soozievt

Did your friend reflect upon why she chose Roosevelt over CMU or UMich since she did apply (and got in) and must have liked those two schools enough to have applied to them in the first place? I'm curious what drew her to choose Roosevelt as with any student, they have reasons of why they feel a school fits what they want over other schools. Fit is more important than prestige. However, usually kids do like most schools on their list (or why apply to them?) and so I am wondering her criteria for choosing this school over the acceptances to those two well regarded programs on her wish list. Thanks, if you do happen to ask her. Maybe she also can point to the source of where she got a ratings list.

ccpasoulman

when talking to my friend about her choice she expressed that her decision to attend roosevelt was based on the individual attention she gets here, connections, supportive faculty, no cuts, and chicago being known as the second largest theatre town in america. i will be sure to ask her for her source for ratings. i hope her decision makes sense. At the end of the day, its all about what is most fitting for you as an artist. i hope everyone on here finds that special school.

soozievt

CCpassoulman, that is great that she has reasons she chose it as any student should have. Those are reasons that make sense to choose a school by but they do not reflect a comparison as to why she chose it over the other two mentioned. They stand as reasons for their own sake for the school being a good fit for her (as anyone should choose a school for that reason). I was asking more why she chose it over those others which begs a more comparative type answer. For example, if one school is smaller than another, a kid might say they like that is smaller. If one schools has cuts and another doesn't and the kid does not want cuts, then that is a contrast. The points you brought up about supportive faculty, no cuts, connections, individual attention also exist at the other two schools. The only contrast is the point about being in Chicago. Again, those are solid reasons to pick a school but I can't tell by the answer why she chose it over the other two that she apparently had an interest in if she applied and it is unusual in some ways for someone to pick what some might think of as a less selective school over two admissions to top programs UNLESS they liked it for reasons that contrasted over a more selective one. Prestige is not that important. My own child, not in MT, when it came to picking her final favorites of her choices in April, had two schools she was seriously considering attending over an Ivy League school in which she was accepted and chosen as a Scholar so believe me, it is not all about prestige but I know what her reasons were and they very much contrasted with the schools she liked better. That is why I am currious about your friend.

I am also curious about this source for ratings because on another board I saw you post a similar post on, I noticed another student posting how HIS school, Western Michigan was rated third for MT behind CMU and UM. It was interesting to read someone else say this about THEIR school and now to read that same statistic about your school. I have not seen such a list. I could not even tell you which "rank" my own kid's school, (NYU/Tisch/CAP) had!

Susan

Mary Anna

What are the Ivy League Schools of musical theatre and theatre?
Does Susan or anyone have a list? Are they listed on this board somewhere?

Thanks,

Mary Anna

soozievt

Mary Anna...I do not have such a list but I wish to clarify that my reference in the above post had NOTHING to do with MT schools and I had written that the Ivy League schools pertained to my other D who is currently a soph in college and had written "not in MT" and used it as an analogy to her picking the schools that she liked best, not which were more prestigious. When narrowing her options down after all her acceptances came in, I was saying that she knocked off one of her Ivy League school acceptances (I am talking the real and only Ivy League as it is officially called, not a term that some may use here loosely with MT programs) and preferred two of her other schools over this one. I was saying she had reasons for those choices that contrasted with the Ivy League school she had gotten into that she opted to not attend.

As far as Ivy League schools for MT or theater.....the term Ivy League can only be loosely applied as the Ivy League consists of Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Brown, Penn, Cornell, Columbia, and Dartmouth and is a football league.

I suppose you are asking about the "top" rated programs. I do not know of any rankings for this field (nor do I like school rankings anyway and never paid attention to them for my first daughter who had no clue where her schools ranked on USNews). If anyone knows of official rankings for MT BFA programs, I'd love to hear but none exists in an official list that I know of. What DOES exist are reputations and there are some MT programs that are often thought of as the "top programs in the field" though not necessarily in any particular order. I think most who read this forum know which ones as a loose group are often thought of in this regard to reputation. As an acting coach, I imagine you are also aware of which programs are considered the top ones in terms of reputation. There are a handful and some might dispute which are in that handful so I am not going to state the ones that I often hear of in that handful. I am not aware of any ranking of them, however. None are in the Ivy League.

Susan

Mary Anna

My preferences are always the colleges which are the best fit for my students.
Naturally I am aware, as you say, of the top programs by reputation.

It is always wonderful to hear students' enthusiasm for their own school choice.

Thanks for clarifying your post. I thought if there exsisted a list of what professionals considered to be Ivys, I wanted to see it.

thanks,
xxx,Mary Anna

sareccasmom

Soozievt--I agree with your defination on what we of the CC consider or feel or believe to be the top tier of MT schools in the country. What then constitutes the so to speak second and third tier MT schools? How is that determined? For example, since most us of know very little about it, where does Roosevelt fall in the tier order? Thanks!

Julie

nytheatermom

I think as others have implied that "rankings" are insulting to students who are in programs, considering programs and people who are running the programs.

Rankings are a markete'rs way to sell books. The one and only reason there are so many ranking books out there is because people like us buy them. And we all know that the efforts by many schools to "improve" their rankings -- not because they want to be better schools, but they want a better ranking on the list -- has been in so many cases not good for students.

Recently I was at a school where the theater head kept saying rankings were subjective, but wanted to let you know that his school is considered the 5th best or the 10th best. Maybe it is, maybe it isn't.

So please all of us: this forum is most useful when we talk about the fit of a school for a particular person, how difficult it might be to get in, philosophy,etc.

Please, let's not get into: these are first tier schools, these are second, etc.

CoachC

What I always take issue with is schools which say "We're RANKED right up there with Schools X. Y, and, Z" - because I feel as if those programs which make such claims rarely do so with ANY justification but have many high school students, usually those who are very uninformed about MT a profession as well as college MT programs, who latch onto these claims of elite status. I think we should also be straight-up about something here on this board, and I'll do it: currenly, the "best" MT's schools, by "conventional wisdom" in the field, are CCM, NYU, CMU, UM, and probably also OCU (the most recent addition to this grouping). BoCo used to be in the top and may still be, but I don't hear it spoken about as strongly as I did in th 90's. Northwestern may also be in this grouping. I think the statement about which schools are considered "best" is valuable to any student auditioning - and I also think the BEST way to define that is by asking "Which schools' names elicit the most respect among NYC casting directors?" In GENERAL, the list above is the current hot crop of schools. For EVERY school I listed, I'm sure that there are many people on the board who can produce 5 anecdotes about casting directors who generally HATE grads of one of those schools, and 10 anecdotes about other. less well-known programs which have better reps in various casting arenas - and I know this, because I, too could produce those anecdotes. HOWEVER, I think we do NO student good by pretending that their aren't "top" schools BY REPUTATION. This does NOT mean, as is often discussed here, that a "top" school is a great fit for everyone, no matter how great his or her talent level may be, and that you cannot get a "top" education at another school. But I have no affiliation with ANY of these schools, and I have or have had students at Point Park, CMU, Emerson, BoCo, UM, CCM, AMDA, Wright State, Pace, Northwestern, FSU, the Unversity of Akron, UCLA...and many others that aren't coming to mind right now. And my policy is honesty with my students - in addition to telling them WHY the "top" schools are currently considered as such (various reasons for each, but usually having a lot to do with how many grads each currently has working in regional and national arenas and HOW THESE ACTORS ARE PERCEIVED AS WORKERS), I also tell them what our wise ones here always proclaim : find the school that is best for YOU!!!

While true "rankings" DO NOT exist (hear that, all??? THERE ARE NO "OFFICIAL" RANKINGS OF MT PROGRAMS!!!), you will find that students IN collegiate programs who have a clear view of their field and their peers will rattle off the SAME list of "top" programs, as these are the people they see regularly achieving success (in summer stocks, in New York and regional auditions, etc.) This does NOT demean other programs that exist - but saying you went to Harvard Medical School is NOT the same as saying you went to XYZ Medical School, ya know? The implications about the quality and rigorousness of the education are carried by the name Harvard Med School and have been ESTABLISHED OVER TIME based on the work of grads of that Med School. Can you become a FANTASTIC doctor going to ANY medical school? Probably yes - or at least going to MOST medical schools, if you have the talent and the drive. But is it RIGHT for XYZ Med School to say "we're just as good as Harvard?" ONLY if they have A LOT of PROOF to back that up!!!! The "proof" is SOMEWHAT in how students feel about the program and the "quality of the education," but THAT is very subjective, and can really only be judged by looking at GRADS WHO ARE WORKING. If the education IS "quality," then a large % of grads will be working - yes, yes, I know, people choose to leave MT for many reasons, but those of you inclined to argue should still get my general point and its validity. If the point of studying MT in college is to become a WORKING MT ACTOR, then the gauge of a program above all is where are the grads working, and how many grads are working?

So students, be AWARE of the REALITIES of each program - and part of that DOES include national and REGIONAL reputation. (Some schools don't have national reps but are really well-know and well-respected in certain areas of the country, which is helpful if you want to work in that area.) And the way to find out that rep is NOT to ask the school - the best schools usually don't brag, b/c they don't have to. Read CC - look at playbill.com and see which schools the performers attended (and do this ANY time you read a playbill) - talk to working performers - talk to those who have auditioned in the past, especially those attending top schools now, and find out WHY they auditioned where they did...Again, you will almost always hear a few "top" schools in EACH list.

One final point - considering MT programs and their direct relation to MT employment is VERY different from considering this for straight acting programs. I know much less about the latter, but I know enough (esp. through colleagues who are working BFA and MFA actors) to know they aren't the same animal.

CoachC

Oooh I just realized this is on the CCPA thread and I didn't mean for any of this to be directed at CCPA - I don't know it at all so I can't judge by any means - I thought when I replied this was the more general thread!

ElliottsMom

Soulman:

It's interesting to hear that dorm living is required for the first two years. In re-looking at the stats for this school this weekend, I was surprised that only 7% of the students were listed as living on-campus. That sent up a flag for me. Is it a commuter school? Are most kids living off-campus in apartments (images of starving actors) or Greek houses? Do the theater students pretty much keep to themselves (vs. developing relationships with general univ. students)?

chrism

CoachC, you said:

"One final point - considering MT programs and their direct relation to MT employment is VERY different from considering this for straight acting programs. I know much less about the latter, but I know enough (esp. through colleagues who are working BFA and MFA actors) to know they aren't the same animal."

Since I have a kid who could go in either direction (MT or acting) I'm fascinated by this comment and I have no clue what it means. Why is MT employment different from Acting employment? Why aren't they same animal? How are they not the same? I'm really in the dark.

This may sound strange to those in the field, but I always considered acting to be MT without the singing! Sounds dumb when I type it out, but gosh, that's how it is presented in the auditions - the actors give 2 monologues, the MT'ers 2 monologues plus 2 songs.

Hope you can enlighten me, I'm really interested.

illinisue

As a former student of statistics - let me add one thing. Any ranking of any school on any criteria has its limitations. What did they choose to ask? Who did they ask? Won't bore you by continuing this, but when you're looking for a college or place to hone your craft, it helps that if you know your gifts and try to match it with a program that will nuture, grow and/or push you. I was in a seminar with a coach from Wisconsin who opined that not everyone will thrive in a true "triple threat" school no matter the talent of the student. That success comes from many different types of training, talent, and luck.

CoachC

chrism -

As always, there are "exceptions" to any "rule" - but in general, MT is much more dependent on "youth" when you are breaking in to the field than acting. There are many jobs for chorus "boys and girls" when you are 18, 19, 20, 21, 22 - and many leading roles for younger "types." In a way, an MT career is much more limited because of this - especially with trends in both newer and older musicals, where roles which require youth outnumber those which require age (take it from an "old" performer!) Yes, all MT's are also ACTORS, and so their are MT programs that pride themselves on training ACTORS and LEADS (rather than chorus people), implying greater longevity in a broader performance career - but even those MT programs tend to accept a less-broad range of types for MT than they do for acting, as the MT's will be "ready" to be viable in the national employment pool perhaps even before they graduate, whereas those aspiring to do stage acting may be so, but may also work in a series of smaller companies and more "apprentice-like" acting jobs, gain life experience, and then obtain an MFA or "grow into" the meatier acting roles. Most MFA acting programs openly do NOT want students right out of college - then want those who have performed or at least "lived" - and Juilliard, for example, also feels this way about their undergrads (although the 2 students I know at Juilliard DID get accepted right out of high school - but they are rare in that culture).

In general, the "standard" path to MT employment, esp. as a young woman, is to either get an Equity stock job or EMC jobs while still in school or else quite young, OR to be "discovered" through an open call (or a school showcase) and "walk into" a lead. Yes, of course there are "non-standard" ways to create a career - but as a woman in MT, it is MUCH more rare to be given (by a job) or earn your Equity card once you advance past your mid-20's - and those who achieve this usually come through the avenue of being a highly trained and experienced professional singer or a company dancer. On the other hand, because their are, as a rule, far fewer straight acting JOBS both in NYC and in regional markets (due to the smaller casts of plays as compared to musicals and to the greater popularity of musicals than plays in regional markets), many who focus in straight acting don't earn their Equity cards til they are older but still WORK successfully - there seem to be MORE non-Eq. straight acting jobs with "good" organizations (that take care of their actors, pay fairly well, and don't require "slave labor") than is true of musicals. I have a lovely friend and former student who is 32 and just earned her Equity card with a major regional company: she was an acting major in college, lived in NYC for several years and performed in excellent but non-paying gigs, went back to her hometown to teach at her former youth theatre school and do community shows, where great work and reviews led to small paying gigs and finally her Equity debut. However, she still doesn't make a living as an actress - but now she has her card and can audition more widely for well-paying jobs - and because she reads young, she's not "too old" - AND her life experience pays off in her stage interpretations.

Older (post-20's) women who work in MT almost always get a foothold when they are quite young, regardless of the market, or they are overshadowed by a new crop who can belt higher and do more turns - because although acting IS quite important in the end, the weeding-out process in cattle call MT auditions often comes down to typing out (eliminating based solely on look) and/or singing 16 bars - where acting, vocal prowess, and type (meaning AGE as well as other things) all combine to make their impression. And to avoid cattle calls, one must have an agent - which you get through interest via showcase, through being seen in a show, or through connections from your work - but the older you are as an MT, the harder they are to get, at least in NYC. And an "unknown" hardly ever steps into an OLDER female lead on Broadway, but it is not rare for unknowns to step into younger leading roles all the time. So MT programs really do expect their grads to viable at the highest levels of employment right away, since opportunities for them exist - whereas although acting programs say the same thing, there isn't even agreement about the best educational path for straight actors to take: a good friend who headed a major regional company which annually auditioned actors at NETC's and SETC's and who now heads a collegiate acting department himself is a Princeton grad (in English lit) and firmly believes that ideally, as a director, he wants actors who have liberal arts educations FIRST and then receive MFA's (intensive acting training). He ALSO believes this of MT's - but frankly, it is difficult to break into MT this way as a woman (not so much as a man) because you are competing against BFA's who may be equally talented but are much more polished in terms of acting a song, choosing the right audition material, dance skills, etc. - or you are trying to be seen at a cattle call when these women already have Equity cards (from summer work) and agents (from their showcases or from work they've gotten in part through connections relating to their collegiate programs).

In summary: as a RULE, those who wish to work widely in musical theatre begin as young chorus people (often covering leads, but still WORKING in the ensemble while they do this cover work) and work their way up to leads, and BFA MT programs train their actors to be ready to capitalize on these opportunities while they are still young and at the height of their marketability - so the "best" programs are heavy in dance and/or audition technique/song peformance (which is both MUSICAL and ACTING-based and involves how to convey SO much in a 16-bar cut), bring in relevant Master Class guests (who often critique upperclassmen in the programs, to further prepare them for the "real world" of auditioning), and teach the business of the business - readying their students to jump with both feet into the professional world. Acting programs may contain these elements that relate directly to employment, but as a rule, they focus MORE on process - especially MFA programs - because they are so many more PATHS to getting straight acting jobs than their are for MT jobs

Ericsmom

ccpasoulman - glad to hear you are happy there.

Since we have scheduled a trip to Chicago in Feb. for auditions, what show do you recommend in Chicago besides Wicked? I've heard great things about Wicked there, but by then I will have seen it 3 times, and my S will have seen it 4 times. We might want to do something else.

I don't think ranking schools is a good idea. I agree with someone who said find what is right for you. My son likes all the schools to which he is applying.