Theater vs. Sports - High School Choices

College Majors Musical Theater Major
61

<p>Just to revisit the original question that sparked this interesting thread: @TheaterHiringCo, you said “A student that is a legitimate D1 prospect in a major sport will switch schools, attend an incredible prep school for their sport, perhaps even “re-class” (drop a grade to improve recruitment).” Unlike theater hopefuls, prospective college athletes are looking to play with an ubercompetitive team to attract scouts–actors don’t need a great team. Athletes will repeat a year or do a postgrad year in order to get bigger and stronger, not just to hone skills. And they’re still taking a normal courseload; even in a PG program, they are in school during the day, and are usually trying to improve their GPAs so they’re eligible for more elite schools (depending on the sport and division), while I’m pretty sure at many PA schools, the performance classes are woven into the curriculum (I’m sure that’s not universal, but it’s definitely not a typical high school experience). It’s a logical thing to wonder about, but it’s not an apples-to-apples comparison; the motivations are pretty different. The athletes who transfer, repeat, or do a PG year aren’t only looking for a pure sports immersion experience, as much as they want more time to grow, get strong, and improve their overall profiles, have an extra year to improve their stats, and prove themselves by playing on an elite team against the toughest competition. Performers who seek a PA school will be immersed earlier in an intensive arts environment and be focused on their skills, not their stats and measurements. I’m not sure if I’ve said it clearly, but it’s a pretty different path, despite the overlaps.</p>

<p>This is not meant to refute any of the excellent points made in the thread, but rather just to provide a different lens on the original question and the nature of high school athletes who transfer/repeat or do a PG year. This is a “thing” at our school, and I’m very familiar with the process, so I’m not just opining. ;)</p>

62

<p>We have a performing arts high school within commuting distance of us. I looked into the curriculum at one point. The academics were really far off of our excellent public school. They didn’t even have calculus! My D is graduating summa cum laude, top ten in her class, and we definitely did not want to lose the academic rigor at that point in her development. Especially considering she was saying she wanted the BFA in college and we could see there would be less traditional academics there.
We choose to keep her in the excellent academic environment, and seek out the best artistic training opportunities after school and on the weekend. Even though we are in a heavily populated northeastern location, this still resulted in a lot of driving!
Recently we saw our decision not to attend the performing arts school was a wise one when my D competed with a couple of students from the PA school in a Shakespeare competition. They were not very talented and D was not impressed with the lack of training evident in their performance. PA schools are not always the answer.
I will second the comment about community theatre. You can definitely come across some terrible directors in community theatre. One told my D, who has significant training in Shakespeare with pros from New York City, that she needed to “move more” and should “add a gesture every third line.” Of course there are so many things wrong with that direction!! My D was speechless.
You are likely not learning to act in community theatre productions. (Unless you are fortunate enough to get a great director) You are gaining performance experience and valuable audition experience. Before someone jumps on that comment let me just clarify with this - If you were trying to decide which would advance your skills more, acting class with a good teacher or a community theatre production, acting class wins hands down.
And soozievt is so very right about audition experience. It is critical. If you are a parent of a 9th or 10th grader one of the best things you could do for your child right now is get them to as many auditions as possible over the next couple of years. There are many kids who have only auditioned for their school or for people they know, and it is just an entirely different animal auditioning for strangers. Takes practice to get comfortable!</p>

63

<p>Back to the original question: </p>

<p>I happen to have a 15 year old son who is potentially a serious athletic prospect. I also have had three theatre kids.</p>

<p>You say a “student that is a legitimate D1 prospect in a major sport will switch schools, attend an incredible prep school for their sport, perhaps even “re-class” (drop a grade to improve recruitment).”</p>

<p>Well, we don’t have money. Money and time are huge impediments for probably 95% of people no matter what the payoff is. No huge mystery here. Attending an incredible prep school or PAS is just not an option for most of the country. And many PAS have subpar academics I agree with dramamom–many PAS (the two in our area, which my kids could have potentially attended for a fee) are both subpar. There are a few boarding PAS across the country that are simply outstanding on all levels. But these were not an option for my kids, not just because of expense but just because a boarding school was not an option for them.</p>

<p>For my athletic son–Well, academics are still #1. He is attending a top public school with excellent sports. I did move here for that school, but on the other hand, it was not hard to do that for me. If he doesn’t get recruited as a D1 athlete, oh well. </p>

<p>However, I do see your point. People understand that if they <em>do</em> want their kid to be a very serious athlete, they need to have serious training. It’s not the same with acting. I think the difference is that people do not see acting as a rigorous craft. But that is not their fault. Our culture likes to pretend that acting is some sort of ‘talent’ or gift that falls upon a person. Professional Hollywood actors hide their training; one of Jennifer Lawrence’s claim to ‘fame’ is that she is supposed to be a ‘natural’ with no training (this isn’t true). Reality shows act as though it’s purely about ‘talent,’ which is supposed to be God given. So is it any surprise that parents believe that this is purely about talent? And that therefore no rigorous training or competition is needed? </p>

<p>And I think there is a very unfortunate case of classism going on. People ‘in the know’ - usually, upper middle class parents or educated in-the-loop parents - know what is involved. Most do not. It is just not in our culture <em>and</em> most people just don’t have the money. I will never forget a Mason Gross audition my D went to–a bus load of kids from Jersey City came to the audition with their kind teacher. They were excited and exuberant–but none were remotely dressed properly (sweats, dirty shoes) and not a single one got a callback. </p>

<p>My own kids have been fortunate in that we live close to a theatre-rich city and we’ve made use of that with semi-pro and professional auditions, shows, training. But that’s just good fortune; many people don’t live near a city. Once my kids were exposed to professional actors and other professionals, they saw first hand the work and training and persistence that goes into it, so they knew how competitive it was. As to the community theatre–well, you can get bad advice from anyone, from community theatre directors to colleges to Hollywood directors. The most important thing is to trust yourself and be able to extract the good advice, but this is a life skill. </p>

64

<p>I’m finally getting around to reading this thread and it’s fascinating. </p>

<p>I think the reason parents tend to move heaven and earth for sports endeavors vs. for theatrical pursuits is because in theatre, what’s the rush? Other than the dance elements found in musical theatre (and I’ll throw musicianship in there too for things like piano etc.), starting young is not an advantage. Sports and dance are different because they have a shelf life. Muscle memory necessary to excel in dance and in some sports is developed early. If two people are born with equal natural talents and one invests early in training and develops muscle memory and the other trains later, the one that has already moved beyond having to truly think about their moves has freed up their brain to think about the nuances of the sport or of the performance. They will therefore stay ahead of the equally talented but not as well training competitors.</p>

<p>I think acting training and voice training do not have the same sense of urgency created by the biological clock and in fact those skills are often better acquired with more maturity both in terms of life experience and vocal development. So I’m not sure what the point is to enter a college training program with the same depth of experience that one might need in sports or dance. For what? To hurry up and wait when you come out the other end only to discover that you are now trained to be an amazing Reno Sweeney, but you actually will have no chance to see that role for another 15 years? </p>

<p>I don’t have a front row seat to what goes on in college, but I do remember in high school there were kids who had been taking acting and singing classes since they were 10 that by the time high school ends are left in the dust by other students who discovered their passion for singing and acting not until their sophomore or junior year of high school but who had untapped superior natural talents that just hadn’t been nurtured yet. Would it have made any difference had these same superior talents started earlier? I doubt it. They would still not have had the depth of life experience to tackle acting skills that required it and would not be fully developed vocally which they still aren’t even in college. And they would still come out the other end only able to get the roles that were appropriate for their age and even then, be competing with actors 10 - 15 years their seniors who can also play down. What’s the rush? Is college admission the rush?</p>

65

<p>Well, yes. There are 12 year old MT’s preparing for college auditions, right now. For instance, we know a HS freshman who has been on that path since birth. At 7, she was enrolled in voice classes at my D’s old studio and basically cried for 30 minutes once a week. Years later, when a local school decided to do West Side Story she transferred in and somehow snagged the role of Maria. It was a big ruckus and mildly amusing since my kids are thankfully past that stuff, now. But she competes in everything within a 2-hour radius of our town and usually does quite well. She’s talented. And trained. I don’t think she dances, though. And, I doubt she actually acts. So, we’ll see how it goes for her in 3 years. But, yes, for those who are seriously on this path from birth getting a tippy-top BFA MT college admission does seem to be the goal. </p>

<p>TheaterHiring’s comment that kids aren’t going to those schools to be trained because they are already trained was interesting. </p>

66

<p>

</p>

<p>Except it’s not the kids themselves that are on this path from birth, it’s the parents who are on the path and are dragging the kid along for a little forced family fun. The smart money is better placed on the kid who drags their reluctant parents to the path once they are strong enough to do the pushing and pulling.</p>

<p>I don’t know. Maybe it works as a strategy but it’s more than I could stand. Glad my kids, like yours @flossy are past that stuff too.</p>

67

<p>Am I the only one who thinks the push for a D1 school for athletes is at least partially about the “payoff” parents hope pro sports might bring? This is a major difference from the arts world.</p>

68

<p>@evilqueen, you are likely right especially for sports that recruit with scholarships generously and then pay well professionally (football, basketball in particular come to mind). But there are plenty of sports that are chased hard and require incredible commitments that will never be about the pay off in the long run. I suspect some of the push therefore is ego be it sports or arts. Not all ego is bad. Who doesn’t want to see their kids do well or who themselves doesn’t want to do well in what they love? </p>

<p>I’m also a swim mom. Both of my kids swam competitively from the time they were really young through high school. Neither of my kids were ever going to the Olympic trials or going to get all American times nor were we ever counting on swimming for scholarships and college admission at D1 schools but they swam with kids who did. They also swam with kids whose parents spent a lot of time positioning their swimmers to swim in D3 schools where there would be no scholarships and probably little to no admission advantage. Regardless, the parents and sometimes the student too worked the coaches as if it mattered. Ego, bragging rights or simply a love of the sport? </p>

<p>I’m all in favor of a student driven passion. If the ego is the student’s and they are willing to put in the work and drive the chase whether money is on the line or not, I say go for it. Not a big fan of a parent-only driven chase (sports or theatre). Some of that parent stuff makes it as far college but hopefully not too much of it.</p>

69

<p>There are many kids who are pushed & prodded in voice as Flossy points out. I have also seen kids with not that much talent have their wealthy parents pay enormous amounts of money to promote them–cd’s, professional-looking videos, concerts at third tier public venues (heavily promoted). Sometimes it works and the kid gets into a top BFA. But if the student has always been poked and prodded then what often happens when they get into the real world, is they quit and fail. They simply do not have the resilience, the drive nor the inner desire, which you need in spades. They may even land one or two tours or a B’way ensemble. But then they’re done. And what was the point of all that? </p>

<p>As to athletes–it’s just not a good comparison on so many levels. Becoming a professional actor has almost nothing to do with becoming a professional athlete on nearly all levels. I don’t quite understand why the two are often compared on CC. There are any number of avenues a student can pursue that require heavy commitment and which are competitive–becoming an artist, becoming an inventor, becoming a scientist. For instance, to use the last example. it really helps, if your kid wants to go to a top school for science and get a scholarship, if you compete in the Intel Science Talent Search. This takes years of preparation and lab work. Parents who are in the loop or schools that are, work on this for years. Parents who care about science move to go to a magnet school or send their kid to summer camp. </p>

<p>Again, the huge subtext here is money, time and education. You just have to be ‘in the loop’ or have the fortune to go to a school that is. For theatre, you actually can get supported with less money than, say, if your burning desire is competitive horsebackriding. It’s actually more democratic. But again, as to why parents don’t move heaven and earth: money, time, and a cultural lack of awareness that this is a super competitive process needing training.</p>

<p>But ultimately, it has to boil down to the student. They have to want it and work for it. We parents can only support so much.</p>

70

<p>Something that I have read about/seen stories about is the phenomenon that parents sometimes push young student athletes so hard early (elementary and middle school) that by the time the “payoff” might be geting close - (in terms of a college scholarship) kids are burned out. I wonder if that is true in the arts world as well via what sounds like a classic “stageparent” idea that @halflokum mentioned earlier (In the sense that if you are training are very young child- it isn’t the child who really “wants it”, it’s the parents). I certainly know kids who D worked with who were “gung ho” in early teens, and not doing theater at all by senior year. Change of passion? Completely possible. Pushed to hard in one area? Also seems possible</p>

71

<p>I have two kids that are about the same age. When they were pre-schoolers, I did what most parents do and started them in activities/classes. Over the years, they played soccer, took gymnastics, art classes, piano lessons, acting classes, basketball, saxophone, trumpet, etc. The only activity that both of my kids ever begged to continue was acting. Because of that, both kids have been doing some type of theatre non-stop since they were 6 years old. As they got older, they became interested in singing so that was added as well. Both kids continued to excel in academics, and their only extracurriculars since about 3rd grade have been either academic, music, or theatre related — their choice. They hated sports, but always loved theatre and music. Piano was the only activity we ever forced on our children because in our opinion, learning to read music should be like reading, writing and arithmetic–EVERY child should learn to read music.</p>

<p>Now as they have reached their college age, one has chosen to pursue a career in the arts, and the other has not. It will always be his hobby, though. He was, and still is, “gung ho” about music and theatre. He did not push too hard or have a change of passion. He just never intended to follow that path for a career. He has enjoyed every minute of his training and performing, and intends to continue throughout college and beyond. But it will not be his career. His father is a very accomplished musician, plays every single day and even performs occasionally, but it is not his career. Some people just have more than one passion, and choose to pursue one as a hobby. </p>