@MTmom2024 you would definitely want to look at which programs do cuts after freshman or sophomore year, that will definitely add to the competitive vibe that you are trying to avoid.
@MTMom2024 - it’s a really good question but one that’s hard to answer on a public forum because there are usually varying opinions and theatre parents get up in arms rather quickly to “defend” their kids’ schools against any perceived criticism.
The other issue is terminology. The opposite of competition isn’t support, so you could be asking which schools have tougher and more professional teaching styles and which have more personal / positive / coaching training styles… Or alternatively, you could frame the question as which schools have students who primaily see each other as competitors and which schools have students who form friendly, supportive cadres?
Few MT programs are still “cut” programs, which is the traditional form of intra-program competition where students are pitted against each other and need to survive the periodic juries were only x% of the class can stay in the major. Cal State Fullerton is the only program I know that still does this but maybe there are others? Most programs will have students competing with each other for casting in school productions.
The MT schools mentioned often here that I think of as more professional / tough (vs personal / positive) in their teaching styles are CCM, Roosevelt/CCPA and AMDA. That’s based upon comments from current and past students, not personal experience.
I’ve heard CMU is one of the strictest/toughest programs as well. My kid is also searching for a more disciplined program like that.
On the flip side, slightly less rigorous programs out there might be Drake or Ohio. But, of course, they have their more structured rules as well.
@MTMom2024, when exploring which programs have a more or less competitive vibe, one aspect to look at is performance opportunities. Are there very few performance opportunities and everyone is competing for them? Or does everyone get a chance to perform?
For example, my daughter goes to the Hartt School, and that program treats each class as its own self-contained repertory company. So the sophomore MTs do two to four shows a year that are ONLY cast with sophomore MTs, the junior MTs do two to four shows a year that are ONLY cast with junior MTs, etc. And there is guaranteed casting in each class, so every year you’re guaranteed to be cast in one fall show and one spring show. The shows are an integral part of the BFA curriculum and are considered part of the training (not something “extra” that students might or might not get cast in).
I think this approach create a more collaborative atmosphere that’s not competitive, because all the students are guaranteed to be cast, so they’re not competing against each other for roles.
NOTE: I’m NOT saying this approach is “better” or “worse” than other approaches. Some kids really thrive in a competitive atmosphere and it brings out the best in them.
It’s just one more aspect to consider as you’re exploring different programs. As always, it’s all about the best fit for your particular student.
@TexasMTDad @MTMom2024 To clarify, I meant by my post the vibe at the school rather than the competition to be admitted and I agree, based only on my D’s friends’ collective experience, that “cuts” seem to contribute to a more competitive vibe.
In terms of “cuts” I am putting that in quotes because, in case folks are not already aware (and I am new to the process so perhaps this is more common knowledge than I think), we found that a number of schools say that they do not do official cuts but they do do evaluations at the end of freshman (and sometimes sophomore) year that can result in a student being “moved” out of the BFA program to a BA program.
@AnxiousNovice a cut program is much different than what happens in a non-cut school with juries. A cut school (very few exist at this point) has a pre-set number of students they aim to reach at a certain point in time. So a cut school may enroll 20 students with an aim to have a graduating class of 12, maybe deciding to reduce the class by 2 each semester. So the students do the juries/barrier reviews at the end of the semester and two of those kids will be cut, no matter what. They choose two kids who will no longer be in the BFA program. Maybe the students can transition to the BA and maybe they’ll leave the school (or change to a non-theatre major). I don’t know how this helps any artist grow. Artists in educational programs can grow by learning to take risks in a safe, supportive environment, and many of those risks won’t pay off, but if you’re always afraid that if you make the wrong choice, you might be the mandatory one to be cut, you may often decide to take the safe road and how does that help?
In a jury school that does not have a cut policy, students may do juries or barrier reviews each semester, and yes, some students may not be moved on. But it’s not a departmental policy to cut A specific number of students. The students who are asked to leave the program are typically students who are not doing the work required of them, because if they were, they would be producing work in the jury that allows them to continue. It’s not about pure talent. It’s the growth they’re experiencing by doing the work. And make no mistake, the work of a BFA MT program is intense and demanding work.
My own kids who have attended schools with juries/barrier reviews have really valued the feedback they’ve been given following those reviews. A good school will provide feedback to help the student know how to progress in their skills. In some schools, students might be encouraged to take a specific elective class the following year to build specific skills that the professors feel would be helpful to them as artists. In both of my older kids’ schools, there was at least one student who did not progress with the BFA, and in both cases the students, while talented, did not have the passion to do the work that needed to be done. In both cases, the department gave more than one chance to step it up before they decided to not advance the students.
As someone who went through all of this as a student — decades ago — and now as a teacher, I can tell you that times truly have changed. I did attend a school that was a “cut” school based on juries. We really didn’t know anything different and things got serious near jury time and highly cutthroat, because it was that school’s policy to cut a minimum number of people each time. To “prune” its program. I lasted a year-and-a-half there and then left for another program. I honestly had never known anxiety and stress until introduced to this. None of my peers were collaborative. No one encouraged each other, supported each other — worked together. Everyone was out for only themself. I started having panic attacks and completely shutting down. So, I left. It took me two more tries to find the right school for me in music and theatre. But when I found it, I found a program that was nurturing and helped everyone grow in the areas they needed to. And a program that expected everyone to pull their own weight, be accountable and responsible (sometimes with arts kids, that falls “off” at college) and to work hard. I had some awesome opportunities in this program (to work on the premiere of Jekyll and Hyde as an intern) and a lot of my experiences in college led me to decide to work with youth and teens. I realized I had not been adequately prepared for college performing arts programs. I barely visited the programs before I decided. I didn’t know who the faculty were and what they believed in or how and what and HOW they taught. So, what I tell all the kids I work with now is that I want them to find somewhere to invest their four years in that feels “right.” Somewhere that is nurturing and collaborative. Somewhere that they feel the peers there are more like family, than constantly competitors. Yes, there will be competition. But you are going to spend four years with these people and faculty. Make sure you like them. And make sure you feel like you’ll be treated well and taken care of. Try to shadow classes if allowed. Talk to more of the faculty than just the Director. See what the retention rate is from incoming freshmen. How many stay in the program through senior year? (Not just from booking.) Find a recent graduate of the program and ask them questions. Real questions.
I agree with @onette . I think getting caught up in rankings you will miss the mark finding a fit for your child. I know plenty of kids who obsessed with rankings, attended the highest-ranked school they were admitted to and were not happy. I know they would have been happier at a different school but they let the ranking guide their decision over other factors. There’s plenty of info out there about people’s experiences and you can find negative dirt on many programs (many listed in the top 10) where people are dissatisfied or worse feel hurt or harmed by the intensity or behavior of some people in the program and equal or more people who had great experiences and thrived. Some of that can be due to the kid or the program. But you have to take each experience with a grain of salt/but file in the memory bank and know how your kid is built and find what works for them. Most of the top programs do produce people who find work consistently - but when you have the pick of the crop is it that hard to do that? There are plenty of others who found their own path.
That said I think other factors are the quality of the training, opportunities to perform and work with industry people, alumni network/support and debt load burdens for those of us not blessed with the money tree.
@intheburbs, I agree and that is why I was interested in hearing everyone’s unique Top 10 list based on what they value as important. 
@NeensMom that might be interesting but you’d want to hear why it works for their kid. For example if your kid is classically trained singer, wants a small campus, etc vs someone who is acting focused, and collaborative environment etc. I’d suspect we all have lists that hit some of the marks for our kids and some outside either to broaden chances and or there isn’t enough info on the program because it’s new or transitioning leadership.
- CMU
- UMICH
- CCM 4 BOCO 5 Penn State
- Tx State 7 Baldwin Wallace 8 Syracuse 9 Ithaca
- Montclair or Point Park?
I 100% agree with fit and will throw out I attended a top tier university (not MT, and 20 years ago), but also took some classes at a no name school people even two hours away had never heard of. By far, I felt the professors from the no name school better prepared me for real life. The top tier university professors were tops in their field, but definitely not the best teachers. While the “name” school did provide better connections on a national level the individual success of each student was much more about the individual student than the school.
These are the schools I think have a reputation as being the best programs, not who I think have the best programs. I’m listing them because I find it helpful when compiling a “balanced” list to know which schools people see as top tier while recognizing it’s extremely subjective.
Fit is not the same thing… the top three schools (on my list) are all completely different programs and I think someone who is being completely honest would only find one of those three to be a great fit for them.
- Michigan
- CMU
- CCM
- NYU
- BoCo
- Pace
- Texas State (definitely a rising star)
- Penn State
- Point Park (another rising star)
- Elon or Syracuse or UNCSA?
One more thought…programs change every year. Some of the above programs appear to rely on their reputation, their ability to attract already successful students , and what has worked for them in the past. Other schools are investing a great deal into building strong programs and will someday have or may already have superior programs to the above. It takes longer to build the reputation than the program. A few I consider to be rising stars would be Shenandoah, Ohio University, and Webster as well as many more.
@wimom16 - I’m happy to hear your very sensible perspective and I want to ask a tactless question in the hopes of hearing an honest, informed answer. I am NOT trying to start a flame war at all so please understand that. I am not a theatre professional, just a parent, and I’m on the west coast so when we looked at schools for my D 3 years ago much of what we used to judge a quality program was based on internet searches and one criteria I felt was an objective measure of quality was the success of a program’s alumni. Obviously that skews the rating in favor of established (older) programs but I’ve seen enough to completely concur and support your rating of Pace, Elon, Penn State and Point Park as top programs. The one I don’t understand is Texas State. I know everyone says it’s a top program … but I don’t know why? I checked on the success rate of their alumni - the program has been graduating seniors for a while - and it isn’t overwhelmingly impressive. Some perfomers go on to professional success but that’s the same as most good programs. I’m not trying to diss TX State - I don’t doubt it provides excellent training and attracts top talent - but I would love to know the criteria you feel supports its inclusion as a “top ten” program, given how many really good MT programs with excellent training exist across the US. Thanks in advance!
I can’t quite pin down why, but I think almost everyone would say that Texas State is in the top tier. I think the personal attention that they pay to their students is top notch. Also more selective than most. Tough to even get past the pre-screen.
I think TXST is popular with kids because they are one of the best schools on social media. They and their students post frequently, whereas other programs are spotty if at all. It creates a strong impression on young people who are glued to their phones. I think parents like it because of the cost. They also promote their mental health class which this gen values a lot. Kaitlin is also very visible and in interviews and Facebook loving on her kids. Overall it seems like a great program, but not sure why it’d be stronger than many similar programs. I think if they all did better social media you’d see their popularity rise.
Excellent question! And great for pointing out just how subjective my list is, because I really have no idea other than I “hear” great things which again goes to reputation. I also agree that the success of the alumni is one of the less subjective qualifiers, but again, the top programs attract the top talent so it’s highly possible those students would have been successful regardless of whether they had attended a specific college or not. If you look at Oscar/Tony winners you’ll find a very diverse list of schools and many with no school at all so I don’t think school is as big of a predictor of success as we would like it to be.
Thanks for all of your feedback - that kind of confirms what I was thinking. It’s a program with a lot of “buzz” and that makes sense if they’re very active on social media. I’m sure it’s a great place to land, I was just curious what gave it an edge over other great places to land!
It’s funny bc in my head, solely as a parent, I have 2 separate top 10 lists. One for conservatory programs and one for larger universities! Lol I have a hard time intermingling them just bc the process in each is SO different even though he outcome produces great performers from each! KWIM?!
How did Emerson College not make anyone’s list? https://www.emerson.edu/programs/musical-theatre-bfa
I would raise up Oklahoma City BTW and exchange this program out with something else like Pace maybe or lessor known schools. If your talking top ten ???
The other big issue here is: how does one define “success” in a graduate? Some people have a very narrow definition of that (performing on Broadway), others one that’s a little wider (performing enough to make it one’s living, might be national tours, regional companies, off-Broadway, cruise ships, concert engagements, theme parks), and still others define “success” by whether the graduate finds meaningful and well-paying work that’s fulfilling to them, regardless of the field. So, even that is a subjective metric. There are over 1000 students who will go to school for a BFA in musical theatre in the fall … where will they live? Will they have families? Will they all move to New York and secure representation and Equity membership? Will they settle in markets with strong regional theater presences? Will they need a “survival gig” or does that matter? Sooooo many variables to consider when defining whether a program puts “successful” graduates out into the world.