I’ve been a professional actress for most of my life, have appeared in a number of commercials, tv shows, and short films, and am signed with a major talent agency. It has been a huge time and money investment, and something I certainly see as my foremost passion. I’m obviously no Natalie Portman and have no recognizable name, but I’m wondering if acting as a large part of my resume is any advantage over extracurriculars like an instrument or sport. Do ivy league colleges appreciate the actual craft or is it only the recognition from having a famous actor or actress that they value? I’m still very academic, but my scores aren’t fantastic enough to set me apart from any other Ivy applicant. Does acting enhance my chances at a place like Brown or Yale?
It could, but still depends on the strengths in the rest of your app. You need to be in stats range, have the right rigorous coursework, across the board, and have other relevant ECs, as well. And present a good app, in all sections.
As MIT points out (and it applies to the other tippy tops,) unilateral isn’t the “it.”
Every year many colleges put out a list highlighting the talents of their incoming class. Two years ago I remember Yale bragging about an incoming young actress who had been in over 50 commercials and toured with a production of Lion King. She wasn’t a famous name (yet) but it does appear that they liked it as an extracurricular.
I would assume (and just guessing) that it would be perceived as your being awfully good at balancing your time, working independently and having excellent focus. I am picturing you in the back of a car studying a lot…? If you do still have great scores and were able to hold down what was probably a full time job when you were 12, then, to me anyway you sound pretty special!
And good for you that you want to further your education. That alone makes you seem even more special!
If you are still working, I would guess that going to a rigorous college would be a risk. Again, assuming your scores suggest you could thrive at any of the high tier schools, I would say that you are taking a bigger risk by attending such a school than they are in accepting you! (You don’t rob banks or anything like that in your spare time which would make you an undesirable community member, right?).
I have to wonder, though, if students who have a viable $-making option are a large persistence risk? E.g., star athletes likely to one-and-gun once drafted into the pros? Or kids who already have significant revenue from their start-up they ran from their attic bedroom? That, I don’t know.
I do happen to know a professional actress (she is currently in a broadway show). She was a pro by 12. She went to a boarding school which accommodated her schedule. She did attend Yale and I have no clue what her academic credentials were. One thing very different about her, maybe, was that she could sing. As in really well. Hence the current Broadway career. So that might have been her hook more than anything else.
Good luck to you! Applause!!!
In and of itself, being an actor won’t give you more of a tip than being successful in other fields- the rest of the application has to cut it as well.
People sometimes assume that it is fame that gets an actor gets into a tippy top college. You cite Natalie Portman, but did you know that she was an Intel semi-finalist? Emma Watson is often cited as an actor getting into a top school- but she had three As at A level, which is what Oxford asks for, despite working steadily through HS.
I have read many of those college lists highlighting the talents of incoming students, but I haven’t seen the specific one mentioned above. Typically those class profiles highlight some of the more unusual accomplishments, and I would bet dollars to doughnuts that that was just one of a number of random or interesting accomplishments. I have trouble seeing it as Yale “bragging”.
When I started my first job out of college with a big firm, one of the other incoming new starts was a recently retired Broadway actor. She was in her early 40s and had gone back to college when she “aged out” (her description, not mine - she was incredibly fit and gorgeous by mere mortal standards) of acting/dancing. Her explanation was that in performing careers women especially have a relatively short shelf life. Most parts call for women in their 20s or younger with few being able to continue to get desirable roles after that, so she worked as long as she felt there were decent parts then went back to get a STEM degree.
Instead of the colleges viewing actors as likely to flake, I suspect colleges understand why actors would want that type of job security or chance to expand their intellectual skills. It wouldn’t be hard to explain that in an essay. Things have changed a little since then but by and large women especially are viewed as somewhat disposable with youth and certain types of beauty being a highly perishable asset, unlike the skills one might have to operate a startup you ran from your attic. They’re totally different animals.
Right. When they say one was a rodeo clown and another does Hungarian gypsy dances, that’s no hint of criteria for an admit. Its side fluff in marketing how “interesting” a class is.
The elites want kids with the proven academic chops, open to pursuing many interests, as shown in the various activities to-date. Not just a lengthy professional resume.