goldyfiftyone

exactly right, nytheatremom. i think that is exactly it.

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

Prof. Himmelheber

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...

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.

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.

eve

Prof. Himmelheber

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

http://web.cfa.arizona.edu/theatre/alumni/stars.php

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.

eve

fishbowlfreshman

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)

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 …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.

Another thing … On the same date, Cato said … Mtmommy then said and asked …Cato replied ... 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.

I wonder if Cato’s son and his friend made it …

alwaysamom

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.

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.

goldyfiftyone

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.'

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.

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

goldyfiftyone

split sections of classes are not the same thing.

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.

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.

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.

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

fishbowlfreshman

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.

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.

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.

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.

chrisnoo

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?

goldyfiftyone

no, fishbowl, i don't think you are a mom...i think you are a 'freshman'

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

fishbowlfreshman

I was going to leave this alone after my last post, but I feel like there's still a square inch of this dead horse that needs a beating. Assuming that by “talent” you mean developed talent, I seriously doubt you’ll find any students from the non-cutting "top dawg" BFA programs that emerge with “18 year old talent” after four years.” Lack of growth is something that will most certainly get you cut or flunked from any BFA worth its salt. You can, however, rest assured you’ll be warned and/or put on formal probation first and it won’t be to conform to some predetermined number. You should also understand that some of the top BFAs have a good number of 18 year olds with 20 year old (or more) talent – some with fairly extensive professional resumes – in the first year class and a big part of the quality of their graduates comes as much from those students’ skills and work habits rubbing off on one another as the teaching itself. Then again, like I implied in post 94, some schools might not have this luxury and could have reason to try to engineer it through cuts or whatever because of who they’re able to attract in the first place.

I suppose picking a school with a cut system could be a legitimate choice as long as you truly understand why it is there though I’d never personally recommend it and don’t buy its “real world” benefits in the slightest. It just means the slackers and some other talented kids who were admitted that weren't quite right for the program in the first place have been eliminated. Then again, I also think it’s somewhat ludicrous to choose a BFA that doesn't have a showcase and recommends grad school to complete your training if you have a choice. Why not just get a BA and follow it up with an MFA? (scratching head) Bleh … That’s a whole ‘nother tangent that has nothing to do with UA so I’ll stop. LOL

5pants

fishbowl,

I hope you come back in another year and share your perspective then. It will be interesting to see if your point of view changes at all with time and experience under your belt. Your research is stellar I will admit, but sometimes it's not all cut and dry as you preceive. I write this all with good intentions...I do so admire your wit!! IMHO, you can research and research but nothing better is than a firsthand experience.

Warmly,

SUE aka 5pants

fishbowlfreshman

True dat. Black and white are just extremes. As for experience, I've got a little.

5pants

Since my editing time has expired, let me correct my typos:
IMHO, you can research and research but nothing is better than first-hand experience. There that makes sense.

I can tell you, we have learned much over the last few years and that old saying "hindsight is 20-20" is oh so true!!

Prof. Himmelheber

I'm just curious - that's my nature...

Does anyone have an idea of the "top" schools who no longer employ a cut system via juries?

My first impulse was to ask if being accepted to these schools isn't a "cut" in and of itself; but then I realized that once a student is accepted, they have a fairly good chance of completing school at that very institution...so never mind.

On the 80 student classes, how the heck do they ever get "substantial roles" with that many students? Are these schools producing a season of eight musicals? That seems to me to be the minimum number needed to ensure at least a "featured" or "supporting" role for each in the class (even if it has whittled down, by attrition, to 60). Help the old lady out, here?

eve