Stats for Music conservatories

College Majors Music Major
41

<p>I am confused by the reason for the statistics. Is it so that you can figure out what schools your child should apply to? Is it so you can feel comfortable with the institution your child has chosen? Is it so you can get a sense of how your child ranks? Would the ranking give you bragging rights? I just don’t know why a parent would want a ranking. One thing I loved about having a child who was applying to conservatory is that I didn’t have to deal with that.</p>

<p>There are relevant statistics that parents might want beyond admission stats and I think those are available, such as the retention rate of the school, the percentage of students graduating, even average SAT scores, what those students did post graduation and how much debt students leave with. But again even these statistics do not tell the whole story. A child gets ill and needs to take time off and then decides he doesn’t want to continue at a conservatory. Another child realizes that they do not want to put in the hours required to make it as a musician. A child transfers because a parent dies and they want to move close to home to be near their siblings and other parent. </p>

<p>My middle child just finished the graduate application process in mathematics. The NRC (National Resource Council) has very detailed rankings of all the programs my son applied to. Those rankings include acceptance rates, GRE scores, GPA upon admission, graduation rates, funding, publication……You can access the raw data and write your own scripts to analyze it or you can go to other web sites that use the NRC data and do their own analysis on it (complete with a full discussion of the statistical techniques they used). All that being said even these rankings in a field that is somewhat quantifiable fail. All the usual suspects come out on top, except that University of Chicago -which is one of the top top programs in the world doesn’t even place in the top 10. Meanwhile there are many reasons the students choose to attend programs that are not the highest ranked program. And there are reasons why students get admitted to a highly ranked program and rejected from a lower ranked program. Both those things happened to my son. He was rejected from lower ranked schools than the ones he was accepted at and he is not going to the highest ranked program he was admitted to. He decided where to go based on who he wants to work with and what he wants to study. In many ways applying to conservatory is a lot like applying to graduate school….and because of that ranking is not nearly as important as other factors.</p>

42

<p>sguti-
Some of what you say correlates to what I have seen, other parts don’t. It is very true that having teachers know you before the audition process can help a great deal, so seeing a kid at a competition can intrigue them, or a summer program or doing sample lessons, and it can be an edge. It isn’t a guarantee, but from what I have seen, compared to a student they haven’t see before, it makes it easier to get into that studio (and if the program has only the 1 teacher, well, obviously also means admit).</p>

<p>The reason statistics don’t work well is you can’t make assumptions. For example, you are assuming the top schools like Juilliard “Don’t look at potential”…and I think you have to be really, really careful about that, because you simply don’t know. While it is true that Juilliard and Curtis and so forth tend to accept kids who are playing technically at a high level, and a student with sloppy intonation (on violin) would be likely not to get through the pre screening, it is also true that kids that are almost virtuouso level players, who have won major competitions, get rejected. Friend of my son’s, the year the friend won one of the most major international competitions on violin there is, got rejected by Curtis, go figure. </p>

<p>What people say on here all the time is it is a crapshoot, that often defies logic, and that is true. I realize auditions are costly, that getting places is expensive, and that financial means may not meet the kids needs, but trying to base decisions on stats is likely to fail, you may end up settling for something that doesn’t work when you may have been able to afford something better. Assuming that Juilliard or NEC or whatever wouldn’t admit someone because they aren’t ‘the best’ leaves out that teachers may very well see something special in a student, something that cannot be quantified. likewise, you can get into a school like NEC, that isn’t particularly known for being generous with aid, and get a really hefty package, as a friend of my son’s did (who ended up not going there), you simply don’t know. Obviously, if you can only afford to audition at few places, then it may be wise to focus on schools you know you can afford and are decent, but if you can, broaden the net because you simply don’t know how a school is going to look at your need. Fafsa and EPC is notoriously bad, among other things I am pretty well convinced that its ideas of cost of living and such is based either in some mythical median, or is based somewhere where cost of living is cheap, cause what it says often makes no sense, it says a family making 100k can afford amounts that even if they didn’t have a mortgage, taxes and such, would make no sense…and schools know that, so you simply don’t know. If a teacher likes your kid and admits him, then money becomes an issue, they may be able to help.</p>

<p>Like I said you don’t know until you try, that safety you expected to work out may not, you simply don’t know. You hear music teachers claim a student is a sure admit, and it fails; kid gets into Juilliard and doesn’t get into X university school of music that is nowhere near as good. Kid auditions, and gets into the studio of teacher X, who is iterally in demand by everyone, which shocks the heck out of them (and yep, happens, happened to my S). </p>

<p>Put it this way, most music is extremely competitive, and unless you go to the lower tier schools it often is difficult to figure out how good the aid will be, though there exceptions to this. From what little I know of UNT, they offer in state tuition to music majors because they want to attract music students from all over, rather than just Texas, to keep its level up and make it someplace known all over, rather than a Texas only gem. Other programs, trying to get into the big leagues, attract top students by offering them really good merit and financial aid, to draw them from going to the big ones, and they tend to be known…but statistics won’t necessarily tell you that. At a school like NEC or CIM, there are teachers who are in more demand than most teachers at Juilliard or Curtis, and even though those two schools have seeming high acceptance rates, for those teachers, it is very low…and to give you food for thought, how about the in demand teacher, who takes few students but gets tons of applicants, who gets that because they were a known performer, but frankly stink as a teacher? They are in demand, statistically sounds like they are great person to see, but it is all reputation with notjing to back it (and there are teachers like that, believe me, Juilliard is a great school but not all the faculty is that great, they have stinkers, too,among the stars, whereas ‘programs that are not worthy’ compared to a Curtis have some real gems doing great work,and statistics cannot tell you this. </p>

<p>In some ways it is like academics, statistics like SAT scores, GPA’s, and AP scores and tests measure certain things, but may not measure who a person is. The kid with the 2400 SAT, 4.0 GPA and 8 AP’s may not get into a good program because he/she is only good at gaming the system and comes off as having no curiousity except for things that look good on a CV for school, another kid statistically looks bad, but has incredible ideas and gets in…</p>

43

<p>So many excellent and poignant posts.
Maybe we should ask why anyone, anywhere, has any interest in statistics about schools of any kind. Statistics are only part of the story, and not the most fascinating part at that.</p>

<p>Speaking for me and mine only, I find it helpful to try to get a slightly more objective assessment of how I fit in. A rejection from a school that accepts 80% or so of applicants and a rejection from a school that accepts less that 20% are both NOs, but they feel different. Do I really have to elaborate on this?
Performers, in particular, depend on the perception and acceptance of others if they are to make a living anywhere near performing. They will be judged and audition many many times in years to come. They will be ranked and critiqued and rejected and applauded. Do we have to be so touchy and even precious about this, and declare that none of this is of any importance? How are we preparing them for what they think they want to do, or are already on the road to doing?</p>

<p>If you are in the camp that despises any mention of statistics, it’s fine. Really. I think it would be healthier to have the information the schools compile be available, transparent, and open.
But as no one seems to have these figures here, we’ll move on. Keep making beautiful music, everyone.</p>

44

<p>205mom,
Those two rejections might be different but sadly they will not give you any insight into your child’s potential or where they fit in or will fit in. I remember talking to one of my son’s future teachers about this. He told me about how he has had HS’s audition who sound as good as some of his best seniors and who blew him away. But then they got to conservatory and wilted. And he has had kids who are much less accomplished who some how bloom and grow and go on to be highly successful. </p>

<p>And I think that is a challenge in a culture where so much of life is treated like a video game with accomplishments and bucket lists and FB statuses.</p>

<p>As I said I don’t think all statistics are worthless….and it definitely pays to pay attention to subjective ranking of schools so that you know that your child is not applying only to reach schools or only to safety schools. </p>

<p>I don’t know where you are in this process but I agree with you….keep making beautiful music, enjoy the ride and most of all remember highly successful people come from all corners of the world and there are many paths from point A to point B. </p>

45

<p>What I’m taking from this is apply to the schools you really like because it might work out. We’re modifying my son’s college list. And looking at the requirements. I think oberlin would be fabulous. It would be a financial reach but it might workout.</p>

46

<p>"Speaking for me and mine only, I find it helpful to try to get a slightly more objective assessment of how I fit in. A rejection from a school that accepts 80% or so of applicants and a rejection from a school that accepts less that 20% are both NOs, but they feel different. "</p>

<p>Therein lies the rub. The logical conclusion would be that if you get rejected from a school that accepts 80% of applicants, you are not very good, while if you get rejected by a school that accepts 20%, you may be good enough, but simply were beaten out by students who were very, very good.</p>

<p>It sounds logical, and would be, if auditions were logical processes, where there is some formula that says “yep, you are good enough”…the problem is it is not logical or rational.</p>

<p>Let me give some examples why those stats mean nothing, these are real examples:</p>

<p>-Student auditions at programs less competitive, and also auditions at one or two blockbusters that are hard. Gets into one of the hard programs, gets reject by 3 of 4 of the ‘less competitive ones’…does that mean the student isn’t good enough to be in, using the example above, the 80% who make it, or does it mean that maybe other factors were involved? Some have pointed out that schools will hear a student who is really good, and reject them as being ‘too good’ for the program, using it as a safety…</p>

<p>Which leads to an interesting question, so student only applies to the schools that accept 80%, thinking they are not good enough for the schools that accept 20% of less, and they don’t get in any of them…but my example above is a true story of someone I know through my S, so maybe, just maybe, the rejects from the 80% schools were they thought he was too good and using them as a ‘safety’</p>

<p>-Student auditions at 80% school, gets rejected…turns out he was good enough, but they had zero slots for that instrument, or it went to a grad student. This does happen, schools will audition even if they don’t have slots open, with the idea that is someone decides unexpectedly not to return, etc, they may have someone to replace them (least that is the theory on the reason they do this, or one of them)…</p>

<p>-Student auditions at 80% school, on let’s say Bassoon, and plays in a style that the bassoon teacher doesn’t like (technically strong, etc)…kid doesn’t get in</p>

<p>-Student auditions at 80% school, doesn’t get in, turns out he played really, really well, but teacher had slot reserved for student he/she knew (and yes, this goes on). </p>

<p>We all hear how the auditions are it, that if you play well enough you get in, that it doesn’t matter if you go in cold, it doesn’t matter if you know someone, and that isn’t true, those kinds of things influence getting admitted. Not to mention that open slots vary from year to year, and what is normally 80% one year might be 2 the next…</p>

<p>-Student auditions at very competitive program, and at one even more competitive, gets rejected by first one, gets accepted at second, by a teacher who is extremely hard to get into their studio, where teacher at first school is not as much in demand…</p>

<p>Someone put it great with the audition and admission process, and that is it is often a crapshoot, sometimes it is being in the right place at the right time, it comes down to a teacher who likes an auditioner, it comes down to auditioning when the panel is feeling mellow, you don’t know, it is why on here people say it may be good to cast a wide net. Obviously, if you know school X is very parsimonious with aid, that unless you are really in financial need they won’t do anything, may not be wise to audition there, but it is also true that you should not assume playing level being ‘too low’, let’s say for Juilliard, based on statistics alone. Based on statistics, the teacher my S chose would be next to impossible, yet the teacher liked him and he got into his studio in the end, shocking my S and us…</p>

<p>In statistical analysis, if I remember the courses I took (which is a long time ago), for it to work there needs to be correlations that can be filtered to determine causality; with auditions, the problem is, the ‘noise’ in the process is such that you cannot use the statistics and assume it represents the reality for a single person. Like the Juillard 6% admission rate, that may be skewed by dance admissions, or fluctuations in students in a studio, it is very hard to filter out the noise and come up with logical assertions IMO. </p>

<p>It is also why a lot of people on here, including myself, have said getting evaluations is important, that while it represents someone else opinion, it at least is theoretically someone who understands the reality of the admissions process enough to say “you don’t have the technical ability school x, y and z will want”, that is more concrete, you might go to that evaluator and he says “yep, don’t let the low yield fool you, your child stands a pretty decent chance of getting in, based on his ability and such”…you might look at the 20% school and say “he won’t make that”, but you don’t know that. At least with an evaluator, you can see what may be lacking and make decisions based on something a little more concrete. </p>

<p>In the end, anyone going through this process has to make their own decisions, and what people are trying to point out is that statistics in the end may not be the bellweather some might think they are, they may be useful in determining overall acceptance rates, but in terms of a particular student in a particular area, not so much, individual data tend to be a lot more fluky then broad data. </p>

47

<p>I think it is reasonable, for some kids, to apply only to schools/studios where they really want to study, and then if not accepted, try again the following year after some hard work, new teacher, whatever helps progress. </p>

48

<p>All excellent examples^, musicprnt. Again, thank you for taking the time and being so patient and thoughtful.</p>

<p>My own personal experience plus my kids’ (Academic track & conservatory/audition track, different kids) and all their friends’ (these are folks I have come to know over the years and feel I can asses better than any application reader will be able to) is that <em>there are always fluke rejections and surprise admissions.</em> Always. No one should not apply if they really want to go somewhere, particularly for the best reason- a specific teacher. Things happen. Maybe especially in the arts, for all the reasons so beautifully outlined by many of the posters here.
But, on the whole, the acceptances and rejections of both tracks did follow pretty much what a statistician might have predicted. It is irrelevant anecdotally, and should not stop you from perusing what feels right. But I have not found it to be utterly meaningless, or I wouldn’t have asked.
What I did ask about was a site that compiled these stats year after year by departments, and no one seems to have that. I think the indignant reaction, by some, to my OP is not helpful.
All right, now I really have to let go here. I may check in in case someone actually has a factual response to my original question, though it seems it’s been taken over by the what’s-wrong-with-you-for-asking bunch.</p>

49

<p>205mom,
I am sorry if some of the responses sound “Indignant” or are inadvertently saying “What is wrong with you for asking” I think if we were all in the same room our tone would be taken as constructive and helpful and not that way. Just remember you do not know who is on the other end of the line.</p>

<p>BTW, here is a link to statistics about higher education that is collected by the National Resource Council. If the data is collected and you know somebody familiar enough with dealing with big-data files then you possibly could write a script and get the information you are looking for.
<a href=“http://graduate-school.phds.org/rankings/music”>http://graduate-school.phds.org/rankings/music&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

50

<p>The link above refers only to PhDs in theory, musicology, history, etc . Most of the schools listed do not even offer performance grad degrees ( which are usually DMA, MM, AD, performer certificates). Auditions are not required of the PhD students in the aforementioned areas. Most applicants are not performance focused and typically do not have performance skills at the level of the very competitive performance applicant. For the PhD programs (as with all PhD programs), research, references on potential for written scholarly work, GPA and GRE scores are what is considered for admission.</p>

<p>Interesting data. However, to me, the fact that this refers only to PhD programs, attests to the difficulty with quantifying performance.</p>

51

<p>When posters ask for an explanation as to why you want this information that is in no way a criticism. To discuss this issue constructively we need to know what you are after. Specifics lend clarity. And if we disagree with the usefulness of stats, that’s an opinion about stats. It’s not about you.</p>

52

<p>I would have wanted the information to use as a data point in decision making for both the application and decision making phases. I would have tried to interpret and extrapolate based on that information and a variety of other independent variables (ie. teacher input, assessment of fit with school and teacher, “quality” of other students, grad school acceptance rates out of the school, grad schools attended out of undergrad, financial aid awarded etc.). It would never be fail proof (as very little is). I would understand that most of the input is based on subjective variables, but even subjective variables tend to have common denominators and can be indicative. </p>

<p>I would love a statistic that shows what percentage of accepted students had previous contact with a professor or the school. But i realize this isn’t feasible, but I would wager there is a correlation. I would also love to see standard acceptance statistics such as how many applicants were from which states/countries and conversely how many were accepted from which localities. Does it improve chances of acceptance, no of course not. But those are my reasons. </p>

53

<p>Thank you for the PhD academic rankings link, StacJip.</p>

<p>I think our reasons would have been to be sure not to apply only to schools that accept very few, to analyze/attempt to understand why some schools accept almost everyone who applies in what is by definition a field where many try and few succeed, and to try to asses how we fit in, if at all.
I was actually asking for friends who will be facing the conservatory-audition route next year. We just got through it and didn’t know what we were doing… But DD has a lot of music friends who are less inclined to jump in as she did, without this sort of information. I looked, but could not find what they asked about. I thought I’d turn to these trusted boards and maybe someone will know what I could not find. I learned a lot in the past by asking, and got a lot of information here. Those of us who have not hired a paid consultant rely on networking.</p>

<p>Five years ago a personal friend’s son applied only to Ivy-league + Ivy-like schools, six in all. He had an impressive HS record and test scores, and a rather challenging background to boot. He was such a “shoe-in” according to all the counselors at his HS and the mavens on this board. He figured he’d be happy to go to any of the schools he applied to, knowing he would not get into all of them.
He didn’t get into any of them. The indignant response he got, again from most who heard his story, was that he should not have applied to only schools that accept in the single digits. That he should have applied to more schools. And what possessed him not to look & consider the stats?</p>

<p>Someone is always ready to argue and disparage. I think giving good information is better.</p>

<p>Thank you all for your thoughtful responses, even the angsty ones. Goodness knows, I have some angst built up from these last few years, too. It would be good to let go.</p>

54

<p>It might be easier to provide some sort of anecdotal stats (based on experiences of our own kids in a particular year on a particular instrument at certain schools) if you narrowed it down to an instrument or major. I know that applying as a composition student is a different experience than applying as a violinist, for instance…</p>

55

<p>Funny you mentioned composition. Son of friend will be applying for just such, but still wondering about his piano playing also. (Not sure which to apply for.)
His parent is wondering about European conservatories as well. He is an EU citizen and an American citizen.</p>

56

<p>I totally understand where you are coming from 205mom. After kid #1 who had known metrics and a fairly predictable process this music thing can be unnerving. I am finding that it’s harder to narrow “safeties” than identify the merit and money reaches. I have identified academic safeties, schools that should be financial safeties but it’s hard to tell for sure and schools where I think he would be accepted for music but who really knows. One strategy that I’m considering is doing an early audition to one of the mid-level schools that doesn’t require a pre-screen. December is early and the timing isn’t great for the rest of our life, but to have one audition done and possibly something in the bag by mid-December could count as a safety if the finances worked. WIth the added time, money and prep of auditions, casting the net too widely in the safety department could dilute one’s energy for the reachy target schools.</p>

57

<p>Maybe we should make a thread about balancing this saintfan. I’m in the same boat and completely lost. Maybe we could list instrument and college choices and ask for feedback. I think I have 1 financial safety. But the school is on the lower end though the teacher seemed ok.</p>

58

<p>I’m feeling like we’ve identified a good range of target schools. I’m having trouble narrowing though, given the uncertainty. It’s like me packing . . . I always want to throw more stuff in the suitcase because “you never know.” I am also still strategizing about early visits. He is looking on the other side of the country so two plane tickets to everywhere ahead of time doesn’t work on top of going back out for auditions and possibly a visit or two after the options are in. </p>

59

<p>When we went though the audition process, DD had identified a pretty sure safety, at out state flagship. She knew the teacher and was pretty well told she would be admitted, and since the academic stats were no issue, she had that in the bag pretty early, She simply was not that excited to go there though. She also applied to a couple of purely academic programs, and we had lots of discussion on if she would go to one of those if none of the remaining music programs worked, since they were a much better fit for her academically than the state school. Then there were all the reaches, and we knew going in that she applied to the most competitive programs for her instrument, and we also know that we could not afford them without some sort of aid. We expected some financial aid, but had no idea about merit. She got in everywhere, which shocked no one as much as it did us! The cost/aid was all over the board, and was not related to the prestige of the music program nor the prestige and difficulty of the academic program. I will say that we were told that at the conservatories the aid was “need based-merit informed” which was explained to mean that no aid would be given without any need, but that the level and type of aid was based in part on merit. I know this doesn’t help much, and it was an exhausting process, but I wish you luck. I think others in this thread have explained the issues with the utility of statistics well, but I think that many teachers are willing to provide some additional detail if asked. The schools may not want that information out there, because they want to be seen as challenging, selective and prestigious in the abstract, while not discouraging applicants.</p>

60

<p>That helps a great deal, actually. I know hard “chances” are just not possible but hearing the variations in experience is very useful.</p>