<p>Thank you so much. I learned a lot.
Many things to consider…</p>
<p>Here’s another reason to consider Bard:</p>
<p>[Bard</a> College Named Nation’s No. 1 Dinner Party School | The Onion - America’s Finest News Source](<a href=“http://www.theonion.com/articles/bard-college-named-nations-no-1-dinner-party-schoo,19032/]Bard”>Bard College Named Nation's No. 1 Dinner Party School)</p>
<p>The tiny bit of information that I can contribute–and it may be that this has been said by someone else–is that at Northwestern (NU), the quarter system allows you to take more classes than the semester system. That’s one reason why they don’t discourage double majors, at least between music and liberal arts (Weinberg). Double majors between music and engineering or other schools take special requests. Double degrees are possible, too, but take five years. The info is here: [Bienen</a> School of Music :: Degrees & Certificates](<a href=“http://www.music.northwestern.edu/academics/degrees-and-certificates/index.html]Bienen”>http://www.music.northwestern.edu/academics/degrees-and-certificates/index.html)</p>
<p>Tuba is right: the school of music at Northwestern is really a conservatory in the seriousness of its music study.</p>
<p>Thanks again! I thought quarter system is more difficult and bigger burden for student because there are three final exams. Maybe they can get more credit for double major.
The photo of Bard is not too bad but I think drinking and smoking is not good for young musician just like sport player.</p>
<p>I would not rule out Bard on the basis of an article in The Onion. That publication is mostly filled with satire and parody. While some of what they present as factual may be true, I would not trust it as a sole source for anything. Also, at any given school there will be some students who smoke and/or drink and some that do not. It is true that those activities are more prevalent at some schools than at others.</p>
<p>Ha - I didn’t post that Onion link just in case someone took it seriously! I admit, there are kernels of truth - such as listening to Joanna Newsom and Brian Eno (my son is guilty of that…) Overall, I found it very funny. Food is not the reason most students choose Bard, let me tell you.</p>
<p>The Onion is not a newspaper, it is a parody of the news that satires everything it can. One memorable headline was “President of US job outsourced to India”, complete with the line that the guy getting the job was promised he could keep his job as a call center operator for American Express. Another classic one was worlds most boring man dies of boredom, you get the drift. About the only thing in the Onion that is real tend to be things like movie reviews and the like…and I can promise you, kids at Bard aren’t all that much different from kids elsewhere in that regards:)</p>
<p>As far as drinking and smoking, depends on the college. Schools that have a large percentage of foreign students tend to have more students smoking because smoking tends to be more common overseas then in the US as a rule (today less then 20% of Americans are classified as smokers). With drinking, you will find that at all schools, conservatory or university, that varies depending on a lot of factors. About the only place you don’t see drinking or smoking at all probably would be religious schools where both are forbidden (well, at least in the open that is). </p>
<p>You may want to look back at the threads others have posted, there is a lot of information in them which I will add are people’s opinions. Based on my limited experience (not quite at the college audition time yet with our child) the difference between a big name school like Juilliard or Curtis (to use 2 common examples) and a ‘less highly known one’ in general is that these schools tend to attract a large pool of very high level candidates, so they have a talented pool to pick from, whereas another program that is less well known doesn’t quite have that kind of competition…and that can make a difference to some students, being around kids generally at a high caliber can spur them on to really go at it, whereas if they are near the best player in a program, may be less incentive to excel, even though the teaching is great. (note the may, depends on the student)</p>
<p>Some music programs have a fantasic program in some areas and not in others, so you could have a topnotch composition department with a mediocre violin department so it might be a great match as a composer, but not if you are on the violin. Programs like the Juilliard et al tend to be pretty strong across the board,though it is quite possible that in an individual category, let’s say piano performance, another school’s program could be considered stronger then Juilliard’s (not saying that actually exists, that is made up example). </p>
<p>The other thing to keep in mind are opportunities to actually perform as a student. In some programs, undergraduate students don’t have as many performance opportunities as other places. Also, where a school is located is important, a student at Juilliard or NEC, for example, can find not only opportunities within the school, but also in the surrounding area, given the density of performing arts in the NYC or Boston area…</p>
<p>More importantly, it depends on finding a teacher and program that works for the student (not easy, I grant you), it could be that a ‘lesser’ ranked program works better for a student then a ‘higher’ ranked one. The other thing, that other people have alluded to, is that these days more and more music students are getting MM degrees, and that might make where you go UG a little less important, since a student could always go to a ‘top ranked’ school graduate level.</p>
<p>I can’t stop laughing:</p>
<p>“Continued Halsey, “That’s why we have a strict policy that any student attending a dinner party with more than four courses will be immediately suspended.””</p>
<p>“More importantly, it depends on finding a teacher and program that works for the student”- it is really important!! I think many things become clear.</p>
<p>musicprnt-- I imagine my post is the one you take issue with, and I’d just like to clarify: absolutely, big-name schools attract that critical mass of talent and the perspective that it gives students is invaluable. I think one of the biggest struggles for performers at less-competitive schools is keeping in mind what else is out there, and I think that’s a resource that can’t be replaced (though summer programs and other extracurricular music opportunities can at least partially supplement). Many outstanding high school players enter small programs for the teacher and then coast their way right out of a shot at music. My only point was that, when it comes down to the graduate audition process, the greatest weight is given to the performing ability, not the school on the diploma. This differs from certain professional audition and interview situations, where (from what I’ve heard and seen) a name like Juilliard can help an applicant make it past the resume round, particularly in a case where the applicant has only one degree.</p>
<p>Schools like Juilliard and Curtis are certainly places where the norm is excellence. I think particularly in the traditional solo studios (voice, piano, violin, now cello), the better-regarded the school, the better the studios are likely to be. Where those schools can sometimes be rivaled, I think, are the small studios, where one or two unmotivated players can bring down the whole studio environment. Also, at conservatories where the faculty are drawn from a particular orchestra, a single-studio instrument may suffer from a teacher who views teaching as a chore. However, this is CLEARLY not the norm, and I would tend to think that most students intent on performing would be better off going to the best school they can make it into that fits them well. It’s not always easy to know how you’re doing in music, and being around a group of peers who are doing it the right way (and then finding success outside of school) is a very valuable asset to an education.</p>
<p>But, of course, you’re right, these are just my opinions. But I agree with you on all the points you make.</p>
<p>posted this elsewhere by accident. This is a nice article about the cello program at Rice: [Rice</a> University | News & Media](<a href=“http://www.media.rice.edu/media/NewsBot.asp?MODE=VIEW&ID=15117]Rice”>http://www.media.rice.edu/media/NewsBot.asp?MODE=VIEW&ID=15117)</p>
<p>[97-Year-Old</a> Dies Unaware Of Being Violin Prodigy | The Onion - America’s Finest News Source](<a href=“http://www.theonion.com/articles/97yearold-dies-unaware-of-being-violin-prodigy,18194/]97-Year-Old”>97-Year-Old Dies Unaware Of Being Violin Prodigy)</p>
<p>Now I learned a lot. By the way, would you give me your 2 cent for those famous cello teachers? Hans Jensen, Also Parisot, Laurence Lesser. How about their difference in teaching? I know they are all amazing and extremely busy teacher. As far as I know, Jensen pushes students very hard to their extreme. Many winners at national competition are his students. He is a really devoted teacher. Actually he represent a kind of boot camp Meadowmount reputation.</p>
<p>Tuba-
I actually wasn’t responding to your post, not sure I had even read it when I wrote my post. My point wasn’t that Julliard or NEC or whatever are the place to go, far from it, my point was that the right school for student depends on the student, the instrument and what they are planning to do:). There are plenty of kids who go to Juilliard, Curtis, etc who may have done better going someplace else, and there are kids who go to another program who would have benefited from a Juilliard or NEC or Curtis… The real point is that the idea of ranking conservatories or music schools within an LAC or university is kind of a wasted effort, because those rankings don’t work for every student the same way:).</p>
<p>It is in some ways some of the thinking on the academic side of things, where people believe if you get into let’s say Harvard or Princeton, that that is going to guarantee a great job or whatever, whereas if you go to a ‘lesser’ school you will never achieve, which is hogwash. Likewise, there are people who think because they get into a Juilliard or Curtis, because they have won X competitions, that they are going to be a star musician when they get out there automatically, that where they went to school is going to make everyone throw themselves at their feet, which obviously isn’t true (there is a flaw with the academic analogy, for some non music jobs, if you don’t go to a top 10 school it is next to impossible to get them to look at you, specifically in things like international finance, IB, and some other inbred occupations. With music it is different, other then the level of training you might get or not get, it doesn’t matter, because jobs generally are based on auditions and the like (there is obviously networking in things like freelance gigs, and being at a program with a large network of musicians can help with that). </p>
<p>I could see some cases where having a Juilliard or Curtis background, for example, might help if someone is teaching and trying to attract students, parents who know nothing else about music probably have heard of them, whereas if you say university of wala wala graduate or rutgers graduate, they might think “hmm,not big time” (same way that members of well known or relatively well known orchestras get students, even if they aren’t particularly good teachers, know of one woman, a member of the NY Phil, who teaches locally and having seen her students, most people shake their head about her as a teacher).</p>
<p>But for most music jobs, it ends up being how good the person is as a musician, and that can come from many different paths.</p>
<p>meekchun: I keep hearing very positive things about Melissa Kraut at CIM (I’m not cello aficionado, but I still hear her name a lot.) She is at Meadowmount in the summer, I believe.</p>
<p>Teachers that are highly regarded that have not been mentioned yet: Steve Doane at Eastman, Paul Katz at NEC, Richard Aaron at Michigan and Juilliard, Ron Leonard at Colburn, Bonnie Hampton at Juilliard, Norman Fischer, Brinton Smith and Desmond Hoebig all at Rice, Amit Peled at Peabody, Timothy Eddy at Mannes and Juilliard (probably more appropriate for grad students), Mark Kosower, Richard Weiss and Stephen Geber at CIM.</p>
<p>They are all fabulous. Dr. Kraut is so nice teacher and has top level students. Some of the teachers mentioned above can be reached through Heifetz.</p>
<p>yale’s a weird school. haha.</p>
<p>Just wanted to put a word in for Mark Kosower, he is a fantastic teacher and quite nice to boot. I took a lesson with him before he left SFCM.</p>
<p>It entirely depends on the students’ needs. If you are ready for professional polishing, competition entry etc, the studios of Ralph Kirshbaum (USC), Joel Krosnick (Juilliard), Larry Lesser (NEC) etc take some beating. Other great performer/teachers with top studios include Steve Doane (Eastman), Paul Katz (NEC), Colin Carr (Stony Brook). However, many undergrads need a lot of technical building, a teacher with time and regularity to invest in them as individuals as well as cellists, and someone with the patience and vision to stick with that student while they develop, often ready for one of these other studios at grad level. Some wonderful technical builders are Richard Aaron (U of Michigan), Melissa Kraut (CIM), Alison Wells (Peabody), Amir Eldan (Oberlin). In all these studios you will have a lot of attention technically and will be transformed in 4 years. Take a good look at where you are, what you need,and where you will best thrive.
Above all, TAKE LESSONS everywhere! Good luck!</p>