<p>Jane, I take it that you mean I would be unpleasantly surprised. You are no doubt correct! But learning how to be engaging/lively/get attention in a job interview comes from the same skill set, I would think, as being engaging/lively, etc. in an audition. There's a skill and art to that and it behooves actors to learn how to do it.</p>
<p>Yes, I know what you mean. I think that's how I ended up dodging many miles in a corporate environment and progressing in my day job without too much effort when searching for a job. I think I interviewed well, as I always got the job. Too bad that's not happening on the acting front also!</p>
<p>You obviously have a lot of irons in the fire, what with acting, writing books and working in your day job. Not bad at all! :)</p>
<p>Haha well one has to really. Like right now I am in a 45 hour a week day job, also rehearsing for a big musical production at the weekends, as well as getting an article published in a major paper last week. I think I need a holiday!</p>
<p>"I don't think it's wrongheaded to assume that colleges with low SAT/GPA numbers for admitted students would tend to have fewer motivated students than schools with higher standards."</p>
<p>To assume a student with low SAT/GPA numbers in not motivated is somewhat judgemental and unfair. My d's numbers are low. Based on the SAT/GPA numbers alone she knows she will not be accepted into the schools with "higher standards" and will not bother to apply. But if the schools look past the numbers they would see her entire picture and realize she has alot to offer. Her left brain seems to be nonfuctioning, while her right brain excels. She has no problem getting A's in english and the social sciences but barely passes math and science. She's active in many organizations, loves to read and writes short stories as a hobby. She'll apply to the lower tier schools; if it gives her great preparation in the field she wants to pursue, who really cares where it falls in rankings.</p>
<p>Some people also are not good test takers.</p>
<p>NMR:</p>
<p>Boy that is the truth! My son managed to pull out A's and B's in math at school, but even with intensive tutoring could not get above a 450 (not a typo) on the math part of the SAT. His CR/Writing was 700/800. D just took the sophomore version of ACT and didn't even complete some sections within the time allowed. She'll be doing some work on her test-taking skills/strategy, but who knows?</p>
<p>I never said an individual student with a low score is unmotiveted. My statement is about the college. Of course some students with many academic talents still have difficulty with standardized tests. However, if viewing average scores of large numbers of students at a particular school, one can conclude a great deal about the student body. </p>
<p>Great preparation in one field is a fine reason for choosing a school. But many applicants WILL care about the overall school quality. Different strokes for different folks.</p>
<p>This thread has really veered off from the original topic of what weight should be given to the "academic reputation" of a school if applying to a MT program. There's a lot of interesting and informative discourse to be had when evaluating BFA v BA programs, the opportunity to take L.A. courses, the scope of traditional academics available in various programs and the extent to which the "academic reputation" of a school is relevant in evaluating an MT program. As I posited in an earlier post, in general the availability and quality of traditional academics, in my view, is more relevant when considering BA MT programs rather than BFA programs simply because of the different structures of the 2 approaches. In general, the broader opportunity to avail oneself of general academics in a BA program may very well be the most important reason that one chooses a BA program over a BFA program, depending on your priorities and perspectives; if you want an in depth exposure to traditional acedemics and a school's reputation in that regard is important to you, you probably shouldn't be looking at BFA programs. In most BFA programs, you simply don't have the room and time in your schedule to take much in the way of traditional academics. Nothing wrong with that; in fact, it's very important that students understand the differences between a BFA and BA program when applying to schools and make the choice that is right for them. </p>
<p>To have this discusion devolve into one about SAT scores and what that "tells" you about the student body, in my view, does nothing to add to this discusion. Plus, as others have pointed out, there's a lot more to the make up of a student's abilities, intellect, motivation and character than how a student scores on a standardized test. I spent 6 years doing alumnae interviews for a very prestigious L.A. college where every applicant I interviewed had between a 700 - 800 on each section of the SAT. The only thing they had in common was that they were intellectually bright and motivated, accomplished test takers. It was a sad commentary that other than being driven to rack up the stats to get into an exclusive school, most of the students had very little motivation and direction in their lives other than to wind up in a job where they could make a lot of money. So I guess I could say that a school filled with students all of whom had very high SAT scores will offer an experience in 2 dimensional superficial values. But of course that wouldn't be fair - at least no more fair than to suggest that a school filled with students who reflect a broader range of SAT scores is going to offer a lesser educational experience, particularly based on a stereotype that lower SAT scores means students who are not motivated and passionate about what they are doing nor capable of achieving great educational achievement, growth and success in their chosen endeavors.</p>
<p>So right, as usual, MichaelNKat. Bottom line is that kids and their parents should thoroughly research schools and programs (BFA and BA) before making a college list.</p>
<p>ktmom,
I am here giving you a standing ovation. Don't think of the places your daughter may apply to as lower tier; think of them as out-of-the-box as your daughter. Plenty of gifted students are right-brained and lop-sided. My kid was also a disaster where math and science were concerned and is thriving in an excellent program.
MichaelNKat & NMR, thanks for getting this back on track.</p>
<p>MomOfAPrincess, I was thinking about your post #60 and relating it to the process we went through with our daughter. When we were putting together a list of schools with our D, we were dealing with an interesting mix of parameters. On one hand, our daughter's h.s. academic rigor and GPA were on par with the Ivies. Her SAT scores were very respectable but a notch below "Ivy" levels. Her performance on standardized tests is inconsistent and often does not reflect her actual educational achievement and abilities. She's just not a superlative standardized test taker. So as we "filtered" schools to which she would apply, one of the primary "filters" was no schools that required SAT II's. Other major filters were that the schools had to have very strong and accomplished MT programs and had to meet certain geographic considerations. Some schools that met these criteria got knocked out because our daughter just didn't like the "feel". The result was that she applied to 6 schools, 5 BFA and 1 BA. More BFA's than BA's because after 4 years of heavy academics in high school, our D was leaning strongly towards wanting to really focus on performance training in college.</p>
<p>When the time came to make a decision, our D had 4 acceptances on the table. She knocked out one of them (a school where for the first 2 years there is an even split between academic classes and performance classes) because she concluded it just wasn't a good fit. That left UArts and Syracuse as the remaining BFA programs and Muhlenberg as the BA program.</p>
<p>We all loved Muhlenberg. Strong academics, good reputation, wonderful theatre program and facilities and a very warm, embracing, welcoming atmosphere. After much discussion and rumination, my daughter concluded, however, that she really wanted the singular focus and depth of performing arts training that a BFA provides, so Muhlenberg came off the table. That left UArts and Syracuse. And that's where the deliberations really became interesting and reflected some of the more nuanced issues raised by this thread and your post.</p>
<p>My wife and I are both attorneys, our daughter a high achieving academic h.s. student. Academics have played substantial and material roles in all our lives. And here we were faced with the dilemma of choosing between a small "arts" university with about 2100 students (about the size of my daughter's high school) and a full blown liberal arts and sciences university of 15,000 + undergrads. We had a tough time working through issues of "academic reputation and quality" and getting a handle on the weight and relevance to be given to such factors. It was only when I sat down and charted the BFA curricula at both schools did it become salient to me that in terms of "academics" in reality there did not seem to be much of a material difference between the 2 schools for a student in the BFA MT program. Both schools provided for only 8 electives outside of the department, not enough to even minor in another field. We also concluded that at Syracuse, in order to fit the scheduling of liberal arts classes around the mandated BFA program, our daughter would likely have to fill many of the 8 courses with entry level classes for which there were multiple sections, thereby diminishing the opportunities Syracuse might present to take upper level courses in a particular subject. In addition we considered that while Syracuse's "academic" reputation was better than UArts', the LA arts department at UArts had an approach that integrated the academic courses into the arts curriculum while at Syracuse the academics were separate departments to whom the world and demands of a performing arts BFA program might as well be from another planet. When our daughter concluded that she felt the MT program at UArts was a better fit for her than at Syracuse and expounded that she wanted to "go for broke" and spend the next 4 years focusing on her performance training, we, as parents, pushed aside any trepidation we had over issues of "academic reputation" and fully supported her decision. </p>
<p>It was an interesting process, at times filled with ambivalence and equivocation. It reflects just how important it is for students and parents to be constantly thinking about these issues and asking themselves the right questions, from the very beginning of this process when putting together a list of schools, to the end when decisions are being made.</p>
<p>Michael I think you just walked us through a perfect example of exactly what I was trying to first respond to with my post. The topic was "Top 10 MT" and my post was attempting to point out that "Top 10" is or should be YOUR "Top 10" - a very individualized list that can be totally different between students. For some academics or dance or location or something else will influence what goes on their list or make a school that otherwise people claim on here a "Top 10" not be a "Top 10" for them. </p>
<p>During the application process Syracuse was near or at the top of my D's list. She wanted a large university with selective academic admissions, a college town setting with the classic old ivy covered buildings, a great MT program and an accredited Journalism school. One of her important considerations was she wanted a school where if she decided to change her major or apply to law school someday the original school would work for her and she wouldn't have to transfer. She loved Syracuse's curriculum for MT. Being a lover of snow she even loved the average of 120" of snow. From the brochure and on paper, Syracuse was perfect. Then we visited Syracuse and she couldn't leave fast enough - she absolutely hated Syracuse and couldn't imagine living there for 4 yrs. A few trips later she discovered she actually was looking for Indiana. It's a very individualized process finding your own "fit".</p>
<p>This thread has been a very interesting one. I think at first the goal is just "to get in somewhere..." until you really think about committing 4 incredibly important years to living somewhere you may not be able to tolerate. I know this summer we are doing a Pennsylvania college tour. It is the closest and easiest way to see the largest variety of programs. We are starting in Philly and seeing UArts- a small arts college located in the heart of a city, then on to University Park,PA to see Penn State-a large state University. Last city is Pittsburgh to see CMU and Point Park-both very different from one another, and very different from the first two. Although it is impossible to see everything I think this should be a good example of the different types of programs without having to fly around the country. They also range tremendously in the level of academic strength required with Point Park the least competitive to Carnegie the most. By doing this this summer, I hope my D can have a clearer head when finalizing her list.
On another note-I attended UMich in the late 70's. There was no BFA program but I was able to combine a theatre major with a music minor through the school of Education. As large of a school as it is, my theater and music classes ranged from private voice, to 3 students in piano to 10 to 20 in most of my other music and theatre classes. With the exception of the General Studies101 classes everything was small and intimate---so don't let the overall size of a school immediately discourage you from looking further into it...</p>
<p>Pohsmom - although Carnegie is ranked as very competitive academically, they state they admit based on 80% audition and 20% academics. I think academics is a very very small portion of their BFA program.</p>
<p>Pohsmom, it sounds like you have a great summer game plan that will enable you see an interesting variety of schools. With respect to CMU, don't let its "academic reputation" seem daunting. As was specifically commented upon by the head of the theatre department and the dean of admissions at an info session during my D's audition, the audition counts for "at least" 80% of the admissions decision, academic standards for admission for MT students are significantly relaxed ("We don't expect BFA students to have the same grades, courses and SAT scores as engineering students, some C's won't hurt you) and the theatre department "usually gets who we want"from the admissions department. Also, as indicated by MomOfAPrincess, at CMU, BFA MT students take only a couple of classes outside of the theatre department.</p>
<p>If you would like some suggestions for hotels, local restaurants, shows to see when you are in Philadelphia or have any questions about UArts, feel free to PM me. There is a wonderful production of Les Mis at the Walnut Street Theatre running through the summer and tickets for mid - late summer are still available.</p>
<p>Pohsmom, while in Pennsylvania, try to fit in time to visit the all important non-audition BA school. Muhlenberg is located in Allentown, not too far from Philadelphia. If your child chooses to audition at Muhlenberg, the talent scholarships are very generous.</p>
<p>^ Very good idea!</p>
<p>But no one who is not a very strong student should consider Muhlenberg a "safety." It is very competitive as far as admissions, so be aware of that.</p>
<p>Temple University has a new auditioned BA program in MT -- may be worth checking out while in Philly. If you are looking for other BA schools -- I believe without audition -- DeSales is also in PA, and I think is a non-auditioned program... I would suggest checking out the website.</p>
<p>Have a great trip!</p>