Warning U of A

<p>mtmommy, I also was concerned with that particular comment about that boy's 'look' and 'voice'. You are absolutely right that both should have been evident when he auditioned. It seems that those who have been cut by U of A have been given a myriad of different reasons. The fact that so many have expressed surprise when notified of the cut is an alarm bell for me (as are several other things on this issue!) because if U of A is claiming that students are informed throughout the course of the year, and that everyone KNOWS that it's a possibility, then why are so many students so surprised when it happens? Something is obviously wrong here. Either the warnings aren't happening, the process isn't being communicated clearly by U of A staff, or, as some have claimed, the cuts themselves have little rhyme or reason and are not based on performance or talent or dedication. </p>

<p>I have always have been against this type of cut program, as are most people that I know in the theatre community. College training and education should not be looked upon as the real world, thus it should never be proclaimed that this type of cut will prepare students for the harsh realities of auditioning. College is a time for education, training, and learning. Even the most nurturing program is still competitive but that doesn't mean that that program will dump its students once they've been admitted. An excellent faculty will work hard to teach and train the students it accepts. This is not an issue regarding kids who don't show up for class, etc., and that shouldn't even enter into this discussion. What we're talking about here is programs which accept kids and then at some point, cut them loose. </p>

<p>Even assuming that kids are told when they arrive at U of A that they should always plan for the possible cut, is this really any way to run an educational program? Are kids honestly expected to plan on the process of transfer admissions shortly after arriving on campus? To be applying and arranging travel for auditioning during the course of their school year, just in case? This is one of the most insane things I've heard, to be honest. If U of A truly wants to 'play in the big leagues', then I think they have to seriously rethink this policy because, as we can all see here, it is getting them nothing but bad publicity, not only here but in several other college admissions and theatre discussion venues. They may indeed have excellent training but it is being overshadowed by this issue. </p>

<p>No one should have to go through the difficult process for college admissions for MT, and then when they're accepted, be told basically, welcome to our program, we're happy to have you until someone better comes along.</p>

<p>I am by NO means an expert at this...I can tell you however that even though your S or D's major will be MT they will be taking acting classes. In those acting classes the students learn classical theatre acting in which much time is spent on heightened language. Heightened language is important when it comes to Shakepeare, Chekov, etc. Not all performers can grasp this as it is incredibly difficult.</p>

<p>I will see if one of my Ss can come on and explain in more detail as they have a really good grasp on this.</p>

<p>SUE aka 5pants</p>

<p>Hey everyone- I'm one of 5pants' son's and I haven't really said a whole lot on cc but I often read it and find the viewpoints and debates very interesting. This research is incredibly important- but remember that it is important that if you have problems with how a school runs their system- it is never a problem to question that. Most programs are growing by the day- and these questions brought to attention will only help the school examine their process and hopefully learn and grow just as their students do. Remember, however, an opinion based on facts and clean cut information stands stronger than those raised out of agression and passion- and an even stronger opinion is built after the other side of the argument has been considered.</p>

<p>The real reason I'm posting however, is to cover the question raised about the importance of classical stage training for the Musical Theatre world. I'm a student at Webster University's Conservatory and those who may have researched the school itself know how strong the classical stage is reinforced. I'll try and explain this the best I possibly can.</p>

<p>Musical Theatre is a theatre "style," with "style" meaning something that is not contemporary, other styles include Shakespeare, Resteration, Shaw, and so on. I hesitate to say Chekhov and Ibsen are style because they are very close to realism- but they are definitely language based. Now- this is what I know of style. The 3rd year at Webster is based around these types of theatre because they help reinforce the principles of contemporary stage. Style pieces require specific control and action- every moment needs to be completely active and follow the character's thought process. In a way, a song is no different from a Shakespearean piece because they both are non-traditional ways of expressing how one feels or achieving whatever one wants. The moments need to be clearly thought out and played because the moment they become self-indulgent or passive the true meaning of the song or text is lost- and no audience member wants to be completely lost, because then they think they are stupid- and no one likes to think that they are stupid :). </p>

<p>What am I really trying to say? Heightened language pieces, such as Shakespeare, offers another outlet to exercise the main tools of acting that are vital in all forms of theatre. Musical Theatre, more specifically, because Shakespeare is extremely poetical as are most songs. Being able to take something that seems at first incredibly foreign and make complete sence of it so that it reads to your ensemble and an audience is an incredible tool- that will offer important outlets for the theatre world in general. </p>

<p>Not to mention: Shakespeare's works are some of the most popular and widely produced plays in the theatre world. It would never hurt, even for a musical theatre major, to learn and master it's elements. I, myself, do not plan on doing musicals over and over again for the rest of my life. I would probably get bored- and there are so many meaty plays out there I would just love to tackle. </p>

<p>Hope this helps- I tend to write in circles and I am usually very verbose- but heck, that's who I am :)</p>

<p>Feel free to e-mail me with any questions or concerns!</p>

<p>Al</p>

<p>Thanks, Al. That does help a lot to see MT as another style of theatre. Your idea of how Shakespeare benefits MT helps, too. Also, you did not write in a circle at all; you made your points very clearly!</p>

<p>I am jumping back to address the questions regarding an actor being cut "because of" their voice and looks. Your interpretation is different from mine (my perspective is coming from having been both before and behind the jury table). I see Goldy's statement as meaning that this student was more suitable to film/tv...they are likely attractive (highly desired, if not required, in film and tv) and have a vocal instrument incapable of filling a theatre (without amplication) and/or inability to handle heightened language, even though they may sing well and have no vocal obstruction (lisp, sloppy diction, regionality in dialect, etc.)</p>

<p>UofA's curriculum is MOSTLY period and styles work in the upper division:</p>

<p>Shakespeare (one full semester, in both voice & mvmt. AND acting)</p>

<p>Commedia, Moliere, Restoration (again, one semester for all combined, in both voice & movement AND acting).</p>

<p>Auditioning and The Business of the Business (senior year) - which entails working up classical/Shakespeare monologues.</p>

<p>The Musical Theatre students study in the same acting classes as the Acting majors - and because of this, they get excellent actor training. But also because of this, they must be screened as to ability to perform/function/excel in that arena of escalated difficulty. The acting majors can't "dummy down" the class to accommodate a talented, but limited, Musical Theatre student.</p>

<p>The actor in question was likely not ready for the demands of the junior/senior years in ACTING class curriculum required of all MT BFAs. Also, in the assessment of the faculty, the actor would likely have a very promising career in film/television (which they are NOT training for at UofA). </p>

<p>UofA is a classical actor training program, and the MT kids have to be able to handle their own in this arena. This training is good for their professional careers (I got more work in Shakespeare as a young actor than in Musicals, due in GREAT part to the training I recieved at the UofA...Dianne and Harold really know their stuff!!).</p>

<p>The classical training also seems that it should go hand-in-hand with MT, as both are dealing with heightened language, metered text, complex and condensed imagery, superb vocabulary, etc...</p>

<p>There are also physical characterization issues. For those of us old-timers who might remember, much of the training is similar to "finishing school," or "charm school" of the old days. In addition to this "graceful gentility," the classical training includes clowning, combat, period dance, and physical deportment (as a lady/gentleman of various periods in history). These skills are vital. Again, it seems that the dancer training would lend itself to this training...</p>

<p>However, simply because one can sing and dance in MT/Broadway style well, it doesn't necessarily follow that they can handle these language and physical skills. It isn't a matter of working hard, dedication, desire, loyalty, etc. - it is an issue talent and trainability. If an actor is limited in any one area, it would be detrimental to their success in this program. </p>

<p>A student may prove inflexible in their early training, which would magnify their lack of potential in the program - because the students who are placed above them (from within the UofA general theatre track) have not had the benefit of the top professors as their teachers, nor the time and money invested in their education as the MT and "company" kids have.</p>

<p>I would remind everyone that the UofA is not simply an "educational institution," it is a Professional Actor Training program. One that hopes to reach a "masters" level in MT, so that the student is well prepared for a career in the industry straight out of their undergraduate work (without the need for graduate-level study). The statements that these cut policies are too harsh - e.g., "it is still a school environment, not the professional world" - are not taking this into account. </p>

<p>I suggest that if you want an educational experience that is a "sure thing," nurturing, broad-based, flexible, etc., then a BFA program (and particularly one making cuts) is likely not the match for you. Perhaps you should look at a liberal arts/BA training program, one without cuts; that situation may suit your desires and goals much better, I feel. But be advised, these liberal arts training programs will most likely not offer you the superior/professional training that you also seek from the BFA. I may sound harsh, but you may not be able to have it both ways... Bottom line, do you value the degree or the training more?</p>

<p>I also have to point out that students cut from the BFA have the option of continuing as BA/general theatre students, and earning their degree within the time they initially anticipated (one of the primary options available to the students, in lieu of leaving the school or changing majors to, for example, vocal performance). In this case, the advisors will apply most, if not all, of their BFA courses taken toward the students' "new" BA degree requirements. Granted, these students won't have access to the upper division performing classes reserved for ART Company members, free voice lessons, nor to roles in the main stage season (unless there are small/extra roles to be filled after accommodating all Company members, when they might be cast through an open audition). But they will GET A DEGREE. A good one. And your money will not be "wasted."</p>

<p>And the expenses that are considered "wasted" would be spent at any college, so I'm not sure if that argument is valid. Perhaps losing a full-ride scholarship, like the fabulous out-of-state tuition waiver, would be a major exception. Otherwise, the money invested is not wasted on classes that won't transfer. On the contrary, beginning acting classes WILL transfer; voice and movement (with IPA and American Standard Stage dialect!!!) will transfer (and are highly desirable, BELIEVE me!); dance classes may transfer - and if not, students should have the level of technique making it possible to transfer in at a higher level in dance class (simply ask for a placement audition with the dance faculty). Theatre history, oral interp, analysis, and other general theatre studies courses will typically transfer to other institutions. So at most, you are "gaining" one year of study...not a bad thing for someone who feels that transferring out is preferable to staying and getting the BA General Theatre degree. Students could embrace this expanded training aspect, rather than rue it.</p>

<p>Blah, blah, blah, Eve...</p>

<p>:)</p>

<p>Here is Doctorjohn's narrative on cut policies. I think it is worth reading again:</p>

<p><a href="http://www.geocities.com/musicaltheatercolleges/cutpolicy.html%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.geocities.com/musicaltheatercolleges/cutpolicy.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>An excerpt (though there is much more, and all worth reading!):</p>

<p><<that old="" approach,="" which="" is="" what="" i="" mean="" by="" a="" "cut"="" system,="" has="" almost="" disappeared.="" cmu="" abandoned="" it="" years="" ago,="" as="" said,="" and="" so="" did="" smu,="" where="" taught="" in="" the="" 70's.="" painful,="" nearly="" impossible="" to="" administer,="" destructive="" of="" morale,="" finally="" detrimental="" goals="" training.="" its="" place,="" schools="" have="" adopted="" variety="" approaches.="" one="" admit="" only="" many="" they="" can="" teach="" all="" way="" through.="" does="" that="" now,="" do="" we.="" another="" create="" different="" tracks.="" smu="" bfa="" acting,="" but="" also="" theatre="" studies.="" everyone="" gets="" same="" acting="" classes="" first="" two="" years,="" then="" students="" go="" directions="" last="" years.="" know="" from="" beginning="" track="" they're="" in.="" nyu="" version="" this,="" sending="" off="" studios.="">></that></p>

<p>Just wanted to get that out there, so we are all talking about the same thing.</p>

<p>Lisa</p>

<p>Eve, thanks for offering your input and insight, from (as you said!) both sides of the jury table. There was nothing "blah, blah, blah!" about your post. I appreciated it, and I am sure others did, as well.</p>

<p>UofA, and the entire state, faced HUGE budget cuts several years in a row... But the university had to cut a certain amount of money TOTAL. That number had to be divvied up by the President among the colleges. The Deans of the Colleges then had to distribute the cuts among their programs (which would you rather lose, an arm or a leg?!?). The department, as ALL others in the university, was impacted greatly. But that is in the area of education (classes, faculty lines, classroom supplies, etc. - all class-related money).</p>

<p>However, the Theatre depends on its box office income to fund its subsequent season. So if they don't make enough money, the production budget (and therefore VALUES) go down.</p>

<p>Also, musicals are VERY EXPENSIVE to produce - you have to pay royalties (can we talk about inflated prices?). Orchestra members must be paid for every rehearsal and performance they attend (even the student musicians are paid). Costume budgets on musicals are typically much higher than for any other show except, perhaps, a classical/period-style piece...and in most cases they build the costumes themselves, not rent or pull (that is because their costume design and construction students need an education, too). Often the sets are more lavish than a straight play. Make-up and hair is more expensive, usually (with the exception of a period/styles piece). AND THE MICROPHONES! There must be a fresh battery for each rehearsal/performance; and they are delicate creatures, wireless mics - they tend to break VERY easily, and need to be replaced/repaired OFTEN...very expensive, believe it or not (anyone out there want to make a donation of mics, it would be appreciated at ANY school, believe me). The school also uses video feed between the conductor and performers (often, the orchestra is set upstage and out of sight of the performers, because the pit is extremely shallow and small in the big theatre, and the small theatre has no pit, persay)...so the department may need to rent from campus technology department the proper equipment to make this happen - cameras, monitors, and lots of cable.</p>

<p>Musical Theatre is expensive. Period. It is expensive for the students. It is also expensive for the companies who produce them.</p>

<p>While the school has "sponsor" corporations, who have their name attached to a production; and while they do sell program advertisements (these usually only pay for the program itself, not the production), there is still the need for a big box office draw in order to sustain a healthy season filled with the kinds of shows students need to be exposed to in their training.</p>

<p>If the show quality goes down, the income drops. If the income drops, the quality of production drops. If the quality of production drops, the students do not get a "cutting edge" theatre experience (in preparation for the real world), nor do they have an audience to perform for (nothing worse than performing a show with more people onstage than in the house!)</p>

<p>eve</p>

<p>wow, i am glad to see that our conversation sparked so many comments.</p>

<p>i will attempt to clarify...as best i can (seemingly not too well)</p>

<p>eve hit the nail on the head about the boy who was cut for looks/voice. moving onto sophomore year in the program...about to be confronted with shakespeare, moliere, and restoration styles...it was evident that this student was better suited for television and less so for the 'classical stage.' and he agreed...wanting to pursue television in los angeles anyway. i think the faculty all sensed his desire to get to l.a. and that played, perhaps, a major role in the decision.</p>

<p>anyway...i understand, fully, all of your concerns as to how an atmosphere can be nurturing and conducive to learning when the dreaded 'cuts' loom. well...you could say the same thing about auditions for shows each semester. final presentations. showcase with agents. the 'reviews' conducted at most schools....the bottom line is that this is a pressure filled major for people who plan on living pressure filled lives. it is as time consuming as medical school...as physically demanding as a dance major...it is not meant for the faint of heart. nor is show business.</p>

<p>all i know is that i could not IMAGINE a system working any other way. it worked wonders for me. i am better trained, more prepared, and already slightly (emphasis on slightly) successful (in my one month out of school...heh). and i attribute a good deal of that to my UA education. </p>

<p>syracuse and nyu and the big 'no-cut' schools....have so many kids by the time they are seniors that i am not sure how anyone gets individual care. nor do they all manage to get significant stage time. both of those things would have been so detrimental to me. so...where it hard for some of you to imagine how a 'cut' system is functional...i am on the opposite side of the equation. i do not see how a no-cut system works. i benefited from seeing how those who grew and learned and excelled and worked hard separated themselves from those who didn't. i benefited from the entire process. and i will tell you...since most of the people i know in this world are graduates or current students in that same program (they dont give you any time to make friends outside! hah!) ....almost everyone loves it. even those who transferred from other very prestigious schools. in general...the ones who have a problem...are the ones who got cut. which i understand completely.</p>

<p>i don't want this to get into being a back and forth of my opinion is good yours is bad. we are all entitled. i am just on here to say that...hey...i went through it...my friends went through it...and we came out alright. and loving it. </p>

<p>as to the finances...you are officially getting outside my sphere of knowledge:) there are ads in the programs, yes. and i also believe that the various design departments receive grants to help them put up shows...in addition to donations from the REMARKABLY GENEROUS AND SUPPORTIVE TUCSON COMMUNITY (if any of you stumble accross this...i will miss you all so much and your support and love and applause is what makes this whole thing worthwhile).</p>

<p>aside from that...the rest comes from state funding...the measley rest:)</p>

<p>If you are a student who has NOT been cut, it seems you may like a cut system. </p>

<p>If you are a student who has been cut, you do not like it.</p>

<p>Objectively we mothers (to the degree we can be objective as we anticipate the future) do not like it.</p>

<p>exactly right, nytheatremom. i think that is exactly it. </p>

<p>as a student (a continuing student) it is beneficial...as a parent i can absolutely see how scary it would be.</p>

<p>My point exactly. It is absolutely scary!! But so is being a professional actor/MT performer today. The odds of making a living wage are less than that for a professional gambler (and I'm not joking on this)! The unemployment rate among professional (union) actors is greater than 95%!!! And this is not counting all those performers who aren't in a union...</p>

<p>Ours is an industry filled with rejection, sometimes NUMEROUS rejections on the same day. Hopefully you audition a lot, which means a LOT of rejection. Usually, you will never know why you weren't called back or cast. That is VERY hard on the psyche of an individual who dwells on the rejection, rather than allowing it to spur them on with more determination and focus. Why do you think so many in show business are in therapy? This is a great contributing factor.</p>

<p>If you are frightened by this "cut" aspect of training, realize that a "cut" program will likely be an unwise choice for you and/or your S/D.</p>

<p>eve</p>

<p>I just found this link to the UofA alumni success page - their "stars" (the biggest successes they have had):</p>

<p><a href="http://web.cfa.arizona.edu/theatre/alumni/stars.php%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://web.cfa.arizona.edu/theatre/alumni/stars.php&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>You can backtrack to the /alumni "parent page," where you will find links to other, less visible success stories - a HUGE list of graduate achievement.</p>

<p>eve</p>

<p>
[quote]
syracuse and nyu and the big 'no-cut' schools....have so many kids by the time they are seniors that i am not sure how anyone gets individual care.

[/quote]
Sorry, but that's a buncha bunk. No "top" school that I know of ever has more than around sixteen to eighteen in an individual first year acting class and usually less. If there are more in the program, they're split into separate sections and the numbers by senior year are even lower through natural attrition. (Figured I'd beat Alwaysamom and Soozievt to the punch on that. hehehe)</p>

<p>I got curious and did a search of old posts about Arizona this morning. My first impulse on this whole sad and counterproductive cut thing was that maybe the UA faculty should learn how to conduct auditions better. Some say they can tell if somebody can act or not in under fifteen seconds. However, the "big boys" spend anywhere from fifteen minutes to a half-hour and sometimes longer with well over a thousand audionees to probe a whole lot more than just whether or not somebody has acting potential. On 3/10/05, Jennysg said …
[quote]
We went to visit U of A last week and we were very pleased with the program. They had approx. 95 audition for MT and Theatre. They accepted 25 for both programs. 14 for MT if I recall.

[/quote]
If those numbers are anywhere near correct, therein may lie the problem. Perhaps UA isn’t able to fill its first year studio top-to-bottom with the slam dunk, blue chip, picks of the litter as the non-cutting “Ivies” who audition well over a thousand but has similar expectations? In a way, that could almost justify the cuts. Unfortunately, I somehow doubt all this will help their cause much. </p>

<p>Another thing … On the same date, Cato said …
[quote]
My son was accepted today to the BFA Musical Theatre Dept at the University of Arizona, as was a good friend who also tried out there. UA is wanting an answer by April 4th, and we had been thinking of going out to see their production of Rocky Horror Picture Show if he got in to help decide, but that's not until a week later. But given their comparative cost, this will be very hard to turn down.

[/quote]
Mtmommy then said and asked …
[quote]
Cato--That's great news for your son and for you . We saw Carousel this fall at UA. If you want info, you can email me. Why do they need an answer before the May 1 or whatever it mutually agreed upon college date????????? Does anybody know?

[/quote]
Cato replied ...
[quote]
Yes, he auditioned the 21st. I assume they want to know before the final date in case the answer is "no" so they can take somebody else.

[/quote]
Anybody want to explain that? A lot of schools don't even have their decisions out by then. If there's any "take it or leave it" pressure involved, run for the hills.</p>

<p>I wonder if Cato’s son and his friend made it …</p>

<p>fishbowl, you're right, you ARE quick! :) I made the same comment about the possibility of their audition process being in need of improvement to "goldy" in a PM discussion we had. </p>

<p>I think that this discussion has been interesting and enlightening and I hope that it proves to all prospectives who are reading it that an in depth look at a school's curriculum (for all four years!) is an essential part of the search for programs you want on your list. I have always said this, for as long as I've been on CC. It would appear at U of A that it is even more important than at many other schools, and I don't think that the majority of applicants pay enough attention to curriculum. It's only one part of the search for college programs but it's an important one. I think that it won't be too many more years before cut policies like the one at U of A will be a thing of the past. Not many schools still have them and I think that most are in the process of rethinking them. This discussion is probably the best example of why.</p>

<p>sadly, you are likely right. the world has gotten so politically correct that it is becoming difficult to look a 19 year old in the face and say...'sorry, but no.' </p>

<p>and when cuts do go away (which i am sure they will) the result will be that BFA programs are doing less than ever to prepare their students for THE REALITY of the real world. </p>

<p>i am glad i got my education when (and certainly where) i did. before the system got too soft to help anyone.</p>

<p>split sections of classes are not the same thing. </p>

<p>one group...one teacher...all four years. yes at syracuse the classes are split into groups of 20. but there are still 60 or 80 students. competing for roles in the same shows. learning from differenct teachers....so one group might get a totally different experience than another. it isnt the same thing. </p>

<p>there is something to be said for STUDENTS coming on here and talking...because no amount of research can actually teach a PARENT what the day to day life is like at any of these schools. you WANT to live for your kids...i know...my folks do too:) but you CANT.</p>

<p>and the overarching fact remains...the KIDS and the PARENTS of kids a UA....love it. they send their younger kids to the same program. the people who take issue with UA are in two camps...those who have never attented and those who have been cut. </p>

<p>people who teach there, go there, and have kids who go there...love the BFA program. so they must be doing something right.</p>

<p>Goldy,
You callin’ me a stage mom, Yo? That’s freakin’ hilarious. I do appreciate the unintended compliment on my maturity level! LMAO I don’t know where you got that idea, but I’m very much a student and know what it’s like. What amazes me is that you can’t seem to fathom that most programs don’t have a cut system like the one at UA and some of them still SOMEHOW manage to consistently graduate entire groups of highly skilled, well-trained actors who tend to dominate the field. I know it was four years ago, but do you remember where else you auditioned? Did you do any research at all? Unless everthing has changed since then, it doesn’t seem like you did. </p>

<p>As for the split sections, I don’t know anybody at Syracuse or much about their program except that when I looked at them I saw Strasberg Method, gagged slightly, and moved on. However, the students at the conservatories I know well share the same acting teachers. Actually, they usually all share a different teacher each year who brings a different dimension to their work while the other group(s) are working on voice or movement – also with the same teachers. This can be advantageous since they don’t get stuck with one teacher’s dogma that may or may not work for them and they are both allowed and encouraged to develop their own processes instead emerging with just one teacher’s “stamp” like they might if they only had one. This is the case at most of the large university programs as well except for Tisch where they stick to one of several techniques for two or three years depending on their first studio before branching out and at Rutgers where they’re all about Meisner. </p>

<p>There is also plenty of “stage time” to go around when the time comes though some of the top programs do not allow freshmen to perform mainstage since they are supposed to be concentrating on process and not just falling back on old habits in public performance. Some of them like CMU don’t even perform mainstage until third year unless a couple are needed to fill out a cast. However, they are constantly performing in class (like the rest) and put on some student directed shows. The ones I hear about having issues with stage time tend to be the smaller schools where there is open casting throughout the four years. </p>

<p>I'm glad you value the time spent at UA but you really didn’t need to go through all that mess with the cuts. I do suppose it may have been best that you didn’t realize that most students at the top BFAs in the country didn’t do the same. You might've become very resentful which could have hurt your growth.</p>

<p>Isn't 60 or 80 students going for roles a little more real world than 20 going for them? and also a little more real world than being cut from an educational program, for what ever reason?</p>

<p>no, fishbowl, i don't think you are a mom...i think you are a 'freshman'</p>

<p>i was replying directly to your comment, but addressing all of the comments from people who's screennames would lead me to believe that they ARE mothers. </p>

<p>i have put this issue to rest as far as i am concerned. obviously there is a school of thought that cuts are detrimental to an educational system. you must realize that there is another school of thought that not having cuts makes it impossible for a student to know if he or she is growing and learning at a reasonable level. for me...and many others...cuts are not only a reality...but a POSITIVE reality. Of course i knew that other schools didn't do cuts...i never considered a school that didn't because, frankly, i didn't want classmates who never graduated from high school level talent. at a no-cut school...even if you accept an extremely talented kid of 18...if he never gets better....four years later is just a 22 year old with 18 year old talent. at UA that doesnt happen. </p>

<p>and i am not insinuating that big schools like NYU and Stracuse dont churn out talent...they graduate 80-100 kids per year where UA graduates 15. it would take 6-7 years for UA to put out an equivalent number of students...and UA's BFA program is still a baby. there are very few UA BFA grads out in the work force at this point. </p>

<p>I am concluding by saying that i COMPLETELY see the other side. i agree that for some people (even for MOST people) cuts are a bad thing. but you all should really understand that just because a majority agrees on something doesn't mean that EVERYONE agrees. there are still a healthy number of folks who WANT a cut program because it continues being selective even after you are accepted. </p>

<p>i wanted one. i got one. and i am happy. i hope everyone else on here is happy where they went/are or happy where their kids are going/went. i really mean that.</p>