<p>I don’t have a dog in this race and have no involvement with Berklee but I did want to address this:
</p>
<p>Even if A is true, it does not mean that B (in order to collect tuition) is true.</p>
<p>Many many moons ago, I attended a highly competitive Canadian performing arts school in a program that quite publicly reduced its population by half EACH YEAR in my field. The purpose was NOT to collect tuition. The purpose was to give those with RAW talent the opportunity and training to rise to the occasion, but to spare those who did not keep up by only advancing and graduating the most skilled of the lot “because that’s how the industry is” – was how they explained it.</p>
<p>If transparent and communicated properly at the outset, there is nothing wrong with this approach.</p>
<p>Further, if in fact there is a high rate of attrition, then indeed, they would HAVE to inflate the incoming in order to manage the logistics of delivering a quality program to those in upper years. Nothing on the planet is less cost-effective than failing to optimize your teaching and facility infrastructure!</p>