<p>I've heard of schools such as NYU, which is known for having exceptionally high academic standardsand I've hard of other programs that will admit with lower academic standards (not sure what that bar is, really), even though the university may be typically known for it's academic vigor. </p>
<p>So, in your experience and opinion which schools are more known for needing to match academic performance to arts performance AND which schools are more known for accepting the talent before academic considerations?</p>
<p>I'm mostly asking in terms of BFA programs since that is what my D wants, but any knowledge around this for any school (for ex: Fordham, George Washington, USC BA programs) is welcome, also. </p>
<p>I know at CMU, it’s mostly based on auditions. If they like you, they will fight for you, no matter what your grades are. At USC, they will also make exceptions for talent over grades. (I’m speaking from examples of kids I know who got into these schools with less than stellar grades and test scores, but I don’t know if it’s always the case.) BU and NYU say that they weigh the academics equally with the auditions, in other words, you need both to get in. That’s all I know for sure. </p>
<p>That is exactly the type of info/experience I am looking for. I think for most schools it is probably the balance of both, with talent edging out when a school sees a student they <em>really</em> want. It’s always interesting to hear of exceptions and deviations from the perceptions that are out there, too. </p>
<p>I guess my original question didn’t even consider ACT/SAT scores, either, which I’m sure could have some bearing. A lower GPA and high test scores (or high GPA but low test scores) plus oodles of talent is probably a real-life scenario also for some. </p>
<p>Many of the BFA 's my D has applied to are not academically rigorous…exception Fordham, BU and Chapman. The nice thing we have noticed is that with good grades and test scores she is getting oodles of merit scholarship monies! Many of these schools are so expensive that this helps immensely. I am not sure if this is off topic, but I have been pleasantly surprised at the amounts being awarded. I still think audition trumps everything…</p>
<p>Yes bisouu, I agree. My son has average grades for his high school but very high test scores, and so far the two acceptances he’s received have been accompanied by very generous scholarships. Phew!</p>
<p>UCLA is another school that considers academics, but we were told in a tour that they do not expect their students to match the 4+ GPA freshman average for the school as a whole, and my D was accepted without an astronomical GPA. In general, BFA programs look all or mostly for talent, but you’ll get scholarship offers where your GPA and/or test scores are high in comparison with the average for the school. </p>
<p>I also know a student accepted to UCLA who definitely did not have the 4+ GPA, in fact, far from it. Probably a B+ type academic student, but a solid performer and probably also tested well. </p>
<p>I have heard that University of Michigan looks at grades more than many of the schools do. And of course Northwestern University, outside Chicago, has an exceptionally good program and has similar academic standards to the Ivy League schools.</p>
<p>Yes, I’ve heard that also. Of course, it’s hard to tell whether a particular student was declined admission due to audition or other factors, so we’re all just guessing except for the schools that do an academic admit first.</p>
<p>Students with gpas lower than 3.4 UW (in other words, a full .4 lower than these universities’ average admitted student) will have a hard time being admitted to most of the schools mentioned above. There can be exceptions–and high test scores can be a big help, too, but even BFA students take Core classes with the rest of the university. The theatre department/School may fall in love with an applicant, but they have to convince the general admissions office that this student will not fall behind and drop out. Schools like the ones mentioned here are seriously committed to keeping their 4-year graduation rates high and they have been burned in the past. So, a few very talented students may be admitted with slightly lower stats, but they have to balance those lower scores with other members of the class to make up for them. UCLA is often rumored to take kids with much lower GPAs and yet the head of the theatre school told an audience of admitted students one year that they had been losing way too many students–dropouts and those on academic probation and it was a serious problem. It’s always good for a talented student to have hope his/her talent will get them into any program, but academically oriented schools do care about grades–they just seem to have some unspoken setpoint that’s a bit lower </p>
<p>I’m sorry. I’m not buying that these schools are turning down 3.4 gpa students with mediocre test scores because they are worried about graduation rates. They are turning them down to protect their numbers. I have little doubt that NYU tisch is told that their students combined need to come in with at least x. The guy at BU said that was the deal. The could push a few but it could no bring down the school’s numbers too far. BU made a big shift last year and it didn’t have anything to do with BU students not handling academic classes. The CMU general student body has quite high stats but their theater program has the clout to get whoever they want regardless of grades. Plus they take so few that it hardly impacts the overall school numbers. BTW, while my daughter goes to a school that really doesn’t care about grades (uncsa) she did get into one of those you reference with less than a 3.4 unweighted gpa and mediocre test scores so no one should think a good audition can’t sometimes make the difference.</p>
<p>ActingDad, I would tend to agree with you. And I don’t even think a 3.4 is a low GPA at all. It’s not a high-perfectionist-drive GPA, but it’s definitely sturdy. Combine it with excellent auditions and it seems that most kids that I’ve heard of have been accepted to some pretty amazing and selective acting schools. </p>
<p>And while BFA students generally do have some core academic requirements, almost everything I’ve read is they are fewer in quantity and much more spread out than other majors (at most schools)–even BA theatre degrees. That’s kind of the point. There are probably exceptions to every rule, too.</p>
<p>I agree 100% with Acting Dad. It’s all about their numbers. The more colleges are ranked by random, fairly ludicrous parameters (eg x percent got y SAT score), and the more people listen to these rankings and apply accordingly, the more these scores matter. Ditto for yield–colleges have really changed the way they accept students so they can artificially manipulate yield. (I’m referring to all programs here not just BFA) </p>
<p>"-colleges have really changed the way they accept students so they can artificially manipulate yield." Yes, this practice really warped our higher educational system. And then students feel compelled to apply to 10+ schools, which fuels the colleges’ need to market themselves to even more students, to accrue more applications to reject, in order to manipulate their rankings further. </p>
<p>I’m with madbean though I don’t know what the magic GPA number is a 3.4, or 3.2, 3.0… probably not below a 3.0 I’d venture. GPA as an absolute number in admissions seems so silly when you consider the differences between in practice and rigor between high schools. I don’t really even know what it means when I read some of these “chance me” threads where it seems every one has a 3.93 UW GPA or better. You’d swear the entire student population is all on the cusp of straight A’s. It’s like having 40 valedictorians from the same high school. What is that?</p>
<p>I’d be less concerned with what the number is to get in to any school than I would be with, “based on what I know about who attends this school, if I do get in, can I keep up with my peers?” </p>
<p>Schools that truly care about academic rigor will not lack both artistically talented and academically capable students to choose from. There are plenty of them to fill the few seats they have. UCLA as an example is admitting far more out of state students into their theatre program now which is also a signal that they have a wider pool from which to find both. </p>
<p>I also agree that yield manipulation is messing things up greatly. I wish we were not sucked into feeling the need to cast a wide net this year but we were.</p>
<p>I’m curious about what is the big shift is that BU made last year? I hadn’t heard about it. Didn’t BU always pay attention to grades? </p>
<p>Well, I was specifically answering the question posted on this thread: Schools with “exceptionally” high academic requirements. Exceptionally high academic schools care about their USNWR rankings and those universities as a whole may have a little more say on admissions. I imagine there may be a yearly conversation between theatre department and admissions office about who is ultimately admissible. </p>
<p>Some comments above seem to be mixing in conjecture on scores/gpas needed for extremely selective top top BFA programs, and that may be a whole different story, isn’t it? Schools like Northwestern, NYU, USC, U Michigan and others mentioned will not typically and offhandedly dip much much lower than the the school’s average, although clearly they do have a slightly lower bar. It would be helpful for future theatre applicants and their families if students in this forum posted their admissions results listing their gpa/sat/act etc, like most of the other forums. It might give a more realistic picture of what sorts of stats get admitted to which schools. Until then, we only have anecdotes.</p>
<p>If the Theatre school/department says publicly they do not care about stats for BFA, that’s what I would believe. I wish they would print the avg stats of their BFA classes–it would stop the conjectures and rumors. The fact that no school prints that they have a lower requirement for stats for BFA in their admissions info means we all have to guess. </p>
<p>During the info session with BU yesterday, the auditor stated that on average the kids have a 3.5 unweighted and an 1840 SAT…they would be able to fight for a kid with a 3.2 if they had a killer audition. He said that in Chicago there were a couple of kids that gave a stellar audition and they wanted to admit them, but their GPA’s were 2.8 and their SAT’s were in the 1700 and they could not admit them no matter how much they wanted to. Admissions said no.</p>
<p>ActingDad, I said the head of UCLA’s Theatre school said they were having to be more conscious of selecting students with higher gpas–because they were losing too many students who, it turned out, had been low stat admits. It sounded reasonable at the time. He said students who routinely got by doing minimal work in HS to dedicate their energy and time to theatre ECs often hadn’t learned how to manage their time well enough to handle their non-theatre college courses. I won’t generalize about just how much other academic-oriented schools may have the same concerns, but this is one of the reasons why schools who have serious general education and other hard non-theatre required courses may be looking at gpa in addition to talent.</p>
<p>Lastly, to all: I totally agree about how crazy the admissions game has gotten, how stupid rankings are, and how unfair it is that numbers (!) – SAT, gpa, whatever–are given so much weight. I am just offering a view that not ALL programs are as wide open to all levels of students–depending on the level of academic rigor that university (not the department) may consider.</p>