Warning U of A

<p>I have been following this thread and I have to agree that I believe a school should have some loyalty to the students it had chosen over transfers. I don't believe it's the right thing to cut such a huge number of students to accept a bunch of transfers. That is just bad policy and shows how unconcerned they are for their own students (in my opinion). It seems as though they are saying..."well we don't like how these ones are turning out...let's get some new ones." What if the transfers don't perform as well as THEY should? </p>

<p>I can absolutely see a cut policy that releases a student from a program if they don't show up for class, aren't doing their work, etc. But not because they feel they are getting better transfers. I believe that a college is a place to learn. To say that this is how it will be in the real world does not justify this to me as a sufficient explanation. This is not the same. </p>

<p>I do appreciate Ms. Bagwell informing everyone of their school's policy. I'm sure it's an eye opener for many who will be applying.</p>

<p>I'm piping in again. Many of you know me for my honesty, so if you don't want to hear what I'm going to say, you might want to close your browser window now...</p>

<p>"I don't believe it's the right thing to cut such a huge number of students to accept a bunch of transfers"</p>

<p>The UofA doesn't cut to a certain number - they have a maximum class size (based on faculty resources - low student:teacher ratios for more one-on-one time with students), but they don't cut/admit to reach that number. That is not part of the consideration. The three T's: talent, trainability and tenacity - these are all considerations that are made.</p>

<p>Believe me, cutting students that you have grown to love over the school year is extremely hard. While at UofA, I personally witnessed (and shed) tears over the heartbreak in making cuts. I experience the same thing at my current school. Believe me, the teachers aren't glib in the decision sessions - I've heard again and again, "This is people's LIVES we are talking about here, folks!" But that argument can also be the reason that cuts are made...because this is a PROFESSIONAL ACTOR training program. Students know this coming in - that not all students will advance. Transfer students might come in with more talent, and will not be penalized for taking their preliminary study at a junior college, another university that wasn't a fit for them, or as a UofA freshman or sophomore liberal arts student. Students in the liberal arts track may not have known about the need to audition into the BFA as a freshman; in these cases they are naive, but not always untalented - in fact, they have to work very hard to keep up on their chops, (without the resources devoted to BFA kids), in order to remain competitive.</p>

<p>After investing a year (or two in some cases), you can tell if a student has the three Ts mentioned above. If the student is not advancing at a rate that prepares them for the next level of study, they are not viable in the program. Period. Passing them to the next level, when that will be certain failure, is unkind, unjust, unscholarly (is that even a word, Eve?), and also reflects badly on the department who has to account for retention, graduation rate, attrition, etc. (administrative "bean counters" make sure of this).</p>

<p>However I'm torn on the issue of students not knowing this was coming, especially because I wasn't there in the classroom, in the voice lessons, in the rehearsal hall, in the performance space, nor in the jury audition. Typically, students will hear the same comments in feedback throughout the year - those weaknesses or habits that are not being addressed sufficiently and still need attention. In class, they may be bright, diligent, pleasant, excellent students, and responsive to coaching (where the TEACHER is really the creative artist); but the juries are NOT to be coached by faculty...a fact I haven't heard addressed here. As faculty, we are told "hands off the jury material," so that we can see where the student is as a self-sufficient artist. We expect that after a year (or two) of study, the students should be able to bring a certain amount to the plate on their own, in a high pressure environment (as auditions always are). In my experience, this is where many a jury student fails: in bringing it on their own, and aslo evidencing this in the jury audition when the pressure is on. Even though they may have made great growth in the safe environment of the classroom, if they can't transfer that to the jury, how can we expect that they can transfer it to the performance stage with an audience (a much more stressful situation)?</p>

<p>That is one common element among professional training programs - the ability to learn and grow into self-sufficient artists who are viable (at the end of only four years, or less for transfers) to work professionally, without a safety net. I don't know what the students were hearing in the classroom, rehearsal hall, and in their jury results, so I can't say whether or not they had any idea of their weaknesses. Nor do I know whether or not they were able to show their best work in the jury audition. (I do admit the numbers cut this year are very high...as Prof. Bagwell pointed out, as well as acknowledging the unusual nature and rarity of this high number).</p>

<p>BTW, they have the opportunity to talk to the entire performance faculty about the reasons why their jury was insufficient...they should use that opportunity to find closure to some degree.</p>

<p>The same competition that draws students to a top-notch training program can be a double-edged sword. The competition level helps make the training excellent (as you are studying with the best students possible), and it is also reflective of the professional world you have chosen. It also means that there is a very tangible potential to be cut, based on both objective and subjective criteria. This should definitely be a consideration when choosing a school...how you, personally, would be able to handle the financing, disappointment, demands, expectations, numbers and limitations of each program you consider. YOU are the customer, but you have to be sure that you aren't expecting more than what a program is. What you feel it SHOULD be is not relevant. It is what it is. </p>

<p>So, YES, shop wisely. Shop in advance. Ask questions. Find out when the potential cuts are made. Ask if there is a target number. Find out if transfer students are admitted regularly. TALK TO THE CURRENT STUDENTS - not just the students that the department can hook you up with (because at any school, those are likely be students who have had a great experience there), but go to the campus and talk to the students you see in the halls or the greenroom. See if you can observe classes and/or rehearsals. See a production there, if possible. Do your homework before accepting. I know this sounds expensive, but there is much you can do before narrowing down and traveling to visit - thank the lord for the internet!!! And better an expense now than a greater expense and TIME investment in a school you won't be happy attending.</p>

<p>And, I would also point out that musical theatre is THE most expensive performance art form there is!!! You need sheet music, librettos, CDs to research material, occasionally an accompanist or vocal coach, voice lessons, dance clothes, dance shoes (in triplicate), tickets to see live theatre as often as possible, theatrical makeup, vitamins and good food to keep you healthy, etc. The list goes on and on. These are not expenses that are usually covered by tuition. If you are concerned about the expense, this field may not be a viable option for you at this point.</p>

<p>Okay, I've rambled and preached enough. I just strongly feel that forewarned is forearmed.</p>

<p>eve</p>

<p>I need to offer a sincere thank you to Professor Himmelheber for the information from an administrative point of view. I appreciate you taking the time to provide your perspective on this very important issue. I hope this thread continues so all of those up and coming auditioners can be forearmed!</p>

<p>Also, thanks to Ms. Bagwell for so graciously submitting the U of A’s side on this subject. I have not processed all of the specifics that you both have submitted, but when I do, I hope I can ask a few more questions and you will both be willing to answer them.</p>

<p>I am so impressed with all of the articulate, knowledgeable, and insightful posters that have replied on this conversation. Keep those coming!!</p>

<p>this is my first post on here...</p>

<p>i graduated, last month, from the BFA program at the U of A...and as such i have been through all the rounds of auditions and cuts...i have seen the process and seen what kind of heartache it can cause.</p>

<p>but at the risk of being callous, i must say that it really does help a person prepare for a world in this business. arizona is extraordinarily up-front about cuts...in fact most of us students talk about them all year long before they happen...you KNOW that you might be cut. and given the incredible talent of your classmates and the ridiculously professional quality of the shows they produce...you KNOW that there is a GOOD chance you might be cut. so if you didn't make plans for your future...that is no one's fault but your own. you can make plans 'just in case.' in fact...my advisors on the acting/MT faculty always instructed me to prepare as if i would NOT be retained. </p>

<p>very talented people have been cut. and so have not-so-very-talented people. the same goes for people who weren't cut. but i can assure you that no one has ever been cut in my time here for ANY reason other than...there is someone who fits better into the program and there are only so many spots available. </p>

<p>they don't cut to be mean. they don't cut for fun. they hate it. every one of the seven people who make those decisions...on a personal level...has told me that it is their LEAST favorite part of their job. </p>

<p>they do it for the best interest of the program. and, as someone said many posts back....the proof is in the pudding.</p>

<p>U of A's shows are of as high a level as any university in america...and the program offers more training and a higher quality of training than anyplace i have seen. </p>

<p>it's not easy to get back in. but this business isn't easy. UA prepares you for that.</p>

<p>Welcome, Goldy! Your first-hand-knowledge is a lovely addition to the mix.</p>

<p>:)</p>

<p>I just remembered, when reading your post, that JACK WAGNER was cut from the program years back (no A.R.T. formally then, but the structure was all exactly the same). He was depressed for a while, then got tired of moping and pulled himself up by his boot straps, moved to LA, started taking classes, worked his tail off, and finally got a big break playing Frisco, and from their the big TV roles kept coming in. As far as I know, he has never played in classical theatre...something that the UofA stresses highly in their upper division training, and the reason why many of the cuts are made (students not yet ready to handle the period and style work required).</p>

<p>So that just goes to show you that what the faculty states, in every performance-based class syllabus and in jury result letters, that the students' performance/grades at UofA is not reflective of their professional potential, is true.</p>

<p>Sing from the heart,</p>

<p>eve</p>

<p>Professor,</p>

<p>So true is the point that you make about Jack Wagner. In fact, many of the cuts that are made happen simply because the student's style is so different from the one that is emphasized at UA. </p>

<p>One of my best friends was cut from the program years ago and upon asking the faculty 'why' he was told that he was very gifted and they felt like his voice/look was more suited for film than the classical stage. </p>

<p>This faculty makes decisions that they hope will benefit both student and program. I believe that, anyway.</p>

<p>I worry that this question will sound provocative, and I honestly hope it does not, because it is an honest question:</p>

<p>Several people here have stated that U of Arizona's cut program is fairly administered and prepares students for the real world. I want to know:</p>

<p>How do U of Arizona graduates fare in the real world, once those who are not cut graduate? Can someone name a number of U of Arizona <em>graduates</em> (in other words, people who were not cut) who have gone on to be in the forefront of their fields in live theater (musical and straight drama), TV, film, etc.?</p>

<p>Please be assured that I don't think that only programs with a long list of names the likes of Sutton Foster and Kristin Chenoweth are the only ones whose grads are successful. But I would like for someone to post the names of successful grads. (As a personal standard, I would call someone successful in theatre if they could largely support themselves doing it, or at least get paid regularly for doing it on a regional level. But for our purposes, I am talking higher profile.)</p>

<p>I guess, as a parent, what bothers me about U of A's cut policy is not that they seem to just cut kids who are not measuring up. They sound as if they actually cut kids who are measuring up in favor of kids who they ascertain are better, and want to transfer in. </p>

<p>Being cut probably does prepare a student for the harsh "no's" that the real world will bring in theater. But it also can leave a college student high and very dry at the end of half a year of college, or even after junior year! That is not a good position to be in, I am sure. Some programs won't even take transfers, and if a student were actually to prepare herself or himself by auditioning elsewhere in case he or she was cut, well, that takes time and money to do, too (audition and application charges, travel to auditions, etc. Not to mention having to answer the adjudicators' question: Why are you thinking of leaving U of A? Um, well, I worry I may be cut and if I am, I need somewhere to go. Hard to imagine that conversation.)</p>

<p>Also, college is not the real world. It's preparation for the real world. In the real world of theatre, one would not be paying tens of thousands of dollars to audition and to perform. </p>

<p>I am sure there are very valid reasons to have cut programs in place, and that most schools - including U of A -- exercise them in a reasonable way. But from the outside, it sure sounds cut throat and scary! Then again, I don't have the talent or the guts to do what these kids do, so bravo to them. :)</p>

<p>i will try to do some research to address your first question. i am not too well versed as to where graduates from more than a few years ago are working...but the few i know...</p>

<p>craig barna (national tour of peter pan)
ben crawford (bill sykes in oliver at the MUNY opera house in st. louis)
matthew bailey (cinderella and a most happy fella at new york opera)
mandell maughan (spike tv specials, as well as the star of toyota's new mobisoded based on the television show 'prison break')
catherine kresge (various tv appearances...that 70's show...the history channel film breaking vegas)
michelle lane (avenue q, las vegas cast)</p>

<p>anyway...these are mostly (with the exception of barna) people who have graduated in the past 5 years. </p>

<p>keep in mind, also, that the program is regarded as a fairly NEW and UP AND COMING professional actor training program...so there will likely not be a list that compares to places like NYU, YALE, or CINCINATTI...</p>

<p>As far as the negative aspect of the cut process...sure...obviously it is there. They suck. We all hate them...even the ones of us who were lucky enough to be kept in the program. We hate to see our friends and colleagues leave. But the school accepts people based on a 90 second audition...a few minutes at the most of getting to know a person and their talents. If that person proves to be wrong for the program...or if someone comes along who proves to be right for the program...the school owes it to the students and to the paying public to make decisions that keep the productions at as high a level as possible. </p>

<p>In a 14 person studio class...one person who's work ethic or (as harsh as this sounds) ability lags behind the others....deprives the other 13 students of a smooth, productive work session. </p>

<p>As for the issue of transfers...i am not aware of other school's policy...but at UA you are dealing with literally 3 or 4 new transfer students per year...not some GIANT number like you might be led to believe. In the entire 50 person company (freshmen through senior) there are 3-4 students who were not at UA the previous year. The majority of 'replacements' come from the school's BA program...students who were already at the university...many already in the theatre department...who just hadn't auditioned yet....or who needed a year of training before re-auditioning. </p>

<p>Also keep in mind that this year's cut (which i believe was 16) is TREMENDOUSLY above the normal number. Last year, I believe a total of 6 people were cut (sophomore and freshmen combined). And perhaps even less the year before that. My class, a couple years back, lost only 4 people. </p>

<p>And even though some were friends...even good friends. And talented performers. I feel like the process benefits the students who remain...greatly. And, for the most part, helps the whole program. It is, of course, a shame that it does so while hurting the feelings of a few people each year...but these people ARE made aware of exactly when and how they will be cut.</p>

<p>Thanks, goldfiftyone. I appreciate that you took my question seriously, as it was a serious question. It does sound like grads from U of A are working in their chosen field and making a name for themselves, which is terrific and the outcome we all hope you all have. Please let us know about what you yourself are doing, now that you have graduated! Congratulations! (Or, as they say in Wicked: congratulotions.) :):)</p>

<p>I was a little intrigued by something you said. You stated:</p>

<p><<...the school owes it to the students and to the paying public to make decisions that keep the productions at as high a level as possible.>></p>

<p>I agree that the school owes it to the STUDENTS to keep training and programs at the highest possible quality. But why does the school owe it to the "paying public" to keep the productions at a high level? Certainly, I would agree that anyone handing over any money for a ticket ought to expect to see the best production a theater company/school, etc. can put on. And certainly, a school trying to make a name for itself wants to present the highest possible quality production. </p>

<p>But a school's (and University of Arizona and all the other college level BFA and BA and BM programs in musical theater are based at schools!) absolute priority obligation is to its <em>students</em>, who are the people that the admissions committee has decided to take on for the purposes of educating them. This is true whether a student is attending college to study astronomy and physics, or musical theater. Of course, colleges want the best possible students, both to keep work at a high level, and (more practically) so that those students will be achievers who will later go out into the world and bring prestige, etc. to the name of the school.</p>

<p>It's a very complicated subject. Thanks for sharing your experiences and for answering my questions!
NMR</p>

<p>i am thrilled to have found a forum like this...answering questions about UA is my pleasure...as i loved my time there and feel passionately about what the program can do for a young actor. </p>

<p>what i am doing...through the senior showcase put on at the university of arizona, i was hired to be a part of a one year internship at milwaukee repertory theatre. i begin that internship late next month. my ultimate goal (once i have nowhere else to go...yikes) is to wind up in new york. </p>

<p>i agree that my comment regarding an obligation to the public sounded odd. but i stand by it. at the universty of arizona the small, prestigious company formed by the BFA acting and musical theatre majors is known as the Arizona Repertory Theatre. it's function is to give the students the feeling of being a part of a real professional repertory theatre. one of the main reasons that it accomplishes this goal so successfully is because...well...IT IS a real professional repertory theatre. it survives on ticket sales, primarily. and we, as actors, must get used to the idea that without money...theatre companies wouldn't survive...and we wouldn't have jobs. </p>

<p>the tucson community is the lifeblood that allows us to work at what we love. and we are all better served as students if we quickly realize the importance of filling houses and selling tickets. is it the most romantic part of a life in the theatre? no. but it is practical. </p>

<p>sure...UA has it's primary responsbility to it's students. but it's students are being irresponsible if they do not also realize that without a strong season ticket base and a lot of good press...this department would not be able to give us the best education possible. new weapons for stage combat, new rehearsal clothes, big name agents at showcase, workshops with working professionals...these things all cost money. and we help make that money by performing well and getting good press, etc. </p>

<p>it instills a sense of pride to know that you are helping a business flourish. not a sense of worthlessness. you feel more personally connected to the theatre and more...well...grown up. you feel like a 'real live actor' to put it that way. </p>

<p>i would me remiss not to mention, by the way, that UA takes it's responsibility to us very seriously...and it comes through...loud and clear.</p>

<p>goldfiftyone, I wanted to thank you for coming and sharing your opinions with us. I have a question regarding the premise that your company of actors must survive based on ticket sales. Is this an indication of a lack of funding from the University at large? This would definitely be a concern to me if I were a prospective student. I also wonder if you might address a question, as it relates to your perspective as it being a professional repertory company, that has come up in discussions I've participated in with friends who are members of the professional theatre community as well as friends who are involved in various BFA programs, that U of A often uses 'canned' music in their productions. I haven't heard of this being done at any other BFA program and wonder if you can explain the reason behind this and how often it's done. Thanks.</p>

<p>i will start from the bottom....canned music. </p>

<p>the head of our musical theatre department, richard t. hanson, has a friend in california who experimented with a new technology that attempted to bring a live orchestral feel to computerized music...it didn't work:) we students and the community hated it when it was used in last fall's production of SIDESHOW. but let it be known...that is the ONLY TIME it has ever been used. anyone telling you that it happens often is mistaken. it was attempted once...and based on the reaction...i would assume it will never happen again. and we all had the issue with it that you would expect...we all wondered what kind of 'professional' world canned music was supposed to prepare us for. believe me...it was a near revolution when we found out about it:) no one was happy. in general, UA productions are accompanied by full sized, fully equipped, terrifically talented orchestras featuring professional musicians as well as students from the school of music. take if from someone who has sung with them...they rock. big time. </p>

<p>as to your question about funding...unfortunately...UA is a state school...funding doesn't come from the university itself, but rather the state government. unlike NYU or YALE who can divvy up money as they see fit...the state of arizona sees 'acting' and 'theatre' as secondary majors. so we do not receive a treendous amount of funding. this leads to some of the cuts that have been so often discussed on here...it also requires that the school hold fundraisers and benefits...but, i must say, as a student in the BFA program...you are NEVER made to feel like you are part of a poor program. thankfully, UA puts ALL of it's money into production value...which helps the kids (nothing beats being in a truly phenomenally professional feeling show) and it helps the department (ticket sales are higher when the shows are better...and ticket sales don't go to the state!)</p>

<p>but to be clear...the 'company of actors' has nothing to do with the business of keeping the school funded. unless we poke and prod and ask questions...the faculty never bothers us with financial issues. we NEVER feel like the department is strapped for cash. i happen to know a lot because i asked a lot of questions:) i am curious like that. but in general...they keep the business side away from the performance aspect. the school wants it's company of actors to focus on learning technique and creating theatre. they make money operating under the assumption that...if the faculty is good...the students will learn...the students will be good...then the shows will be good...then people will want to see them...money will be made:) the process works for everyone!</p>

<p>i am more than happy to answer anyone's questions about UA. i am glad i can offer a first person perspective.</p>

<p>How many shows do you put on and how many tickets do you sell? For example:</p>

<p>5 shows, 6 performances each, 1000 seats @ $15/seat = $450,000</p>

<p>Once you subtract the costs, that doesn't seem like a significant source of funding. Of course, I could be way off base if you have significantly more shows, and/or performances, and/or seats, and/or higher ticket prices and/or extremely low costs (not impossible, but unusal for high quality productions).</p>

<p>I'm only curious because I've never thought of the performances as a significant revenue source for a theatre department. (Uh oh, I guess the "accounting major" mom is coming out!)</p>

<p>I think it's great that you're supportive of your school, but I also believe the concerns about the cut policies outweigh all else. I, for one, would never allow my child to consider the program. A school should support the students it accepted by audition, unless they are slacking off (missing classes, arriving unprepared, etc.). Even then, a probation period with clear written expectations is warranted.</p>

<p>6 shows...16 performances (2 previews and 14 shows) 400 seats...tickets range from $21.00 (previews cost $18 i believe) to $30.00 (depending on musical/play student/senior prices, etc.)...i am certainly NOT an accounting major...but i think they likely gross about $700,000. of course...this is a GUESS...all the way. i know that in the case of a very successful show (guys and dolls in 2004)...over 7,000 people saw the show during the run....if they are paying an average of $25...that is $175,000 for one show. </p>

<p>Arizona's ticket prices are VERY high comparatively...luckily the reputation they have in the community allows that to be possible. </p>

<p>Almost ALL schools with prestigious BFA programs have cut policies that function EXACTLY like UA's. The only difference is that this year A LOT of folks got cut. I do not know to what to attribute that. But it is usually a very small number. On par (or LOWER) than the number cut at similar schools.</p>

<p>In fact...I am not sure why people are making such a big deal about it. Performing arts schools with conservatory programs all make cuts. some make them every semester...UA does it once a year. and some make them throughout your education..UA stops once you hit junior year. </p>

<p>The cut system is really VERY tame on a national scale.</p>

<p>BFA programs do NOT ALL make cuts. My child applied to many of the highly regarded BFA programs and barely any had a cut system. None had the type of situation described on this thread either. While examples abound, just naming a few well know programs my kid applied to that did not have cuts....UMich, CMU, NYU/Tisch, Syracuse.</p>

<p>
[quote]
Almost ALL schools with prestigious BFA programs have cut policies that function EXACTLY like UA's

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I'm not sure that's an accurate statement. This thread contains a lot of detail about various experiences with cut policies and I think you'll find that only a small minority of "prestigious BFA programs" have them (e.g. CCM):</p>

<p><a href="http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/showthread.php?t=138995&highlight=cut+policy%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/showthread.php?t=138995&highlight=cut+policy&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>NotMamaRose, Above you posted that not many programs have graduates the likes of Sutton Foster or Kristen Chenoweth. Just a reminder.... Sutton Foster did not graduate from any BFA program. She went to CMU for one year and then dropped out and moved back to Michigan. So, once again it goes to show that while graduating from a BFA programs has it advantages. But, there are many, many performers who have not graduated from one of these "top" schools or have never graduated at all!</p>

<p>
[quote]
I am not sure why people are making such a big deal about it

[/quote]
</p>

<p>For starters, there's the emotional side of it. There's nothing more painful for parents than watching their children suffer. (That's something you really won't understand fully until you're a parent.)</p>

<p>Then, there's the practical side of it:</p>

<p>Tuition and fees: $4,494 in-state, $13,678 out-of-state
Room/board: $7,460
Books and supplies: $780
Transportation: $570
Personal expenses: $2,420 </p>

<p>Many (most?) of the classes will not transfer to a non-BFA degree program, yet the timing of the cuts essentially ensures that the affected students will not be able to transfer into other audition-based BFA programs. Not a good financial situation for most parents to find themselves in.</p>

<p>i didn't mean....why are people making such a big deal about being cut. i meant, why specifically about the cuts at ARIZONA. believe me when i tell you that i know how big a deal cuts are...i lived for two years not wanting to utter the word lest i upset the gods of theatre:)</p>

<p>but the review policy (which i will now call it since that is was Umich calls it) is similar to that at many (i inappropriately used the word most) schools with similar programs.</p>

<p>As far as U of A's cut policy, it is not enough to say to the entire group of students that any of them may be cut come May. It is NOT enough. The school has an obligation to have meetings with individual students who are in danger of being cut and LET THEM KNOW WHAT THEY NEED TO WORK ON. Telling the entire class to make plans as if they were going to be cut creates an atmosphere of fear and nervous gossip - who will be cut? Her? Him? Me? Who? It's not ethical and it only succeeds in making students feel unsafe in the very environment that is supposed to be nurturing them.</p>