are you’re changing schools. I’d take the Emerson “cut” before getting stuck in one studio track at NYU with no way of moving.
I guess it’s really ok with me that some kids just don’t apply or go to Emerson because they are afraid of this (theatre is actually all about fear!) because it’s fewer to compete with my D…I think if you have a realistic view of yourself, you can accept that some things you think are perfect for you just might not be.</p>
<p>thtre12:
I have nothing against Emerson. My own daughter applied and she has friends who have happily attended. Congrats to your D on her acceptance there. I agree that kids in any program who are not committed and not doing the work may be just cause to have them switch into another program at the college. However, one thing you may wish to check into at Emerson, based on what others have said, or at least is true for the BFA in MT track (not sure if for Acting too?), is that Emerson cuts to a certain number and so let’s say there are only two students who are not doing the work, etc. but they still need to cut 8 to the BA track in order to advance only the number of students to the next year’s BFA track (though some of the 8 hypothetically speaking, may have opted to change to a BA themselves such as was the case with my D’s good friend from our HS who started in the MT program at Emerson but chose to switch to a BA). That is an entirely different thing. Then, it is NOT only kids who are not doing the work, but rather revolves around a set number. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>While this thread is not about NYU as it is not a cut program at all, I can’t help but respond to this comment and make some clarifications. I don’t think this is a good comparison you are making here. At NYU, if you want to stay in a BFA track, you can. At Emerson, if you want to stay in a BFA track, you may not be allowed to. At BOTH programs, if you want to switch out of the BFA into a BA or another program at the university, you CAN! For example, my D’s friend/classmate switched from the BFA in MT in Tisch to a BM in Music Composition at NYU/Steinhardt because he wanted to focus on MT writing/composing. Another of her friends switched from the BFA in Acting at Tisch to a BA in NYU/Gallatin because she was cast in an Off Broadway play and being in Gallatin was more flexible than at Tisch. Another friend was in the Clive Davis Recording Arts degree program at Tisch and switched into the BM in Music Composition at Steinhardt as she wanted it to be more performance based. A student could also switch from the BFA at Tisch to a BA in liberal arts in CAS. So, just like at Emerson, a student CAN switch out of the BFA without leaving NYU and study something else, but unlike at Emerson, nobody will make them do that. Further, if one wants to double major at Tisch with the BFA, they can. At Emerson, if they want to double major, they must switch into a BA track, not to mention that the array of other majors is not nearly as extensive at Emerson as they are at NYU as Emerson is not a regular liberal arts college. Further, as far as studio placement in the BFA at NYU, a student CAN switch studios after the second year and MANY do that (my kid did that after 5 semesters, in order to sample another set of training). At Emerson, if you are in the BFA and want some other sort of BFA training, you would have to transfer to another university as there is just one BFA program in Acting (or in MT). So, I am not truly understanding the point you are making about NYU in comparison to Emerson and being “stuck.”</p>
<p>I have to say, Emerson’s cut to a # policy is completely not understandable to me. When we went to visit, the very nice representative we met basically admitted to the negative atmosphere the policy can have on the relationships within a class. For the life of me, I can’t understand this philosophy. They are losing many many talented applicants. We were ok with programs that cut people because of some kind of failure to meet standards or work up to their potential. But, the assumption is that one is being measured against oneself. Even if it’s subjective, it’s what is the faculty imagining that YOU can do. NOT, we have to get rid of people, so lets compare them all, etc., rank them as to who can be most competitive, or whatever scale they are ranking them to - yuck!</p>
<p>I also have to say, I think the CA programs ,UCI, CSF, where you have to keep auditioning to move up in classes - unfortunately, I don’t believe this is how they want to administer the programs - I think it’s an unfortunate by-product of the drastic financial problems these colleges face. We live in CA, and I would have loved for my D to have stayed close - but, these programs were just not appealing to her. If anyone from these programs can chime in and tell me the programs are designed as they are for any reason other than monetary, please do. UCLA, also did not appeal to her for a number of reasons. CA I feel is really failing in this training. Ok - now I’ve started another RANT - will stop!</p>
<p>I agree with Soozievt and blueskies. When we visited Emerson, the gentleman running the info session said the same thing: that the people cut (although they call it “failing to make the re-audition”) were those who either decided a BFA was not for them, and/or people who were skipping class, not committed, etc. The first red flag for me was that 10 people out of 26 would decide that the BFA was not for them, or were not committed to the program. Do other programs have that high an attrition rate? I don’t think so. In fact, the rep said that the national attrition rate in acting and MT programs is 10%. So why is the attrition rate so much higher here? Then I pushed - because that is what I do, much to my D’s dismay at times - and asked how many people voluntarily left or failed the re-audition b/c of lack of commitment. He told me (reluctantly) that this year’s sophomore class had 19 students who wanted to stay, and who were committed to the program. Yet they insisted on cutting the class to 16. I kept thinking, “What if my D goes here, and in her year, 20 kids are committed and want to stay in? Or 26?” It could happen. If that unnaturally high attrition rate drops, a lot of students will get cut, and KICKED OUT of the BFA track over their objections. This is not a case of students being cut b/c they aren’t doing the work. </p>
<p>So, the bottom line is that we initially heard the same thing - the cuts were the result of natural attrition, or students who were not committed to the program. But when I pressed for details and numbers, I found this was not the case. This is not an indictment of Emerson’s program. From all accounts it is a great program. But my D is not sure she wants to leave her college career up to a potentially random cut. And I agree with her.</p>
<p>That’s the thing…finding out the details. Back when my D applied (school year 2004-2005), we just thought it was natural attrition mixed with those who were not doing the work (and I knew my kid would do the work as that is the kind of student she is). I don’t think we realized the cut to a number in the way it really is done there as they did not describe it that way. In fact, my D did not apply to CCM in part due to their cut policy at the time. I do think Emerson is a program worth considering and I have had many advisees apply there. But it is always good to have as much information as possible.</p>
<p>sooievt… Yes, and my D who will be attending CCM in the fall would not have applied there if they had the same cut system that they had in years past. </p>
<p>Emerson was very upfront with us that in the junior year they would only let a set number continue in the BFA (I think it was 16). He tried to pitch it that many people decide on their own to go a BA route, but was very honest about if there were 24 extremely talented, hardworking, motivated, marketable, etc. etc. kids - they’d still have to find a way to cut 8 of them. I would love to hear from Emerson as to why they feel they need to do this. I, like every other mom probably, didn’t think it would be my kid that would be cut. BUT, I did know that it would effect the way the class treated each other. In this already competitive, brutal profession - who needs that?</p>
<p>Just adding our view to the tally.</p>
<p>We would not have under any circumstance wanted a school that made a “cut” in order to maintain an arbitrarily determined inflexible number. Cutting for the other reasons discussed is entirely different.</p>
<p>I just really do not understand their rationale behind that policy - if they keep it to 16 period, and there are 19 hard working, talented, committed students - and three are cut - then they are in the unenviable position of having to transfer if they want to get a BFA and there have been many discussions about the difficulties of transferring into other BFA programs.</p>
<p>If someone is not phased by the prospect and willing to roll the dice, that is their perogative, but no way would I have sent my daughter and my money to any school that wouldn’t be just as committed to her as she was to them, for the whole 9 yards. I don’t care how good the program is if she isn’t permitted to stay in it, you know?</p>
<p>And I have always been in the “school is the place to be nurtured and to learn” and not the “life is crappy so line up for the daily beatings and get used to it” camp of thinking…
I think any theater major with the mental acuity of a pea can figure out it’s mean and competitive out there and if they haven’t they most certainly will learn it immediately upon graduating and I suspect even the most nurturing schools do make a point of making the kids aware of how rough it is out there. That’s a lesson they can get for free - when I’m paying, I want them to be taught things they aren’t going to get from the street!</p>
<p>I wish there were an Emerson rep on this forum who could comment on this thread. I would love to hear their justification, and to get more details on how, for example, they are going to be choosing which 3 kids to cut next week.</p>
<p>monkey, I had a quick look at Emerson’s website to see if I knew anyone there but, unfortunately, no familiar names. I did notice that they have no contact information for ANY of their senior administration or academic deans, which is very unusual in this day and age. Most schools with which I’m familiar have not only direct phone lines but most of the time, an email address as well. I may be missing it, but I also cannot see anyone listed with the title of Director of Admissions, only a list of admissions ‘counsellors’. Very strange.</p>
<p>Thanks for doing that, alwaysamom. My D went with her BF today to see Emerson’s senior showcase. Can’t wait to hear how it was.</p>
<p>I wonder if their attrition rate, after being off the charts for the first 2 years, suddenly drops to zero for the last 2 years? Very curious…</p>