<p>Ah, this year’s cut discussion comes late! 
For those who read the old ones, you may have seen and clicked on a link to an old FAQ from the MT forum that no longer works. Doctorjohn had some very enlightening things to say on the subject that you may have seen referenced, so I went and dug it up from the original posts of May 26 and June 4 of ‘04. Dang … I was a rising h/s senior then and the MT forum was still just a series of single threads sort of like our 12 part thread … </p>
<p>
[quote]
First, let’s divide the issues. One has to do with numbers. The other with evaluations. </p>
<p>Numbers </p>
<p>It used to be that many schools would admit more students than they could graduate in a performance degree program. The primary reason was that departments were under pressure from administrators to admit a large number of students, based on economic models. But at the same time, administrations were not willing to fund the number of faculty required to teach those students all the way through. </p>
<p>Here’s the problem. You can’t effectively teach acting to a class of much more than 16. It is difficult for administrations to understand that. The predominant model in college teaching is still the lecture, and there is no limit to the number of people who can listen to lectures. Some students will listen, some won’t, and you find that out on the test. Unless the tests have to be graded by hand, there’s almost no limit to the number of students who can be taught this way. </p>
<p>Not so acting. It is kinesthetic, intellectual and emotional work, and it requires feedback, lots of it, from the teacher. If an acting class meets 8 hours/week, and you have 16 students, everyone gets roughly a half-hour of individual instruction per week. That’s adequate. Now imagine what happens if the class meets 3 hours/week and you have 30 students. Six minutes per week of individual feedback is completely inadequate. </p>
<p>Knowing this, most departments have done their best to limit acting class sizes to around 16 and to raise the contact hours as far as possible. But that requires a lot of personnel, and many colleges simply could not provide the necessary faculty to teach the added number of sections. You all need to understand that Theatre departments are in a competitive environment for resources within the university. English, Biology and History need faculty too, not to mention the money that Financial Aid wants for scholarships and Student Affairs needs to renovate the dorms. </p>
<p>So what is a department to do? In the past, many used a “cut” system. They would admit the 40 plus which the administration wanted, teach multiple sections of the beginning work, and then cut the class at the end of the sophomore year. After two years of work, they believed, they could see who had progressed and who had not, and they could make meaningful and fair decisions. </p>
<p>They couldn’t. And the reason has to do with statistics, which theatre faculty typically don’t study. Imagine a class of 40. Standard distribution and common sense tell you that 10 will be at the top in terms of any measure you like–talent, work ethic, progress–and 10 at the bottom. But 20 will be in the middle, and the closer you get to the middle, the fewer the differences between individual students. Anybody can choose the top five from any group of 40, and release the bottom five. (Look at American Idol.) The next five are reasonably clear. But then it gets harder. By the time you’re trying to make choices about numbers 16, 17, 18, 19 and 20, there’s almost nothing to distinguish students. And then it becomes a matter of taste. When that happens, the most powerful faculty member wins, and what that happens, students learn from the moment they walk through the door whom they have to please. You can imagine the results. </p>
<p>That old approach, which is what I mean by a “cut” system, has almost disappeared. CMU abandoned it years ago, as I said, and so did SMU, which is where I taught in the 70’s. It is painful, nearly impossible to administer, destructive of morale, and finally detrimental to the goals of training. In its place, schools have adopted a variety of approaches. One is to admit only as many as they can teach all the way through. CMU does that now, as do we. Another is to create different tracks. SMU has a BFA in Acting, but also a BFA in Theatre Studies. Everyone gets the same acting classes in the first two years, but then the students go in different directions in the last two years. Students know from the beginning what track they’re in. NYU does a version of this, by sending students off to different studios. </p>
<p>Another approach is to have students audition after a year or two to get into the upper-division work. Northwestern does this with its MT program. And virtually every public university with open admissions has no choice but to use this approach. I believe that all these systems are fair, as long as schools are clear about it up front. </p>
<h2>But there are still some schools, I suspect, which have the old “cut” system, which cannot be fairly administered, I believe. Caveat emptor. I would tell you which ones, but honestly I don’t know, but it would be unethical of me to guess. </h2>
<p>EVALUATIONS </p>
<p>"It’s an interesting point - having admitted students with some promise and credentials, do English departments ‘cut’ their undergraduates who aren’t writing up to standard? If the students are really writing badly, they flunk out. If they are simply not among ‘the best’, then they go on to graduate, but may not find immediate success as a novelist or be a successful non-fiction writer. But no one cuts them from a program at age 19-20. </p>
<p>Why the difference?" </p>
<p>That was JrMom’s excellent question, echoed by Susan who wrote, “What is the worst that can happen with that student finishing the program? The student just may not have good career prospects.” </p>
<p>These are not simple questions, and I don’t promise simple answers. But I do think there are two primary reasons. The first has to do with standards and reputations, the second with the nature of the performing arts and how people learn them. </p>
<p>STANDARDS AND REPUTATION </p>
<p>The first reason for using juries and similar evaluation systems is historical: some theatre conservatories are descended from music conservatories which have been doing this sort of thing for centuries. </p>
<p>Juries are an accepted part of the world of music. So much so that Indiana University, my son David’s alma mater (he is a bassoonist), only has to say in its list of requirements for the performance degree, “Entrance audition, freshman jury, upper-division hearing, junior recital, senior recital.” Not much further explanation required. Students understand that they must pass each and every level in order to receive the degree. David tells me that students get two chances to pass these juries; if they don’t pass the second time, they have to find another major. But he also tells me that he knows of it happening only once or twice in his six years at IU. </p>
<p>If that’s true, why do the faculty keep the jury system? Why don’t they simply rely upon grades in courses, including the studio? </p>
<p>Historically, European universities separated professors from tutors. Professors lectured and wrote the examinations, while tutors helped prepare students to pass the exams. Early educators recognized that tutors would have difficulty making hard judgements about students with whom they’d developed a close personal relationship. Examinations, administered by the college, were the only way to ensure that graduating students had mastered an accepted body of knowledge and skills. </p>
<p>American universities, for a variety of reasons, combined the two roles and allowed professors to grade their own students. (That carries its own set of problems.) Nowadays, the only vestiges of the old European model are in: </p>