@soozievt - I would love to see what those stats are for the MT students at NYU. My D has several friends at NYU in MT who do not have what you would consider “high stats”. They have decent scores, but not “high”. What they are is Very talented.
The problem with citing those stats is that they apply to ALL of NYU not just MT on Broadway or the MT arm of Steinhardt. We don’t know what those are. We know a little more about Michigan because they give you the threshold score. But other than individual stories, we don’t know what the median SAT and GPA is of MT students at Michigan or NYU NSB. For all we know, half of the kids attending NYU NSB fall in the lower 25% or even the lowest 10% of all the students attending NYU. We don’t know. They may relax the standards for “low scoring” but talented students. We just don’t have that information. They don’t make it available.
What I do know is that for admissions to NYU/Tisch…academics are weighed 50% of the admissions decision and artistic review is weighed 50% of the decision. These are two separate processes.
As I said, a 1200 SAT can get you admitted, but the odds are still less there than if your SATs are in the mid SAT range of accepted students (or above). By the way, for all the kids you may know who had stats in this range (1800 SAT) who were admitted for MT at NYU, there are also students who had much higher stats and attended (my D included, as well as some students whom I have advised who were admitted there).
Moving away from NYU, there are some schools, such as Elon, where you have to be admitted academically to a school separately from the MT acceptance.
@soozievt: call it semantics, but I am sorry, I have disagree with a couple of your statements based on the data at hand.
According to US News, NYU is ranked #32 in the nation among universities and is rated “More Selective.” Note that only a couple dozen schools are ranked as “Most Selective” by US News. If you include LACs, you get less than a couple dozen more rated “Most Selective” and therefore more selective than NYU.
I would not conclude that 2% of colleges constitute enough of a group to support the claim that “many colleges are quite a bit more selective to NYU.” While I know many people who chase admission to this incredibly small subset of schools like to refer to “high stats” as that required for admission to this group, to me, there is only a handful of schools, relative to the thousands of colleges in the country, that require “ultra high stats.” These ultra high stats are achieved by only a very small percentage of students in the USA. D’s high school counselors, who are very accomplished in their field, do not use “high stats” in the same vein as CC parents chasing a very small group of elite schools.
US News disagrees with your assessment of “many not very selective academic schools.” According to the list below, which I posted last year, only one MT program listed at the top of this forum was located at a school that USNWR called “Less Selective” (with a handful marked “Rank Not Reported”):
MOST SELECTIVE
Carnegie Mellon University
Northwestern University
University of California - Los Angeles
University of Miami - Florida
University of Michigan
University of Southern California
MORE SELECTIVE
American University
Emerson College
Florida State University
Illinois Wesleyan
Muhlenberg College
NYU/Steinhardt
NYU/Tisch
Texas Christian University
University of California - Irvine
SELECTIVE
Baldwin-Wallace College
Ball State University
California State University, Fullerton
Catholic University
Cincinnati College Conservatory of Music
Elon University
Indiana University Bloomington
Ithaca College
James Madison University
Marymount Manhattan College
Millikin University
Montclair State University
Northern Colorado University
Ohio Northern University
Oklahoma City University
Otterbein University
Pace University
Pennsylvania State University
Point Park University
Roosevelt University
Sam Houston State University
Shenandoah Conservatory
SUNY at Buffalo
SUNY at Fredonia
Syracuse University
Temple University
Texas State - San Marcos
University of Arizona
University of Central Florida
University of Hartford - Hartt School
University of Oklahoma
Wagner College
Webster University
Western Michigan University
Westminster College of the Arts - Rider
Wright State
LESS SELECTIVE
Coastal Carolina University
NOT REPORTED
Boston Conservatory
Santa Fe University of Art and Design
University of the Arts
Viterbo University
Note: some colleges have changed ratings since this list was compiled.
Soozie will be up all night responding to this one!
I went ahead and compiled the following up-to-date list from College Data dot com. Only 1 MT program from the top of the forum was listed as “minimally difficult” for admission (this year it is Wright State). I certainly would hesitate to label the fine list of schools listed as “Moderately Difficult for Admission” as “not very selective.”
MOST DIFFICULT
Carnegie Mellon
Northwestern
NYU
USC
VERY DIFFICULT
American
Florida State
Illinois Wesleyan
James Madison
Miami
Michigan
Muhlenberg
Penn State
Syracuse
TCU
UCLA
UCI
MODERATELY DIFFICULT
Arizona
Baldwin Wallace
Ball State
Boston Conservatory
Cal State Fullerton
Catholic
Cincinnati College Conservatory of Music
Coastal Carolina
Elon
Hartt
Indiana
Ithaca
Marymount Manhatten
Millikin
Montclair
Northern Colorado
Ohio Northern
Oklahoma
Otterbein
Pace
Point Park
Rider
Roosevelt
Sam Houston
Santa Fe
Shenandoah
SUNY Buffalo
SUNY Fredonia
Temple
Texas State
U Arts
UCF
Webster
Western Michigan
Viterbo
MINIMALLY DIFFICULT
Wright State
NOT REPORTED
Oklahoma City
Wagner
EmsDad, I totally agree with this:
There are thousands of colleges in the USA. Most don’t require high stats or even above average stats (though I was never discussing "ultra high stats"earlier…simply was discussing that 1800 SAT or 26 ACT are considered “above average” to many and not often referred to as “high stats”). But in any case, indeed, the vast majority of colleges in the country don’t require anything near 1800 on the SAT to be admitted!
You also wrote:
I see your point here because I used the terminology of “NOT VERY selective academic schools” and USNEWS happens to use terms using the word “selective” in different gradations for their categories. So, my semantics definitely don’t match their USAGE of the same words…quite true! But, for example, USNEWS’ category of “selective” includes schools such as Pace with an overall (not specific to the BFA program) acceptance rate of 81% and Roosevelt with an acceptance rate of 79% and Sam Houston State with an acceptance rate of 74%, and Point Park with an acceptance rate of 74% (these are just SOME examples). I understand why they use the word “selective” because it means you must be selected and not everyone is admitted. But in the scheme of college admissions, such high acceptance rates are what many (including myself) would consider not so selective. In fact, for an average to above average student, these might even be safety schools academically speaking. That is what I meant by"not very selective academic schools." Yes, USNEWS uses the term of “selective” for that category meaning not everyone who applies is admitted. But in the examples in that category I just gave, about 3/4’s of applicants are admitted and so I consider those schools to be “NOT VERY” selective. I don’t think I am alone in that assessment or use of those words . USNEWS has Muhlenberg listed as “more selective” and yes, compared to ALL colleges in the country, that might be so, but even on the MT Forum, many have mentioned that Muhlenberg is their safety school (particularly above average or strong students have used this as a safety school).
In terms of your second post, I also agree that someone with above average stats would be eligible for merit scholarships at the MT schools you have under “Very Difficult.” The schools you have under “Most Difficult” would require beyond “above average” to score a scholarship (though Northwestern doesn’t have Merit Scholarships). For example, I tend to doubt an 1800 SAT is going to get a merit scholarship at NYU, at least based on the academics. That score comes in below their 25th%tile for SATs.
In any case, I was simply saying that when discussing MT programs, yes, an 1800 SAT would look very good at MOST (though not all) BFA schools because that is above average at most universities that house BFA in MT programs. But on other forums on CC, which I have read for 13 years, such stats are not typically referred to as “high stats.” And yes, many on the other forums on CC are seeking USNEWS’ top 30 schools. So, the discussion differs. The semantics/terminology differs as well.
Just wanted to comment on the information about Elon above:
We attended a local reception/admissions event for Elon here in town. I assumed that the very bifurcated process that Elon used when my D(2011) was auditioning was still in existence. But the admissions folks were very clear to a room of 50+ people, that if a student was accepted artistically at Elon that they would now be accepted academically, except in very rare situations. I was surprised and asked for clarification, but they repeated the same information.
The list above still does not keep in mind the specific selection process for talent based programs like MT.
For example Carnegie Mellon’s selection process for MT, VP and art is mostly based on auditions and portfolios–not grades. Yes, it is highly selective in terms of talent (just as it is highly selective in academics for other majors), but academics are not a major factor in talent programs. So CMU can be an easier admit for a student with exceptional talent, but lower grades, than a less academically ranked school that requires an academic admission first.
As soozievt stated, NYU considers academics and talent equally in separate admission processes. Admissions will give Tisch and Steinhardt their list of accepted students which will be cross checked with the list of students who passed their talent auditions. There may be some leeway in terms of stats that may be negotiated for ultra talented students, but as it was explained to me, very few battles are won to get a student into NYU if they do not pass academic muster. We know one exceptionally talented boy who was accepted talent wise on the basis of his performance at Steinhardt’s summer program. But he just did not have the grades to be academically accepted (despite the head of the program really going to bat for him.) I would make the assumption that a student should have test scores and/or grades at the 25th percentile to be admitted academically.
Here is something else to consider when you are thinking about academic selectivity etc- most kids are going to take academic classes at their schools, even if it is only one or two a semester. if you choose a “most difficult/ most selective” academic school (based on terminology used on lists above) those academic classes are going to reflect the standards of the university. If that’s not what a kid would like, or if the kid is in the lower threshold (bottom 25% etc) section of admittance - that can create difficulty. Yet another point to research, and understand before you choose. It gets said all the time- the goal shouldn’t be to pick the most famous program, but the one that will be the best fit for YOUR kid.
As long as we’re commenting on specific schools: it’s a real mistake to label Muhlenberg a “safety” school. If you have high stats and are applying early decision, maybe…but for regular decision, all bets are off. You can’t base it on Naviance or your audition or anything like that. Without knowing specifics for the current year, it’s still safe to say that historically they have chosen their entering class increasingly from the ED pool and well qualified RD applicants have been waitlisted.
This conversation about the role of academics in the MT admissions process fascinates me. I wish I knew how much of a role it plays in the decision making of some of the schools. I am hoping it is at least considered by most schools when looking at the candidates given that they see way more talent than they can accept. Surely at some places it can at least be a “tie breaker”?
My D is in the “high stats” category academically, but falls short of what I would call ultra-high tests scores (2040 SAT and 30 ACT) as they pertain to “normal” non-MT admissions. She also has a very high GPA with all honors and AP courses (3.94 unweighted/4.59 weighted). This seems to be considered high enough by the admissions people we talked to for admission to any of the BM or BFA MT programs she applied to. Her non-audition BA applications represented a range, so she has reach (Brown, Barnard, Oberlin) and what I consider a solid fit (Skidmore, Brandeis) but no real safety (her choice, against our counsel).
She is obviously academically inclined, so where she ends up will be interesting to me because if she ends up getting into one of her BA reach schools, it could trump a less academic BFA program for her. She has debated this back and forth for a while. I do know that even if her good grades/scores don’t “matter” in terms of admissions, they help her with scholarship money and they help her know that she is ready for college level work wherever she ends up.
Until we get all the info about where she gets in (auditioned and non-auditioned schools) and see the financial packages, we are just spinning our wheels. The waiting is too much some days. So, so hard. I always appreciate the people here who have been through it before and can pound some sense into me!
Times3… re: post #2010…I totally agree with you about Muhlenberg. It is definitely NOT a safety school for all applicants. “Safety” is relative to each person applying to a college. I also agree that RD is harder at Muhlenberg than ED. I was simply trying to say that using USNEWS’ terminology of “more selective” as applied to Muhlenberg, was an example of a point I was making in my post, because for very strong students, Muhlenberg is often a safety school even though it falls under USNEWS’ category of “more selective.”
Gingersnap…I have known and advised many applicants like your D who prefer a setting with strong academics, but also a MT major. Some were only willing to attend the BFA/BM programs in academically “more” selective universities or else attend a strong BA school. Some students aren’t willing to attend many of the fine BFA in MT programs located in what is generally thought of as less academically selective schools. My kid only applied to BFA programs and would have attended a good one located at any college, though her first choice, which is where she landed, NYU, is a more academically selective college and was truly the best fit for HER.
toowonderful…I completely agree with your post that even if you could get into a more academically selective BFA program where your stats fall in the lower 25th percentile of admitted students, you have to think about if you can handle the work and if it is a good fit. An Acting applicant I am advising this year, who had NYU on his very early list of colleges and has the SATs to be admitted but doesn’t have strong grades (would be a reach to be admitted) and frankly is not all that interested in taking academic classes in college…ended up NOT applying because his academic odds there were not solid, but also it would not have been a good fit for someone not keen on academics. As you say, getting in is one thing, but being able to handle the work, let alone feeling like a good fit, is what matters in the end.
My son said that at UCLA’s info session he was told they are picking the incoming class by giving a score to each category of the application. Grades, test scroes, audition, extracurricular’s ect. They then use the average score and create a list If they have 40 spots to fill they go down the list from high score to low and would admit all students within the first 40 spots. It seems like having higher then average stats will help students if they applied to UCLA.
For me personally I still see value in encouraging my son to be a high achiever and not just settle for what might be good enough to get into most theater schools. I know he is happy I’ve done so.
I so agree with this. Even if a student is going into MT and lands at a school which is less academically selective or has few academic requirements, the kind of work ethic and smarts that come with being a strong achiever in academics pays off. A MT program is still a college degree program. Often, strong students in HS fare well in the rigors of a MT program (not to say less academically strong students do not).
If I were admitting students to a BFA in MT, I would surely be looking at their academics, ECs, recs, essays, etc. that indicate to me the kind of student they are and how they will fare in my rigorous BFA program as a student, and not only if they can sing, act, and dance. Also, remember, in the audition room, they may have 10 minutes with you and can get a glimpse of your singing, acting, and dance skills and personality, but not so much all the rest and the rest really does matter in terms of being a successful college student. That is why the other pieces of the application matter and I’m just saying, I think they SHOULD matter (personal opinion).
As an aside, in my work as a college counselor, I get to know each student REALLY well and work on every step of the college selection and admission process. There are many tasks to accomplish. I definitely see a pattern of the students’ work ethic and what it is like to work with them on these tasks. Typically, the students with the good grades are the ones who are motivated, prompt, don’t require nagging, are communicative, can handle directions, and so on, and the ones who are not very good students tend to follow a pattern in their work on the application process that is quite a different experience. I see a correlation between one’s transcript typically and what it is like working on the college admission process with the student. There are always exceptions, but this has been a pattern over the years in my observations in my line of work.
As well, I have been a college teacher at five colleges. Some of these schools were not too academically selective and the work ethic and skills of the students in those schools were not as strong, though there were always some very strong students enrolled regardless of the selectivity of the college.
@toowonderful post #2009: Really? As an example: If 1900 is bottom 25% at NYU and 2190 the top of the mid range (75%) this is a differential of less than 300 pts., Are we really going to assume that if MT Johnny has a 1700 he is going to struggle in English 102? Seriously, the point differential of 290, 1700+290 (to the middle 50th Percentile at NYU) could easily be (and often is for MT kids) all in Math. It probably represents all of 4 questions on the actual test!
I would agree that someone on the extreme end (say under a 1200) MIGHT struggle, but over a 1600, I doubt it. Even College Board acknowledges its tests are not accurate measures of success, and are revamping them this year.
The SAT doesnt measure a lot. Its not worthless, but to my mind for MTs, grade consistency is a better measure of the ability to juggle. Most kids can get A’s in class or a 1900 SAT if given the time and incentive to study. But carry a Title Roll in your spring musical, the lead in the fall play, rehearse 30 hours a week, do community shows and other performances, complete your community service hours, take voice lessons, dance classes, and consistently keep your grades up- takes a heck of a lot more chutzpah (sp?) than attending a $1200 course on Saturdays to improve your SAT numbers by 300+ points. (Which is very doable for most). If MTs put the same time and energy into grades and Scores as the rest of the student population, they’d all be in that top 25% as well. It truly is not fair to measure MTs against the general student population, and schools like CMU and Michigan recognize that. And frankly, I think NYU does as well, but they don’t advertise it. Yes, NYU considers grades and test scores 50 50. That tells us nothing about the standard applied to the 50% that makes up grades and test scores… You assume it is the same standard applied to the other studios and the school at large. That assumption is without support.
Its all about the Star Bellied Sneetches. Currently Stars are test scores because grades have become so inflated. But when everyone’s scores become inflated, the star-on machine has to choose another method to single out “special.” So they are creating new stars (another test), that “really” works. Don’t drink the kool-aid.
I don’t think too wonderful was talking just about test scores (I certainly was not), but about a student’s overall academic package…grades, rigor of HS course load, GPA, class rank, and all the rest that go into an evaluation beyond just the test scores.
I don’t believe that the standard for academic admissions to the BFA program at NYU are lowered. If you know of students with stats on the low end who were admitted, that can be said for other majors or other hooks, such as URM and what not. At any college, some who are admitted fall into the lower 25% of admitted stats range! My own student and so many others I know at NYU who are in or completed the BFA degree program indeed had very strong academic stats. Some even won scholarships.
Lastly, while I certainly agree that theater kids in HS have very hectic schedules and have to juggle a lot, beyond their academics, this doesn’t preclude them from achieving high academically (I have worked with a slew of kids in this field who have very high academic profiles). Moreover, MT kids are not unique in what they juggle. I raised another daughter who did not pursue theater in college, but whose 24/7 schedule in high school was every bit as full as my MT D…her ECs were very intense and every afternoon, evening and weekend as well. It is not just MT kids who lead such a lifestyle in HS (or in college). And many such students also are at the top of their game on the academic front.
I guess some kids are perfect.
I’ve never met perfect kids.
Just saying that some can juggle MT training, shows and academics. I have met and advised many who have strong profiles both academically and artistically. It is OK too if one doesn’t. Nobody is perfect. All are individuals with strengths and weaknesses.
By the way, not everyone who has a strong SAT attended an SAT test prep course or spent money on test prep. My MT kid did not. She practiced taking some sample tests at home (great way to prep and it’s free) and raised her scores a lot that way and scored highly. She took the SATs twice in 10th grade and took 3 SAT Subject Test scores in 10th too. NO Saturdays were spent on it. I don’t think it is fair to generalize that MT kids are busy with rehearsals and training and that other kids are busy at test prep classes.
I have counseled students with low or average test scores who are seeking BFA in MT programs and they have taken SAT prep classes or had private SAT tutors. No different than the general population.