<p>This brings up a good point - much like college athletes going to a certain school because of a great coach, our MT kids often select a school because of the MT program director and faculty. Kids must keep in mind that there is no guarantee that program head will always be at that school - so they should like the program and school itself also. </p>
<p>The hardest part for me and my D not choosing Syracuse was how much we both liked Ralph Zito as program director…</p>
<p>@TheaterHiringCo With respect to recruiting, do you think schools will make increasing use of videos in order to see kids from around the country (or world)? It seems that with the increase in prescreens, and with both theaters and schools sometimes being willing to use video auditions, perhaps that is a next logical step?</p>
<p>A related question, TheatreHIringCo, would be, how many schools that required prescreens actually auditioned fewer students as a result? How many did not get through the prescreen round? I may have missed it, but I didn’t see anyone comment on CC about not passing a prescreen, nor have I heard of anyone from the other contacts I have in the theatre world. </p>
<p>Personally, I don’t see the level of recruitment for theatre kids reaching the level for sports kids anytime soon. </p>
<p>@elsacc and @alwaysamom - I am not deeply involved enough to know how pre-screens are affected or how videos will/can be used, but as an outsider I see the trend developing. </p>
<p>Video auditions make less sense for colleges because knowing the student is so important, seeing how they take direction.</p>
<p>However - if people think that paying Mary Anna Dennard all that money for coaching alone is worth it, so be it - reality is that you pay her for her connections as much as anything else. </p>
<p>The thought that high school seniors are going off to mid-top tier musical theatre programs to develop skills is more naive, I think. If you want to get into a big school, you need to be prepared or transcendentally good. </p>
<p>I wanted to edit what I said earlier. It isn’t naive to think they will develop SKILLS. It is naive to think they will start developing them there.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Here is some data from the Final Decisions: Background Class of 2018 thread regarding prescreens:</p>
<p>14 Applicants passed all prescreens</p>
<p>8 Applicants did not pass one or more prescreens:
Michigan 3 DNP
Otterbein 4 DNP
Oklahoma 2 DNP
Texas State 3 DNP
Shenandoah 2 DNP
Pace 2 DNP
Penn State 1 DNP</p>
<p>(another count may produce slightly different results, some of the posts are subject to interpretation - I only counted the posts that seemed very clear to me)</p>
<p>Clearly, some schools are winnowing out their audition pool through prescreens.</p>
<p>Students represented on CC may be more attuned than the general population as to the competitiveness of the process – so, some may have not sent in prescreens to highly competitive schools they felt wouldn’t be a reasonable fit for them. Students who have done little research/preparation are much more likely to get stopped at the prescreen level - think the student who watches Glee, and American Idol, and was in the ensemble of one show their junior year - Yes, those people audition! I don’t know that any school will publish their numbers, but I am willing to bet the number not invited to a live audition is substantially higher than indicated in EmsDad’s post. If schools didn’t think it would be worth their while to decrease the number of auditions by prescreening, they wouldn’t be doing them - and more schools wouldn’t be jumping on the prescreen band wagon.</p>
<p>I have heard that the prescreens eliminate between 20-30% of applicants; so if you have 1000 applicants you still have at least 700 after the prescreen. It may not seem like a lot but the volume adds up.</p>
<p>I don’t know about many schools, but one we were at mentioned prescreen numbers similar to what @evilqueen mentioned, so I suspect that is in the ballpark at least (or should I say in the theatre/house?). </p>
<p>My D didn’t pass the 3 prescreens she submitted. But I would caution about the Glee/school ensemble generalization for kids who don’t pass the prescreens or are in HS ensembles v. lead roles. While there are some of those kids out there, there are a lot of different situations. I’ve posted some of this elsewhere before, but my D was playing competitive softball until HS. I turned her on to musicals as we listened to them in the car driving to softball tournaments (and she doesn’t watch much TV, not even Glee). </p>
<p>So she started voice and dance lessons “later” in her life (hard to believe starting at 14-15 years old is late in life!). I know she has musical talent and a good ear - she played piano, violin, sang since 5th grade, got a 5 on the AP music theory test. She just hasn’t had enough voice lessons to come into her voice yet. So she was in ensemble/minor roles in her HS musicals. But she is also good at singing harmony parts (actually prefers that), which is much needed in musicals. </p>
<p>While I didn’t take @MT4Life’s comment as personally directed my D, I have seen a lot of similar comments that have a negative tone towards kids that get excited about music and theatre. I think that is unfair to those kids. My D understands the odds and I know a lot of these kids don’t, but chasing your dreams is what this country is supposed to be all about. And to tie back to the original post in at least a small degree, we saw a lot of kids (and their parents) chasing their dreams in sports who also didn’t know how much work it took outside of team practices/games (weren’t taking private lessons or practicing on their own). So I think you get that in all fields of endeavor. </p>
<p>And to tie back to the OP in a bigger way, I don’t think it ever crossed our mind to look for a performing arts school after our D expressed serious interest in MT. There are probably some schools around with better programs than our HS, but we chose to spend our $$ on voice lessons and dance classes. And she never asked about this. Besides, D’s friends were going to the local HS, and one of her younger brothers is there too now. It just would not have seemed right to move away from that. </p>
<p>But we also would not have done that for sports either. Again, we spent the money for private lessons, plus a lot of our time taking her to those lessons, tournaments, etc. But we chose where we live in part because the school district is good - why change? (Yes, that’s rhetorical)</p>
<p>@raellis123 – I certainly did not mean that everyone who was “redirected” via prescreen was of the Glee/American Idol ilk, and who decide to audition for musical theatre more or less on a whim – but there are really more of those out there than some people realize. When those shows became popular, there was a huge increase in the number of people auditioning. There are students auditioning who really are not in any way prepared for the process. There are other students auditioning who prepared, but maybe did not have audition material that showed them to their best advantage, or were not what a particular school needed. There are students who came to their passion later, and haven’t had the advantage of years of preparation. Some schools seem more likely to look at “diamonds in the rough”, while others have the luxury of seeing only those they consider the cream of the crop. If last year’s class was heavy in legit sopranos, a school may be looking for more belters this year. Almost everyone will attest to the fact that sometimes there is no apparent rhyme or reason to acceptances and rejections.</p>
<p>I know a performer with 8 Broadway credits, who decided after undergrad to pursue performing – so finding a passion and a path to follow a bit later is possible - it may just be a different journey than some others take.</p>
<p>@MT4Life just like you said some schools tend to look for diamonds in the rough, many look for the balance , while certainly others look for that polished performer. I think we were surprised that there seemed to be a number of them looking for the polished performer. </p>
<p>I know of a family that has sent two of their kids to boarding schools, one for sports, the other for performing…with scholarships or they wouldn’t not have been able to go. Another sent theirs senior year to a PA boarding school and felt like it was a waste. Like finding the “fit” with a college it all comes down to personal choice . I know personally my D wanted to have a typical HS experience.</p>
<p>I think some kids that have done PA schools feel burned out by college. Just like some of the “glee” effect kids are not aware of the amount of work, some of those that have done nothing but performance schools feel burned out. That is why we see the drops from programs. While some kids have a clear vision of what they want to do, college for most is a time to explore what they want to do.</p>
<p>I think pre screens have many great elements but they added a whole other layer of pressure really early in the process. I saw my role in D’s audition journey as handling “the details” (scheduling auditions, booking travel, printing headshots/resumes, double checking everything) so that all she had to worry about was the actual performance. Filming etc had me super stressed- no matter how often schools said they weren’t looking at the “quality of the video” I was terrified that my non-expert skills might keep her out of a school she was really interested in. </p>
<p>My problem with what I have seen in various posts over time on CC is an opinion my many (certainly not by all) that kids who haven’t been doing voice/dance/acting since their single-digit years have “no business” trying out for BFA programs or aspiring to be on Broadway. I believe that perspective runs contrary to the “pursuit of happiness” ideals of our country. And in these CC forums the Glee comment seems to be applied to many/most of those sort of kids, even though there are actually a variety of circumstances (as @MT4Life lists above). </p>
<p>I agree there are people out there who are unprepared for this process (and I saw the same thing in the sports world). Being a free-market type person, I believe the process will work this out. While they were stressful to prepare for in the fall, I like the idea of prescreens and I think it is good that more schools are going to them. As a parent/consumer of the product these universities offer, I would rather know in Dec/Jan that my kid wasn’t making the cut. It would have saved us a lot of time & money not going to on-campus auditions and Unifieds. </p>
<p>And I think this ties to the original question in this post - why don’t people put more kids in PA schools like you see for sports? Some people never think of it, some don’t know that it is available, some want their kid to have a “normal” HS life with their friends, and probably many other reasons. But there are many paths to a professional performance career and a PA school while great for some kids, isn’t the answer for everyone.</p>
<p>I would like to add that I hope recruiting in high school for performing arts never becomes a thing. I don’t like it in sports and I wouldn’t like it here. My D is heavily involved in MT outside of school. School is her “safe” place. They are HIGH SCHOOL kids, can’t we let them enjoy that without worrying about if their school is on some recruitment list?? </p>
<p>Recruiting in PA high schools is a thing now. It’s just not a well-known publicized or advertised thing. But, it happens.</p>
<p>That just makes me sad.</p>
<p>There are exceptions to every rule- my D is excited to see “Million Dollar Arm” this weekend (she know a kid who has a small role) which as I understand it (I have seen the preview- that’s it) is about a pair of kids from India trying out for MLB. they have never played baseball (though they have played cricket) and but have raw talent. I am certain that theater works the same way. There are people who are successful (in college auditions and more importantly what comes after) with extensive “training” to polish talent- and who have virtually no “training” but extensive raw talent. BUT- I can’t imagine a person who intends to be a professional athlete saying “I don’t need to train- if I have enough talent it will all work out”. There are Cinderella stories, but most people in BOTH groups work on it for years- whether they start at 8 or 18…and those who don’t start until later have to catch up.</p>
<p>I agree that most people in sports and music/theatre understand that they need to train. But you would be surprised at the number who don’t even in environments where one would think they should know better. My D was a pitcher and played travel ball (non-elite level) for 3 years, plus school ball, and we met several people along the way who thought their kids should be able to pitch just because they were good athletes, even though they weren’t prepared for pitching. My D had a private pitching coach, went to clinics, plus she would pitch a hour a day most days in addition to any team practices/games (plus additional time working on her hitting technique with a different coach, clinics, etc.). </p>
<p>The parents I mentioned had no idea the work that was involved, especially in winter. But we would see some of those kids at tryouts each August, even if they couldn’t throw the ball near the plate. I think the “Glee people” referenced earlier are in the same boat - interested but really no idea what it takes. In both cases some of them want to learn what is required, then they work at it and try to catch up. But others don’t believe even if you tell them. And while I do have less sympathy for those folks, I still think they have every right to try out for any program they wish. It’s highly unlikely they will get selected (theatre, softball, or whatever), but they should get their shot at it. </p>