<p>Using EmsDads numbers for schools showing in bios, I had class size numbers in a spreadsheet for schools marked as selective in the Big List and so expressed as a percentage of class size and sorted.
Lot’s of caveats about this as previously stated in other posts but interesting none the less. Also not sure if all class size numbers are accurate. Some are from rather old posts.
Kind of surprised by Florida State. Much of rest is not too different from my expectations </p>
<p>Carnegie Mellon 18 10 180.00%
Florida State 16 10 160.00%
U Michigan 25 22 113.64%
Oklahoma City 13 12 108.33%
Penn State 10 12 83.33%
U Cincinnati CCM 19 23 82.61%
NYU Tisch 40 64 62.50%
BoCo 23 40 57.50%
Elon 8 16 50.00%
U of Oklahoma 6 12 50.00%
Northwestern 13 30 43.33%
U of the Arts 9 24 37.50%
Otterbein 3 8 37.50%
Syracuse 10 28 35.71%
Hartt 6 17 35.29%
Cal St Fullerton 4 12 33.33%
Baldwin-Wallace 4 15 26.67%
USC 6 25 24.00%
Ithaca 3 14 21.43%
NYU - Steinhardt 3 15 20.00%
Shenandoah 5 25 20.00%
Point Park 7 40 17.50%
Emerson College 4 24 16.67%
U Miami 1 8 12.50%
Webster 3 25 12.00%
U of Arizona 1 9 11.11%
Indiana University 1 10 10.00%
Roosevelt 2 22 9.09%
UCLA 1 14 7.14%
Sam Houston 1 15 6.67%
U of Central Fl 0 9 0.00%
UW Stevens Point 0 8 0.00%</p>
<p>FWIW, I think UMich class size is 25 this year and has been as high as 29.</p>
<p>As discussed often, one would expect schools that can (and do) cherry-pick top talent to have a higher % on Broadway, since all of their incoming freshman enter highly talented, trained and gorgeous… in fact some have been on Broadway even before starting college. Hard to know what that tells about the training folks get while enrolled.</p>
<p>But I guess that applies to most schools on this list!</p>
<p>I wonder if most actors who still list school in bio graduated more recently, and/or if folks from some schools are more apt to tout their alma mater than others? Fun exercise in any case.</p>
<p>@OneMTDad - cool ratio analysis. Wish I had thought of it!</p>
<p>@MomCares - regarding your question about who may be more likely to list their schools, here is some data that I meant to include in my post but forgot:</p>
<p>32% of Broadway actors listed their school
47% of National Tour actors listed their school</p>
<p>Since tours are more likely to consist of younger and less established actors, it seems to me to be a reasonable conclusion from this data that actors who list their schools are more likely to be recent grads.</p>
<p>I didn’t keep a tally, but my observation from reading all those bios and looking at all those pictures is that it is rare for most principals and for more experienced actors to list their school (after all, I think it was Shakespeare that first said, “the credits are the thing”). So the data is probably a relatively poor indicator of which schools graduate the most long-term or successful MT actors and is a better indicator of who turns out the most young chorus members.</p>
<p>^ I think that ratio is much more representative of the “success rate” of the students from each of the schools. NYU, obviously, has many more students than schools like CCM/Michigan, etc. It would make sense that a school accepting a thousand students would have more of its alumni in Broadway productions compared to a school who accepts ten students per year, so going off simply by the number of alumni might be misleading about how truly successful its students are.</p>
<p>But then again, that’s only if you consider being cast in Broadway/national tours as being successful.</p>
<p>I’m not convinced that is of value, actor193, because the numbers are drawn from one particular week in one particular year for those particular shows and that particular group of actors, when, as MomCares pointed out, only 30-40% of the group indicates the name of their school. I don’t understand how the number of matriculating students in a given year at any school, combined with the above numbers has any predictive, important, or actual value to anyone. If the numbers were to provide a ratio of recent grads working compared to the number in their graduating class, then maybe that would be a bit more interesting.</p>
<p>I’ve always said that it’s interesting to read a playbill and see what training the actors have but that the level of importance placed on this information shouldn’t be a significant amount for prospective students. You’ll get a better picture, possibly, from the schools themselves. There are just too many variables that cannot be known, e.g., how many of those who didn’t indicate a school actually did graduate? what major did they have? did they actually graduate or simply attend? is this the first (and possibly the last) work they’ve booked or are they employed on a regular (for an actor, this could be two shows a year, meaning they may have worked 26 weeks of the year onstage - a rarity) are they working in a regional theatre? or pursuing their own music? commissioned to write a musical or play? musically directing other shows? teaching? I think you get my point.</p>
<p>By the way, NYU does not accept 1000 students, even across all of its studios, nor does it have anywhere near that number matriculate, and as indicated above, the number for the MT studio is ~64.</p>
<p>The task of determining the hows and whys of success for theatre actors is almost impossible to complete with any significant degree of accuracy. That’s why the number of working alumni should be just one single piece in this very large puzzle. If you never see the grads of one school anywhere and the school can’t provide you with any relevant information on working grads, then there’s likely a problem. However, I don’t think that is going to happen with any of the schools that are discussed here. One thing I found interesting from Emsdad’s original list is one school’s numbers being so high. In all the years I’ve been seeing theatre, all over North America and in the West End, there were only two grads that I’ve seen perform (maybe one or two others once regionally) and those two are touted over and over by this particular school. It’s good to see that there are more kids from there who are booking work and performing.</p>
<p>If I thought I was truly a top tier talent, I would research as much as I could on-line, narrow my choices down to a top 3 or 5 schools, and go visit each school. While there, I would look at the level of training and the level of talent at each school. You want to be pushed and nothing will push you more then healthy competition. </p>
<p>All the top schools send a fair amount of graduates on tours and to the bright lights of broadway. Professional performance jobs are based on talent and auditions not what school you attended. </p>
<p>The only time I feel attending a “name” school is an advantage is if you are looking for a job in the “non-performing” arena. That’s where networking and the wow you attended… is helpful.</p>
<p>One of the biggest problems my daughter had in putting together a list is the elusive prestige factor. She wanted top-notch training and a degree with a something of a wow factor. She also wants an education. Maybe 5 schools max fit the bill. Several that we visited seemed much more geared to those already working or ready to work right now. Some, in her view, were not teaching much more than she learned from high school and community theater. A huge turn-off at a few highly touted MT programs was the emphasis they put on drop-outs. If a student was only at a school for a year how much did that school really have to do with their success?</p>
<p>I didn’t keep a tally as I looked all the bios for the data in Post #146 but my recollection from the bios of the 466 actors that reported their school (which was 38% of the total, to be precise):</p>
<ol>
<li><p>Only a very small number specified that they were non-majors (maybe something like less than 10%). I don’t think accounting for this would affect the relative positions very much.</p></li>
<li><p>A significant percentage specified that they held a theatre degree (maybe something like 40% or more). Hence, while some in the totals may represent drop-outs, it is probably a small percentage.</p></li>
<li><p>A significant percentage were dance majors (maybe something like 20-30%).</p></li>
<li><p>Of course, some did not specify what their major was.</p></li>
<li><p>Since a fairly significant percentage of working actors did not attend or graduate from college, say 10-25%, the data collected for Post #146 probably represents a majority or close to a majority (more than 50%) of the actors in the 48 shows who did graduate from college and may represent something like 60% of recent grads in those shows last weekend.</p></li>
</ol>
<p>It’s very interesting that 20-30% were dance majors. In my experience that’s another indicator that many may have been ensemble folk (nothing wrong with that - it’s a performing paycheck).</p>
<p>I’m betting we all agree this snapshot is no basis for selecting schools, but it’s an interesting snapshot nonetheless. And during this phase of the audition season I’m guessing many are up for a good distraction (am I right?). ;-)</p>
<p>One thing worth noting about both lists is that among the schools which produced more Bway performers there are a range of Conservatories though BAs, once again showing that your child can pursue the type of education they crave and still get a crack at Bway, IF they go in with the right combination of talent, looks, training and work ethic… and are incredibly lucky!</p>
<p>As to choosing schools, I’ve heard it said many times that in MT you don’t choose the school, the school chooses you. There’s some truth in that, even for ED kids like D who was chosen by love-at-first-sight. It really does seem that most kids land where they belong.</p>
<p>I hope those of you in the midst of auditions are making lots of memories!</p>
<p>@MomCares: I didn’t keep a tally of this, either, but for sure a large majority of the actors who reported their school were Ensemble members (and therefore recent grads who don’t have as many credits to fill up their bios and who still clearly remember the kind of September when they were tender and callow fellows…).</p>
<p>Following on with MomCares mentioned, while 41% of the actors in Post #146 come from the 10 ten schools (and, of course, these positions are temporal to some or a large extent and hardly enshrined in cement) 59% (the majority) came from “everywhere else.” And “everywhere else” is an even bigger number because of the fact that something like 10-25% of actors never went to college. “Everywhere Else U” looks like its not a bad place to go.</p>
<p>I have to admit whenever I see school rankings quoted with great authority I think of “It’s a Privilege to Pee” from Urinetown.</p>
<p>If by education you mean outside of a BFA MT you are right, very few schools will fit that bill. Most BFA MT are so rigorous that it is almost impossible to double major.</p>
<p>If by ready to work you mean more polished in the areas of voice/acting/dancing that is one thing. I’ve only known or heard of schools that look for diamonds in the rough not the other way around.</p>
<p>@ Flossy, if she craves a combo of Academic and Artistic rigor, you’re right the lists get short fast (that may not be what she wants?).</p>
<p>For D, who wanted that balance, IIRC her list came down to 1) Northwestern, 2) Brown, Yale, or UMich, 3) Penn State, CMU, CCM… I can’t remember the others. Obviously the Academic/Artistic balance shifted as she moved down the list.</p>
<p>It’s fun to see the various lists folks come up with, as it’s another great reminder that every artist finds a unique path.</p>